History has shown the most successful theories are those based on what has come to be called Occam’s razor or that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory".

Newton applied it when he defined the properties of planetary motion in terms of a single concept called the law of gravity which assumes that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.

He could have complicated it by assuming the existence of other perimeters such as a repulsive force acting between each point mass and then make a proportional increase the magnitude of the attractive force so that their movements corresponded to observations but he chose not to.

However, a law of gravity based on this assumption would be just as successful in predicting their motion as the one he proposed.

But as technologies advance and more accurate measurements of planetary motions were made scientists realized not all them can explained by Newton’s laws.

This led to the acceptance of more universal explanation of planetary motion based on Einstein’s assumption that space and time can be merged into a single entity called space-time.

However, Einstein also applied Occam’s the principal of the eliminating all assumptions "that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory" because he based his redefinition of Newton’s laws only on the single assumption that space and time can be merged to form space-time.

Unfortunately the assumption that space-time is responsible for the macroscopic motion of the planets cannot be used to explain the movement of microscopic quantum particles.

To predict their movements Quantum theorists had to assume they are defined by the probably they will be found at specific point at a specific time and that there is an infinite number of paths a particle can take while moving between two points in space. 

However, this presents a problem for scientists who believe, as Occam’s did that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible because presently it takes two assumptions instead of one to completely explain the phenomenon of motion.

But we may find the key to why we have not been able to explain motion in terms of a single assumption by understanding the reason science develop theories.

The purpose of a theory is to explain and predict the physical relationships and interactions between different aspects of our observable environment.  Therefore, the validity of the assumptions use to define those relationships should be based or have a foundation in our observable environment.

For example, Einstein conceptually defined the movement of planets by assuming a physical interaction of time with the dimensional properties of space even though no one has ever observed time to have physical properties.

Therefore, the assumption that a time or space-time dimension physically exists has no bases in our observational environment. 

Similarly, Quantum Theories assume the movement of a particle is defined by the mathematical probability it will be in a specific place at a specific time.  However, even though this may give a very accuracy analytical solution to its position, it defines its movement in terms of the properties of an abstract of a mathematical environment.  

Mathematics is an abstract tool that physicists can use to analytically quantify the validity of a physical model of the environment.  However, the abstract environment defined by the equations of Quantum Mechanics is unobservable.  Therefore, as with a space-time dimension the assumption made by Quantum Theory of the physical existence of a probabilistic mathematical environment have no bases in our observational world. 

We have shown throughout "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" that one can explain and predict the movements of both planets and particles by assuming they are result of an interaction between our observable three-dimensional space and a fourth *spatial* dimension.  However we define the existence and properties of a fourth *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the observable properties of three-dimensional space to it.

Therefore, the assumption the movement of both planets and particles is defined by the existence of a four *spatial* dimension has a foundation in the observable environment of three-dimensional space. 

However, we could have chose to complicated it by assuming, as String theorists have, that up to ten dimensions are required to explain the movement of particles and planets.  We did not because even thought the existence of ten dimensions can explain the phenomenon of planetary and particle motion six of them can be eliminated because "they make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory" 

Later Jeff

The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions 

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009

(In a PDF format)

Write a comment