Some possible aspects from the viewpoint
of this 5-dimensional model ?
Most recent reference, David Lindley (referred
to below as (L): "Where does the weirdness go? :
why quantum mechanics is strange, but not as strange as
you think", 1996. Swedish version 2002.
Quantum physics, incompatible with classical
physics, includes e.g.
- the double nature of quanta as particles and waves,
- the influence of measurements on the results (or "reality"),
- wave functions of squared amplitudes as probabilities
which "collapse" to certainty through a measurement,
- the principle of the indefinable (Heisenberg), position
and velocity (or momentum) not possible to define exactly
with the same measurement,
- experimental results that seem to show "immediate
effects" between separate quanta (effects faster
than light), and
- fundamental polarizations in opposites which do not
agree with classical physics (as directions of polarization
of photons passing through a magnetic field).
Physicists still seem to have problems, not mathematical
but philosophical or rather conceptual (?), with these results.
1) 4th dimension degree:
Perhaps the most central source for physicists' difficulties
to interpret the results of their experiments is their fundamental
view of the 4-dimensional reality: 3 dimensions for the
space, and Time as one (1): 3-2-1-0 in their mathematics.
With the 5-dimensional model here and
the 4th dimension degree identified as "all-directed"
and outwards/inwards as the only relation, we have quite
another starting point for the interpretation of "uncertainties"
or the "indefinable", the dependence of results
on the measurements and so on.
2) Direction in a more narrow sense has of course
to be identified - sooner defined - in relation to something
else, outside the center, the particle or quantum as such.
This thing in the environment as anticenter can be the measurement
Direction, in 4th dimension degree (shortening
"d-degree") is in this model seen as stepwise
crystallized towards one-way direction through dimension
Is it correct to call it an inherent "indeterminism"
as L. does, leaving us as he thinks with the possibility
of a "free will"? From the viewpoint of a center
there is a direction determined as "outwards".
The definition is quite enough for me as a center in 4th
dimension degree, in an empty environment.
As soon as you show
up in the North, it's you that decides my direction
northwards, a closer determination. There is most
of a "free will" in the center: but it doesn't
will or want anything (but possibly outwards)
until the surroundings is met and taken into account
and defines and structures its content.
3) The uncertainty principle:
One thing is that higher d-degrees always represent uncertainties
in relation to the lower ones: a volume contains an infinity
of surfaces, a surface an infinity of lines. a line an infinity
of points: Which one to choose in a d-degree step will certainly
depend on the surrounding.
Some examples of this principle is rather hard to understand
In Stern-Gerlach experiments where electrons
pass vertical magnetic field instruments, they come out
with spin Up or Down. L. seems to find it a big problem
that it, in this same measurement, is impossible then to
know if the electrons have spin Right or Left. This second
information needs a new horizontal magnetic field measurement.
We don't know much about a person before
we meet her and talk with her and so on, establish some
relation. And different situations can lead to different
behavior of that person, naturally.
Another thing: for a particle along a
horizontal x-axis the plus-direction could be "up"
and the minus direction "down". In its own right
as a center, why should the particle bother about our own
external reference to a gravitational field?
More about the uncertainty in point 4
below and 6.
4) Wave-functions and their "collapses":
Schrödinger's wave-functions (from 1926), telling only
about probabilities (for example to find an electron at
a certain position), collapses into certainty: "yeas"
or "no", when a measurement is done.
When there is a knock on our door, we
can be in real uncertainty. When the person enters, the
uncertainty may collapse to a "negative" or "positive"
reaction or perhaps Zero. Some persons, as Buddhists perhaps,
can reach a state of empty minds in solitude, but find their
minds collapsing into definite word quanta when addressed
by someone else.
On the level of theoretical physics, wave-functions
which collapse could be identified with what in this model
is thought of as d-degree steps or quantum jumps:
Or take a more concrete situation: If we follow
a wall (or are creeping on it as a fly), a wall as a 2-dimensional
uncertainty, and follow it horizontally, we suddenly notice
it collapses to a corner, a vertical, 1-dimensional something.
Of course we don't know anything about the height of the
wall then. Still, with our theoretical knowledge about walls
in ordinary rooms we conclude that there must be an opposite
corner. Figure: Suggested identifications of physical qualities
in this model
Following the wall vertically we arrive
to a new "collapse", a 1-dimensional "border"
or corner, in reality facing towards a 3rd dimension degree,
a ceiling or a floor.
On a wall everything is uncertain, not defined, as up-down,
left-right until we reach the boundary line to a new dimension
(If this view on wave-functions and collapses
would be sustainable, it should imply, according to the
model here, that the property "Mass" could be
interpreted in terms of "collapses" of vector
5) Polarizations in opposites:
This principle became a fundamental part of quantum physics
through the Stern-Gerlach experiments 1921 (L). They
had expected the electrons to leave the magnets in scattered
directions, but only got UP or DOWN, RIGHT or LEFT. Classical
physics couldn't explain that.
These polarizations in complementary opposites
happen to be the fundamental structuring principle in this
5-dimensional model too, yet not with origin in quantum
physics. As soon as we have a center, we have the same principle
in the opposites "center - anticenter", "outwards
- inwards", with gravitation we have "up and down",
we have negative - positive acceleration, opposite charges,
kernels - shells, backwards - forwards in relative directions
and motions etc.
In this model, or conceptual structure,
different polarization types occur in different d-degrees,
which could agree with the view on wave collapses as d-degree
We could say that polarization is the principle of a "potential",
created by in inner "force" in relation to an
Still, among the first hypotheses in the model here we
have presumed that d-degree steps also represent angle steps
and give different angles between the complementary poles
of the potential. In the experiments referred to the opposition
is 180°, presumed to be the angle in 4th d-degree. In
relation to direction of the magnetic field however, it
seems to be orthogonal or 90°, the presumed angle in
3rd d-degree. (Cf. about E- and M-fields.). And an individual
1-dimensional line in each potential of higher degrees could
be thought of as getting the 180° polarity?
In a dimension chain of this model we have the other kind
of "polarity" too between directions toward higher
d-degrees and direction towards lower ones, outward/inward
the chain as such, including more or less of motions versus
structure. (Inwards higher d-degrees motions could be thought
of as "consumed" and translated into structure
as when atoms absorb radiation.)
We could ask if not some other "dualities"
belong to this kind, one of the opposites representing more
- potential - kinetic energy
- amplitude frequency modulation (as in the nervous
- Heisenberg's opposition between position and motion (velocity,
or "momentum"), impossible to define exactly in
a classical way in the same measurement,
entities that Bohr called complementary,
- the particle-wave duality.
Also the proton-electron relation could be assigned to this
kind, with most of the energy as mass in the proton, most
of the kinetic energy in the electron, about equal to the
proton in energy if that of motion is included, according
The two kinds of polarity should of course be related in
some way. In the original papers a "haploid" form
of the dimension chain is suggested: (as an haploid gamete),
which could be written 0 ↔ 4 ↔ 3 ↔ 2 ↔ 1 ↔ 00.
Perhaps we will return to it. In any case we don't entirely
agree with Bohr's terminology, calling this "duality"
or relation between d-degrees "complementary".
The physicists talk about wave functions - and phases before
they collapse by a measurement in "yes" or "no",
"up" or "down" etc., as "superpositions",
stages which include both possibilities, not as a mixture
of both but in a real sense undecided.
(According to the 5-dimensional model
here they should rather be called "subpositions"
with higher d-degrees underlying lower ones.)
Compare the first criticism of this model
(page Presentation of the model): Where to find in the physical
world the unpolarized d-degrees 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ? It seems
as if we only can identify the poles 4a - 4b, 3a - 3b etc.
Where to find the unpolarized Direction potentially outwards/inwards,
where "Volumes" unpolarized into Matter and Space?
L. says: The true inhabitants in
the quantum world are wave functions which per definition
are inaccessible for us. We could adopt this statement as
an excuse for the difficulty in this model, and as an indication
that the underground of our physical reality is pure geometries
and mathematics. - as in music.
Here we assume that a "superposition"
corresponds to the underlying next higher d-degree.
And L asks: What has become of
the superposition when the wave function collapses? According
to this model the theoretical answer should be: it is to
find in the results (both yeas and no) of the collapse in
the lower d-degree - plus in a new motion moment. (Compare
about Einstein, how a motion of a falling stone can be illustrated
in higher, 2-dimensional degree as a "static"
curve, a structure.) The simplest example could be a spin
0-particle in the experiments, polarized into +/- spin 1/2,
spin here interpreted in terms of motions.
Probably we should allow for real "super"-positions
too, lower d-degrees in relation to higher ones, which can
implode to the underlying deeper level.
Coordinate axes as each others superpositions:
The y-axis is really a super- (or sub-)position, completely
undefined, in relation to the x-axis and its direction towards
plus or minus. And vice versa. With three dimensions there
is a doubled superposition in relation to the two other
(Compare "vertical" versus "horizontal"
personalities and their different aspects on who is above
and who under, - and their different views on "abstraction
levels" as deep down or high up.)
In these experiments of quantum physics we have perhaps
the real "inertia systems" which Einstein couldn't
find in Macrocosm, born from their own origin and independent
of moving, external things?
A superposition which implies that something can be at
two places simultaneously is not unthinkable, L says.
This should mean that an entity c in the figure below could
find itself equally existing in position A and B or virtually
translated to these positions. Here this implies disregarding
a quantum jump, or neglecting the inherent change of the
physicist's viewpoint from one d-degree to another
What causes a quantum jump or collapse of a wave function?
For a 3-dimensional unity a 2-dimensional screen for instance?
L says there is still a matter of dispute which physical
effect brings about that the interference pattern disappears
when detection of a photon is made in the "two slit"-experiments.
A measurement must be "reciprocal
? If something effects the measurement apparatus, some kind
of "recoil" must also effect the measured something.
Force and counter force. (Newton said it!)
A photon, a quantum energy of light, is
depending on the empty space, on E= - mc2, on
its propagation, according to interpretations on page "Electromagnetic
fields". Hence, how detect a photon without disturbing
this intricate interchange and the necessary coherence between
the wave packages from two slits?
7) Bell's theorem and Aspect's experiments:
These experiments are said to show more ultimately the difference
between classical physics and quantum mechanics.
There were two instruments instead of
only one in each path for photons with spin 0, with the
magnetic fields in a certain angle to one another: one way
from A to B, the other from C to D. (The angle in the illustration
of the book of L orthogonal.)
The outcome of the measurements at points
A-C-B-D could only have the values +1 or - 1.
Bell's theorem: (AxB) + (AxC) + (BxC) - (BxD):
This formula could as a maximum get the value +/-2 if no
coupling between different pathways. Aspect's experiment
gave the maximum +/- 2 x √ 2:
Without penetrating the mathematics, could
it be wrong to think of a figure like this below?
2 r is the distance between A and C, B and D respectively.
1 r, (+ or -) the value at A, B, C, D.
+/- 2 x √ 2 becomes according
to quantum physics the maximal value.
With two measurements in each path we
seem to get, or detect, a 2-dimensional system: as a raised
This step seems to confirm the coupling
between the 2 dimensions as potentials between outer "poles",
as the existence of a short cut, defining the d-degree of
surfaces or a 2-dimensional "field".
We could perhaps presume that each new
choice raises the d-degree one step?
(It is said that the experiment is statistical:
only one measurement is possible on each photon. The two
angled magnetic fields in each pathway are (therefore?)
arranged as a choice, a ramification.)
What if one had three magnetic field instruments in each
pathway, angled 3-dimensionally? Could the possible sum
of Bell's theorem increase to π or
so? The shortest line between opposite measurement points
being the orbital as in Einstein's curved space? (Or what
if space was assumed to be hyperbolic: should that explain
something in the results?)
8) "Immediate effects" - and "non-locality":
Physicists within quantum mechanics have big difficulties
with explaining the "immediate effect" one particle
seems to have on the spin or polarization of the other during
such and similar experiments.
The first to notice is that the physicists'
theories and "laws", referred to in descriptions
of experiments, always seem to have such "immediate
effects": they "know" that the emitted particle
has spin zero, or that the value A, B etc. is +/-1, or refer
to the "law" that spin always is preserved. We
don't doubt it, just notice it.
Still more immediate effects has the physicists'
postulates. So has Einstein's postulate about the velocity
of light as the highest possible, That is one severe source
to the trouble.
It's hard to understand the logic behind the "EPR"-argument
for example. (E for Einstein):
Two particles move in opposite directions:
measuring the momentum (or the spin) of one, gives immediate
the value of the other, without measurement, through "derivation".
Hence, it is a real property according to E., without any
uncertainty or collapsing wave-functions. But it is obvious
that "the wave-function" has collapsed in the
physical law about preserved momentum or spin, in the brain
Within the "derivation" through
"laws" about preservation hides the polarization
principle. With this one accepted, we have accepted too,
that one measured particle immediately defines the property
of the other - per definition. ("Laws" as "coherence"
in the conceptual structure.)
And different measurements are only different
ways to look at the created realities.
Vector fields as another aspect on "immediate
Einstein liked the concept vector fields, rather
newly introduced at his time. The concept includes "field
lines" as a kind of 1-dimensional entities. If we accept
this concept, for "potentials" of gravitation,
for electric and magnetic "fields" and others,
why not accept that the "field lines" are connecting
links, just structures - as a road is connecting two towns.
(Cars do not build the road.)
This means that an "immediate effect" can be
1-dimensional - or 2-dimensional etc.
Why should some "influence"
have to "travel" along the link from one particle
to the other ? And why should we have to dispute about in
which direction the influence was moving, according to L.
In which direction goes the road between New York and San
In terms of the 5-dimensional model here
motions are derived from polarizations of 1-dimensional
"lines". Again: Einstein himself pointed at the
fact that we can see the motion of a falling stone in a
higher d-degree as a curve, that is in terms of a structure,
It seems as if the physicists in some
way had cut the Gordian knot and now discuss how the rope's
ends hung together.
The conception in the model presented on other pages here
is that the "quantum jumps" between d-degrees
is so to say "orthogonal" to the d-degree structure
These "jumps" should have nothing
to do with the velocities for ordinary objects in classical
physics in a certain d-degree. Strictly speaking, why should
a d-degree step be restricted by Einstein's postulate about
the velocity of light as maximum? Maybe that a motion, born
through a d-degree step towards lower d-degree, has such
restrictions. That doesn't mean that the step itself follows
any such prohibitions.
To be able to brake the restriction of Einstein's postulate,
there have been discussions among physicists, who want something
to travel, about the possibility of double-directed Time.
We can believe in such possibilities without the need for
them in this context.
The relativity theory seems to imply that
with two events, A and B, A can occur before B for one observer,
B before A for another.
And mathematically, according to L's
statement, light waves going backwards in time are not unthinkable,
because Maxwell's equations are 2-dimensional and symmetric.
Schrödinger's wave function is 1-dimensional
with respect to time, and not symmetric, but some physicists
have the thought to divide it in two parts, one going backwards,
one forwards. (Cf. about force and counterforce above)
Or alternatively (Cramer) see it as one of a pair of equations
traced from a totally relativistic basic equation. (L.)
With Time as an aspect on the relative motions
of bodies, it should be possible to see it as partly only
potential (virtual) in structures of higher d-degrees, as
"built-in" into particles and matter. Rather than
talking about "backward" direction of Time we
should perhaps in the first place talk about "inwards".
(Time is stored inwards in the physicists' minds as memory.)
Inwards, that is defining a center: perhaps
the common source of the two electrons or photons in the
experiments could be interpreted as reestablished in this
sense. And "outwards" be equivalent with from
this center. That would make the concept of "resonance"
between the opposite poles reasonable.
About "resonance": it should be possible, according
to the model here, to see a particle, interpreted as 3-dimensional,
in linear motion as a 4-dimensional system: 3 + 1 = 4: this
implying that the underlying higher d-degree of vector fields
is activated. It shouldn't be necessary then to believe
in some influence "traveling" via the common source
to the counterpole of the particle, if the whole system
The common source and coherence between the pair of particles
is a condition for the quantum effects. And this coherence
should imply a kind of "field" in the source.
Now, a rumor says that empty space has
been recognized as representing some kind of energy, at
least in Macrocosm.(The"negative" one of Dirac
or opposite matter in another sense?). How can we then exclude
as L. does every possibility that the quantum pairs has
any other correlation than their common source?
L insists that we, in spite of all speculations,
need some kind of non-locality, implying an immediate physical
effect between the two quanta in the pairs.
One immediate effect from other contexts
is the change of the value of tangent at 90° between
plus and minus infinity, and tangens represents the derivative
of something, that is a lower d-degree than this something.
Concerning the non-locality, we can simply establish
the fact that a surface is one kind of non-locality in relation
to a point, and so is a line.
To part 2:
9) The particle - wave