Leap Into Hyperspace - Nonsense of 6D Space

[Haiko Lietz]

Take A Leap Into Hyperspace - Haiko Lietz

NewScientist.com news service
05 January 2006

EVERY year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious?


The AIAA is certainly not embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be interested in putting the idea to the test. And despite the bafflement of most physicists at the theory that supposedly underpins it, Pavlos Mikellides, an aerospace engineer at the Arizona State University in Tempe who reviewed the winning paper, stands by the committee's choice. "Even though such features have been explored before, this particular approach is quite unique," he says.

Unique it certainly is. If the experiment gets the go-ahead and works, it could reveal new interactions between the fundamental forces of nature that would change the future of space travel. Forget spending six months or more holed up in a rocket on the way to Mars, a round trip on the hyperdrive could take as little as 5 hours. All our worries about astronauts' muscles wasting away or their DNA being irreparably damaged by cosmic radiation would disappear overnight. What's more the device would put travel to the stars within reach for the first time. But can the hyperdrive really get off the ground?

The answer to that question hinges on the work of a little-known German physicist. Burkhard Heim began to explore the hyperdrive propulsion concept in the 1950s as a spin-off from his attempts to heal the biggest divide in physics: the rift between quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Quantum theory describes the realm of the very small - atoms, electrons and elementary particles - while general relativity deals with gravity. The two theories are immensely successful in their separate spheres. The clash arises when it comes to describing the basic structure of space. In general relativity, space-time is an active, malleable fabric. It has four dimensions - three of space and one of time - that deform when masses are placed in them. In Einstein's formulation, the force of gravity is a result of the deformation of these dimensions. Quantum theory, on the other hand, demands that space is a fixed and passive stage, something simply there for particles to exist on. It also suggests that space itself must somehow be made up of discrete, quantum elements.

In the early 1950s, Heim began to rewrite the equations of general relativity in a quantum framework. He drew on Einstein's idea that the gravitational force emerges from the dimensions of space and time, but suggested that all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism, might emerge from a new, different set of dimensions. Originally he had four extra dimensions, but he discarded two of them believing that they did not produce any forces, and settled for adding a new two-dimensional "sub-space" onto Einstein's four-dimensional space-time.

In Heim's six-dimensional world, the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are coupled together. Even in our familiar four-dimensional world, we can see a link between the two forces through the behaviour of fundamental particles such as the electron. An electron has both mass and charge. When an electron falls under the pull of gravity its moving electric charge creates a magnetic field. And if you use an electromagnetic field to accelerate an electron you move the gravitational field associated with its mass. But in the four dimensions we know, you cannot change the strength of gravity simply by cranking up the electromagnetic field.

In Heim's view of space and time, this limitation disappears. He claimed it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational and back again, and speculated that a rotating magnetic field could reduce the influence of gravity on a spacecraft enough for it to take off.

When he presented his idea in public in 1957, he became an instant celebrity. Wernher von Braun, the German engineer who at the time was leading the Saturn rocket programme that later launched astronauts to the moon, approached Heim about his work and asked whether the expensive Saturn rockets were worthwhile. And in a letter in 1964, the German relativity theorist Pascual Jordan, who had worked with the distinguished physicists Max Born and Werner Heisenberg and was a member of the Nobel committee, told Heim that his plan was so important "that its successful experimental treatment would without doubt make the researcher a candidate for the Nobel prize".

But all this attention only led Heim to retreat from the public eye. This was partly because of his severe multiple disabilities, caused by a lab accident when he was still in his teens. But Heim was also reluctant to disclose his theory without an experiment to prove it. He never learned English because he did not want his work to leave the country. As a result, very few people knew about his work and no one came up with the necessary research funding. In 1958 the aerospace company Bölkow did offer some money, but not enough to do the proposed experiment.

While Heim waited for more money to come in, the company's director, Ludwig Bölkow, encouraged him to develop his theory further. Heim took his advice, and one of the results was a theorem that led to a series of formulae for calculating the masses of the fundamental particles - something conventional theories have conspicuously failed to achieve. He outlined this work in 1977 in the Max Planck Institute's journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, his only peer-reviewed paper. In an abstruse way that few physicists even claim to understand, the formulae work out a particle's mass starting from physical characteristics, such as its charge and angular momentum.

Yet the theorem has proved surprisingly powerful. The standard model of physics, which is generally accepted as the best available theory of elementary particles, is incapable of predicting a particle's mass. Even the accepted means of estimating mass theoretically, known as lattice quantum chromodynamics, only gets to between 1 and 10 per cent of the experimental values.

Gravity reduction

But in 1982, when researchers at the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY) in Hamburg implemented Heim's mass theorem in a computer program, it predicted masses of fundamental particles that matched the measured values to within the accuracy of experimental error. If they are let down by anything, it is the precision to which we know the values of the fundamental constants. Two years after Heim's death in 2001, his long-term collaborator Illobrand von Ludwiger calculated the mass formula using a more accurate gravitational constant. "The masses came out even more precise," he says.

After publishing the mass formulae, Heim never really looked at hyperspace propulsion again. Instead, in response to requests for more information about the theory behind the mass predictions, he spent all his time detailing his ideas in three books published in German. It was only in 1980, when the first of his books came to the attention of a retired Austrian patent officer called Walter Dröscher, that the hyperspace propulsion idea came back to life. Dröscher looked again at Heim's ideas and produced an "extended" version, resurrecting the dimensions that Heim originally discarded. The result is "Heim-Dröscher space", a mathematical description of an eight-dimensional universe.

From this, Dröscher claims, you can derive the four forces known in physics: the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But there's more to it than that. "If Heim's picture is to make sense," Dröscher says, "we are forced to postulate two more fundamental forces." These are, Dröscher claims, related to the familiar gravitational force: one is a repulsive anti-gravity similar to the dark energy that appears to be causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. And the other might be used to accelerate a spacecraft without any rocket fuel.

This force is a result of the interaction of Heim's fifth and sixth dimensions and the extra dimensions that Dröscher introduced. It produces pairs of "gravitophotons", particles that mediate the interconversion of electromagnetic and gravitational energy. Dröscher teamed up with Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter, Germany, to turn the theoretical framework into a proposal for an experimental test. The paper they produced, "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory", is what won the AIAA's award last year.

Claims of the possibility of "gravity reduction" or "anti-gravity" induced by magnetic fields have been investigated by NASA before (New Scientist, 12 January 2002, p 24). But this one, Dröscher insists, is different. "Our theory is not about anti-gravity. It's about completely new fields with new properties," he says. And he and Häuser have suggested an experiment to prove it.

This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say.

So is this all fanciful nonsense, or a revolution in the making? The majority of physicists have never heard of Heim theory, and most of those contacted by New Scientist said they couldn't make sense of Dröscher and Häuser's description of the theory behind their proposed experiment. Following Heim theory is hard work even without Dröscher's extension, says Markus Pössel, a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany. Several years ago, while an undergraduate at the University of Hamburg, he took a careful look at Heim theory. He says he finds it "largely incomprehensible", and difficult to tie in with today's physics. "What is needed is a step-by-step introduction, beginning at modern physical concepts," he says.

The general consensus seems to be that Dröscher and Häuser's theory is incomplete at best, and certainly extremely difficult to follow. And it has not passed any normal form of peer review, a fact that surprised the AIAA prize reviewers when they made their decision. "It seemed to be quite developed and ready for such publication," Mikellides told New Scientist.

At the moment, the main reason for taking the proposal seriously must be Heim theory's uncannily successful prediction of particle masses. Maybe, just maybe, Heim theory really does have something to contribute to modern physics. "As far as I understand it, Heim theory is ingenious," says Hans Theodor Auerbach, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who worked with Heim. "I think that physics will take this direction in the future."

It may be a long while before we find out if he's right. In its present design, Dröscher and Häuser's experiment requires a magnetic coil several metres in diameter capable of sustaining an enormous current density. Most engineers say that this is not feasible with existing materials and technology, but Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico thinks it might just be possible. Sandia runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients".

For now, though, Lenard considers the theory too shaky to justify the use of the Z machine. "I would be very interested in getting Sandia interested if we could get a more perspicacious introduction to the mathematics behind the proposed experiment," he says. "Even if the results are negative, that, in my mind, is a successful experiment."

Who was Burkhard Heim?

Burkhard Heim had a remarkable life. Born in 1925 in Potsdam, Germany, he decided at the age of 6 that he wanted to become a rocket scientist. He disguised his designs in code so that no one could discover his secret. And in the cellar of his parents' house, he experimented with high explosives. But this was to lead to disaster.

Towards the end of the second world war, he worked as an explosives developer, and an accident in 1944 in which a device exploded in his hands left him permanently disabled. He lost both his forearms, along with 90 per cent of his hearing and eyesight.

After the war, he attended university in Göttingen to study physics. The idea of propelling a spacecraft using quantum mechanics rather than rocket fuel led him to study general relativity and quantum mechanics. It took an enormous effort. From 1948, his father and wife replaced his senses, spending hours reading papers and transcribing his calculations onto paper. And he developed a photographic memory.

Supporters of Heim theory claim that it is a panacea for the troubles in modern physics. They say it unites quantum mechanics and general relativity, can predict the masses of the building blocks of matter from first principles, and can even explain the state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

[haselhurst]

6 dimensions hey?
There is no end to human imagination.
Anyway, I will leave this nonsense here as a reminder to people of the fanciful rubbish that gets taken seriously by governments / people (who should know better).
What a waste.

[MM2]

why?

This actually plays a large part in my beliefs, but I'm interested in what makes you so adamantly belief they don't exist. Why does trhe WSM deny their existence?

[puzzleguy]

Well, this is my first post and it's not well thought out but, what the
hey, might as well jump in!

I've been thinking of telling "everybody" about the Bion Hypothesis
(woops, I just did) but I really think I need to compose off line and
then paste it in, just to make it hopefully interesting and worthy of
follow ups. Consider this remark then to be a "tickler."

But it does relate to what I want to say here. It looks like Geoff
(Hello Geoff, we have not "met," but, I, like so many others, have,
so far, enjoyed a small fraction of your efforts here and look forward to future
involvement) is saying the 6 dimensional / 8 dimensional stuff discussed
above is pretty much rubbish. I actually may be dead wrong (language is
so interestingly complicated!) about this, and hope I am.

This Bion Hypothesis thing (woops, another hint) came to my life way
back in 1964 when Jere Northrop, who was in my class at Amherst College
in Amherst, Massachusetts, sent all his classmates a little booklet
which basically was proposing the "hair brained" idea that everything in
the universe is living; all particles, all forces, all everything. I
found the booklet absolutely fascinating. Still have it. Read it every
once in a while. And for some unknown reason I googled on Bion
Hypothesis today and find that Mr. Northrop is still around and is,
among other things, still writing about his Hypothesis. He actually
calls it ODODU now and for those of you that can't wait to "waste" your
time (which, BTW, is a completely unintentional double entendre but I've
already taken too long digressing so I won't try to explain right now
why) you might want to check out

http://www.ododu.com/odu.htm

Where was I? What I am trying to say is

1. This Heim / Dröscher thing may be bunk but I would say nobody should
quickly say that it is.

2. Like the Bion Hypothesis / ODODU theory, which is pretty "on the edge,"
people should check Heim / Dröscher ideas out, think them through and enjoy the ride!

[haselhurst]

I am replying to this in detail.
I have written one page, but it needs re-writing, more thought.
This is just a ramble / rant, as a prelude!

The problem of the human mind (and thus society), is that it is creative and can imagine many things, but is poor at determining the truth of the many things it imagines (the task of philosophy).

As I see it, this largely explains why our world is so crazy and full of conflict, because we imagine many things to be true that are not true, which cause conflict, and also inadvertently destroy Nature, thus all of us.

So i take this very seriously, it is what philosophy is all about, understanding the necessary connection between things, so that you can work out the truth, and thus choose to act intelligently / wisely.

I think our world desperately needs some intelligent wisdom, which is necessarily founded on truth and reality.
I am certain that the WSM correctly explains matter interactions in a 3D space, allows us to know the truth, to act wisely, to overcome the illusion of separate bodies and understand our true nature / connection with other life and matter around us in space.

This knowledge of the underlying dynamic unity of reality has been around for thousands of years, founds Hinduism and Buddhism, as it does all logic and science (from ancient Greek philosophy to modern physics - Einstein knew we are structures of space, not particles). Everyone just convinced themselves that it was impossible to describe the one thing that exists (and a lot of people prefer that, as it allows them to call this unity God, and imagine lots of nonsense).

The Wave Structure of Matter shows how we can solve it, by considering the properties of one thing space, that wave properties then explains a lot of things, by explaining this dynamic unity of reality (solving the problem of the One and the Many if you like, how things are connected, which applies to all knowledge / senses / truth).

Everyone must agree, true knowledge of reality has profound consequences for Humanity, how we think and live, how we interact with Nature.
So i have lots to say, and as it relates to what I am writing up at website at moment, I shall enjoy replying thoroughly!
Will post soon.
Geoff

PS - Sorry it reads abrupt, a bit of a polemic. Just trying to be brief.

[puzzleguy]

Wow!

Now that was one interesting response.

Thanks Geoff.

I especially liked the fact that you did not take my remarks as personal criticism but rather as an opportunity to explain things.

Your attempt to be brief must have been a challenge! I can only imagine what a full blown follow up would look like! But I really think you got your message across. It's like writing a haiku or a sonnett when what you really have in your head is a tome.

Anyway, it's late here in Newington, Connecticut and it's time to
say good night.

To be continued, I'm sure!

Lee

[MM2]

A delicate intro to your (hopefully detailed but elegant) response to my question above. I still don't believe you answered my question but I look forward to a well composed explanation when you find the time Geoff.

Hi puzzleguy, good to see you join in with such openness. Haven't checked out your link yet but I will find the time when it's not so late. SOOO much to read!

Mark

[haselhurst]

Hi Mark, PG.

I wrote above about the problems of human imagination - the importance of truth from true knowledge of reality.

This is my further reply. But I have tried to keep it brief. Basically it just points out that it is not valid by the rules of science to describe reality from 6 dimensions when we can do it perfectly well from the 3 dimensions that we actually experience (simplicity rule / Occam's razor).
--------------------------

Call me crazy, but I happen to think that the earth exists, it spins as it orbits the sun, causing days and nights, yearly seasons.
This fact is clearly evident in the evolution of life (e.g. sleeping, nocturnal animals with big eyes / ears, deciduous trees, hibernation of bears, migration of birds).
All these things occur in a three dimensional space, (e.g. roughly spherical earth, curve of a bird's wing, having two eyes for depth perception).
I take philosophy and science seriously, think understanding the truth about Nature is fundamentally important. This obviously requires correct understanding of physical reality. What we really are as humans, how we can see and interact and evolve with this other matter / life around us in Space.

So I aim to explain this world that I experience, using knowledge of philosophy physics and metaphysics, the rules of science.
Thus we can have certainty in commonly agreed foundations (i.e. we all experience existing in 3D space - so this is a valid foundation for Science), then work from there by accepted rules.

And here I should point out the relevance of all this to 6 dimensional theories. If science is free to imagine anything to exist, without showing how it is necessarily connected to the world we actually experience, then it is a path to madness, the end of science.
And this is what is actually happening to postmodern Science, where all truths are just human social constructions, since none are absolute, all have some validity. It leads to endless papers on fanciful things that people imagine (I get several sent to me every week!).
It is a disaster.

Human imagination is great, it is the source of all creativity and new knowledge, but it must be constrained by rules of Science, harmony between Principles (which must state something exists, and how it is logically / necessarily connected) and our actual experience of the world.

I don't experience 6 spatial dimensions, I experience three, and that matter moves around and interacts with other matter in 3D space. And a sphere is a 3D structure.
This is the foundation of Einstein's relativity;

"From the latest results of the theory of relativity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not given by Euclidean geometry but approximately by spherical geometry." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Then it becomes obvious (with WSM) that a 4D space-time continuum is really just a spherical wave, where sphere is 3D, and Wave Motion is 4th dimension (and explains time / change / matter's activity, interactions).

See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-einstein-problems-theory-of-relativity.htm
And in particular I have quoted below the section on dimensions of space (the whole page is well worth reading).

viii) Einstein's 'Curvature of the Four Dimensional Space-Time Continuum'

The concept of the 'curvature of space' is a mathematical construction of Einstein's general relativity. In reality Space is not 'curved', instead (for gravitational forces) the wave-density of Space varies dependent upon the nearby proximity of matter (SSWs), and this causes a variation in the velocity of waves / light which changes the ellipsoidal shape of matter and causes the curved path of matter and light (waves) in Space (e.g. curvature of light past sun). And this caused Einstein considerable problems (it took him ten years to work out the ellipsoidal geometry for gravity / general relativity!). He writes;

'But the path (of general relativity) was thornier than one might suppose, because it demanded the abandonment of Euclidean geometry. This is what we mean when we talk of the 'curvature of space'. The fundamental concepts of the 'straight line', the 'plane', etc., thereby lose their precise significance in physics.' (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Further, the four dimensional space-time continuum simply means that three spatial dimensions and a time dimension are required to define the motion of bodies and the path of light in three dimensional Space.

'The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of 'four-dimensional' things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Space is a three-dimensional continuum. ... Similarly, the world of physical phenomena is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z, and the time co-ordinate t.' (Albert Einstein, 1954)

'The inseparability of time and space emerged in connection with electrodynamics, or the law of propagation of light.
With the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time were merged in a single continuum in a way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had previously merged into a single continuum. Physical space was thus extended to a four dimensional space which also included the dimension of time. The four dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space.' (Albert Einstein, 1954)

In fact the spherical wave Motion of Space requires three spatial dimensions and a (wave) motion dimension (rather than a time dimension, as motion causes time). Now this is very important, for it is this 'curvature' that largely led to Einstein's early fame. It was the prediction by Einstein that light curved as it grazed the sun (subsequently confirmed by observation during a solar eclipse on the 29th May 1919) that resulted in his General Theory of Relativity becoming widely accepted and very famous. His general principle is correct though, matter does determine the geometric properties of Space;

'According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter.' (Einstein, 1954)

----------------

From this simple sensible foundation of 3D Space, the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) unites the main theories of physics, explains many of the fundamental problems of philosophy and metaphysics, by explaining what exists and how things are necessarily interconnected. (Purpose of website is to show this - but it needs to be better written).

Quantum theory - founded on discrete energy states and particle wave duality of light and matter, which WSM clearly deduces and explains due to standing wave interactions.

Einstein's general relativity. His failed attempt at a continuous field theory of matter that would unite matter and its light and gravity interactions with space and time (by rejecting particle concept of matter, matter is spatially extended, represented by continuous spherical fields in 4D space-time. He is nearly correct, the error was to work with continuous fields, rather than spherical standing waves, whose standing wave interactions cause the discrete 'particle' like phenomena (which Einstein's continuous field foundation could not explain).
Three important quotes from Einstein;

'When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.'
(Albert Einstein)

'Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.' (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

'All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.' (Albert Einstein, 1954)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm

The Wave Structure of Matter simplifies his foundations from;
Einstein - matter represented by continuous spherical fields in 4D space-time continuum.
to
WSM - matter as spherical waves in continuous 3D space (wave motion is the 4th dimension / cause of time).

You can see for yourselves how this then connects these many things (matter and its interactions) back to one thing (3D Space and its wave motions).
See website for more details.

Also see the video interview of Milo Wolff explaining how WSM deduces de Broglie waves of QT and relativistic mass / energy increase of Einstein's relativity (both relate to relative motion, both found to be caused by Doppler shifts of in and out waves.)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wolff-video-interview-physics-wsm.htm
(See video #1)

Hope this helps,
Geoff

PS - PG, I read (browsed - it is long) your linked page on Odu. He is a nice writer, clearly a philosophical thinking biologist. But without true knowledge of reality you have the same problem that has existed since humans first evolved - you can imagine many different things, and make up rules for how they are interconnected, but the truth is that they do not really exist, just imagination. Thus it will never quite work.

[MM2]

Puzzleguy, I browsed your link and have come across such theory before regarding consciousness. In fact, I've theorized about it too and have posted it at http://interfaithforums.com/showthread.php?t=2717.

But such a topic seems more relevant in the consciousness/mind part of this forum, so I'm more inclined to focus on the WSM view on dimensions in these posts.

Geoff (I was pronouncing it Gee-off before I watched the Wolfe's videos and realized it's prounounced Jeff ha), you didn't explicitly state at the end of your post why wsm denies extra dimenions, but after reading over the http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm page, I understand that WSM doesn't require extra dimensions since it describes exactly our experience of space (since space is the one thing that exists with wave motion). Occams razor seems to be the only reason why you don't consider extra dimensions. Is this right? And since you've come to this conclusion through a priori processes instead of a posteriori, you believe it is certain?

Strange thing is that the philosophical term paper I was writing that allowed me to discover this site lead me to the same type of conclusions as WSM especially about space, time and motion. I'll send you my paper through email Geoff. I'm sure you will easily see how it can relate to WSM.

Yes, I am aware that WSM feels that time is a result of wave motion . . .and although this may lead to a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" type argument, I'm willing to consider that motion came first to generate time. I'm interested to hear your opinion, and to see if I am on the same wavelength as WSM (pun? ).

Mark

p.s: I find it remarkable how WSM solves the problems of physics and general relativity but will save that for later.

[haselhurst]

Hi Mark,
I read your essay you emailed me. Your comments on space-time-motion are clearly relevant to WSM (founded on the wave motion of space, which causes effects of matter, forces / fields and time).

In answer to which came first, wave motion or time. Neither is the correct answer (according to WSM) as Space has always existed (as one thing must) and thus so have its wave motions (we should not consider space alone, without its properties, which means that space and its wave motions must have always existed).
There is no problem with this foundation of something having always existed - in fact it is necessary to explain world in a logical way (without creation theories).

Anyway, I hope that you will post your essay in this forum for further discussion - and consider / develop it more from WSM foundations.
Cosmos,
Geoff

[MM2]

It's hard to find time to contribute now.

Regarding my paper though, I misinterpreted Quine's arguement and didn't post a solution to it but actually ended up supporting it (I discussed it with my philosophy prof). So I won't post my paper. Besides, it doesn't clearly focus on WSM.

One thing that I'm a little dismayed with is that there is no math on this website. I just finished going over Heisenbergs section on uncertainty and not a single mathmatical symbol is put down. I read a post further down in this forum about the lack of math, and I suggest that it's a big component of WSM not being taken seriously. I say this because I've just begun to undertake the advanced mathmatics involved with Uncertainty, Shroedinger's equations, wave functions, and quantum mechanics in general. The math is beautiful. It expresses viewpoints and things about reality that just can't be as elegantly explained in ordinary language, and I'm tempted to think that those who talk about physics purely from a mathmatical point of view don't really know what they are talking about.

I'm tempted to ask "Do philosophers really have the "right" to speak about physics when they don't understand a massive component essential for it's conception (math)?" Why don't you learn the math Geoff?

[haselhurst]

Hi Mark,
While there is obviously a lot of maths that can be done, to say that WSM ignores this is not correct.
It is maths that first caused Milo Wolff to explore WSM as a way of explaining de Broglie wavelength.
See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm (At end of article he deduces de Broglie wavelength and relativistic mass / frequency increase for two spherical standing waves moving relative to one another due to Doppler shifts of in and out waves. This is remarkable maths, as it unites foundations of two main physics theories. Milo Wolff has also deduced spin of the electron - these are not trivial deductions.)

His video interview on this is interesting (see video #1 ).
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wolff-video-interview-physics-wsm.htm

We have also deduced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in 3 different ways using maths of WSM. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-werner-heisenberg-quotes.htm

And in Cosmology Milo Wolff has deduced Mach's Principle (mass of an object is determined by all other matter in finite spherical universe). See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm#equation.cosmos

This is very profound as it explains the connection between finite and infinite (how our universe can be finite within an infinite space, as we only interact with a finite sphere of other matter waves). This then leads to an explanation of redshift with distance, that has also been mathematically deduced (Mike Harney article on this is currently being published - will be online after then).

Finally, the WSM explains why mathematics / maths physics exists, because reality is necessarily interconnected (by waves in space) thus these waves behave logically (due to properties of space), and give rise to quantities (wavelength, number of wave centers, wave velocity) that can be logically related.

Why don't I learn maths - well if I had several lifetimes I probably would. I am more interested in metaphysics of maths, and my mind is probably more suited to philosophy and working with logic / words. But I am an ex science teacher, did major in physics chemistry and maths - I completely agree, all philosophers should understand mathematics and maths physics (and metaphysics / dynamic unity of reality that causes things to be logically connected). Plato argued for this too (importance of maths)!

My view is that there are lots of good mathematicians out there that will help in time, there seem to be less good philosopher / metaphysicists (who will direct and constrain mathematician's imaginations, which lead them astray!)

Hope this helps,
Geoff