I am someone who believes that scientists especially physicists have taken a wrong turn.
My Best Friends
Most if not all scientific advancements humankind has made have been based on concepts derived though observations of the environment.
For example, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity first by developing a conceptual understanding of how objects interacted in an observable environment and then extrapolated them to the unobservable. He then used those concepts to define a mathematical language to quantify them. His theory gained general acceptance because the mathematical language he derived from direct observations could make accurate quantitative predictions of planetary motion.
However, many modern physicists seem to have taken a different road to understanding the laws that govern our world.
For example, "The Standard Model of Particle Physics" the currently accepted theory defining particle interactions was created by developing a mathematical language based on the quantitative results of those interactions. The proponents of this theory then attempt to develop a conceptual understanding of them in terms of the mathematical language that defines them.
These methodologies differ in that Newton’s extrapolated a conceptual understanding based on qualitative observations of how objects interact to mathematically define future interactions while the Standard model uses the quantitative observations of particle interactions to quantify their interactions.
However, the Newtonian method of conceptualizing a theory first through qualitative observations then developing a mathematical language from those observations allows those equations to be verified through qualitative observations.
While the Standard Model’s method of using quantitative observations of a particle’s environment to derive a mathematical language to validate those quantitative observations. Therefore, it is self-validating and cannot be verified though qualitative observations of the environment those equations are defining..
Some try to justify using a mathematical language developed by quantitative observations to develop a conceptual understanding of the process involved by saying that the observational technology has not advanced enough to allow direct observations of the environment where they take place.
However, as mentioned earlier Newton was able to extrapolate a qualitative understanding of gravity based on observations of the earth’s environment to the unobservable environment of the universe.
It has been shown throughout "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" is that it is possible to derive a qualitative explanation of particle interactions that would be consistent with the quantitative predictions of the standard model and the relativistic properties of space, and time by extrapolating a conceptual understanding of our observable three-dimensional environment to an unobservable fourth *spatial* dimension.
As mentioned earlier Isaac Newton extrapolated a qualitative understanding of gravity based on observations of the earth’s environment to the unobservable environment of the universe which were then verified through quantitative mathematical descriptions of that environment.
Similarly the concepts present here can be quantitative verified mathematically because they, similar to Isaac Newton’s are based on extrapolating the observable properties of a three-dimensional environment to unobservable fourth *spatial* dimensions.
However, I have not been able to define a mathematical language necessary to quantify those concepts. But this does not mean that one cannot separate the conceptual validation of the ideas presented here from the mathematical language required to quantify them.
A concept is like a language in that it comes in many different forms. If someone does not speak English, he or she would not understand someone who is speaking in it. However, English can be translated to French by those who have had linguistic training so that someone who only speaks French can understand concepts presented in English.
The reason I have not been able to quantify these ideas is that I received a head injury, which affects my short-term memory. This makes it extremely difficult to use mathematical arguments to explain concepts.
For example, a Wechsler memory scale test given by the Veteran’s Administration indicates my visual short-term memory has a raw score of 23, which translates to the 2-percentile range.
The doctors tell me that one of the reasons why mathematics may be so difficult for me is because I have trouble remembering what the visual mathematical symbols represent as my mind works through equations.
The reason I created "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" and wrote the book "The Reality the Fourth *Spatial* Dimension" is that I am hoping a few who have mathematical ability will feel the conceptual ideas it presents are worth the effort to translate them into a quantitative mathematical language.
Copyright 2009 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
Vol. 3 — 2012