An alternative 5-dimensional model
in theoretical physics
It's a model or conceptual structure suggested for
interpretations in
theoretical physics in the first place,
but with a pattern returning in sciences
of superposed levels too.
(Some first
extractions from booklets about these other
sciences on the menu bar.)
In
all its simplicity, without intricate mathematics and
despite debatable features,
the schematic model may be useful
in getting a grasp of scientific data and
it feels at the same time
congruent with common human experience. In
following files application of the model is tested
to main concepts of physics,
such as
Forces, Matter and Vacant Space, Antimatter, Charge, Electromagnetic
waves, Spin etc.
A few words about the
background, see here.
Some
of the main treats in the conceptual model:
- Dimensions as building
stones with a special definition
- The "Entirety" as
the beginning
- 4th dimension degree identified as Direction
- Motions put into the scheme in their own, new place
- Infinities
redefined and incorporated
- A suggested interpretation of Charge
as property.
- Dimension degree of analysis optional
- All advanced mathematics excluded. Some new, perhaps "odd"
and very simple arithmetic introduced for derivation of numbers such as quotients
in physics, with the hypothesis that they ultimately originate from number of
dimension degrees (see one example).
Here
the model:
A dimension degree (d-degree) is in this model characterized
as the relation between 2 complementary "poles".
This
principle of complementarity is central (in agreement with treats in quantum
mechanics too).
The definition of dimensions as the number
of "independent" variables is not accepted; everything is assumed interrelated.
Polarizations are assumed as the elementary principle of development'.
It's assumed as responsible for steps towards lower d-degrees. Science
seeks tracing manifoldness back to unity. The creation of universe would presumably
have the opposite direction.
Hence, this model starts
with the "whole", with the "Entirety". and this "Entirety"
is assumed as 5-dimensional, of one higher degree than the commonly accepted 4
in established physics.
This doesn't exclude developments
of more polarities and dimensions - or fractals within each step in accordance
with theories of later decades. The steps of polarizations in elementary
geometrical definitions: 5®4:
Starting point - at the border to metaphysics, at the triple point between metaphysics,
concepts and geometry, at Big Bang - is regarded as a real point, a Zero, a "0-pole",
a centre, in accordance with accepted physical views but perhaps more extreme.
Complementary pole becomes the undefined opposite, the "infinity"
as a "00-pole" ( ¥, written 00).
This implies a redefining of the problematic "infinity"
to the concept of "anti-centre".
These first
definitions make up the first polarization of the 5-dimensional "Entirety"
to 0 and 00, centre and anti-centre, from which all following complementarities
are inherited. 4®3:
The 4-dimensional
degree is defined as Direction.
Conceptually, that which
is created through a point (and its undefined surrounding) is directions outwards-inwards.
Geometrically this is vectors, in common definition objects
which in addition to positions in 3 dimensions also demand the 4th specification
of Direction. Through polarization between outwards and inwards, here the
complementary "poles" (or partial structures") of d-degree 4, principally
anti-parallel, and with a loss of direction, a 3-dimensional world of volumes
for masses and space is created, and roughly speaking with a radial - circular
geometry (or with negative - positive curvature) as geometrical poles. In other
words: partial structures with enclosed in opposition to excluded centres. 3®2:
The 3rd d-degree when polarized defines in its turn surfaces, 2-dimensional structures
with geometries of the type "inside-outside" or "convex-concave",.
The polarity can also be thought of as geometrically appearing in sine curves.
2®1:
In this last structural step a
polarization of surfaces are assumed to lead to 1-dimensional structures as lines.
1®"0/00":
1-dimensional structures
are assumed to polarize into Motions: with "motions towards each other"
(converging) and "motions from each other", (diverging) as the
complementary "poles" in this step. 
The
types of geometrical complementarities in these first "postulates" may
be acceptable. In which way simple polarizations create the geometries of the
lower degrees out of higher ones is a more serious question. The simple statements
above may rise immediate doubts.
Yet, the question is left
here for later discussions.
The series of steps is called
a "dimension chain" and may be written: 5
® 4 ® 3
® 2 ® 1 ®
0/00 In this chain of polarizations towards lower degrees each step
implies 1 d-degree debranched. Lost degrees in a unit are interpreted as transformed
into external motions.
There is also the alternative that
lost degrees as 1-dimensional structures meet "the other way around"
- in synthesizing direction, being built-in into structural element in units of
higher degrees.
D-degree "0/00" of Motions:
Motions towards each
other defines a centre, a zero or 0-pole; motions from each other an anti-center,
a 00-pole Still not the same as the poles of the "Entirety" of d-degree
5.
This "dimension degree 0/00" of Motions - corresponding
to the concept of pure kinetic energy - can be designated 5'. Motions
as concept becomes in this model the ultimate translation of the 5th dimension
degree, expressions for the underlying unity, the "Entirety" stepwise
transformed. In this model Motions are regarded not only as relative but
also as absolute realities. Time is regarded
as defined in the d-degree of motions, which also means that it is evolved in
first and each following steps towards lower d-degrees. The d-degree of
motions will increase when d-degree of structure decreases. Hence, motions form
a "counterdirected" chain to the chain of structure.
Chain
of motions 0/00 - 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5 d-degrees
Chain of structures: 5 -- 4 --- 3 ---
2 --- 1 ---0/00 " Structure of motions:
· Vibration in 1
dimension - in 4-dimensional vector fields?
· Rotation in 2 dimensions
- by 3-dimensional bodies
· Motions in 3 dimensions - by "shells"
or 2-dimensional phenomena…(as in cell membranes)… Compare, as
an association, with the temperature (here) motions in one- and two-atomic gases
Ew = 3/2, 5/2 or 7/2 (times a constant, times Temperature).
Analysis:
Dimensional degree of analysis will be optional, when d-degree of motions
are included.
Different models of the atom for example
would have the same validity, if external relations or motions are included: analyses
in vector fields, or particle models or the shell models. We could add here: analysis
in structures of 1-dimensional lines or "strings".
The
model implies that everything is interrelated - at bottom. And if so, the 5 primary
dimensions should manifest themselves in all phenomenon we choose to study. This
is the basis of the model as a skeleton in terms of concepts and geometries. The
model applied to main concepts of physics: 4th degree:
Here defined as Direction, could be identified with "fields" in physics,
with 4-dimensional Vector Fields (inwards Û outwards) or pair of
forces. (About Forces as concept below.)
In the first step
5 ®4, to centre and anti-centre, there is only
the concept of pure Density, directions from a centre illustrating a gradient
of "near / far" from the centre. Implicitly it contains such relations
as Mass per Volume, or in the other end of the dimension chain Frequency or Distance
per Time (velocity). 3rd degree:
Here as Volumes, geometrically
defined as characterized by enclosed / excluded centre, are here identified with
Mass and Vacant Space, the opposition in the formula E = +/- mc2
(Dirac); that is in the aspect on Mass or Matter as e.g. celestial
bodies occupying space in a 3-dimensional room, that is when analysed as 3-dimensional. Steps
(3) ® 2 ® 1 ®
0/00 will represent waves: with degree of motions increasing, the
structure gets increasing motional character. 2nd degree:
Here
is introduced the hypothesis that Charge as a 2-dimensional property in
relation to Mass when interpreted as 3-dimensional.
(In
the 1960th a physicist as David Park pointed to the fact that physicists didn't
know what charge is. The hypothesis here became the starting point to this model.)
The suggestion should imply that it would be possible to
find some difference of 1 dimension degree in the mathematical equations that
are connected with electric charge, compared with equations related to masses
- or matter. (About the difference mass - matter, see that file).
Charges
with opposite signs (+/-) may eventually be regarded as represented by the opposite
halves of co-ordinate axes.
1st d-degree:
The degree of
lines may represent the elementary concept of Distance, but could also
be identified with elementary potentials. Compare too the concept of "field
lines". In addition we have path ways for particles or bodies like planets. One
suggestion here is to identify the d-degree steps themselves with the concept
Velocity and this polarized into Distance and Time in the sense of "scales",
that is 1-dimensional physical entities.
Distances transform
into Time in one direction, Time into distances, change in relative positions,
in the other direction. D-degree "0/00":
Motions as
pure kinetic energy. Temperature will of course be one concept in this
d-degree of Motions. The elementary concepts of physics in a dimension
chain - a first
rough identification. 
Some annotations:
The complementarity principle are
the easily recognizable in pairs as Mass - Vacant Space, charge (+) and (-), p---e,
nucleus and shell of the atoms, or quarks up and down, and will be a consequence
of a starting point, a centre. (They are In agreement with mythologies too.)
(It should be noted that Bohr's "complementarity"
between momentum and position in Quantum mechanics not is of this kind.) The
polarizations imply that 1 d-degree of the inner structure of a unit gets
transformed to outer motion. That's at least one thing to say about them here.
Compare how Einstein by using the complex number Ö-1
(for Time) moved Time to the same side of an equation as the 3 room co-ordinates
and got a 4-dimensional Space.
One example of a polarization
in elementary physics is the disintegration of neutrons outside the atoms: n ®
p + e, by "weak interaction". Most things however which we recognize
is already polarized realities and in that sense - it's relations we perceive.
Unpolarized higher d-degrees seem as "superpositions "
in the sense of Quantum mechanics. Entropy:
The development from
higher to lower degrees in such a dimension chain is in this respect in agreement
with the energy law of entropy - which still has its well-known opposite, as in
the structuring of life. 5 dimensions?
It differs probably in
several aspects from the scientists' research in 5-dimensional mathematics, those
inspired for example by Theodor Kaluza, but could eventually have connections
with it as in the file about forces which is called "MEGA-fields", (magnetic,
electric, gravitational and acceleration forces or vector fields).
About counting with 5 dimensions, one should observe that the
common elementary co-ordinate system for 3 dimensions presupposes, without mentioning
it, a centre, an origin - and signs (+) and ((-) on the opposite directed halves
of the co-ordinate axes: this means a couple of extra specifications in addition
to the 3 about x-y-z co-ordinates. Abstractions:
It's a common view that "abstractions" represent "high levels"
of the human mind. Here concepts such as geometries are understood as the opposite,
very deep realities - in the bottom of human mind and of the world.
There
is a process of gradual substantiation to the material world. Matter;
Matter, versus "non-material" things should be a question of (relative)
structure. Gradual substantiation:
The development toward our
"material" and "anti-material" world from both higher and
lower d-degrees is regarded as a question of increasing complexity and gradual
substantiation.
Incorporation of the 00-pole:
A general aspect
on development in the model is the gradually building-in of the 00-pole, the anti-centre
as "surrounding" into units representing centres. So in development
towards life .
This implies growing complexity in the centre-units
in relation to the surrounding as "anti-centres". Forces
as a concept: - The concept of "forces" has been discussed
and sometimes dissolved into mathematical relations. Still the concept of "forces"
seems to be indispensable, so in the concept of "carriers" of forces,
distinguished from other elementary particles, and in the so-called 4 known forces
in physics. It is of course central in the standard model of quantum mechanics.
- When talking about "forces", emphasis is given to something
opposite to "structure", Relations however has also the character of
structure. This ambiguity fits very well in this dimension model. - Forces
in the old definition is something that generates changes in direction or velocity
of motions. In the model here such changes are primarily related to d-degree steps.
- Here the opposition is introduced between binding and polarizing forces,
and the simple starting point that the bond between two parts of a unit is the
unit of which they are, or "were", parts. - According to that
statement, the binding force in each dimension degree is assumed to be the next
higher dimension degree. Then the 4th dimension degree constitutes the binding
force in the 3rd dimension degree, the 3rd in the 2nd and so on. And a line, or
distance, is the binding force in motions. (Apparently so in
human beings' building of roads and railways as materialization of distances and
then using different vehicles to "bind the endpoints together"!). -
In the opposite direction we ought to have the polarizing forces, from lower to
next higher dimension degree. - Then a "force" can be defined
as one dimension degree operating upon next lower or higher degree, the latter
seen or analysed as structure. - A dimension could superficially be resembled
with a rubber band that is stretched. The binding force is the contracting, inner,
chemical force in the rubber material itself. The polarizing, stretching force
comes from the outside. - With these assumptions Structure and Force (or
pair of forces) show up as two aspects on a dimension, depending on the starting
point of the analysis. The concept of force is in a simple way traced the back
to the concept of dimension.
(Einstein mentioned in a book
from 1960th the difficulty for physicists to derive a particle or atomistic world
from field theories of that time. In some sense it could be just a question of
different aspects on the same thing and the d-degree of analysis. See later files
about mass and step 4®3.) - It's worth remembering
that the proton p (H+) and the electron (e-) are real "carrier of forces"
in biochemical processes on a superposed level, in spite of being fermions and
not having integer spin. The same view may be applied to all organisms on the
biological level, acting as forces. And, on the ground level,
pure motions are forces, as a fist hitting something. Such aspects support the
interpretation of forces as a question about relations between dimensions. -
At the same time it's possible to identify vector fields of 4th d-degree as representing
primary forces in usual physical sense with forces often illustrated by vectors.
Here the difference between bosons and fermions miss mass would be applicable
including the difference in complexity of spin. Following view is
adopted in the model:
Main, first "binding force"
will be the 5th d-degree, the "Entirety",
transformed and expressed
in all motions and dynamic processes in Universe.
Polarized
into d-degree 4 between 0 and 00, centre and anti-centre, these poles are assumed
as next primary forces:
- the 0-pole (the centre) as the secondary binding,
integrating force, "from inside",
- the 00-pole (the anti-centre)
secondarily as a polarizing force,
still, as part of d-degree 5 primarily
also with the character of an "aggregating" force. "From outside".
The relation may be elucidated by viewing the dimension chain as "haploid",
( 0 ® 4 ® 3 ®
2 ® 1 ® 00)
where only the 0-pole develops towards closed units and materialization, while
the 00-pole meats the other way around in each step: there is always an undefined
surrounding for a unit as a centre-pole.
Relations between
lower and higher d-degrees are also of the kind 00 to 0: manifoldness versus unity,
for instance an infinity of surfaces in a volume, of lines in a surface. Polarizing
and binding forces in other words: Surroundings separate the force or Directions
from the centre, gets integrated by the centre. (As in Biology).
A
similar relation could be found between concepts as continuum versus quantified
realities or fields: the 00-pole as the quantifying one, continuum from the 0-pole
the one that gets quantified. Active forces should presumably be
identified with just one of the poles of a dimension degree. A usual statement
is that a force always awake its opposite force. (But note: not necessary anti-parallel,
in most cases not, according to this model.)
Since all
"b-/and a-poles" of lower degrees inherit features from the 0-and 00-poles
respectively, this would be a logical consequence. The concept of connection
is ambiguous: The structural or outer connection between for instance poles 4b
and 4a is in this model d-degree 3. While the deeper, perhaps expressible as "operational"
relation goes through d-degree 4 as an inner, underlying connection, the common
origin. 
Structure - process - motions:
A dimension chain 5 ®
4 ® 3 ® 2
® 1 ® 0/00 can be
understood as a dynamic process of polarizations, of dimension steps.
We
can also focus on the dimension degrees themselves as potentials instead of the
steps and see the chain as a structure - like a standing wave can be seen as a
structure. We choose then a static view.
Static/dynamic
or structure/process becomes two aspects on dimension chains.
An
assumption about angle steps:
There is also in this model a
tentative assumption that the d-degree steps geometrically can be characterized
by angle steps: in simplest illustration as halvings:
| D-degree |
5 | 360° |
poles c - ac | | |
4 | 180° |
anti-parallel | | |
3 | 90° |
orthogonal | | |
2 | 45° |
sin = cos | | |
1 | 22,5° | |
| |
0/00 | 11,25° | |
Such steps may imply enclosing of a centre, defining a "separate"
unit, leaving an open rest angle for the communication with the outer world, the
"00-pole".
 Level
development:
Shortly: Two thoughts:
a) A development toward
higher levels - as a "level chain" through step 3-2; the primary dimension
chain is viewed perpendicular, d-degree steps meeting in the middle, in step 3
®  2.
See illustration below (from file Forces).
b) A development of
new dimension chains as secondary"loops" in each step of the primary
chain, possible to interpret as "fractals".
Example: vector fields
as such developing through a whole dimension chain, properties as Mass and Charge
likewise developing in such secondary chains...
It seems
as if the two assumptions turn out to be different aspects on the same dimensional
development of new "levels".
Mathematics: One example
of the kind of simple arithmetic here and there in these texts: 
Look
at the superposed number chain 9-7-5-3-1.
The quotient between
the rest masses of proton and electron is given at 1836,12 (data from 1973)..
The proton has most of the mass, d-degree 3, the electron form the atomic shell,
d-degree 2.
According to Gamow the proton and the electron
have about the same energy if the kinetic energy of the electron is taken into
account.
(One assumption about numbers is that a d-degree
step in some contexts could represent a 10-power step.). *
To next file: Forces |