# Newton's TOE

Newton's TOE​

1. A dimension is a geometric frame that is independent from all other geometric frames.

2. The number of possible dimensions is unlimited.
All dimensions are identical and all actions in any dimension will be the same if transposed to any other dimension.

3. All forces are the result of a transition of a wave in a dimension.
Transitional waves may be open or closed and are not limited in shape.

4. TOE Exclusion principle. No two identical transitional waves may occupy the same location in a dimension.

5 All actions in any dimension have no effect beyond 3 dimensions. Therefore our universe is limited to 9 dimensions by lack of ability to influence actions beyond 3 dimensions.

All things in the universe are therefore the result of geometry, transition, and exclusion.

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Chronos
Gold Member
1. an 'a priori' assumption
2. not supported by observation
3. show the math
4. what exclusion?
5. unsupported [see 2 and 3]
7. reformulate and restate your model [we regret to inform you.. that your paper does not merit publication..]

question

This is my first post and I will develop each point. Don’t be to hasty to reject. Is there a required format to start a dialog of a new idea? Please let me know the proper method on this form.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
This thread belongs on theory development. I am moving it there.

Unlimited Dimensions

Dimensions​
In mathematics we find the number of possible dimensions is unlimited. In physics we should therefore start from the same premise unless we have evidence to indicate otherwise. It would be poor science to limit our consideration of anything based on the extent of our current observation or limit thinking to current conditioned thought. The only reason you would not start from the premise of unlimited dimensions is that you don’t believe the mathematics and you have some evidence that makes the math some how limited or conditional.

Observed dimensions

Observed dimensions
If the number of possible dimensions is unlimited then we must explain our inability to observe, or perceive any function or action outside of the 4 dimensions we believe to exist. We may also find that we are able to explain some of the forces we do observe in terms of other dimensions that we have not previously considered.

The nature of dimensions.

The term dimension has many definitions and connotations and it is doubtful that many have a firm understanding of dimensions. It is therefore worthwhile to describe and discuss the attributes of dimensions.

If we start with the familiar spatial dimensions and consider one dimension we find that there is freedom of location and action along only one direction and that the one-dimensional construct has no absolute location or direction of preference.

All physical laws remain the same for all locations and directions of the dimensional system. If force is applied to an object for a set amount of time it will achieve the same velocity regardless of the location of the object or the direction to which the force is applied.
We therefore observe that there is no preferred spatial dimension and that all spatial dimensions are the same.

It is preferable to use the Cartesian coordinate system when considering dimensional systems as this is easier to visualize. It is also easier to visualize dimensions if we are able to suppress some dimensions for clarity of visualization if it does not change the substance of the topic.

In the spatial dimensions we have an unlimited degree of freedom. The three dimensional spatial coordinate system having no absolute orientation may be rotated through all angles. There is however only one degree of freedom of action. We can only transition in one direction at a time and we are limited to a maximum velocity of the speed of light.

Last edited:
Independence of dimensions

Independence of dimensions

Taking two loops of wire it is found that if the loops are placed parallel to each other we are able to induce energy from one loop into the other if however the loops are turned perpendicular to each other no current is induced. This may be done with a maximum of three loops each perpendicular to all others. This may also be illustrated with polarization of electromagnetic waves. Again as with spatial dimensions there is no preferred direction. the only requirement is that the polarization is perpendicular to each other. It may be concluded that perpendicularity is a unique characteristic of dimensions and that perpendicular dimensions have an independence of actions from each other. Finding that only three polarizations are possible reinforces the concept of three spatial dimensions.

More than three dimensions.

More than three dimensions.

If the Big Bang is considered the start of our universe and all the energy of the Big Bang moved outward in all directions in the shape of a hypersphere.

(A hypersurface is a geometric construct of one dimension less than all the dimensions under consideration. N-1=hypersurface where n = number of dimensions in a system)

[When dealing with multiple dimensions it would be easier to identify a limited set of dimensions under consideration as 2D or 3D constructs than using the term hypersphere or hypersurface especially when the total number of dimensions under consideration maybe in doubt.]

It is necessary to establish the nature of the transition from the Big Bang to the current position of the hypersphere. Observation of distant objects in the hypersphere or 3D construct of the universe indicates that all objects are moving away from each other. It is easy to visualize the expanding universe as has been illustrated many times using the surface of a balloon. The movement of distant objects of the universe is demonstrated by putting two marks on the balloon when it is small and then watching them separate as the balloon get larger. It is also obvious that the diameter of the balloon is also increasing or in the case of the universe the distance from the Big Bang is increasing.
It can be proved that the direction of the expansion from the Big Bang is not a spatial dimension. As stated above all the spatial dimensions make up the hypersphere and form a surface that does not extend back to the Big Bang. If the direction of the expansion from the Big Bang to our current location was a spatial dimension then the rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang would be added to any transition in that spatial direction. No spatial direction is seen that is any different than any other spatial direction. If one direction had the added transition rate of the expansion of the Big Bang then distant objects would not all appear be moving away at the same rate in all directions.
The only conclusion is that the direction of the transition out from the Big Bang is in a dimension other than the spatial dimensions.

Unlimited Independent Dimensions.

Unlimited Independent Dimensions.

We see no evidence that the transition of the universe outward from the Big Bang is a transition in any spatial dimension. Observation indicates that there is no preferred spatial direction and that all distant objects appear to be moving away from us at a rate proportional to their distance, except for demonstrated local attraction. If the transition outward from the Big Bang was in any spatial direction observation of distant objects would indicate a difference in red shift in that direction.

The evidence for the Big Bang, an expanding universe and the lack of influence on the spatial dimensions leaves us with the conclusion that the expansion outward from the Big Bang is occurring in an independent dimension.

By observing a dimension that is independent from the spatial dimensions it is possible to extend our knowledge about the nature of dimensions.

The spatial dimensions have only one degree of freedom of action. It is possible to move or transition in only one direction at a time, and any force applied from a direction different then the line of transition results in a change of direction equal to vector sums. Transition and the vector sums of transition are limited to the speed of light.

There is a complete freedom of direction in the spatial dimensions. Any action of transition may be rotated through out any angle and to any desired degree of resolution.

If the E dimension is an independent dimension then:

The transition in the E dimension is totally independent of actions in the spatial dimensions.

Total independence allows transitions in two or more directions at the same time.

The transitions in independent dimensions do not vector sum to limit the maximum transition to the speed of light.

There is no evidence that the maximum transition rate in each independent dimension is other than the speed of light.

Just as in the spatial dimensions the E dimension has no preference of absolute direction. There is freedom of action through out any angle and to any degree of resolution. The universe is able to expand outward in all directions.

It would appear that actions in the E dimension behave the same as actions in the spatial dimensions

From the above observations it looks like there maybe dimensional constructs that have total independence from each other and within these independent dimensions there are limited independent dimensions.

The question now is the E dimension the time dimension?

Hi 4newton,

Have you considered fractal dimensions?

Lama said:
Have you considered fractal dimensions?
Thanks for you question.

If I understand fractals you are asking if I have considered fractional dimensions. Fractional dimensions would be unproductive, as actions in fractional dimensions can not be independent. This would just confuse trying to understand the basis of dimensions and the nature of the relation between dimensions. The idea is to make simple not more complicated.

Lama said:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psych...p/Fractals.html [Broken]
D need not be an integer, as it is in Euclidean geometry. It could be a fraction, as it is in fractal geometry.
I do not understand the difference you are trying to make.

From your above reference, fractal geometry is able to consider fraction of integer dimensions. I don’t see how trying to explain the universe in terms of fractional dimensions will help. Integer dimensions are already more that most people can perceive.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gza
Wow. This post must be broken because I see a lot of cracks around here.

In mathematics we find the number of possible dimensions is unlimited. In physics we should therefore start from the same premise unless we have evidence to indicate otherwise. It would be poor science to limit our consideration of anything based on the extent of our current observation or limit thinking to current conditioned thought. The only reason you would not start from the premise of unlimited dimensions is that you don’t believe the mathematics and you have some evidence that makes the math some how limited or conditional.
So we should respect every single thing possible in mathematics as being possible in physical reality? How would you interpret negative mass? Or infinite volume? Mathematics allows generalizations that encompass human-created exaggerations (such as the concept of infinity.) It is up to us as the physicist to interpret what is physically possible through subsequent theory, followed by experiment. Your attack on this method called, funny enough, the Scientific Method, as "poor science" makes me wonder if you have ever taken a science class in any form or another.

Last edited:
Gza said:
Wow. This post must be broken because I see a lot of cracks around here.
Quote:

So we should respect every single thing possible in mathematics as being possible in physical reality? How would you interpret negative mass? Or infinite volume? Mathematics allows generalizations that encompass human-created exaggerations (such as the concept of infinity.) It is up to us as the physicist to interpret what is physically possible through subsequent theory, followed by experiment. Your attack on this method called, funny enough, the Scientific Method, as "poor science" makes me wonder if you have ever taken a science class in any form or another.
Gaz you point out a problem you are having. You have a basic problem with respect. Your first remark shows a lack of respect for people and your second statement shows disrespect for ideas.

If you understand a concept and disagree with it then point out where you think the concept is wrong. If you don’t understand the concept say so. If you don’t want to take the time for either then show respect and keep quiet.

Do you have some absolute proof for the number of possible dimensions? If you wait I will get to the forces in nature in due time. Physicists are not gate keepers of reality and they do not interpret nature. The job of physics is to discover and explain their discoveries it is not to limit future thought and limit subsequent theories.

I wish I was your age again and again knew everything.

Regarding fractal and integer dimensions, these are my thoughts.

Integer dimensions are "static" dimensions. That means the stabilized values or quantum values.

Fractal dimensions are "dynamic" dimensions. That means values of becoming either toward higher integer values or backward to lower values.

If we assumed that energy is 3D (does not depend on the time dimension, temporal invariance, conservation law) and matter is 4D, energy can become matter by "expanding" into 4D and vice versa, matter can "contract" to 3D. Furthermore, we can hypothesize that continuous space is 2D and quantized space is 1D and the vacuum is zero dimension.

And furthermore, the dynamic fractal dimensions are mediated by forces.

4D <--EM--> 3D <--weak--> 2D <--strong--> 1D <--gravity--> 0D

And more furthermore, the universal expansion of space is really a dimensional contraction. Matter (4D) back to energy (3D) back to contiuous space (2D) back to quantized space (1D) back to the vacuum state (0D).

Last edited:
Gza
Gaz you point out a problem you are having. You have a basic problem with respect. Your first remark shows a lack of respect for people and your second statement shows disrespect for ideas. If you understand a concept and disagree with it then point out where you think the concept is wrong. If you don’t understand the concept say so. If you don’t want to take the time for either then show respect and keep quiet.
I apologize for the first remark. I agree that was uncalled for. As for my second, I think it demonstrates that I understand exactly what you are talking about, but I adamently disagree. I strongly believe that just because something happens within the realm of mathematics, doesn't mean it happens in physical reality. Mathematics wasn't handed down from above, it is a manmade construct. All I am suggesting is to be more critical in regards to basing your theory completely on what is possible in math. This is a forum of discussion by the way, and you did take the initiative to post your ideas in the open, so please don't be offended if people don't agree with you 100%.

Antonio Lao said:
Integer dimensions are "static" dimensions. That means the stabilized values or quantum values.
Fractal dimensions are "dynamic" dimensions. That means values of becoming either toward higher integer values or backward to lower values.
I am sorry but I am not able to follow your ideas. I think you have gone beyond my abilities. I will continue to think of your ideas and I will let you know if I can understand the relationships you describe.

Gza said:
I apologize for the first remark. I agree that was uncalled for. As for my second, I think it demonstrates that I understand exactly what you are talking about, but I adamantly disagree. I strongly believe that just because something happens within the realm of mathematics, doesn't mean it happens in physical reality. Mathematics wasn't handed down from above, it is a manmade construct. All I am suggesting is to be more critical in regards to basing your theory completely on what is possible in math. This is a forum of discussion by the way, and you did take the initiative to post your ideas in the open, so please don't be offended if people don't agree with you 100%.
I thank you for you apology. You show a positive strength of character in doing so.

I have come to this forum for my ideas to be criticized. I look forward to anyone that can point flaws in my thinking. I would like people to consider the basic ideas and the reasons I have for these ideas. This is not a formal paper on the theory of everything. As you are aware that is an enormous undertaking. This is a test of the water looking for basic flaws.

I do however expect respect and courtesy between us all and I will try to show respect and courtesy when people disagree with my ideas.

I think you misunderstand the statement about dimensions. I do not believe that all math functions or even math proofs are real. I make the statement about an unlimited number of dimensions to bring home the fact that there is no current thinking or even an idea why dimensions should be limited in number. If you read the basic summary of the TOE you see where I state that if the number is unlimited we must provide a reason why we perceive only a limited number. I make the suggestion that the number of dimensions that have influence in our universe is 9 dimensions. I intend to give my reasons for as I continue.

Please continue to be critical but please try to give a reason or proof.

4newton said:
we must provide a reason why we perceive only a limited number.
The meaning of dimension in high energy particles physics is quite different than the one we usually attributed with space. In this sense, number of dimension is limited by the number of particles found by experiments or theories. Why there are only two polarities (positive and negative) of electric charges? Why there are three polarities (red, green, blue) of color charges?

And the number of boson in each force field seem to be equaled to $2^n$ where n is the dimension.

When n=0, we get the solitary graviton.

When n=1, we get the U(1) group symmetry where the only particle is the photon.

When n=2, we get the SU(2) group symmetry where the particles are again the photon, the W+, the W-, and the Z0 vector bosons.

when n=3, we get the SU(3) group symmetry where the particles are the 8 hypothetical gluons and each comes with three color charges, for lack of better names, called red, green and blue (not to be confused with the colors of vision).

So between zero and one dimension is the graviton. Between one and two is the photon. Between two and three are the photon, W+, W-, Z0. Betwen three and four are the eight gluons. Rearranging what I have noted previously,

0D - graviton - 1D - photon - 2D - photon, W+, W-, Z0 - 3D - 8 gluons - 4D.
0D gravity force 1D EM force 2D weak force 3D strong force 4D.

Last edited:
When n=4, we get 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations of Einstein's general relativity.

But where are or what are the 16 particles?

Last edited:
There should be a fifth force that lies between the zero dimension and the 4th dimension by not going thru 1D or 2D or 3D making the circle complete as that of a snake swallowing its own tail.

The magnitude of this force is given by

$$F_5 = \frac {Planck constant}{spacetime}$$

We can also hypothesize that the particle responsible for the fifth force is the Higgs boson.

But one thing needs to be clarified is whether spacetime is taken to be the product of space and time or the sum of space and time.

If spacetime is taken as the sum of space and time, we can answer the question on the origin of electric charge.

If spacetime is taken as the product of space and time, we can answer the question on the origin of mass.

Gza said:
Your attack on this method called, funny enough, the Scientific Method, as "poor science"
I have given more thought about your comment and the methods used and I would like you to consider if you would.

There is a basic problem in theoretical physics. It is not always possible to use deductive process to arrive at a result. In theoretical physics the number of observations may be very limited and never enough to go from the general to the particular. If we are limited to deductive reasoning we should just close shop and go home. The only reason we are able to use extrapolation with expected positive results is that the laws of nature are constant and rational. Our results in this case then only depend on our ability to learn the laws of nature and restrain our imagination within those laws. If we disregard the laws of nature then the result is fantasy.

The most important reason to use extrapolation is that it is the only game in town and it has produced results.

You can find more on this thought in the book.

THE MEASURE OF THE UNIVERSE
By J. D. North
Chapter 14

Gza
It is not always possible to use deductive process to arrive at a result. In theoretical physics the number of observations may be very limited and never enough to go from the general to the particular.
Not to argue semantics, but I believe you are referring to inductive reasoning. And I agree 100% that it is not a flawless form of reasoning. The universe isn't axiomatic by nature (as far as we know) so we can't fully rationalize it deductively (from first principles). The best we can do is "fit" it to a deductive framework that allows us the easier method of stating fundamental laws of nature (F=ma, Maxwell's equations, etc.), and deriving all of the implications from there. This has worked particularly well, leading to a better understanding of the mechanics of light, as well as a deeper understanding of the physics of the macroscopic world.

Our results in this case then only depend on our ability to learn the laws of nature and restrain our imagination within those laws. If we disregard the laws of nature then the result is fantasy.
You seem to be turning a new leaf 4Newton, do you still think your previous post about infinite dimensional space still holds?