Clarification of
Dimensional Extrapolation, euclidean AND NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE, and THE
DERIVATION OF TRUE units

To understand Dimensional Extrapolation and the
nature of TRUE units, it is necessary to unlearn some of the things mainstream physicists
think they know. The idea that mass warps space, which is generally accepted as
implied by the Theory of Relativity, is one of those things. Einstein himself
raised doubt about this when he said in his Note to the Fifteenth Edition of
“Relativity, the Special and General Theory” June 9

^{th}, 1852: “In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space. … I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence. … Physical objects are not*in space*, but these objects are*spatially extended*. In this way, the concept of ‘empty space’ loses its meaning.” If space-time does not exist apart from distinct objects, the idea that the 3-D space of our physical observations is warped by mass is, at best, a conceptual analogy that may be useful in helping us to grasp the idea of gravitational gradient in a four-dimensional domain. Is space-time warped by mass? If so, how can we measure the warping if the point from which we observe and measure it is also within the same warped space-time domain?
We exist in a dynamic multi-dimensional reality; but
our physical senses only convey the information of one-, two- and three- dimensional
conceptual images to our physical brains. We deduce the existence of a fourth
dimension based on comparison of current observation with the memory, actually pictures
stored in the present brain, of previous observations. Our observations are conceptually
limited to one-, two- and three- dimensional slices of a dynamic
multi-dimensional reality. “Dimensional Extrapolation” is the term I use for
the process of rotation and extension that is necessary to move from an
n-dimensional domain into an (n+1)-dimensional domain.

The
necessary angle of rotation in the dimensional extrapolation needed to expand our
awareness from a one-dimensional Euclidean domain (a line) to a two-dimensional
Euclidean domain (a plane) is 90 degrees. This is because this amount of
rotation places the extension equidistant in angular degrees from the two
directions of freedom of movement in the one-dimensional domain. Similarly, the
angle of rotation needed to expand our awareness from a plane, which is a two-dimensional
Euclidean domain to a volumetric three-dimensional Euclidean domain is also 90
degrees, and in general, moving from any n-dimensional Euclidean domain into an
(n+1)-dimensional Euclidean domain requires rotating a unitary extension to a
point that is equiangular in rotation away from all of the dimensions of the
n-dimensional domain. This angle of rotation for Euclidean domains is always 90
degrees, and the magnitude of the unitary projection from any n-dimensional
domain into the (n+1)-dimensional domain is determined by using the Pythagorean
Theorem. With the unitary orthogonal projections in the n-dimensional domain as
sides of the Pythagorean triangle, the magnitude of the projection into the
(n+1)-dimensional domain is calculated as the hypotenuse.

The
Pythagorean equations are sub-sets of the expression described mathematically
by

**Σ**. where^{k}_{i=1}(X_{k})^{n}= Z^{n}**n**= 1,2,3,…, the natural integers. The Pythagorean equations are obtained when**k = n = 2**, and two other important equations are obtained when**k = 2**and**n = 3**, and when**k = n = 3**. Integer solutions to the first of these three equations, the Pythagorean equation, yield the**Pythagorean triples**. The lack of integer solutions to the second equation, proved by application of**Fermat’s Last Theorem**, and the integer solutions of the third equation prove to be of primary importance in determining how the stable structures of elementary particles are formed, as we shall see below. It is probable that other values of**k**and**n**will produce additional important equations useful in describing combinatorial relationships between particles in the quantized reality of the universe.
A second, related concept that requires unlearning
is the idea that there is something called non-Euclidean

*space*. The problem here arises from confusing dimensions of different types. While the dimensions of space and time are both measured in units of distinctions of extent, space domains and space-time domains are quantitatively and qualitatively different. First, let’s see how the dimensions of space and time are quantitatively different: When moving from a 1-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 2-dimensional Euclidean domain and from a 2-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain, the units of extent are the same, i.e., they can be measured mathematically consistently in real numbers. But when moving from a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 4-dimensional Euclidean domain, rotating 90 degrees away from all of the directions of freedom of the 3-dimensional domain, requires that the extension into the 4-dimensional domain is imaginary, i.e. a multiple of the square root of minus one, as calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.
Beyond and even more important than these problems
with definitions and the basic logic of mathematical physics, is the failure to
include the functioning of consciousness in the equations. Consciousness is
intimately involved in our observations. Clarifying the fact that a
non-Euclidean domain is only definable relative to the Euclidean domain of conscious
observation provides an important step toward understanding how to put
consciousness into the equations of mathematical physics.

The problem with the concept of non-Euclidean

*space*as an existing reality is partly because of confusion due to poorly defined terminology, partly because of ignoring the role of consciousness, and partly because of the loss of detail in mathematical generalization. The Perception of a non-Euclidean dimensional domain is necessarily relative to the dimensional domain of the conscious observer. The qualitative differences between the observations of space and space-time domains exist because of the way we perceive reality through the limited physical senses and the way memory is stored in the neurological functions of the brain. Because the observation and measurement of a non-Euclidean domain is defined relative to the dimensional domain of the observer, it should be recognized as a*relatively*non-Euclidean domain. With these points in mind, we can no longer accept the assumption that space and time exist apart from, and without reference to consciousness.
Mathematicians have generalized the concept of space
by considering Euclidean space as only one of many possible ‘spaces’ with
different degrees of curvature. In that view, Euclidean space just happens to
be the one with zero curvature. Three-dimensional Euclidean space, however, is
the most important spatial domain in respect to all physical observations
because it is the only space of observation available to our limited physical
senses. It is, therefore, the only reference we have from which to define
non-Euclidean dimensional domains. Three-dimensional Euclidean space is the
natural arena of our physical observations and what we perceive as reality. And
because the images of reality created by our physical brains are created within
the limits of our physical observations, Euclidean space is the space of
consciousness. The terminology can be improved by using the term ‘space’ for
the three-dimensional domain

*only*and Euclidean space as the*space of reference*for all observations.
When

**n ≠ 3**, an**n**-dimensional domain, Euclidean or otherwise, can only be conceptualized in reference to the 3-dimensional Euclidean domain of our physical observations. For example, if a 2-dimensional plane is curved, i.e. non-Euclidean, its curvature can only be seen from the viewpoint of a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain. Similarly, the curvature of a non-Euclidean 4- or 5- dimensional domain can only be meaningfully measured and described from the viewpoint of our 3-dimensional Euclidean domain of observation. We know from Einstein’s relativity, validated many times by experimental evidence, that the measure of 1-dimensional time is distorted by relative velocity and mass. This means that the 4-dimensional space-time domain is observed as Euclidean or non-Euclidean, depending on the observer’s relative velocity and proximity to massive objects.
Thus ‘Space’ can only be defined unambiguously as
the domain of the first three dimensions, within which, because of the
limitations of our physical senses, all our physical observations are made.
Through the physiological and the neurological processing of the data supplied
by our senses, we perceive the 3-dimensional domain of the universe as
Euclidean.

**.***In fact, if any part of the 3-dimensional domain of our observations is non-Euclidean, it can only be said to be non-Euclidean relative to the 3-dimensional domain of our conscious observations*
The very real differences, both perceptual and
mathematical, between space and time domains are generally ignored by human
beings, including scientists. They can be ignored without serious consequences
in non-mathematical verbal descriptions when comparing one measurement of time
with another, but ignoring them in the mathematical equations describing
space-time-matter-energy relationships is problematic. This problem, in
conjunction with the inappropriate application of Newtonian continuous calculus
to discrete quantum phenomena, leads to virtually all of the so-called
“weirdness” of quantum physics, as well as most of the apparent conflicts
between quantum mechanics and relativity. So, while there may be many non-Euclidean
domains relative to our Euclidean domain of observation, the three dimensional
domain of space cannot be said to be existentially non-Euclidean.

Many of the problems of mathematical physics, unsolvable
in the context of the current scientific paradigm, are relatively easily solved
by the concepts presented here and by use of the Calculus of Distinctions,
which is applicable where Newtonian calculus is not. Dr. Neppe and I have
already published some of these solutions in the book “Reality Begins with
Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) and in papers explaining the spin number
of fermions, why quarks are always found combined in groups of three, and the
Cabibbo mixing angle.

These problems with the current paradigm become
paramount when dealing with the physics of elementary particles, starting with
the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of atomic structure. In a
particle accelerator like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), particles are
accelerated to very high relative velocities and caused to collide, breaking
compound particles apart into smaller particles. The mass and energy of the elementary
particles flying away from a collision are deduced from three-dimensional
snapshots of their apparent paths in a magnetic field. The fact that none of the
measured amounts of the mass and energy of these elementary particles obtained
in this manner are unitary, or even integer multiples of the unit commonly
used, tells us that the unit being used is not the truly minimum sub-quantum
unit.

We can determine the relative mass and energy of the
minimal elementary particle unit by normalizing the mass and energy of
electrons and quarks. Because of the
relativistic light-speed limit to rotational velocity, using the mass of the minimal
elementary particle, the electron, and its angular momentum, we are able to
determine the minimum possible volume occupied by any elementary particle. Finally,
setting the minimal mass-energy and minimal volume to unity (+1), we define the
truly minimal unit, the proper unit with which to measure all physical
phenomena. Defined in this way, all physical particles will be integer
multiples of this sub-quantal unit. Because this sub-quantal basic unit is
derived from the existence of a minimal-volume high-velocity rotating particle,
and all particles are integer multiple of it, I call it the Triadic Rotational
Unit of Equivalence, or TRUE Unit for short.

Given that the stable sub-atomic elementary
particles, i.e. electrons and quarks, are high-velocity symmetrically spinning
objects, we look at how they must combine to form compound symmetrically
spinning objects. The reason symmetry is so important here is because
asymmetric objects spinning at angular velocities approaching the speed of
light would quickly fly apart because the centrifugal forces of angular
momentum, unequal on opposing sides of the spinning object would pull it apart.
Thus, the second law of thermodynamics, operating on all particles combining
due to the attractions of opposite electrical charges and/or magnetic
attraction, would cause any randomly-occurring asymmetric combination to decay
almost immediately back to maximum entropy.

**This means that the complex physical universe as we know it cannot have evolved accidentally from flotsam from a giant explosion however many billions of years ago.**
Normalized particle collider data tells us that up-quarks
are made up of 4 of the minimum mass-energy-volume units described above, and
down-quarks are made up of 9 minimal units. Applying Fermat’s Last Theorem to
the equation resulting when

**k = 2**and**n = 3**, in the expression**Σ**, tells us that two symmetric objects made up of any integer multiples of the minimum mass-energy-volume unit cannot combine to form a new symmetric object because there are no integer solutions to^{k}_{i=1}(X_{k})^{n}= Z^{n}**(X**. On the other hand, the equation_{1})^{3}+ (X_{2})^{3}= Z^{3}**(X**, obtained when_{1})^{3}+ (X_{2})^{3}+ (X_{3})^{3 }= Z^{3}**k = n = 3**, has integer solutions.
Noting that Einstein’s

**E=mc**, validated by empirical data, proved that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, we deduce that there has to be a third form of reality, not measurable as mass or energy, producing stable, symmetric triadic particles. This is why under the normal conditions existing in the universe of our observational domain quarks are always seen in triadic combinations: two up-quarks and one down-quark form a proton, and one up-quark and two down quarks form a neutron.^{2}
The number of units of the third form needed to form
symmetrically stable quarks, protons and neutrons are uniquely determined from
the integer solutions of the equation obtained from the general expression

**Σ**, when^{k}_{i=1}(X_{k})^{n}= Z^{n}**k = n = 3**.
Because of the continuing discovery of the relationship
of the mathematical structure (rings, fields, etc.) of numbers studied in the
discipline called number theory, to the structure of the observable universe, I
believe that our discoveries strongly suggest that reality consists of the
three forms of distinctions of content interacting in nine finite dimensions of
extent: three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time, and three dimensions
of consciousness, all contained

*and pervaded*by a*conscious*transfinite substrate. The logical mathematical patterns of the conscious transfinite substrate are conveyed to the 3-dimensional subdomain of our observations by the expression**Σ**. For this reason, I call this the Conveyance Expression and equations derived from it Conveyance Equations.^{k}_{i=1}(X_{k})^{n}= Z^{n}
Experimental data tell us that the Hydrogen atom is
unique, being the only element that consists simply of one electron and one
proton; but Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that this combination is asymmetric,
and would therefore be extremely unstable, and would not exist long enough to
form the universe we perceive without the addition of a particle composed entirely
of units of the third form.

When we determine the number of units of the third
form needed to stabilize the Hydrogen atom, and apply this analysis to all of
the elements of the Periodic Table, we find that the most stable and most
abundant elements in the universe are those that support life and sentient
beings. Furthermore, gaps in symmetry that are found existing within the
Periodic Table as we have known it, are filled by compounds prominent in amino
acids and molecules of DNA and RNA, the building blocks of conscious life
forms.

This fits nicely with our hypothesis that the third
form of the substance of reality is the original primary form of consciousness
itself, guiding the formation of a universe able to sustain life forms that are
capable of experiencing consciousness. It also appears that the ratio of the
third form to the mass/energy substance, based on abundance of life-sustaining
elements in the universe and Hubble Telescope data, conforms with the
conjecture that dark matter and dark energy are also composed of the third
form.

**Perhaps the most important, and consequently also the most controversial aspect of this analysis, is the unavoidable conclusion that consciousness in its primary form has always existed, and will always exist, in the quantized, relativistic universe that we experience, and that life, fully capable of supporting ever-existing consciousness, is the purpose of the physical universe.**

Why is consciousness the purpose of the physical universe?

ReplyDelete

ReplyDeleteThe Karnataka State Secondary Education Examination Board publishes the 10th grade syllabus in Karnataka. For all subjects, the curriculum comprises significant topics, grading schemes, and test patterns. Karnataka SSLC Syllabus As a result, students must finish the Karnataka Class 10 syllabus on time and plan effectively for the Karnataka SSLC exam. Referring to the SSLC syllabus in Karnataka.