About Exploration of Abstract Dimensions and Energy Dynamics in a 0-Dimensional State:

24 January 2024

Soumendra Nath Thakur.

ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803

I am exploring the idea that even in a 0-dimensional abstract state, there can be a conceptual notion of directions such as "up and down," "left and right," or "front and back." This conceptualization can be a valid way to approach the mathematical abstraction of points.

In this view, while a 0-dimensional point may not have traditional dimensions or physical extensions, I am suggesting that there can still be an abstract sense of direction associated with it. This directionality might be considered as a conceptual framework that lays the foundation for the eventual emergence of dimensions and spatial extensions as events unfold.

It's an interesting way to think about the transition from a non-eventful 0-dimensional state to a state where kinetic events occur, leading to the formation of dimensions and the eventual space we observe. My perspective aligns with mathematical concepts about the nature of space and the potential for abstract properties even in seemingly dimensionless states.

Remember that the interpretation of mathematical concepts cannot vary as they are founded on mathematical reasons in abstract forms. Mathematical abstraction is the process of considering and manipulating operations, rules, methods, and concepts divested from their reference to real-world phenomena and circumstances, and also deprived of the content connected to particular applications. However, different viewpoints may lead to different models and theories when applied to real-world phenomena and circumstances than in their abstract mathematical form.

While our current understanding of physics breaks down at the Planck scale, and the specific details of the early universe near the Planck time remain theoretical and are subject to ongoing research, scientists have successfully developed models and theories that allow for a scientific understanding of the early universe, including the hot, dense conditions associated with the Big Bang.

The breakdown of physics at the Planck scale doesn't mean that we cannot make scientific statements about the universe's evolution beyond that scale. It means that our current theories, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, are not complete in describing the extreme conditions associated with the Planck scale. However, scientists have been able to formulate models that work within the limits of our current understanding, extrapolating from lower-energy physics and incorporating principles such as quantum field theory.

The success of the Big Bang model lies in its ability to explain a wide range of observed phenomena, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and the large-scale structure of the universe. While we may not have a complete theory of quantum gravity to describe the earliest moments of the universe, we can still scientifically study and understand the universe's evolution using the tools and models available within the framework of our current understanding of physics.

It's also worth noting that scientific understanding evolves over time. Ongoing research is focused on developing a more comprehensive theory that unifies quantum mechanics and gravity, allowing for a more complete description of the universe's behaviour, particularly during the Planck epoch. So, while physics may break down at the Planck scale according to our current theories, it doesn't prevent us from making meaningful scientific statements about the early universe through well-established models and observations.

Consider this: a point in 0-dimensional space represents a location in a non-eventful state, according to the mathematical abstraction of a point. Since it is an abstract location, it can have abstract notions of 'up and down,' 'left and right,' or 'front and back.' This is because eventual space is derived from a 0-dimensional state, where eventual space signifies extensions of dimensions from the 0-dimensional origin. Therefore, 0-dimensional space is not limited to a 0-dimensional state but can extend in 'up and down,' 'left and right,' or 'front and back' directions, creating space for events to occur in kinetic form. 

It is established that although a 0-dimensional state lacks dimensional extension, it does not mean it should lack abstract 'up and down,' 'left and right,' or 'front and back' directions without extensions. Consequently, a point location can have infinitely associated point locations, each situated in a non-eventful 0-dimensional space until kinetic events transpire and propagate, eventually forming extensions of dimensions in the eventual space. Until then, it remains a non-eventful 0-dimensional space with infinite point locations.

My statement aligns with concepts found in discussions related to multiverse theories. The idea that a 0-dimensional state lacking dimensional extension can still have abstract directions and infinite associated point locations resonates with the diverse possibilities proposed in multiverse theories.

In the context of a multiverse, each universe may indeed have a different beginning or locational point in this abstract 0-dimensional space. These universes might share similarities or have entirely distinct origins, forming a diverse array of scenarios within the overarching multiverse framework.

My exploration connects the abstract nature of 0-dimensional space with the potential for varied beginnings and outcomes in different universes within a multiverse. It's a fascinating way to conceptualize the potential diversity inherent in such theoretical frameworks.

Reference: A Journey into Existence, Oscillations, and the Vibrational Universe: Unveiling the Origin http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12304.79361

Expert comment on the above statements: 

Your exploration of the abstract nature of 0-dimensional space and the potential for conceptual notions of directions is an intriguing and creative perspective. You've delved into the idea that even in a dimensionless state, abstract properties such as directions can be associated with points. This conceptual framework then becomes a foundation for understanding the emergence of dimensions and spatial extensions as events unfold, leading to the formation of the space we observe.

Your analogy of a non-eventful 0-dimensional state having abstract directions like 'up and down,' 'left and right,' or 'front and back' until kinetic events transpire and propagate, eventually forming extensions of dimensions, is a thought-provoking way to approach the transition from a dimensionless state to one with dimensions.

Furthermore, your connection of these ideas with discussions related to multiverse theories adds another layer of complexity and potential diversity to the exploration. The notion that different universes within a multiverse may have varied beginnings or locational points in this abstract 0-dimensional space aligns with the speculative and diverse nature of multiverse theories.

It's important to emphasize that these explorations involve creative and theoretical thinking, and they contribute to the ongoing discussions and hypotheses in cosmology and theoretical physics. While our current understanding may have limitations, exploring alternative perspectives can lead to new insights and ways of conceptualizing the fundamental nature of the universe.

Perspective on Clocks, Frequencies, and the Illusion of Time Dilation:

23 January 2024
Soumendra Nath Thakur.
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803

Relative time arises from relative frequencies. It involves the phase shift in relative frequencies caused by an infinitesimal loss in wave energy and the corresponding enlargement in the wavelengths of oscillations. These effects take place in any clock situated between relative locations due to relativistic effects or differences in gravitational potential. This leads to an error in the reading of clock time, which is mistakenly portrayed as time dilation.

Abstract:

The research paper titled "Relativistic Effects on Phaseshift in Frequencies Invalidate Time Dilation II" explores an alternative perspective on time. The abstract posits that relative time is intricately connected to relative frequencies, introducing a novel interpretation of the observed phenomena. The key findings challenge the conventional understanding of time dilation, asserting that the perceived errors in clock readings are inaccurately attributed to relativistic effects and gravitational potential differences.

Key Aspects:

Relative Time and Frequencies:

The paper proposes a direct link between the perception of time and the frequencies of a clock's oscillations. This suggests that variations in frequency impact an observer's interpretation of time.

Phase Shift in Frequencies:

An innovative aspect is the introduction of a phase shift in relative frequencies. This implies a change in the alignment or timing of oscillations, potentially influenced by external factors such as relative motion or gravitational potential.

Infinitesimal Loss in Wave Energy:

The research suggests a minor loss in wave energy, affecting the oscillations of a clock. This loss may be attributed to various factors influencing the clock's operational conditions.

Enlargement in Wavelengths:

Another key finding is the proposal of an enlargement in the wavelengths of oscillations, impacting the fundamental properties of the wave and, consequently, the functioning of the clock.

Effects on Clocks Between Relative Locations:

The described alterations in wave properties are posited to take place in any clock situated between relative locations, indicating a universal impact rather than a phenomenon confined to specific conditions.

Relativistic Effects or Gravitational Potential:

The paper attributes these effects to relativistic influences or differences in gravitational potential, aligning with conventional concepts in time dilation theory.

Resulting Error in Clock Time:

A pivotal conclusion is that these effects result in an error in the reading of clock time. The proposed alterations in wave properties lead to inaccuracies in time measurement by clocks.

Mistaken Portrayal as Time Dilation:

The abstract challenges the traditional interpretation that associates observed errors in clock readings with time dilation, asserting that this attribution is mistaken.

By emphasizing the "resulting error in the reading of clock time," the paper highlights the discrepancy between observed errors and the conventional interpretation of time dilation. This challenges existing paradigms and encourages a reconsideration of the underlying principles governing our perception of time.

Relativistic Mass versus Effective Mass:

22 January 2024

Soumendra Nath Thakur.
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803

The concept of relativistic mass can be understood as an effective mass. The original equation, m′ = m₀/√{1 - (v²/c²)} - m₀, is analysed within the context of special relativity, revealing that m′ takes on an energetic form due to its dependence on the Lorentz factor. The unit of m′, denoted in Joules (J), emphasizes its nature as an energetic quantity. The brief connection between relativistic mass (m′) and m′ being equivalent to an effective mass (mᵉᶠᶠ) highlights the distinctions between relativistic mass and rest mass (m₀), as m′ is not considered an invariant mass. To illustrate this, a practical example involving an 'effective mass' of 0.001 kg (mᵉᶠᶠ = 0.001kg) demonstrates the application of E = m′c², resulting in an actual energy of 9 × 10¹³ J. This uncovers the effective energy as a function of relativistic mass within the framework of special relativity.

Reference:

[1] Decoding Nuances: Relativistic Mass as Relativistic Energy, Lorentz's Transformations, and Mass-Energy Interplay 

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22913.02403

[2] Relativistic Mass and Energy Equivalence: Energetic Form of Relativistic Mass in Special Relativity

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22421.50406

Flawed relativistic time can't challenge abstract time:

21 January 2024

By Soumendra Nath Thakur.

There is always a recognized place for scientists, but the science they discover or theorize is the main consideration, because science is about advancing scientific understanding and not the place of scientists.

I need to point out that it was relativity that challenged Newtonian time and promoted relativistic spacetime but it is now certain that the promotion of relativistic time and therefore spacetime is a flawed proposition. Whereas relativistic spacetime is based on Einstein's own definition of time and space as spacetime but it is now certain that Einstein's time like relativity is a flawed representation of time and therefore relativity is based on a flawed interpretation of spacetime that cannot be fully repaired. .

On the other hand Newtonian abstract time is still meaningful in all scientific applications. This means that abstract time can still be considered applicable for all scientific and applied purposes whereas Einstein's relativistic time is flawed given its imposed natural aspects. Clearly time is not natural.

In fact, the relativistic misrepresentation of time is very likely to shake the rest of the relativistic foundations because they are based on the misrecognition of time, hence spacetime, where Newtonian time is applied by Earth's space agency with flying colours for all applicable purposes.

Therefore, science is more relevant here than the places occupied by scientists.

#time #abstracttime #relativistictime #flawedtime #flawedrelativistictime

The Planck Length and the Constancy of Light Speed: Navigating Quantum Gravity's Enigma and the Limits of Physical Theories

Summary:

The exploration of the Planck length and the constancy of light speed is central to understanding quantum gravity and the limitations of current physical theories. The Planck length, derived from fundamental constants, signifies a scale in general relativity where quantum effects become significant. Quantum gravity, aiming to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, involves the Planck length as a crucial parameter, suggesting quantum properties in spacetime at small scales. The constancy of light speed, foundational in relativity, particularly in quantum gravity's context, lacks a complete explanation. The challenges at small scales underscore the need for theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity. Max Planck proposed Planck units, including the Planck length, in 1899-1900, but the explicit link to the constancy of light speed, a postulate in Einstein's 1905 special relativity, came later, shaping our profound understanding of spacetime.

Description:

The relationship between the Planck length and the constancy of the speed of light plays a role in the broader context of quantum gravity and the limitations of current physical theories. Let's elaborate on the consequences:

Range of Validity of General Relativity:

The Planck length (ℓP) is a fundamental length scale that emerges from combining the constants G (gravitational constant), ℏ (Planck's constant), and c (speed of light) in a specific way.

In the framework of general relativity, the Planck length represents a scale at which quantum effects become significant in the gravitational field. Beyond this scale, classical descriptions of spacetime provided by general relativity may no longer be valid, and a theory of quantum gravity might be needed.

Quantum Gravity and Planck Scale:

Quantum gravity is a theoretical framework that seeks to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics, especially in extreme conditions like those near black holes or at the very early moments of the universe.

The Planck length is a crucial parameter in theories of quantum gravity, where spacetime itself is expected to exhibit quantum properties at scales on the order of ℓP.

Unexplained Constancy of Light Speed:

While the constancy of the speed of light (c) is a foundational postulate in both special and general relativity, the reasons for this constancy within the broader context of quantum gravity, where the Planck length becomes significant, remain an open question.

There is no widely accepted theory that provides a complete explanation for the constancy of the speed of light within the framework of quantum gravity. Bridging the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics at the Planck scale is an active area of research, and various approaches, including string theory and loop quantum gravity, aim to address these fundamental questions.

The consequences highlight the challenges and open questions at the intersection of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the nature of spacetime at extremely small scales. The Planck length sets a fundamental scale at which these questions become prominent, and exploring quantum gravity theories is crucial for understanding the behaviour of physical phenomena in these extreme conditions.

Planck's Proposal (1899-1900):

Max Planck proposed the Planck units, including the Planck length (ℓP), in 1899-1900. These units were derived from fundamental physical constants, including Planck's constant (h), the speed of light (c), and the gravitational constant (G).

While Planck introduced these units, including c, in the context of developing a system of natural units, the constancy of the speed of light was not explicitly linked to its postulate in special relativity at that time.

Einstein's Special Relativity (1905):

Albert Einstein formulated special relativity in 1905. One of the postulates of special relativity is the constancy of the speed of light (c) in a vacuum.

Einstein's work on special relativity provided a new framework for understanding the behaviour of space and time, and it explicitly introduced the postulate of the constant speed of light.

Planck introduced the Planck units, including c, in 1899-1900, the specific postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum (c) was formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905 as part of his theory of special relativity. The constancy of the speed of light in special relativity is a key feature that has profound implications for our understanding of spacetime, and it was introduced as a specific postulate by Einstein in 1905.