## The Dimensions Are Wrong

7th October 2016

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The Dimensions Are Wrong.

Until you realise the Dimensions Are Wrong you will not be able to unify the classical macroscopic world with the quantum world.

The macroscopic world is simplified by our minds such that we can abstractly look at each dimension separately, and then believe that each dimension exists either on its own or in conjunction with other dimensions to create our reality. We do this with mathematics where a line exists in an abstract form and we then believe there is a real line that exists in the real world. No real line exists in our real world, a line is a projection of simplicity in our minds and does not exist as a physical thing (as a one dimensional object on its own).

We say we can travel in a straight line (or even a curved line) in one dimension, but the line itself does not exist. We even see with our eyes what appears to be straight lines, but they too are not real straight lines as they are represented mathematically. A real mathematical straight line (one dimension) would need to be continuous from one end to the other with no gaps or indentations, this is never so in the real world, it is only so in our perception of the line (at the macroscopic scale). Anyone can prove this just by magnifying any apparent line (sufficiently) and they will see the line is not continuous, I.e. They will see lumpy surfaces, molecules, or atoms.

Even a surface (2 dimensional) never exists in our real world, (it would need to be a continuous sheet with no holes in it), again it is an oversimplification, the proof again is in the magnification or the scale (I.e. You would see molecules or atoms with holes or spaces in between).

The third dimension also does not exist on its own in our reality (to make a 3 dimensional object).

This is a bit more difficult to understand, but you can think of objects existing in 3 dimensions.

To fully understand this it is necessary to solve the riddle "What would happen if an immovable object met an unstoppable force", there is only one sensible logical answer to this if you use "Simplified Complex Logic".

When you solve the above you will realise you need time! Therefore you would need at least 4 dimensions, but this again is an oversimplification, and you really need at least another dimension to see anything real in our world at small scales.

Before we get too bogged down let me give an analogy.

Imagine you want to make a real cake.

You can not measure any ingredients using dimensions less than that required to make a real cake. E.g you can not measure 2 inches of flour (one dimensional ingredients) or 10 square cm of butter (2 dimensional ingredients). You would appear at first to need 3 dimensional ingredients I.e. Certain volumes of flour or butter (but in our oversimplifying things we convert these volumes to different units by weight or mass, so we say 1 kg of flour or 250 grams of butter). These units of mass are in themselves not real objects (they are dimensionless) but real objects represent these abstract mass units.

Without going any further you should realise that all things have a volume (I.e. The ingredients that make the cake and the final cake as well), but these volumes are not equal abstract volumes that can simply be added together.

If you add the volumes of the ingredients of the cake it does not equal the volume of the finished cake!

If the 3 dimensional objects (ingredients) were as the abstract mathematical 3 dimensions then the sum of the volumes (ingredients) would always equal the total volume (of the cake).

In other words the 3 dimensional ingredients (volumes) are not continuous as was the case in the line or the surface, I.e. it has holes in it, and is not like the abstract 3 dimensions of the simplified abstract mathematics.

So what is missing?

Well apart from time (which is required to mix the ingredients to make the cake) there is this missing dimension which has to account for the holes in the volumes of the ingredients.

This apparent dilemma can be simply solved (again an oversimplification) by just adding density to the volume. You could simply say that something that is less dense has more holes (space) in it, and something more dense has less space in it.

So in the example of the cake the sum of the volumes of the ingredients (varying densities would average out) so the final volume would be the same overall mass but the space in the final mix could be different, giving the final volume not equal to the sum of the volumes of the ingredients (even before the cake is baked). The final volume can still change when baked by adding more space (holes) to the cake.

All the above can make perfect sense when you realise the real dimensions of space (including all the dimensions of time) such that everything is made of complex volumes (with all their dimensions) and that these space units are not only quantised but also dynamic.

It is the interaction of these complex volumes that create what we would call virtual particles, energy, waves, particles, fields, Gravity, and everything else that we perceive.

This quantised entity I call the APE, it is its own opposite (apes can mimic anything).

7th December 2016.

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Quantum fluctuations (or perceived vacuum energy) is just the ignorance of the structure of the space itself and its interactions with its self such that it creates temporarily new structures that have different characteristics and manifest as different forms of energy.

Things are Not created from Nothing, they are created by ignorance of the defined 'Nothing'.

It is and always was there to start with, it is just the structure that changes, that creates different types and amounts of energy and different types and amounts of matter.

These different quantities and qualities of energy/matter create the universe as we see it over our perceived time (but 'Real' time is built into the space structures themselves).

24th May 2017

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Let me see if I can explain it slightly differently.

What we see is the light that is reflected from the objects in our real world, processed through our eyes to our mind. Our mind then recreates this world outside of us, inside our brain.

We see what we think is 3 dimensional space, but if we could not move, we would not be able to measure the distance of any object outside of our reach. It would look like a 3D image projected onto a 2D screen.

Now image you see 2 trees far away.

What is the distance between the 2 trees?

If you had a ruler and placed it in front of you, it may measure 1" between the trees.

This is similar to drawing the scene on a piece of paper and measuring the trees on the paper, they would be 1" apart. Although it looks like 3D space, it is in fact only a 2D space.

[There is more space in a 3D space than in a 3D projection in 2D space].

You can not put your hand into the picture (3D space) and measure any distance inside of the scene. You can only measure the space in 2D even though it looks 3D.

You would have no real experience of 3D space, and you would believe that the distance between the trees was 1". You could not measure the real distance in 3D space.

Now imagine you can move in what you think you see in 3D. (As we all do).

What is the distance between the 2 trees?

You would go closer to the trees and maybe they measure 10' apart. It is not the same distance as before. It is the 3D space you have measured, because you moved in this 3D space.

Now what if what you see and experience is a 4D projection in a 3D space?

In other words it is similar to the 3D projection in 2D space. You would not know what 4D space was really like. You would believe that the distance between the trees was 10', similar to the 1" belief in 2D.

You could not measure the real 4D distance, unless you could move into 4D space.

[There is more space in a 4D space than in a 4D projection in a 3D space].

If I tell you that you only see 3D but you live in 4D, (I am deliberately excluding the dimensions of time), and you experience 4D but not with your eyes.

Now what is the distance between the 2 trees in 4D space?

Well you can't answer this question unless I tell you what 4D space is, and how you can measure it.

If you remember what I mentioned earlier the missing 5th Dimension was the density of space itself. I called it the 5th dimension because the 4th dimension is normally considered to be time.

Now the 4D space is in fact the missing 5th dimension as stated.

In other words 2D space is less dense than 3D space (because there is more space in 3D than 2D), and 3D space is less dense than 4D space (because there is more space in 4D than 3D).

A 4D space is a 3D space with more space in it. The more space in a 3D space the denser it gets.

If you make the mental leap that 'Real' space is not a vacuum and consists of something, then it becomes easy to see that the denser an object is the more space that it contains.

As we measure density as something that has more mass in a given volume of space, it also becomes obvious that matter is just condensed space in a 3D projection.

Now what is the distance between things in 4D?

You have to be consistent with what you are measuring. Think of 'Real' space as a medium of varying volumes, each with different densities. To get the distance in 4D you have to use the same density of space throughout your measurement.

In the 3D projection in 2D space, you have to stretch the 2D into the 3D space to get the 3D distance, so all measurements have the same scale. So to get the 4D distance you have to stretch the 3D space into the 4D space, so that all the scales are the same aswell.

There are different ways to measure it, but let us use light as our measuring stick. We say light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Let us pretend that the vacuum of space is the least dense space.

When light hits our atmosphere it slows down, but what if it only looks like it has slowed down from our perspective, but in fact it kept travelling at the same speed through space. You would have to conclude that it is travelling through a denser space, in other words it is traversing the same amount of space of the same density. This is similar to the ant problem I mentioned in another Tea Break Book.

Imagine an ant running across a piece of flat paper at a constant speed at a distance from left to right. It then crosses onto a pleated sheet of paper, and keeps running at the same speed, then goes back to another flat piece of paper.

What do you observe if you could not see the paper and the ant was slightly blurred?

What you would observe is the ant moving from left to right at a certain speed, then appear to slow down (while crossing the section with the pleats), then speed up again as it went back to the flat piece.

As far as the ant was concerned it never changed speed, it covered the same amount of ground in the same time period throughout its run. (It becomes obvious if you flattened the pleated sheet, you would see it appear to run farther). The light is doing the same thing, it is covering the same amount of space in the same time period, but from your perspective you do not notice that there is more space in a denser material (I.e. Space is contracted or condensed in a more dense medium).

You can see this when light travels through a prism (glass). It changes direction if it enters the glass at an angle, because one side of the light photon hits the glass first and therefore the light appears to slow down on that side, turning the photon towards the glass. The light then travels straight through the glass and exits again on the same side of the photon that appeared to slow down, this time as it exits first it appears to speed up, turning the photon towards the glass at the same angle that it entered. It then travels again in the same direction before it entered. The refractive index (the amount of refraction) in a material also depends on any interaction of the photon with the material. But in essence the light does not change its speed at the lowest level, it covers the same amount of space (the 4D space).

This is also how the Universe can expand from our perspective, but it is the same 4D space unraveling.

No new space is being created. I explain the Big Bang, Big Crunch in another Tea Break Book, where matter and energy interact, but no new space (4D) is ever created nor destroyed.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The Dimensions Are Wrong.

Until you realise the Dimensions Are Wrong you will not be able to unify the classical macroscopic world with the quantum world.

The macroscopic world is simplified by our minds such that we can abstractly look at each dimension separately, and then believe that each dimension exists either on its own or in conjunction with other dimensions to create our reality. We do this with mathematics where a line exists in an abstract form and we then believe there is a real line that exists in the real world. No real line exists in our real world, a line is a projection of simplicity in our minds and does not exist as a physical thing (as a one dimensional object on its own).

We say we can travel in a straight line (or even a curved line) in one dimension, but the line itself does not exist. We even see with our eyes what appears to be straight lines, but they too are not real straight lines as they are represented mathematically. A real mathematical straight line (one dimension) would need to be continuous from one end to the other with no gaps or indentations, this is never so in the real world, it is only so in our perception of the line (at the macroscopic scale). Anyone can prove this just by magnifying any apparent line (sufficiently) and they will see the line is not continuous, I.e. They will see lumpy surfaces, molecules, or atoms.

Even a surface (2 dimensional) never exists in our real world, (it would need to be a continuous sheet with no holes in it), again it is an oversimplification, the proof again is in the magnification or the scale (I.e. You would see molecules or atoms with holes or spaces in between).

The third dimension also does not exist on its own in our reality (to make a 3 dimensional object).

This is a bit more difficult to understand, but you can think of objects existing in 3 dimensions.

To fully understand this it is necessary to solve the riddle "What would happen if an immovable object met an unstoppable force", there is only one sensible logical answer to this if you use "Simplified Complex Logic".

When you solve the above you will realise you need time! Therefore you would need at least 4 dimensions, but this again is an oversimplification, and you really need at least another dimension to see anything real in our world at small scales.

Before we get too bogged down let me give an analogy.

Imagine you want to make a real cake.

You can not measure any ingredients using dimensions less than that required to make a real cake. E.g you can not measure 2 inches of flour (one dimensional ingredients) or 10 square cm of butter (2 dimensional ingredients). You would appear at first to need 3 dimensional ingredients I.e. Certain volumes of flour or butter (but in our oversimplifying things we convert these volumes to different units by weight or mass, so we say 1 kg of flour or 250 grams of butter). These units of mass are in themselves not real objects (they are dimensionless) but real objects represent these abstract mass units.

Without going any further you should realise that all things have a volume (I.e. The ingredients that make the cake and the final cake as well), but these volumes are not equal abstract volumes that can simply be added together.

If you add the volumes of the ingredients of the cake it does not equal the volume of the finished cake!

If the 3 dimensional objects (ingredients) were as the abstract mathematical 3 dimensions then the sum of the volumes (ingredients) would always equal the total volume (of the cake).

In other words the 3 dimensional ingredients (volumes) are not continuous as was the case in the line or the surface, I.e. it has holes in it, and is not like the abstract 3 dimensions of the simplified abstract mathematics.

So what is missing?

Well apart from time (which is required to mix the ingredients to make the cake) there is this missing dimension which has to account for the holes in the volumes of the ingredients.

This apparent dilemma can be simply solved (again an oversimplification) by just adding density to the volume. You could simply say that something that is less dense has more holes (space) in it, and something more dense has less space in it.

So in the example of the cake the sum of the volumes of the ingredients (varying densities would average out) so the final volume would be the same overall mass but the space in the final mix could be different, giving the final volume not equal to the sum of the volumes of the ingredients (even before the cake is baked). The final volume can still change when baked by adding more space (holes) to the cake.

All the above can make perfect sense when you realise the real dimensions of space (including all the dimensions of time) such that everything is made of complex volumes (with all their dimensions) and that these space units are not only quantised but also dynamic.

It is the interaction of these complex volumes that create what we would call virtual particles, energy, waves, particles, fields, Gravity, and everything else that we perceive.

This quantised entity I call the APE, it is its own opposite (apes can mimic anything).

7th December 2016.

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Quantum fluctuations (or perceived vacuum energy) is just the ignorance of the structure of the space itself and its interactions with its self such that it creates temporarily new structures that have different characteristics and manifest as different forms of energy.

Things are Not created from Nothing, they are created by ignorance of the defined 'Nothing'.

It is and always was there to start with, it is just the structure that changes, that creates different types and amounts of energy and different types and amounts of matter.

These different quantities and qualities of energy/matter create the universe as we see it over our perceived time (but 'Real' time is built into the space structures themselves).

24th May 2017

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Let me see if I can explain it slightly differently.

What we see is the light that is reflected from the objects in our real world, processed through our eyes to our mind. Our mind then recreates this world outside of us, inside our brain.

We see what we think is 3 dimensional space, but if we could not move, we would not be able to measure the distance of any object outside of our reach. It would look like a 3D image projected onto a 2D screen.

Now image you see 2 trees far away.

What is the distance between the 2 trees?

If you had a ruler and placed it in front of you, it may measure 1" between the trees.

This is similar to drawing the scene on a piece of paper and measuring the trees on the paper, they would be 1" apart. Although it looks like 3D space, it is in fact only a 2D space.

[There is more space in a 3D space than in a 3D projection in 2D space].

You can not put your hand into the picture (3D space) and measure any distance inside of the scene. You can only measure the space in 2D even though it looks 3D.

You would have no real experience of 3D space, and you would believe that the distance between the trees was 1". You could not measure the real distance in 3D space.

Now imagine you can move in what you think you see in 3D. (As we all do).

What is the distance between the 2 trees?

You would go closer to the trees and maybe they measure 10' apart. It is not the same distance as before. It is the 3D space you have measured, because you moved in this 3D space.

Now what if what you see and experience is a 4D projection in a 3D space?

In other words it is similar to the 3D projection in 2D space. You would not know what 4D space was really like. You would believe that the distance between the trees was 10', similar to the 1" belief in 2D.

You could not measure the real 4D distance, unless you could move into 4D space.

[There is more space in a 4D space than in a 4D projection in a 3D space].

If I tell you that you only see 3D but you live in 4D, (I am deliberately excluding the dimensions of time), and you experience 4D but not with your eyes.

Now what is the distance between the 2 trees in 4D space?

Well you can't answer this question unless I tell you what 4D space is, and how you can measure it.

If you remember what I mentioned earlier the missing 5th Dimension was the density of space itself. I called it the 5th dimension because the 4th dimension is normally considered to be time.

Now the 4D space is in fact the missing 5th dimension as stated.

In other words 2D space is less dense than 3D space (because there is more space in 3D than 2D), and 3D space is less dense than 4D space (because there is more space in 4D than 3D).

A 4D space is a 3D space with more space in it. The more space in a 3D space the denser it gets.

If you make the mental leap that 'Real' space is not a vacuum and consists of something, then it becomes easy to see that the denser an object is the more space that it contains.

As we measure density as something that has more mass in a given volume of space, it also becomes obvious that matter is just condensed space in a 3D projection.

Now what is the distance between things in 4D?

You have to be consistent with what you are measuring. Think of 'Real' space as a medium of varying volumes, each with different densities. To get the distance in 4D you have to use the same density of space throughout your measurement.

In the 3D projection in 2D space, you have to stretch the 2D into the 3D space to get the 3D distance, so all measurements have the same scale. So to get the 4D distance you have to stretch the 3D space into the 4D space, so that all the scales are the same aswell.

There are different ways to measure it, but let us use light as our measuring stick. We say light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Let us pretend that the vacuum of space is the least dense space.

When light hits our atmosphere it slows down, but what if it only looks like it has slowed down from our perspective, but in fact it kept travelling at the same speed through space. You would have to conclude that it is travelling through a denser space, in other words it is traversing the same amount of space of the same density. This is similar to the ant problem I mentioned in another Tea Break Book.

Imagine an ant running across a piece of flat paper at a constant speed at a distance from left to right. It then crosses onto a pleated sheet of paper, and keeps running at the same speed, then goes back to another flat piece of paper.

What do you observe if you could not see the paper and the ant was slightly blurred?

What you would observe is the ant moving from left to right at a certain speed, then appear to slow down (while crossing the section with the pleats), then speed up again as it went back to the flat piece.

As far as the ant was concerned it never changed speed, it covered the same amount of ground in the same time period throughout its run. (It becomes obvious if you flattened the pleated sheet, you would see it appear to run farther). The light is doing the same thing, it is covering the same amount of space in the same time period, but from your perspective you do not notice that there is more space in a denser material (I.e. Space is contracted or condensed in a more dense medium).

You can see this when light travels through a prism (glass). It changes direction if it enters the glass at an angle, because one side of the light photon hits the glass first and therefore the light appears to slow down on that side, turning the photon towards the glass. The light then travels straight through the glass and exits again on the same side of the photon that appeared to slow down, this time as it exits first it appears to speed up, turning the photon towards the glass at the same angle that it entered. It then travels again in the same direction before it entered. The refractive index (the amount of refraction) in a material also depends on any interaction of the photon with the material. But in essence the light does not change its speed at the lowest level, it covers the same amount of space (the 4D space).

This is also how the Universe can expand from our perspective, but it is the same 4D space unraveling.

No new space is being created. I explain the Big Bang, Big Crunch in another Tea Break Book, where matter and energy interact, but no new space (4D) is ever created nor destroyed.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés