From: Terry Blanton
I suspect PAM Dirac would have enjoyed this topic of discussion. Probably - but do you have anything specific on Dirac and 3D time? BTW - here is a good paper which did not turn up til I added Dirac to the search query: http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html But George Sparling's theory is not exactly 3D time- the dimensions are "time-like". What does more than one time dimension mean in Sparling's theory? A slashdotter might opine (and did): The dimensions may not be quite what you think for Sparling. This paper sounds to me like technology which is already being used in games engines and robotics applications, eg for lighting models and collision detection. The idea is that there are various things that make rotations of objects much nicer to handle than translations. But if you add some extra dimensions, you can turn the translations into rotations. It's to do with conformal projection. Translations on a 2D plane are difficult to handle (at least in the framework of Clifford algebra), but if you map that plane onto the surface of a sphere in 3D, then you can identify the 2D translations with rotations on the surface of the 3D sphere. Only a game designer like Matthew Sobol, the dirty daemon, would know that... Similarly, you can exchange 3D translations for rotations in 4D, if you create a new dimension which allows you to have an origin for your rotations which is lifted outside "real" 3D space. It turns out to be nice to be able to do rotations about a point at infinity, too, which you can achieve by doing the same trick to go up to 5D. A consequence is that each no-D point in 3D gets represented by a 2D surface in the 5D, a line gets turned into a 3D hypersurface, etc. The nice thing about rotations is that you can do them with spinors, and you can use spinors to rotate lines and planes directly without having to break them down into points. In the 5D system you can also use geometric algebra to compute directly whether and how different hypersurfaces meet, again without having to compute points and normals and things, which is good for collision detection. Gamers ... what can ya' say ... pwned by their X-boxes... On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Not brand new- but an excellent Three Dimensional Time Theory - > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0510/0510010v1.pdf > > This could be the one (pun intended). Although Chen's command of English (or > his translator) is a bit lacking, and his other paper's should be read to > get a full picture of what he is proposing, I like his insight very much. > Too bad for him there are so many scientists with a similar name and so much > hostility here to Chinese science. > > This paper (papers) goes well beyond the other previous proponents of 3D > time (who also were generally ignored by the mainstream and also unmentioned > by Chen): Bill Tift, DB Larson, Zino and Peter Carroll. > > In summary, the basic quantum principles of single particles: > 1) Non-localization > 2) Non-determinism > 3) Spin and related statistics > > are derived by adding two extra time dimensions. To me this adds greatly to > the confused thinking of "space-time" or curved space. > > As much as many professorial-types want you to bless Einstein, as passe and > awkward as he is becoming (since that is all that they were taught and few > have a real mind of their own) - this is the time to look elsewhere: this > theory makes sense, since all of those extra spaces, even the fiction of > "space-time" (11 spatial, for instance) are unneeded in order to get the > unifying equations to work. > > This structuring of time is much more insightful, at least to a few of us > who have less of a "conceptual problem" with the extra time dimensions, > compared to extra spatial dimensions (unless they are unfolded at the low - > 1D end, which is no sufficient for cosmology). > > Chen: "The related wave-functions, lagrangian and field equations can also > be derived from pure geometry of two extra time dimensions. These make me > believe that three dimensional time is right choice to interpret > quantum physics." > > ... comment: I would like to hear some mathematical criticism on this claim. > If it is true, then Chen's work is of Nobel quality. > > Chen: "In conclusion, this paper unified the principles of quantum physics > and the principles of general relativity by using three dimensional time. > Especially strong equivalence principle of general relativity is used to > derive the interaction between charged particle > and electromagnetic field which gives the same result as > quantum field theory. In addition, we derived field equations directly from > Einstein equations under 6-dimensional time-space metric. > It shows that the current quantum field equations of basic particles, as > well as interactions could be pure geometry properties under 6-dimension > time-space. In future, we also need to discuss how to include weak > interaction and QCD in 6-dimensional spacetime. > > Nice job, but like all foreign-born free-thinkers and non-conformists, Chen > will likely take it on the chin from the mainstream ... > > Jones >
