Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Mauro Lacy > > Elaborating further: In a framework like the one I propose > before(particle rotation along a fourth dimensional axis), gravity can > be explained as no more than gentle variations of this "second spin" of > elementary particles (I think that we can call it "W-Spin", because it > happens along the "W" axis). > > > Mauro, > > I like this concept, and am wondering if it would not work as well with 3+3 > dimensions? i.e. three of space and three of time ... >
Jones, I'm glad to hear that you like it. I like it too, and it was also thanks to your insights that I come up with that. The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental construction we call time, at the physical level. This is not the case at the vital or living level, because for living entities time has intrinsic reality; but that is another issue. This is an important epistemological consideration for physics. You can of course build models and formulae around time distortions (so called time dimensions), but it is important to remember that there's no such thing as time, at the physical level. The Universe does not have a "clock rate" and a "clock source", as computers have, to be completely clear. Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. Regarding the physical reality of a spatial fourth dimension, and the means to visualize it, it really isn't that difficult, once you grasp the way of doing it. As discussed before, a rotation over a fourth dimensional axis, will appear to a tridimensional observer as a pulsation. That is, you must imagine that the axis of the fourth dimension runs "into" space; it is like a kind of "inwardness" (and the english language is very appropiate here, as in spanish we don't have a word for "inwardness"). So, when a fourth dimensional quantity changes, tridimensionally you'll see something as appearing or dissapearing; that is, growing from inwards on, or diminishing towards inwardness. Now, surely it is possible, to "map" a fourth-dimensional spatial construct into a tridimensional spatial construct, plus additional time dimensions, and viceversa. You will be considering changes in velocity or space(tipically, changes in angular velocities) as changes or distortions of your time scale. The point is: why would you really want to do that? it is much more elegant, and physically sound, to consider higher spatial dimensions. After imagining a fourth dimension, higher dimensions will again be seen tridimensionally as "changes of radius", but it is important to consider that these higher dimensions will be qualitatively different from the fourth, as the fourth really is from the third lower ones, by the way, and that their effects will act on the fourth also. That is, we are talking about modulations of modulators, or higher level modulations. You can explain a lot of unexplained(or better said, badly explained) phenomena when you start considering these higher dimensions, but I will not talk about that here, and if you're interested, you will have to investigate further on your own. The important thing to begin to understand all this in a sane way is to always remember about the qualitative aspect. That is, these higher dimensions are not to be tought of as mere additional coordinate axis, as they really(as "in reality") are much more than that. Mauro > That more general idea, based on Chen's theory of three time dimensions, or a > version of it, is going around (so to speak) and has a lot of appeal. It > assumes that "we" are located now in (S3,T2) but the net effect of a fourth > spatial dimension cannot be distinguished from (S3,T3) and in fact 'space' > (as opposed to space time) is in reality limited to the common verbal and > mental framework or understanding of three spatial axes. > > There are some advantages to this "slight" change in perspective, and > probably disadvantages as well. I wish I had time to dig deeper into it. > Really, all it does for me now is to better facilitate the merger of the > language of mathematics with verbal wording. Nothing against Rucker, and the > others who have tried to merge the math withon the limitations of the human > brain by describing what a real 4-space would be like - but he never really > makes a strong case for four full spatial dimensions to me. "Curvature" or > fractals is about as far as you get without resorting to magic. > > Not that substituting one kind of magic for another is going to make a huge > difference. But it could. > > Jones > > >
