During our first message, we explored what could be the roads to access the mathematical and physical 4D reality. We talked about the real numbers which appear like the thinnest numbers, sticking to 3D reality and we questioned the validity of our construction of the real numbers.
However, the positive real numbers seem to be what we need to mathematically describe the outer measures of 3D reality. On the other hand, we do not "really" know what the negative real numbers correspond to. Even if those that we use spatially appear as coming from the way in which we locate ourselves abstractly in space compared to a random origin of spatial reference represented by the number 0. This does NOT inform us, IN ANY WAY, about the underlying reality associated with negative real numbers.
We can then go further and ask ourselves about the reality underlying the imaginary number i: its "discovery" was initiated following the study of certain equations (known as algebraic) which reveal square roots of negative numbers. It then appeared that if we put i²=-1 in its negative square roots, we were thus reduced to calculations that we knew how to do and we could find solutions to equations that we would not have found otherwise.
But here we are, we don't know what this imaginary number i corresponds to spatially or concretely: let's just ask ourselves the question spatially, as it is true that all our scientific reflections are based in math and physics on the concept of space. What makes us so interested in this number is the fact that its introduction into the context of math and physics has resulted in conceptual revolutions.
Indeed, it appears:
The following questions then arise:
Hope you will enjoy,
With Love and Light,
Eric
However, the positive real numbers seem to be what we need to mathematically describe the outer measures of 3D reality. On the other hand, we do not "really" know what the negative real numbers correspond to. Even if those that we use spatially appear as coming from the way in which we locate ourselves abstractly in space compared to a random origin of spatial reference represented by the number 0. This does NOT inform us, IN ANY WAY, about the underlying reality associated with negative real numbers.
We can then go further and ask ourselves about the reality underlying the imaginary number i: its "discovery" was initiated following the study of certain equations (known as algebraic) which reveal square roots of negative numbers. It then appeared that if we put i²=-1 in its negative square roots, we were thus reduced to calculations that we knew how to do and we could find solutions to equations that we would not have found otherwise.
But here we are, we don't know what this imaginary number i corresponds to spatially or concretely: let's just ask ourselves the question spatially, as it is true that all our scientific reflections are based in math and physics on the concept of space. What makes us so interested in this number is the fact that its introduction into the context of math and physics has resulted in conceptual revolutions.
Indeed, it appears:
- In mathematics by obtaining the 1st closed field C (any equation in this field admits roots), which is not the case with the real field R
- in electromagnetism to describe the (so-called circular) sine and cosine functions
- in relativity, linked to the concept of time as the seemingly 4th dimension of space
- in quantum mechanics, linked to Planck's constant as a parameter revealing the disappearance of commutativity (ab is no longer equal to ba)
- the effects of Quantum Mechanics are inherent in the imaginary number i (in other words, no Quantum Mechanics if we stay within the framework of real numbers : M. O. Renou et al., Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified, Nature, 2021)
The following questions then arise:
- Is the way we interpreted the reality of the number i correct? Our mathematical and geometric interpretation of the number i is only a very weak glimpse of its true reality?
- To understand the underlying reality of the number i is necessary to understand the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space and, thus, to access the Unified Field?
- Is the reality underlying the number i a frequency characterizing the 4th "dimension" of space (since we know from Arkie that the 4th “dimension” is a frequency), the one that takes us out of space?
- Is the reality underlying quantum entanglement (the non-separability of space, of things)due to the deep nature of the number i?
- If the imaginary number i is associated with the 4th "dimension" of space, this means that it’s of a particular nature because it then apprehends the outside (positive numbers) and the inside (negative numbers?) at the same time. time ? Can we say that it’s of dual nature or such that it manages, at the same time, the numbers + and -?
- Could 0 be the 3D image we have of the number i? Which would mean that, in 3D, we are not aware of the 4th “dimension” of space, hence our frozen vision of 3D reality, in which we are locked.
- Does getting the true nature of the imaginary number i amount to considering the circle as an indivisible unit? Is the rotational movement on oneself our way of apprehending, from 3D, the 4D inherent continuity? Does this allow us to get the true nature of electromagnetism by realizing the deep nature of magnetism?
- Was Euler, Riemann or Maxwell aware of the true nature of the imaginary number i?
- What is the link between the imaginary number i and prime numbers?
- Has the Riemann Hypothesis (1859) been demonstrated? If so, has Atyah demonstrated it? Did Riemann know how to demonstrate it?
- Can the derivation of the geometric and algebraic expressions of the fine structure constant α, of which Armand Wyler speaks, be demonstrated as a simple corollary of the demonstration of the Riemann Hypothesis as Atyah said?
- Is Quantum Mechanics as we understand it just a tiny glimpse of the Unified Field? In other words, my feeling is that Quantum Mechanics becomes variable in 4D? Everything then becomes possible or open (what Einstein had discovered, Cs session - December 26, 1998)
- Is there something in quaternions that we are not aware of (I was going to say necessarily since our vision of the used number i is so reductive)?
Hope you will enjoy,
With Love and Light,
Eric