Archive for category Cosmology
Fine structure constant α
This is a dimensionless constant, represented with the symbol α (alpha), and it relates together the electric charge, the vacuum permittivity, and the speed of light.
The equation is as follows:
The impedance of free space is Zo = 1/(εoc) = 2αh/e2, with electric constant εo (also called vacuum permittivity), the speed of light in the vacuum c, and the fine structure constant α = e2/(2εohc), with elementary charge e [coulombs], Planck constant h, and c as before. All these are generally considered physical constants, i.e. are fixed values for the universe.
One example of how this relationship may be used is as follows. Given the electric charge, and the vacuum permittivity, then the alpha equation may be used to explain why the speed of light has the value it does. The equation may be rearranged into other equivalent forms.
What is the physical meaning of the fine structure constant?
This is a more difficult question, especially when coupled with the question, Why does alpha take the value it does? This is something of a mystery.
We believe we can answer some parts of this question. In a recent paper of the Cordus theory it has been proposed that both the vacuum permittivity and the speed of light are dependent variables, and situationally specific. It is proposed that εo represents the density of the discrete forces in the fabric, and thus depends on the spatial distribution of mass within the universe. Thus the electric constant is recast as an emergent property of the fabric, and hence of matter.
From this perspective α is a measure of the transmission efficacy of the fabric, i.e. it determines the relationship between the electric constant of the vacuum fabric, and the speed of propagation c through the fabric.
This is consistent with the observation that α appears wherever electrical forces and propagation of fields occur, and this includes cases such as electron bonding.
The reason the speed of light is limited to a certain finite value is explained by this theory as a consequence of the fabric density creating a temporal impedance. Thus denser fabric results in a slower speed of light, and this is consistent with time dilation, and optical refraction generally. In the Cordus theory the speed of light in turn is determined by the density of the fabric discrete forces and is therefore locally consistent and relativistic, but ultimately dependent on the past history of matter density in the locally available universe. Thus the vacuum (fabric) has a finite speed of light, despite an instantaneous communication across the fibril of the particule. This Cordus theory is consistent with the known impedance of free space though comes at it from a novel direction.
The implications are the electric constant of free space is not actually constant, but rather depends on the fabric density, hence on the spatial distribution of matter. The fabric density also determines the speed of light in the situation, and α is the factor that relates the two for this universe. It would appear to be a factor set at genesis of the universe.
Pons, D. J. (2015). Inner process of Photon emission and absorption. Applied Physics Research, 7(4 ), 14-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p24
A solution to the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem
Problem: Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?
A deep question is why the universe has so much matter and so little antimatter. The energy at genesis should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, through the pair-production process, which should have subsequently annihilated. Related questions are, ‘Why is there any matter at all?’ and ‘Where did the antimatter go, or how was it suppressed?’
While it is not impossible that there might be parts of the universe that consist of antimatter, and thereby balance the matter, neither is there any evidence that this is the case. Therefore it is generally accepted that the observed matter universe is more likely a result of an asymmetrical production of matter in the first place. Thus something in the genesis processes is thought to have skewed the production towards matter. But it is very difficult to see how physical processes, which are very even-handed, could have done this.
This is the asymmetrical genesis problem. There are two sub-parts, why there are more electrons than antielectrons around (asymmetrical leptogenesis) and why there are more nucleons (protons and neutron) than their antimatter counterparts (asymmetrical baryogenesis).
Our latest work explores this problem . The full paper is published in the Journal of Modern Physics (link here), and is open access (free download). A brief summary of the findings is given below.
Solution: Remanufacture of antielectrons
The theory we put forward is that the initial genesis process converted energy into equal quantities of matter and antimatter, in the form of electrons and antielectrons (positrons). A second process, which is defined in the theory, converted the antielectrons into the protons. The antimatter component is predicted to be discarded by the production and emission of antineutrinos. Thus the antineutrinos were the waste stream or by-product of the process. Having converted antielectrons into protons, it is easy to explain how neutrons arise, via electron capture or beta plus decay. Thus the production processes are identified for all the building blocks of a matter universe.
Therefore according to this interpretation, the asymmetry of baryogenesis is because the antimatter is hiding in plain sight, having been remanufactured into the protons and neutrons (matter baryons) themselves.
Approach: How was this solution obtained?
To solve the genesis problem, start by abandoning the idea that particles are 0-D points. This is a radical but entirely reasonable departure. Instead, accept that particles of matter are two-ended cord-like structures .
These Cordus particules emit discrete forces, hence discrete fields. The nature of those emissions defines the characteristics of the particule in terms of charge and matter-antimatter species. In turn this defines the particule type: electron, antielectron, proton, etc. This also means that any process that changes the discrete field emission sequence also changes the identity of the particule.
This allows a novel breakthrough approach: we found a way to represent the discrete force structures, and we inferred a set of mechanics that define what transformations are possible under reasonable assumptions of conservation of charge and hand. We calibrated this against the known beta decay processes . We created a calculus to represent these transformation processes: this is called the Cordus HED mechanics. (See paper for details). We call the process RE-MANUFACTURING, as it involves the re-arrangement of the discrete forces including the partitioning of an assembly into multiple particules, and the management of the matter-antimatter species hand (Latin manus: hand). The same HED mechanics is good for explaining other particule transformations like the decays.
Then we used the Cordus HED mechanics to search for possible solutions to the asymmetrical genesis problem. We looked at various options but only found one solution, and this is the one reported in the paper. Thus the HED mechanics predict a production process whereby the antielectron is converted into a proton. The HED mechanics is also very specific in its predictions of the by-products of this process, and this makes it testable and falsifiable.
The antimatter field structure of the antielectron is carried away by the antineutrinos as a waste stream. The antineutrinos have little reactivity, so they escape the scene, leaving the proton behind. This is fortunate since the theory also predicts that the protons would decay back to antielectrons if struck by antielectrons. This would have dissolved the universe even as it formed.
An explanation is provided for why the matter hand prevailed over antimatter during the cosmological start-up process. This is attributed to a dynamic process of domain warfare between the matter and antimatter species, wherein the dominance oscillated and became frozen into the matter production pathway as the universe cooled.
This is an efficient solution since it solves both asymmetrical leptogenesis and asymmetrical baryogenesis.
The genesis production sequence starts with a pair of photons being converted, via pair production, into an electron and antielectron. The Cordus theory explains how . The antielectron remanufacturing processes, described here, convert the antielectron into a proton. The asymmetry in the manufacturing processes arises from domain warfare between the matter-antimatter species, and re-annihilation . Neutrons are formed by electron capture or beta plus decay, for which a Cordus explanation is available . Thus all the components of the atom are accounted for: proton, neutron, and electron. The Cordus theory also explains the strong force, as a synchronization between discrete forces of neighbouring particules , and the structure of the atomic nucleus . The same theory also explains the stability trends and drip lines in the table of nuclides (H-Ne) . This is much more than other theories, and shows the extent to which the Cordus theory is able to radically reconceptualise the genesis process.
This is a radical theory, since it forces one to think deeply and in a fresh way about foundational physics, how matter, energy, time, space, and force arise.
It is also a disruptive theory. First because it predicts that locality fails, and explains how. Locality means that particles are 0-D points and only affected by the fields at that 0-D location. A Cordus particule continuously breaks locality, at least at the small scale. Many physicists have been suspicious about locality, though have been reluctant to let go of it. The Cordus theory requires us to abandon locality.
The Cordus theory also strongly reasserts physical realism, and pushes back against QM’s denial thereof. QM gives weird explanations for double-slit behaviour, interferometer locus problems, superposition, and entanglement. The Cordus theory explains all these from the basis of physical realism, and without all the weirdness. Quantum mechanic’s wave-function is now understood to be merely a stochastic approximation to a deeper and more deterministic reality. That QM gives weird explanations is not because reality is weird, but because QM is only an approximate mechanics for the foundational level. Naturally this is contentious, but such are the debates of science.
Keywords: matter-antimatter asymmetry problem; open questions in physics; baryogenesis; leptogenesis; Sakharov conditions; cosmology; genesis; big bang
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Asymmetrical baryogenesis by remanufacture of antielectrons. Journal of Modern Physics, 2014. 5: p. 1980-1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.517193.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., Pons, A.M., and Pons, A.J., Wave-particle duality: A conceptual solution from the cordus conjecture. Physics Essays, 2012. 25(1): p. 132-140. DOI: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A., D., and Pons, A., J., Beta decays and the inner structures of the neutrino in a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research, 2014. 6(3): p. 50-63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n3p50
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Pair production explained by a NLHV design Vixra, 2014. 1404.0051: p. 1-17. DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0051.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Annihilation mechanisms. Applied Physics Research 2014. 6(2): p. 28-46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n2p28
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Synchronous interlocking of discrete forces: Strong force reconceptualised in a NLHV solution Applied Physics Research, 2013. 5(5): p. 107-126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n5107
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J. Proton-Neutron bonds in nuclides: Cis- and Trans-phasic assembly with the synchronous interaction. vixra, 2013. 1309.0010, 1-26. DOI: http://viXra.org/abs/1309.0010.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Explanation of the Table of Nuclides: Qualitative nuclear mechanics from a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research 2013. 5(6): p. 145-174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p145
The Cordus theory proposes that TIME arises from the de Broglie frequency of individual particules. Here’s how. Each time a particule energises, it becomes available to interact with other particules. The interaction may be via one of the electro-magneto-gravitational forces, or the synchronous (strong) interaction. The interaction occurs via the transmission and receipt of discrete forces. When the particule de-energises, then the interaction no longer applies. The energisation is at the the frequency given by E=h.f. Each time the particule energises it is effectively in existence and able to interact with other matter around it. Consequently the particule only experiences TIME, e.g. the opportunity to move or decay, when in its energised state and emitting and receiving discrete forces. So time flows for for the particule at its frequency.
This also means that anything that CHANGES the frequency of the particule, will change how time flows for the particule. Typical effects that can do this are external, e.g. the particule moves into a stronger gravitational field or moves with relativistic velocity. In these situations it encounters external discrete forces (fabric) faster, and this retards its own emission of discrete forces and hence also slows its frequency, so time flows slower. Hence gravitational and relativistic time dilation can readily be explained. So it is perfectly natural that your feet age slightly slower than your head, since the atoms in the foot are exposed to a sightly greater gravitational field than those in the head (when standing up). The reason this does not rip us apart is that the matter in between is in a discoherent state, and can move to accommodate the strain.
But what about coherent matter?
Coherent matter includes condensed matter (e.g. Bose-Einstein condensates, BECs), superfluids, and superconductors (electron superfluid). The theory explains these as arising from synchronicity of emission of discrete forces by neighbouring particules. Hence this theory refers to the SYNCHRONOUS interaction, which explains the strong force. In coherence, the multiple particules are in complementary geometric locations and frequency states. In other words, the particules, which have two ends, share the location of their reactive ends with those of other particules and thus form paired or network structures.
At suitably small scales all matter becomes INTERNALLY coherent. A typical case is the atomic NUCLEUS, and the theory shows how the nuclides may be explained as a chain of protons and neutrons bonded together synchronously. Hence also NUCLEAR POLYMER. Even the individual proton is internally coherent. However, even though particules and nuclei are internally coherent, this does not mean that large assemblies thereof are coherent. An internally coherent particule can exist with an EXTERNAL environment that is discoherent. Thus matter at our macroscopic level of existence is DISCOHERENT: the metallurgical grains within the steel bar are not synchronised together in their frequency, and the organelles within the biological cell are not locked into frequency and position relative to other structures. Coherence is associated with spatial fixation, whereas discoherent bodies are free to move relative to their environment.
So what does this imply for the operation of TIME IN COHERENT MATTER? Note first that time is determined by frequency in this theory. Note also that in a coherent assembly of matter (‘coherent body’), all the particules are synchronised in frequency.
Thus for a coherent body, e.g. superfluid, the theory predicts that the whole body has one synchronised time frequency (all the particules beat together). Events are therefore synchronised within the coherent body. This is evident in the way these bodies emit synchronised radiation, as partly explains the laser. The theory also predicts that that time (frequency) of a coherent body does not depend on the number of particules in the assembly. As more matter is added, so it synchronises with the existing coherent body. Also, the theory predicts that the phase (‘spin’) of the particules will also be complementary.
Thus we predict that time will behave strangely in coherent bodies. These specific time-characteristics may be testable and falsifiable.
14 October 2014
Read more here:
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., & Pons, A. J. (2013). Synchronous interlocking of discrete forces: Strong force reconceptualised in a NLHV solution Applied Physics Research, 5(5), 107-126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n5107 (Open Access)
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A., D., & Pons, A., J. (2013). Time: An emergent property of matter. Applied Physics Research, 5(6), 23-47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p23 (Open access)
- Pons, D. J., & Pons, A., D. (2013). Outer boundary of the expanding cosmos: Discrete fields and implications for the holographic principle The Open Astronomy Journal, 6, 77-89. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874381101306010077 (Open access)
An explanation of time dilation by analogy with yacht racing
In yacht racing, unlike say motor racing, it is difficult to know which boat is in front when they have taken different paths. Consider the case of two-yachts, e.g. an America’s Cup type event. One boat might look closer to the finish line, but if it is substantially down-wind of the mark then it will be moving slower than another boat upwind but further away. In addition, the boats might move into regions of the water space where the wind is faster (or slower), or coming from a different direction, and this will affect the outcome.
For a spectator, it is very difficult to see which boat is winning, or how the boats are doing against each other when they are on different parts of the water, unless that spectator has a lot of sailing knowledge him/herself. Plus the spectators are invariably far away and low to the water, so have very little ability to perceive the depth of the visual field. All this makes watching yachting a boring spectacle.
To improve the situation Virtual Eye, based in New Zealand, has developed a data acquisition, software, and rendering system to visually show spectators how the race is progressing. This is a neat system as it shows the advantage between the boats, and avoids the need for the spectator to have specialised sailing knowledge…which of course is important in getting the wider public interested in the sport. Here for example is an image showing a red boat ahead of a black one. It would otherwise not be clear which one was leading.
Things start to get more complex when there are multiple boats, all taking very different paths across the water. In this next image, the white boat with the blue line is ahead of the black boat (Oracle). This would have been hard for a land-lubber to determine, as black looks ahead. The larger the physical space between the boats, the harder it is to see which boat is ahead. This also applies to the yachties on board their boats.
By now you will probably be seeing where this discussion is heading. Yachting is done on a 2D course where there are an infinite many loci possible. The boat’s velocity depends on which part of that 2D space it travels through, how fast the wind flows in those spaces, and the relative orientation of boat and wind.
Now replace the flow of the wind with the flow of time, and the time dilation situation emerges. If two space craft were to take different paths through space, going through different regions of gravitational strength and accelerating differently, then it would be difficult to determine from afar which was ahead in time. Hence the Andromeda Paradox.
Time dilation is often illustrated with the idea that ‘you’ stay on Earth and ‘your twin’ goes off in a spacecraft. In which case we are protagonists embedded within the time dilation, and like the yachties on their boats, find it difficult to comprehend our relative progress. Visual Eye’s software looks down on the yacht race from an independent third-party perspective, and worldlines do this for cosmology though not nearly so engagingly.
Time dilation only applies when two (or more) protagonists take different routes through space. One can never be totally sure which protagonist is ahead in time, because you don’t know what future choices they will make regarding the gravitational and acceleration regimes they will be exposed to. It is only when the protagonists are brought back together in the same location that you can see the time difference. In the case of time dilation this will show up as one clock indicating a later time or date, or a biological organism showing greater age. (This part may sound weird, and indeed it is still something of an open question as to how time occurs at the level of fundamental physics. You can just accept that the clocks will show a difference. There are many explanations of time-dilation on the internet. They invariably address the question of what is is and how to formulate it mathematically. The much harder question is how it occurs. If you want the additional mental gymnastics, start by thinking about atomic clocks (i.e. like atomic vibrations), as this feels less weird. Then you can ponder how atomic time scales up to the level of clockwork timepieces. Then explain to yourself how this determines biological time at the cellular level. Finally, work out the implication for yourself as a biological being. It is a interesting and rewarding personal gedanken experiment. The initial weirdness, which arises from the psychological incongruence between what physics and our own senses tell us of the *now*, becomes resolved and one gains an appreciation of time and the nature of the gift. Our own explanation of time is referenced below).
In the case of yachting, this time dilation shows up as one boat ahead of the other, i,e, one boat enters a region of 2D space before the second boat enters the same space. So whatever has happened before on the water, when the boats come together, heading in the same direction, then it is apparent who is in front, as the image shows. The finish line is one such 2D space, and the most important one. But there are also others where the precedence becomes visible, e.g. going around marker buoys.
So the outcomes of time dilation only become clearly evident when the protagonists are brought back to a common location in space. At this point the ambiguity of which one is ahead collapses. The Andromeda-type paradoxes exploit this ambiguity, but the ambiguity only exists when the protagonists are far away in space – bring them together again and the paradox collapses. Just like in yachting, all the ambiguity during the race collapses at the finish line: both boats have to cross the same region of 2D space, and the first one there is the winner.
- Virtual Eye software http://virtualeye.tv/index.php/the-sports/virtual-eye-sailing
- World-lines (physics and cosmology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A., D., and Pons, A., J., Time: An emergent property of matter. Applied Physics Research, 2013. 5(6): p. 23-47.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p23
PS: If you don’t like wet, then alternatively, time dilation is like hiking up a mountain where there are no paths and each hiker takes his/her own route. Some paths might look like a more direct route to the summit, but if they are steeper then progress may be slower. This is actually what I was thinking of first since I was hiking at the time and realised that hiking was just like yachting, and then realised both were like time dilation.
Dirk Pons 23 April 2014
Most of the developments of the Cordus theory have focussed on fundamental physics, e.g. the proposed inner structure of the fundamental particles and that of the nuclides (isotopes). However the theory also has cosmological implications. We have explored some of these in the theory for time, and that of the cosmological frontier (the outer edge of the universe).
These start to raise some interesting philosophical questions. In particular, the implications for free-will. In this post I explore some of these, starting at the cosmological level.
The explicit implication of the conventional idea of the cosmological horizon is that the inner universe of 3D matter could be controlled from outside, by an intelligent Agent that could access the outer 2D horizon. This philosophically thought-provoking idea has significant existential implications for reality. The Cordus theory rejects this as a fanciful notion, for the following reasons.
First, the Agent would need to control the whole entire horizon simultaneously (as opposed to only one patch). This task is physically infeasible, given the size of the universe, and the necessary coordinated control would need to be instantaneous to have any useful control purpose. This excludes any physical Agent.
Second, a physical Agent is further excluded because such an Agent, positioned around the cosmological boundary, would therefore become part of the process whereby the vacuum of the universe colonises the wider void. (The Cordus theory proposes that time is created by the existence of matter, and therefore time does not exist outside the cosmological horizon). Thus a matter-based Agent would create time and therefore become part of the universe being measured and controlled, and the unidirectional causality could not be maintained. It is therefore not possible, according to the Cordus theory, to have an independent physical Agent, observer, or even inanimate instrumentation, at the boundary. The Cordus theory shows that the act of observation changes the system, i.e. observation is necessarily contextual. This applies to photons in double-slit and interferometer apparatus. In the case of the cosmological boundary there is a similar principle, except here the addition of the Agent adds to the system under observation.
The third objection is that there is, according to the Cordus theory, no bidirectional causality between the 2D surface and the inner 3D volume anyway. Even if there was a non-physical (metaphysical) Agent at the boundary, one nonetheless able to meddle with the discrete forces protruding from the expanding universe, such a frontier interaction would do nothing to change the emitting particule way back in the depths of the universe. This interpretation arises because the Cordus theory suggests that discrete fields are unilateral interactions with mono-directional causality: they are not conduits for bi-directional force transfer. Consequently, the discrete field pulses that are received at any inspection point remote from the emitting body are a force on any matter at that inspection point, and have no reciprocal effect back on the emitting body.
The only way for an Agent on the boundary to change the particules inside the universe is for the Agent to emit its own discrete fields back into the universe to target those particules. However this would require a physical agent (which we already exclude) to generate the discrete fields. This is because discrete fields are a feature of matter, and do not have an independent pre-existence. There is a further obstacle too: even if it were somehow possible to generate discrete fields without matter, these would take time to arrive at their target within the universe, thereby adding a practical limitation to the efficacy of the control.
So there are three objections to the holographic control idea, the most fundamental of which is that simply intercepting the discrete fields of the original emitting particule is insufficient for controlling that particule. The universe can therefore not be controlled from its boundary, under this theory. The Cordus theory excludes the possibility of placing a physical Agent at the boundary of the universe, and of such an Agent having any practical way to control the universe from the outside. The control aspects of the holographic principle are therefore rejected.
We have not excluded the possibility that a metaphysical Being or Deity may be able to achieve this level of control, but even this seems unlikely for two reasons. One, it is unclear how a metaphysical Being could create or interfere with the discrete forces protruding from the frontier. More importantly, such manipulation would take ages to propagate back to their target in the physical universe, so the control effect would lack immediacy.
So the conclusion we reach, is that the Cordus theory rejects the idea that free-will may be compromised on a grand scale by an Agent controlling the whole universe from its outer surface. We have not proved that free-will exists, but simply shown that the cosmological frontier is not relevant to consideration of free-will under this theory.
[This post has looked at the cosmological scale at its widest, just for the fun of it. I would like to come back to this in future work, by starting at the opposite end of the scale, by examining the implications of this theory for determinism at the fundamental level. ]
Read the full paper (open access) here:
Pons DJ, Pons A, D. (2013) Outer boundary of the expanding cosmos: Discrete fields and implications for the holographic principle The Open Astronomy Journal 6:77-89. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874381101306010077
 The idea that forces like gravitation are bidirectional is a tacit assumption in classical mechanics. The relation for gravitation, F = G ma mb /r2 specifically identifies that the force depends on both masses, not one. The Cordus theory accepts this at the macroscopic level, but suggests that the effect is not a bidirectional force conduit between the two masses, but rather two independent effects that are aggregated. More specifically, that discrete fields emitted from source A cause their recipient target B to experience prescribed constraints on the re-energisation location of its reactive ends, and this is what we perceive as force. The recipient body B also sends out its own discrete fields, some of which are intercepted by A, and the mutual attraction/repulsion of the EMG forces arises by a combination of the individual unilateral effects. Simple passive access of field information does not necessitate control of the emitting source, according to the Cordus theory.
A New Scientist article ‘Why space has exactly three dimensions’ by Matthew Chalmers raises the ontological question of why 3-D, as opposed to something else. The article goes on to show that mathematical representations of quantum mechanics work best with three.
Our own Cordus work also provides circumstantial evidence for space having three dimensions. This arises from the requirement for particules to emit discrete forces in three directions.
Our response to the article follows:
Coming at it from a completely different direction, namely applying the design method to a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution, we also find things work out when there are three dimensions to space. In this case explaining string theory is not a big problem, because it happens that we need about the same number of internal variables to define the NLHV design, as are needed in string theory (http://vixra.org/abs/1204.0047). Entanglement and wave-particle duality are readily explained (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132). Obtaining unification of the electro-magneto-gravitational-strong interactions is also conceptually achievable with NLHV solutions (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n5107). As a plus, it also gives a theory for time, and thereby addresses not only space but spacetime too (accepted, preprint http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0074). (Spoiler: time becomes an emergent property of matter in this theory).
I wouldn’t claim we have really addressed the deeper ontological question of why three dimensions. But we can at least show that three gives a robust and coherent NLHV solution that explains many difficult areas in fundamental physics. See Cordus on vixra for details.
One of the long-standing philosophical questions is whether there is a reality to what humans experience. One of the famously controversial ways to looking at this is the holographic principle, which proposes that everything we experience in 3D is merely a holographic projection of 2D information on the outside surface of the universe.
That raises a second question, which is how my experience of reality is connected and coordinated with yours. This introduces time into the problem. Special relativity (SR) has a principle, in the form of the relativity of simultaneity, that says that the order in time of two spatially separate events cannot be determined absolutely, but instead depends on the motion of the observer. Thus it is impossible to order two events in time if they occur in different places (hence difference frames of reference).
In our Cordus theory of time, we examine some of these questions. We look at the question of how multiple bodies interact, and how the coordination arises. We have already identified that there is no master clock, but if that is lacking then we still need a coordination mechanism. There is a connectedness of phenomena that are at different geometric locations. It seems that spacetime is continuous, because it seems that it is possible to coordinate the two phenomena in time. We show that the two phenomena are linked, because they share the same fabric.
According to this new perspective, any communication between two objects is a result of photons, or massy particules, or fields, and these cause positional constraints on the other, i.e. the geometric location of the reactive end is affected by the communication. A phenomenon that occurs in one volume of matter, be that combustion, noise, motion, etc, thereby communicates that to other matter around it. Consider one volume to be my body: my speaking transmits forces to the volume of air immediately around me, which in turn propagates the dynamic displacement throughout its bulk, so that the membrane in your ear is displaced, and you hear the sound.
In general the phenomenon is that one volume of matter causes an effect in the second. The interactions at the most basic level all require frequency cycles, so this causes temporal causality. Thus we infer:
It is not a master clock that accomplishes the temporal connectedness of phenomena that are at different geometric locations, nor does it require continuity of spacetime per se. The piece-wise communication, via discrete field interactions of the fabric, between adjacent volumes of space (matter and fabric) applies spatial consistency to time.
Any one particule A receives discrete forces (fields) from all the particules (many Bs) in the observable universe. Space within the universe is therefore filled with a mesh of discrete fields in transit, which in the Cordus theory is termed the fabric.
Fabric time is the mutual interconnectedness of matter particules spread over three-dimensional space. This occurs via the fabric, comprising discrete field forces for electric-magnetic-gravitational interaction. Not strictly a time, this is rather a coordination of events across space.
In this theory the fabric, and the EMG fields it carries, causes a connectedness between particules. They respond together, even if in a slightly delayed manner as their separation increases. There is therefore a coherence and smoothness to the interaction between particules, mediated by the fabric. The resulting interaction stitches together three-dimensional domains of space (matter and vacuum-fabric) into a macroscopic collated time. This level of time passes more slowly, due to the many tiny delays required for particules to react to each other, given the dissimilar-frequency and phase-differences between the particules. This, Cordus suggests, is where the arrow-of-time arises, and what general relativity perceives as spacetime. This is also the macroscopic level of physical time, and hence where our perception of time first arises.
This Cordus concept of 3D fabric affirms the general relativity perspective of spacetime. It also provides an ontological answer to one of the earlier questions: it suggests that spacetime has a quasi-substantial status (comprises discrete force) but has no universal time-signature per se, and mainly represents merely the relationships between bodies.
Read more about the Cordus time theory here:
Pons, D.J. (2013) What really is time? A multiple-level ontological theory for time as a property of matter. vixra, 1-40 DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0074.