--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As Jones pointed out, sometimes protons simply > aren't there. Maybe they go here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/du-sph052506.php
This model is interesting and worthy of more study, but it is both less and more than the more useful concept of 4-space which I have been trying to get a handle on for at least two decades, since getting hooked on the basics by Rudy Rucker's books - and then Dirac. Perhaps all these ideas needs to be studied more - and then integrated into the 'brane' viewpoint at that 'big end' of the spectrum, as it has some features for cosmology which are good - but that view overlooks the other end of the spectrum, comparatively. The other end is where so-called free-energy (ZPE) will be extracted - if it can be. Often a few observers (present company included) have (mis)used and expanded (co-opted) Dirac's term "reciprocal space" in a slightly off-beat way in order to grasp and expound on this concept of 4-space as an aether - especially at the sub-angstrom end of the spectrum. Unfortunately several other branches of science have begun to use the same term - reciprocal space - but in the limited context of whatever they are doing and trying to understand (like crystallography or topography) - and consequently there is no general consensus on the broader common-denominator definition AFAIK - except that the Fourier transform is a key feature. BTW - there is nothing that says that this 'reciprocal space' cannot itself have more than one inherent dimension - and it probably has the same three - giving six total dimensions. This coincides with Grimer's hierarchy to a degree although his alpha-aether is apparently in our three space - unlike the others. [side note] the thought just crossed my mind that 'virtual positronium' the quantum 'foam' which is more-or-less a proven reality is in fact an electron still in 3-space bound to a Fourier-transformed electron (positron) in reciprocal space - and that is why the two particles seldom "annihilate" but rather exhibit a strong natural preference of reciprocality in one-dimension - which is the aether interface 1-space. I think the most general way of thinking about reciprocal space is as the Fourier transform of real space, not only at each dimension and fractal (fractional dimension) but also the at the group level- i.e. at the 'brane' level - which is a way of achieving an integrated model that might unfold from one-space into the 'brane' in kind of a circular fashion. A common feature of many views of 4-space (with definite theological overtone) is this interconnectivity of the large and the small. But all this is too mind-boggling to tackle today. Jones
