The way to the Unified Field - 2

[EricLux]

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:

• 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)

Thus, it clearly appears that the use of this imaginary number i is the vector of our greatest discoveries in mathematics and physics while we still do not know what is the reality underlying this number.

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)?

This is a list of questions tending to demonstrate that what we are looking for in front (modern theories) can be found behind (the basis of our mathematical and physical concepts): the answers to our current scientific questions are found in our way of apprehending our environment.

Hope you will enjoy,
With Love and Light,
Eric

 

[Bastian]

Same remark as in the other twin thread.

Thus, it clearly appears that the use of this imaginary number i is the vector of our greatest discoveries in mathematics and physics while we still do not know what is the reality underlying this number.

I beg your pardon, but what do you mean ?!?
NB: Numbers are abstract concepts, they have no (material) reality by themself !
Maths are used in physics to express relations between some "realistic" concepts.

From my PoV, you use maths/physics concepts that you do not really understand.
I would suggest you to follow some introduction college-level courses in maths and physics, before trying such questions.

 

[EricLux]

Same remark as in the other twin thread.

I beg your pardon, but what do you mean ?!?
NB: Numbers are abstract concepts, they have no (material) reality by themself !
Maths are used in physics to express relations between some "realistic" concepts.

From my PoV, you use maths/physics concepts that you do not really understand.
I would suggest you to follow some introduction college-level courses in maths and physics, before trying such questions.

Il est toujours intéressant de recevoir des messages de bienveillance, cela permet d'avancer sur le chemin :)

Pour la seconde partie du message, j'ai déjà répondu ce matin.

Pour ce qui est des mathématiques, c'est la façon qu'à l'esprit humain de s'approprier la réalité dans laquelle il vit. Faute de pouvoir la vivre pleinement, il l'a décrit en tant qu'observateur passif, extérieur. Il imagine ainsi des concepts, des subterfuges pour expliquer, à travers ses hypothèses de base, ce qu'il observe. Cela ne reste, bien sûr, en 3D, que des modèles voire des théories.

Pour que cela quitte le champ des théories, il faudrait en venir à la phénoménologie mais cela est une autre histoire.

Comme expliqué dans le message initial, le nombre i a été mis en place pour nous permettre de continuer à faire certains calculs, compte-tenu de nos hypothèses de base de calculs. Il a été dénommé ainsi par Euler, imaginaire, car il s'inscrit dans une réalité qui ne correspond absolument pas à celle avec laquelle nous œuvrons quotidiennement.

Lorsqu'il a été finalement accepté tel par Gauss, en 1799, il a été représenté d'une certaine façon en fonction de la façon dont nous nous représentions l'espace. Grâce à Wessel et Argand, nous avons une représentation du nombre i. Cela reste une représentation simplement. Et la réalité traduite par ce nombre imaginaire nous est actuellement toujours inconnue.

L'abstraction est bien belle mais, à un moment donné, il faut s'ancrer et accéder à la réalité :)

Heureusement comme nous disent les Cs, lorsque nous accéderons en conscience en 4D, la théorie devient alors réalité.

Ainsi, il est intéressant, lorsque nous évoquons nos représentations mentales, de savoir si ce que nous nous représentons en tant que i est bien réellement ce que nous en pensons.

Il est évident que i joue un rôle majeur dans le Champ unifié vu comme sa prise en compte dans nos approches scientifiques ont été révolutionnaires : sans ce concept, pas de relativité, pas de mécanique quantique, pas de spin... Autant il sert à simplifier les calculs en mécanique classique (on peut donc s'en passer si on aime faire des calculs), autant, il est indispensable pour accéder à la réalité quantique et relativiste. Pour autant, nous ne savons pas s'il n'est que la pointe d'un iceberg encore plus révolutionnaire conceptuellement et nous ne savons pas si la représentation que nous en avons est correcte : certes, elle est utile et fonctionne mais ce qui est encore plus captivant, c'est pourquoi cela fonctionne? Qu'est-ce que nous ne prenons pas en compte dans notre approche spatiale qui nécessite le recours à ce nombre si particulier?

Qui plus est, la réalité n'est pas que matérielle, Bastian, elle est aussi spirituelle donc non quantifiable. Peut-être que le nombre i nous met sur la voie vers cette prise de conscience. De même, tout ne se mesure pas dans la vie :)

C'est toujours un plaisir de répondre à un gars du sud de la France puisque j'en viens.

Merci pour tes questions, Yoda, qui me permettront, peut-être un jour de devenir un Jedi.

**​

It's always interesting to receive messages of kindness and benevolence, it helps to advance on the path :)

For the second part of the message, I already answered this morning.

As far as mathematics is concerned, it's the way human mind appropriates the reality in which it lives. Lacking the ability to live it fully, he describes it as a passive, external observer. He thus imagines concepts, subterfuges to explain, through his basic assumptions, what he observes. This remains, of course, in 3D, only models or even theories.

To leave the field of theories, we would have to come to phenomenology, but that is another story.

As explained in the initial message, the number i has been set up to allow us to continue to make certain calculations, given our basic assumptions of calculations. It was named imaginary by Euler because it's part of a reality that does not correspond at all to the one we work with every day. We call it imagination.

When it was finally accepted as such, by Gauss, in 1799, it was represented in a certain way according to the way we represented space. Thanks to Wessel and Argand, we have a representation of the number i. It remains simply a representation. And the reality translated by this imaginary number is still unknown to us.

Abstraction is all well and good, but, at some point, we have to anchor ourselves and access reality :)

Fortunately, as the Cs tell us, when we reach 4D consciousness, the theory becomes reality. Thus, it is interesting, when we evoke our mental representations, to know if, what we represent to ourselves as i, is really what we think of it.

It is obvious that i plays a major role in the Unified Field as its consideration in our scientific approaches has been so revolutionary: without this concept, no relativity, no quantum mechanics, no spin... As much as it is used to simplify calculations in classical mechanics (we can therefore do without it if we like to do calculations), it's indispensable to access quantum and relativistic reality. However, we do not know if it's only the tip of an even more conceptually revolutionary iceberg and we do not even know if the representation we have of it is correct: certainly, it is useful and works, but what is even more captivating is : why it works? What are we not taking into account in our spatial approach that requires the use of this particular number?

Moreover, reality is not only material, Bastian, it is also spiritual so not quantifiable. Perhaps the number i puts us on the way to this awareness. Also, not everything in life can be measured :)

It's always a pleasure to answer a guy from the south of France since I come from there.

Thank you for your questions, Yoda, which will allow me, maybe, one day, to become a Jedi.