This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
)
Can Mathematical Structure and Physical Reality be the Same Thing? –
An attempt to find the fine structure constant and other fundamental constants in
such a structure
Pinhas BenAvraham Thebock, 12/5 Rehov Rashi, Elad 48900, Israel
1
March 18, 2009; Revised October 7, 2009
Keywords: Electric charge, fractional charge, fine structure constant, fundamental constants,
dimensionality, uncertainty principle, mathematical universe, physical reality, Mach’s
principle.
Abstract
We try to demonstrate a simple mathematical structure’s properties as an observable physical reality or toy universe.
Commencing from properties of an ndimensional Euclidean structure we develop the motion of a point within that
structure into a means to determine one or more interaction constants for this point in its geometrical environment. We
discuss the implications of dimensionality and try to find a reasonable minimum amount of interpretation to let the
mathematical structure resemble an observable physical reality without “plugging in” constants. Instead, we only “plug
in” some elementary concepts of physics we try to keep to a minimum. We discuss, without any claim to completeness,
in what way the mathematical structure could be conceived as a physical reality or whether it could be a physical
reality. In this exercise we find the fine structure constant to be the most naturally emerging constant.
1. Introduction
In 2006/7, Frank Wilczek [1, 2] stated that fundamental constants in physics, like for
example interaction constants are purely numerical quantities whose values cannot be derived
from first principles, meaning, they are not derivable from equations describing certain
physical theories, let alone real phenomena that also are not derivable from such equations
without “plugging in” natural constants. He further stated that these natural constants make
up the link between equations and reality, and their values cannot be determined
conceptually.
Arthur Eddington [3] tried for the greater part of his later life to find a geometrical principle
to describe physics on the basis of the fine structure constant’s peculiar numerical value,
1/137, to no avail. Koschmieder [4] uses lattice theory to explain the masses of the particles
of the Standard Model, concluding that “only” photons, neutrinos and electric charge are
needed to explain the masses of all the particles. He refers to MacGregor [5, 6, 7] who shows
in three papers that the masses of the particles of the Standard Model depend solely on the
electron mass and the fine structure constant’s numerical value in natural units. Nottale et al.
[8, 9] propose a model of “scale relativity” that solves the problem of the divergence of
charges or coupling constants and selfenergy with the fine structure constant, α = 1/137, on
the electron scale. They attempt to devise a geometrical framework in which motion laws are
completed by scale laws. From these scale laws they obtain standard quantum mechanics as
mechanics in a nondifferentiable spacetime
2
. In particular, in reference [8] Nottale
1
Email: pinhas_ben_avraham@hotmail.com, Tel. +97250863.9107
2
They do not arrive at a discrete spacetime, but rather postulate it.
demonstrates a derivation of the fine structure constant by “running down” the formal QED
inverse coupling from the electron scale (Compton length) to the Planck scale by using its
renormalization group equation
3
. The numerical value achieved by this procedure is pretty
close to reality. A shortcoming of this approach is it yields different values for the “bare
charge” or “bare coupling”. Again, he needs to refer to experimental observation to choose
the “correct” or “physical” of the three possible solutions. Furthermore, specific length scales
like the Compton and the Planck length have to be “plugged in” to come up with realistic
values for the coupling constants he determines. Similarly, Garrett Lisi [10] needs to choose
the symmetry breaking and the action by hand to achieve an otherwise compelling proposal
for a “Theory of Everything” matching the Standard Model. Other approaches to derive the
numerical values of coupling constants, and in particular the fine structure constant, border
on numerology or other “esoteric” approaches bearing little resemblance of physical
reasoning that can be derived from observational experience underlying the construct of the
mathematical structures proposed.
In our approach we try to avoid any input of numerical values for interaction or coupling
constants, but resort only to some fundamental concepts of elementary physics where
necessary. By allowing generalized dimensionality we include the possibility of a fractal
picture of spacetime that seems to be, at least tentatively, justified by phenomena such as
Brownian motion and zitterbewegung, the latter of the two showing true fractional
dimensionality, and by quantum theory itself that proposes the Planck length and Planck time
as a smallest scale. It shall, however, become clear in the course of our treatment of the
underlying mathematical structure we have assumed that such phenomena are the result of
the underlying mathematical structure.
The introduction of additional dimensions in KalutzaKlein theories or string theory as well
as the above mentioned approaches seems to warrant two fundamental questions:
1. Is there a fundamental connection of space geometry to at least one of the coupling
constants?
2. What role plays dimensionality in the sense of Hausdorff’s extended view on
dimensionality and fractional dimensionality in physical interactions?
We attempt to shed light onto these questions considering some properties of spaces seen as
mathematical structures containing, resembling or being such physical interactions without
claiming the identity of our structures with physical reality as such. We try to keep the
physical reality as simple as possible to see how much “physical law” in form of properties of
the underlying structure such simplistic example can produce, and how much additional input
in form of mathematical structure or its properties is needed to make our structure be a
realistic “toy” universe.
Max Tegmark [11] proposed in 2007 a mathematical universe hypothesis stating “Our
external physical reality is a mathematical structure”, based on the assumption that “There
exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans”. He argues for the
equivalence of a mathematical structure and the physical reality it describes and we observe,
not merely the mathematical structure describing the physical reality. Despite his effort to
3
Such equation needs physical insight to be “derived”. A merely mathematical reasoning without reference
to phenomena or physical concepts is impossible.
2
encode numerically elements of language defining or describing mathematical entities or
(partial) structures, at least one information theoretical problem remains: one need to agree
on the encoding. We do have no proof of a “natural” encoding mechanism that would be
provably inevitable by emerging from the structure itself as a “by nature preferred encoding
mechanism”. We hold against the quest for an absolutely mathematical nature of physical
reality that human language and its content may well be translated into mathematical
symbolism or “language”, but cannot be immune against a decidedly willed, random or even
illogical treatment of that physical reality by humans. Furthermore, any distinctions within
the structure are arguably manmade, except they would “automatically” emerge from the
structure itself. Thereby the choices made what to look for inside the structure may be also
arguably manmade. Besides this caution we find it enormously interesting to try to build a
mathematical structure “from scratch” that describes or resembles a physical reality. We are
not insisting on what is the “ultimate scratch”, but are interested whether we will be able to
argue in favor of an identity of mathematical structure and physical reality.
We will try in the following to investigate a mathematical structure resembling a physical
reality using a simple example for such a reality. A central question we shall try to answer is
whether and how such structure can provide us with numerically acceptable unique values
for, say, conditions of minimal physical (inter) action. The choice of our example cannot be
completely arbitrary and random. Hence, we try to determine from the properties of a simple
structure and first principles
4
whether we can find a physical (inter) action we can observe.
In section 2 we choose as a starting structure for our example Euclidean space
5
in arbitrarily
many dimensions. To include fractional dimensions into our discussion we construct an n
dimensional structure with n a real number. We further allege all physical reality should look
the same in any arbitrarily chosen locality of that space. By the introduction of time we
introduce a structure similar to Minkowski space, but we shall use complementary spaces
such as momentum space as a basic structure to arrive there. In section 3 where we also try to
define what is movement and how timelike coordinates arise from it. In sections 4 to 6 we
construct such complementary spaces and demonstrate some properties of “position space”
and “velocity space”
6
, taking into consideration “acceleration space”, all in particular
dependent on dimensionality. We use the conditions we found in those sections to derive a
possible physical interaction in section 5. In sections 6 and 7 we attempt a discussion about
the physical meaning of dimensionality and a relativity of spacevolume in n dimensions and
try to give an interpretation of a possible dependency of observed physical interactions on
dimensionality by discussing velocity or momentum densities in different dimensions for
identical movements taking “acceleration space” and “jerk space” into consideration, to
finally conclude in section 8 with a discussion of our findings and try to assess how much
interpretation is necessary to find the physical reality in the mathematical structure. In a brief
outlook we try to suggest a program for systematically exploring avenues towards the
development of a TOE based on purely geometric considerations.
4
We try to limit these to the definitions of position, time, velocity, acceleration and higher time derivatives
as specified in section 3.
5
NOT spacetime!
6
Velocity space shall be at this stage identical with momentum space as we try not to define anything like a
mass yet.
3
2. Ndimensional Euclidean space
For a (geometrical) object or its motion to be described or to take place, a certain minimum
volume of space is necessary even if we follow Mach’s and Leibniz’s argumentation in favor
of the nonexistence of absolute space and time. Mach insisted that science must deal with
genuinely observable things which made him deeply suspicious of the concepts of invisible
space and time. Mach’s idea suggests that the Newtonian way of thinking about the working
of a universe, which is still deeprooted, is fundamentally wrong. The Newtonian philosophy
describes objects of the universe contained in a spacetime that exists before anything else.
The Machian idea takes the power from space and time and gives it to the actual contents of
that space and time which is seen as a holistic interplay of space and its contents. This means
the actual structure of space and time is determined by the dynamics and spatial distribution
of its contents. We will see in this treatise how such space can emerge from a very simplistic
dynamics
7
. Depending on the nature of such dynamics, complementary spaces will play an
important role in demonstrating “physicality”
8
.
In regard to scale, we do not assume any scale but define the length of elementar movement
as one and the resulting time interval also as one. We want, for the moment, not too strictly
adhere to Mach’s principle but allow a spherical space in n dimensions enclosing our object
or its movement. To avoid more restrictive assumptions we allow highest possible symmetry
of our space which is spherical symmetry. We also choose to allow arbitrarily many
dimensions n (real number), and our space shall be Euclidean. We reserve the right to further
generalize as we progress building our structure. It shall be understood that space with n = 0
can contain a point, n =1 a line, n = 2 a surface and n ≥ 3 a voluminous object. For the word
“volume” we want to allow besides a conventional voluminous geometrical object an area of
a surface and the length of a line as a volume; only a point without any motion shall have
zero volume. We will see the reasons for our choices during our construction process. We
further generalize dimensionality to n [12].
Before we embark into any reasoning about (inter)actions, we discuss the behavior of the
volume of a sphere as a function of its radius and of dimensionality without suggesting or
assuming a special metric or gauge invariance we normally would use to describe physics. A
spherical volume element of radius one (unit radius) is described by Hamming [13]:
!
) (
) , (
2
k
r
r C n r V
k
n
n
⋅
· ·
π
, with n = 2k
Since Γ(k + 1) = k!, n will be even for integer k. Generalizing n yields a function V(r, n)
that is continuous and differentiable in respect to radius and dimensionality including
fractional dimensions. With
) 1 ( ) 1 !
2
+ Γ · + ( Γ ·
n
k k
we get for our spherical volume element of radius r and dimensionality n
7
We do not, however, adhere rigorously to Mach’s principle.
8
Cf. sections 4 to 6.
4
)
) (
) , (
2
2
2
n
n
r
n r V
+ ( 1 Γ
⋅
·
π
as its volume. For unit radius this yields a dependency of the volume from dimensionality as
shown in Fig. 1a, and Fig.1b shows a plot of V(r, n).
5 10 15 20
n
1
2
3
4
5
V
Figure 1a
Figure 1b
0 2 4 6 8 10
n
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
r
0
2
4
6
8
V
0 2 4 6 8 10
n
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
r
As we can see, the voluminosity of our ndimensional sphere behaves counterintuitively.
The volume reaches a maximum for unit radius and decreases to zero for large n.
Furthermore the dimension where the maximum volume occurs, increases with increasing
radius.
In such a space we can describe the positions of points or objects relative to each other and
arrive at a description of dynamical behavior of a system of objects by looking at their
velocities and positions relative to each other. We agreed above that we want to enclose such
5
an object or system of objects by a suitable sphere representing a geometric space spanned up
by the “physical” action
9
. We will see later that for our considerations it is sufficient to
simply look at the volumes of such enclosing spheres. We remind the reader about such
spheres being chosen for the convenience of having highest possible symmetry. Whether they
can stand the test of being or resembling a physical reality, we shall see later.
3. Motion
We need to agree on the following facts as philosophically necessary to describe a space
emerging from a point. Let us assume that there exists a point in no environment that we let
move over a length one to create a straight line that we want to consider as the radius of our
ndimensional sphere we discussed above. Our initial point shall have no physical or other
attributes attached to it other than that of a point resting. We further agree that we can move
our point from one to another position as we decide. The familiar definitions of “position”,
“velocity” and “acceleration” shall hold, but we do not want to introduce definitions like
“force”, “momentum” or “energy” at this stage. Any other properties of the point like “mass”
or “charge” shall also be undefined “unknown labels”. We only allow mathematical entities
to exist together with our three “physical” definitions as follows:
1. Position as a vector x = (x
1
, x
2
, … , x
n
);
2. Velocity shall be a vector v = dx/dt;
3. Acceleration shall be a vector a = dv/dt, and its further time derivatives.
The time shall be denoted by t and higher time derivatives of a shall be considered for non
uniform accelerations of our point. The concept of time has to be introduced as a comparison
of the motion of our point relative to a clockmechanism which imposes a formidable
problem in so far as uncertainty is concerned. For convenience, we shall regard the time as a
continuum to allow differentiability and integrability, but for a realistic picture of physical
reality we would have to assume, strictly speaking, a clock with infinitely high frequency
10
.
This said we can now investigate how we can describe the movement of our point that
constructs our sphere. Thereby we do not scale any lengths except that the observed
movement shall end at length of radius one and the two known positions shall be at r = 0 and
r = 1 at t
0
and t
1
respectively.
The velocity of the moving point can only be determined, if one knows at least two different
positions at two separate instants of time
11
. John Wheeler remarked in his article “Law
without Law” [14]: What we call reality consists of a few iron posts of observation between
which we fill in by elaborate papiermâché construction of imagination and theory. Thus, we
have to consider two separate points in space as well as in time as the minimum information
we can obtain to determine a velocity, and hence, our assumption made above for r and t is
justifiable.
9
One could argue the action of a moving point to be “mathematical” as well.
10
We do not want to indulge in fundamental discussions about the nature of time in this paper, but we point
out that any definition of time should be dependent on motion, if we accept the 2
nd
law of thermodynamics
as the origin of the arrow of time we observe classically.
11
We can, in the simplest case have a uniform velocity or a velocity reaching the value 1 after time and
space interval one, if it is considered to rest at the beginning of the movement.
6
If one regards a static position of a point as zero dimensional, it can be at any position
relative to another point at rest in any dimensionality. If we construct a velocity space in n
dimensions, both points will be resting at the origin of that space. This means according to
Mach’s principle that velocity space does not exist for those static points or is represented by
one point. When the one point changes position moving relative to the other at some not
necessarily constant velocity, the moving point will be able to construct a “velocitysphere”
in n dimensions
12
. In position space such movement will be represented by a line of minimum
one dimension which is a codimension in position nspace, because the line can be existent
in many dimensions. In velocity nspace a point with uniform velocity existent in many
dimensions will be represented by a resting point in that velocity space and must have a
minimum codimension of one in position space. This implies that any movement
represented by less than one codimension in position space is unphysical or at least
physically questionable for now. We want to restrict this implication for the moment until we
have discussed the meaning of fractional dimensions in the context of movement. To effect
any interaction
13
, a minimum volume in spatial and velocity space is necessary, allowing for
acceleration (change in position and velocity) at all times. From this we can conjecture that
any change in velocity or any interaction needs to take place over at least one codimension
within the respective nspaces for position and velocity, if there are no effects present such as
zitterbewegung. Hence, any motion connected to an interaction constructs a minimum
volume of position and velocity space as well.
The current view of Mach’s principle in the context of general relativity that one creates a
problem with handling a spacetime metric, in particular concerning problems of masses
relating to spacetime curvatures, can be weakened by our above assertion of a minimum
volume of both types of spaces being required for any interaction or being constructed by
those interactions. If one further accepts the equivalence of energy density and spacetime
curvature and the resulting assertion that all matter can be expressed by the geometrical
structure of spacetime, one has to accept also that dynamics should be expressible in terms
of changes of that very structure which in our case is a change in radius with time. Those
changes, however, are constraint naturally by the relationship between the space “hosting”
dynamics, momentum space
14
, and that “hosting” position, spatial space. Changes of this
structure are a critical issue, whether one can assume a mathematical structure to be a
physical reality. Only in Mach’s sense this would be correct.
4. Some properties of position and motion
Let us take our point and move it from position x
1
to position x
2
. This movement can be
described as Δx = x
2
 x
1
. In Euclidean space we can connect the two positions with a straight
line, and in other types of space with a geodesic line. To define another distinction, because
we consider one point moving from one position to another, we need to introduce another
label or coordinate, time. In n dimensions, this can be regarded as the construction of a
quotient space of position change versus velocity change, fixing the time scale by
12
Again, it is and remains the choice of the observer, how many dimensions he or she chooses to construct
a spherical volume element with a radius determined by the displacement of a point in position and time.
13
For any interaction (or physics) to take place, change in motion must be allowed to observe that
interaction.
14
This we simplified to velocity space as we have given no mass to our point.
7
implication. If the point is considered moving continuously from one position to the other,
our time coordinate can be considered continuous as can its path. Since we have not agreed
on a particular scale or system of units, we want to define this movement as having length
one in position space and length one on the time coordinate. We remind ourselves again of
Wheeler’s remark cited above, which implies that if the point moves through positions x
1
and
x
2
at a constant velocity, this velocity can have any value in between these points and remains
unobserved. If we, however, consider the point resting in its first position and then covering
unit length in unit time, the start velocity will be zero and the velocity in the second position
will be one, if the point is uniformly accelerated over a time interval of one. The mean
velocity over the distance will be ½. According to our above assertion the spheres in our n
dimensional spaces will be built by giving a radius to position and velocity spheres. If the
acceleration changes on the way but remains over the unit time interval at unit value, we do
not know the exact relationship between position and velocity. The velocity known between
the two positions is always between zero velocity and the end velocity in the accelerated
case, since the point rests in its first position and reaches the second position in unit time. If
we do not know whether and how the point is accelerated, the uncertainty of velocity lies
between the mean value and one, in this case it will be ½, if the position and time differences
are precisely known. For Δx = 1 we will induce an uncertainty of Δv = ½, so that their
product becomes ½. We will show later, how this relatively sloppy estimation of uncertainty
can be more rigorously derived from purely geometrical considerations and first principles.
Above we agreed that only mathematical structure in form of Euclidean space exists in form
of an ndimensional sphere constructed by the displacement of a point representing its radius.
Whether we decide to move the point to a unit sphere surface with constant velocity or
accelerated from rest leaves us no choice regarding the introduction of movement, meaning,
if we have only a resting point that we want to move and define its displacement as our
radius, we have to start at velocity zero and produce with that an acceleration. To measure the
position of a point while moving, it is not necessary to bring it to a halt. Hence, we do not
worry about what happens to our spherical space in its totality after the introduction of
movement but decide only to look at a spherical volume element with maximum radius one
within the evolving space.
We can now further argue that besides acceleration introduces a velocity to a resting point,
acceleration also needs to be introduced by a “jerk” j = da/dt. This would produce the
following scenario: let us assume, j = 1, then a(t) = ∫
0
1
j dt = 1t =1, and v(t) = t
2
/2 with x(t) =
t
3
/6. Vice versa, we need a mean jerk <j> of 6 to reach length one in unit time. Now we can
introduce infinitely many “introductions” of the motion in question and will end up with x(t)
t
n
for reaching length one. Could this be a quantum jump? – We will suggest an answer
later when we know more about uncertainties, but one thing is sure: for higher order jerks we
get nonlinear acceleration and with that chaotic behavior of the equation of motion that
applies, and even the uncertainty relations between position and acceleration or jerk behave
chaotic themselves. We will see this towards the end of the paper.
At this point of our construction of a mathematical structure describing accelerated motion in
ndimensional spherically symmetric space we need to define a velocity space corresponding
to our position space. We need to look at the velocity change over unit length and time once
more. Let us look at a simple case:
8
If the acceleration is known as one, the integral of dvdt equals ½. If Δx = 1 and Δv = ½, then
their product will be half, with x = v
2
/2 from Fx = max = mv
2
/2 for starting from zero
velocity and static zero position. Hence, Δx Δv = ½.
A change in position of length one in a time interval of one means a velocity over that
distance of one. This is only valid, if the velocity is considered constant over the time interval
in question. For an accelerated motion of our point, the velocity reaches one at the end point
of the interval, so that for a = 1 = const. the mean velocity <v> = ½. Since only two positions
are known for position and velocity, there is no way in telling whether the motion is
accelerated or not. Hence, the velocity can lie between the two extremes of ½ and 1, and the
uncertainty of v becomes ½.
Furthermore, an uncertainty in mathematical structure of a similar type exists also in the
context of complementary nspaces. The complementary spaces can be expressed as Fourier
transforms of the spaces representing lower time derivatives than themselves, so that a
position space can be transformed into a velocity (momentum) space, transforming into the
time domain. We have argued above that our point moves in an ndimensional spherical
volume. This volume is a function of radius and dimensionality. According to our construct
of a velocity space being the Fourier transform of our spatial volume function, we argue that
for ndimensional displacement or movement from rest there exists an ndimensional
displacement or movement in velocity space. If this is the case, we need to determine
minimum conditions of both volumes for enabling such movement in n dimensions. Above
we have analyzed the uncertainty relation for a movement of unit length through unit time
without scaling such units. We can see, similarly to our two cases above, that there is also an
uncertainty of purely mathematical nature in the relation between a mathematical structure
like our Euclidean nsphere volume and its Fourier transform. For a simple real space
displacement and its transformation there is a minimum uncertainty:
For 1  ) ( 
2
·
∫
∞
∞ −
dx x f normalized, the Fourier transformation
) ( ) ( v f p f
∧ ∧
·
is also
normalized, according to Plancherel’s theorem. The dispersion about zero is
∫
∞
∞ −
· dx x f x f D
2 2
0
 ) (  ) ( , and
2
0 0
16
1
) ( ) (
π
≥
∧
f D f D , according to [15].
So we can write for space and velocity a minimum mathematical uncertainty of:
2
2 2 2 2
16
1
)  ) (  )(  ) (  (
π
≥ ∆ ∆
∫ ∫
∞
∞ −
∞
∞ −
∧
dv v f v dx x f x , [16].
This value is the general mathematical uncertainty for complementary variables. The
numerical value for such uncertainty can be determined for any structure and its
transformation. One can therefore state for complementary mathematical substructures that
if one of them is precisely known, the other is only known in a very imprecise way or not at
all. Hence, it is questionable whether the complementary structure has any reality at all [17].
Anyway, we can say if both structures are known and have reality, both structures are
9
showing a dispersion of accuracy. For that reason we may allege a slightly blurred structure.
If the precisions of both position and velocity are equal, we have a noise or “blurring” of the
structure of 7.957% for both of them.
A fundamental question arises, how to accommodate uncertainty in our mathematical
structure and how to interpret it in physical reality. If, as alleged at the beginning, the
mathematical structure not only represents physical reality but is it, the introduction of
dynamics in the mathematical structure creates complementary variables (observables) and
with that uncertainty arises, where the uncertainty of one substructure determines the
uncertainty of its complementary substructure, and hence, is observerdependent. If we then
want to quantify such uncertainty, we can do this in two ways:
1. By introducing dispersion or probability distributions and their respective functions
and their relationship to each other;
2. By examining the fractional dimensional behavior of the structure and deducing
probability distribution functions from them taking behaviors such as random walk or
zitterbewegung into consideration.
The very impossibility to assign to each position of our moving point a velocity lies in the
fact that the distance the point covers to exhibit a velocity can be regarded as unit length no
matter how short this distance becomes. Even by introducing differentials we end up with
uncertainties being dependent on the dispersion of the function describing position. Hence,
no matter how tiny we choose our distance covered by the point in an equally tiny amount of
time, the product of the dispersion integrals will always be the same, meaning, the
uncertainty is selfsimilar regarding length and time scaling. It is well known that random
walk, noise, zitterbewegung and the like are exhibiting fractional dimensions. In our further
investigation of the behavior of a moving point in ndimensional space we shall analyze an n
dimensional generalized uncertainty relation.
A further consideration is the role of space as a mathematical structure. We have assigned a
volume to both position and momentum or velocity space, employing the conditions of
uncertainty derived from purely mathematical reasoning. We further analyze the resulting
product function of p or v dependent on x or r and n
15
. As a minimum velocity or momentum
we take ½ as the minimum velocity of our point determinable by observation. We arrive at
the following results:
The spherical position space volume element dependent on radius and dimensionality is
determined by
)
) (
) , (
2
2
2
n
x
n
r
n r V
+ ( 1 Γ
⋅
·
π
,
as we have seen above. Its Fourier transform represents the velocity or momentum space
volume and is determined by
15
Since we have no mass defined, there shall be equivalence of p and v as well as x and r.
10
) 1 (
)
2
sin( ) 1 (   2
) , (
2
1
2 2
1
n
n
p
n
n p
n p V
n
+ Γ
+ Γ
− ·
− −
+ − π
π
.
For V
p
(p, n) we have integrated over the radius and arrive at a function of momentum and
dimensionality. If we imply an uncertainty principle, we can argue that before the point
moved there were neither position nor velocity or momentum space volumes available. With
movement we enable at least a position volume element V
x
with its complementary volume
V
p
. Before that both were zero, so that we can speak of V
x
and V
p
as ΔV
x
and ΔV
p
. If we
accept our above reasoning for our two cases of uncertainty for accelerated and un
accelerated motion, we arrive at a generalized uncertainty relation 2 ΔV
x
ΔV
p
= 1. This yield
0 1
) 1 (
) s i n ( ) 1 (   ) ( 2 2
2
2
1 2
2 2
1
· −
+ Γ
+ Γ
− −
−
−
n
n
n
n
n p r
n
π
π
,
and solving for p representing momentum or velocity results in
n
n n
n
n
r
n r p
n
n
− − −
,
`
.

+ Γ
+ Γ
t ·
−
+
1
1
2
2 2
2
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) csc( ) (
2 ) , (
2 2
1
) 1 ( 2
3
π
π
.
If we set, as outlined above, p (r, n) = ½, and we consider an interaction constant α
proportional to r
2
, we can obtain plots for p (√α, n)
16
. Our solutions will be complex, so we
can plot the modulus, the real part and the imaginary part of the momentum or velocity.
5. Possible interaction for a momentum or velocity larger than ½ in the first 6
dimensions containing the purely real dimensions 1 and 5
Plotting the momentum (velocity) versus α(in our units r = αif we consider the generalized
charges as one) and n renders for the first six dimensions a rather surprising result. In Fig. 2 one
can clearly see the minimum mathematical uncertainty’s squareroot emerging as a minimum
α around the fifth dimension. This value is not far away from the numerical value of the
squareroot of the fine structure constant in natural units,
0 35 999 1 . 13 7
1
, which is the elementar
electric charge in the same units. Results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Dimensions Co
dimension
n for pmax Min. α
Fraction of
α
0  2 1.4217 0.72 0.02685 1
16
In the following all plots have to be understood that p ~ v and r ~ α.
11
1.0875 0.64 2/3
0.24 0.525 1/3
4  6 1.1061 4.96 0.07826 1
Figure 2
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
r
0
2
4
6
n
0
0.1
0.2
p
0
0.1
0.2
p
A search for the value of the fine structure constant’s squareroot value renders a remarkable
result. For the area between four and six dimensions we have solutions for p ≥ ½ as well as in
the area between zero and two dimensions. Around five dimensions the area with positive
real momentum for p ≥ ½ and the interaction resembling an electric charge, spans a little
more than one codimension. Between zero and two dimensions we obtain the same
conditions of a little more than one codimension around one dimension for ⅔ of an
elementar electric charge, while ⅓ of a charge appears around ½ dimension with a co
dimension of a little less than one quarter codimension, as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Figure 3
12
0.03
0.04
0.05
r
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
n
0
0.05
0.1
p
0
0.05
0.1
p
Puzzling is the emergence of a numerical value of an elementar electric charge from the
conditions given above and its nearness to the value of 1/4π (square root of the minimum
mathematical uncertainty of complementary space integrals) around the fifth dimension,
while around one dimension the numerical values of fractional charges are emerging. The co
dimensionality slightly bigger than one hints to a slightly chaotic behavior of the movement
of our point that we let span up our space. The question arises why no other interaction
constant emerges from our geometrical structure other than the fine structure constant. A
further investigation rendered the same behavior for all odd dimensions greater than five (see
Fig. 4).
0.04
0.06
0.08
r
0
10
20
n
0
0.05
0.1
p
0
0.05
0.1
p
Figure 4
13
0.0265
0.027
0.0275
0.028
r
0.4
0.6
n
0
0.01
0.02
p
0
0.01
0.02
p
Can the other known interaction constants be derived from the fine structure constant and
what conditions we have to look at in our mathematical structure? Maybe if we look at
momentum density as a measure of interactionspaces and their minimum conditions, we can
reach at least an estimate where to look for other interactions. This means also gauging the
time to the same scale in all dimensions including the fractional ones.
6a. Momentum or velocity densities within a spherical ndimensional space element
We found that the numerical value of the fine structure constant can be determined from
geometrical considerations only, if one makes the simple assumption of constant
acceleration, but its value still emerges in a very unexpected way, at least superficially. The
value does not appear as any local minimum of α (n), but at a codimensional range between
about 4.5 to 5.5 dimensions. The exact value of Δn being slightly larger than one may suggest
an overlaying minimal zitterbewegung for such (inter) action which would be very
interesting to investigate further. The fractional dimensionality further suggests that for
example an electric discharge almost never takes place on a straight line, but on an erratic
path. Additionally we want to argue that the boundary condition of p
min.
= ½ over a constant
acceleration within unit distance and time is a legitimate one in the sense of Wilczek’s
condition of “minimum phenomenon contribution” to our structure. It is merely a logical
consequence of our observability we have constrained to two instants of time. We need to
remark that the deviation for p
min.
at 5 dimensions from ½ is +0.01020489005 for the exact
value of the fine structure constant, and the deviation of x
min.
from one is 0.0728. This yields
an overall error of the uncertainty at 5 dimensions of 0.16975%. This error’s contribution to
the deviation of the codimensionality is negligible.
Surprising, however, is the fine structure constant’s emergence dressed as the elementar
electric charge from an ndimensional spherical positionmomentum volume element, while
all other constants do not appear. This may suggest a dominance of the fine structure constant
over all other known interaction constants so that
1. either all other interaction constants are dependent on it or
2. the other interaction constants are independent from the geometry of space.
In particular, the other 1/r
2
–dependent constant, the gravitational constant, seems in this
context not to be affected by the application of an uncertainty relation to Euclidean space at
all. We therefore suggest exploring whether the induction of acceleration in form of higher
derivatives of spatial motion may be related to the emergence of different interaction
constants in different dimensions or whether momentum or velocity densities in different
dimensions could be related to a length of motion similar to an uncertainty principle. If we
assume for the latter case p
min.
= ½ over unit length motion, we should be able to find a
minimum interaction dependent on momentum or velocity density in different
dimensionalities of our spherical space element. Since the volume changes with
dimensionality and the distance in form of the radius not, we should be able to find some
relationship like that.
14
To test our hypothesis we shall construct a momentum (velocity) density space we will relate
to a length of motion. We determine the function for the volume of a momentum density
space based on a Euclidean spherical volume element in n dimensions. It is
n
n n
n
n
r
n r p
n
n
− − −
,
`
.

+ Γ
+ Γ
t ·
−
+
1
1
2
2 2
2
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) csc( ) (
2 ) , (
2 2
1
) 1 ( 2
3
π
π
.
Assuming the same conditions as above, we can set the momentum ½. We assume further the
proportionality of interaction constants to powers of r such as the fine structure constant and
the gravitational constant being proportional to the square of the radius. We further assume
generalized charges to be one and let the point bearing that set of unit charges move from its
position at rest to the surface of our ndimensional spherical volume element. The momentum
density will therefore vary between zero at the center and one at the surface of the sphere.
Here it is assumed that the velocity of the point changes linearly from zero to one. Hence,
) (t r p ∝
, while r and p are complementary observables underlying the same conditions as
we have established above for the finding of the fine structure constant.
To determine whether the other interaction constants somehow depend on the fine structure
constant we try to find the smallest volume required for an interaction that we norm to one in
all dimensions. This allows determining the radius of the smallest sphere in n dimensions
enabling an interaction resulting in a movement over unit length and time.
A smallest sphere is in this case (n1)dimensional as we have discussed earlier. According to
[18] the radius R of the smallest sphere in n dimensions enclosing an object with diameter
one is given by
) 1 ( 2 +
·
n
n
R
,
which averages over the dimensions in question to about ½ (we only try here to get a rough
estimate).
With
2
2
2
2
/ 2
r
r q
r
p α
·
we can see for p = ½ that α = r
5
/8. This shows the dependence of the fine structure constant
on five dimensions and that we need to divide our momentum volume by the real volume
multiplied with its square root to norm five dimensions to the fine structure constant. If the
other interaction constants really depend on the fine structure constant, at least dimensionally,
we should find them by applying our generalized uncertainty relation.
Let us first look at unit momentum density. We obtain from p(r, n) = ½ and dividing by the
volume of a smallest sphere with radius ½ with the condition mentioned above
15
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
/ 1
2
5 . 0
1
) 1 ( 2
3
1
2
5
2
) 1 (
2
sin ) 1 ( 2
2 2
) 1 (
) 4 / (
) (
2
−
+ −
+
+
+
,
`
.

+ Γ
,
`
.

+ Γ
,
`
.

,
`
.

+ Γ
·
π
π
π
α
.
A semilogarithmic plot over the inverse radius dependent on dimensionality obtained from
the above conditions is shown in Fig. 5. Here log r = log √α.
5 10 15 20 25
n
20
15
10
5
log r
Figure 5
A numerical value of about 10 for the strong interaction is obtained between zero and two
dimensions, around n = 1. The electromagnetic interaction follows between four and six
dimensions around n = 5, followed by the numerical value for weak interaction between eight
and ten dimensions around n = 9. The numerical value for the square root of the gravitational
interaction related to the fine structure constant emerges around n = 21 which is the sixth
dimension with purely real solutions for momentum. It appears from these results that in this
structure only odd dimensions and their surroundings yield “ground state velocity” or
momentum, because they have real solutions.
It seems that first of all the fine structure constant is the dominating constant that exists in all
dimensions as a result of the uncertainty of the complementarity of momentum and position
space. Only in regard to momentum densities (Poynting vector) on a constant momentum
density surface in n dimensions it seems to appear “dressed” in different strengths of
interaction dependent on n. Hence, it can be that we can observe dimensions higher than 4 as
“labels” like electric charge or mass on an elementar particle. The dominance of the fine
structure constant suggests Lorentz invariance, so that v
max.
= 1 = c. This implies for p = 2 the
introduction of an additional term that could be mass. For now, we leave this and any
relativistic implications to speculation to be investigated in a later publication.
6b. Conditions for acceleration inducing velocity and acceleration induced by a jerk
16
In our results above we can clearly see that the interaction constants are never found in a way
that they occur at integer values for n with p = ½. We alleged a superposition of
zitterbewegung to explain this behavior. We find, by the same token, the numerical value of
e.g. the fine structure constant in a region where the codimension is slightly greater than one.
One could argue, why should a strictly one dimensional interaction not be possible and our
point have the velocity ½ with codimension one at the experimental numerical value of the
constant? – Zitterbewegung might be the answer, but how can we show any supporting
evidence for such a possibility in our mathematical structure that is purely geometric? The
geometries of velocity and position spaces give enough volume for such an effect, but we
could also allow a different type of motion added instead of the zitterbewegung, e.g. some
regular vibration or the like. As we will see below, this bears the difficulty that a(r, n) is not a
continuous function and with that a continuous vibration is not provided with enough space.
It will be a chaotic vibration. A more extensive analysis of the chaoticity of such a vibrating
moving point (or string) is beyond the scope of this paper, but will be treated elsewhere.
We stated above that position and velocity are complementary observables, and we therefore
treat acceleration and jerk analogously as Fourier transforms of velocity and acceleration
respectively. Thus we can conjecture position, velocity, and acceleration and jerk to be
complementary to each other. Velocity is complementary to position, acceleration is
complementary to velocity and position, and jerk is complementary to acceleration, velocity
and position, so that uncertainty relations between all of their pair wise combinations can be
established. To obtain expressions for the volumes of acceleration and jerk we Fourier
transform V
p
to V
a
and V
a
to V
j
as follows:
( ) ( )
,
`
.

,
`
.

,
`
.

− + − +
,
`
.

− +
,
`
.

+ Γ − Γ
×
+ Γ
− ·
− −
+ −
2
sin ) ( ) 1 ( 1
2
cos ) 1 ( 1
2
sin ) 1 ( ) (  
) 1 (
1
2 2
2
1
2
π π π
π
n
a sign i
n n
n n a
V
n n n
n
n
a
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ]
[
2
sin ) 1 ( 1 ) (
2
cos ) 1 ( 1
2
sin ) 1 ( 1
2
cos ) 1 ( 1
2
sin ) 1 ( ) (  
) 1 ( 2
1
2 2
2 2 2 1
2
3
2
,
`
.

,
`
.

− + +
,
`
.

− + − ×
×
,
`
.

,
`
.

− + − +
,
`
.

− +
,
`
.

+ Γ − Γ ×
×
+ Γ
·
− − − −
+ −
π π
π π π
π
n
j sign
n
i
n
i
n n
n n j
V
n n
n n n
n
n
j
17
Figure 6
0.08
0.082
0.084
r
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
0
5´10
20
1´10
21
a
0
5´10
20
1´10
21
a
For a qualitative discussion of the results we first present a plot of V
x
V
a
= ½ (Figure 6),
where 1/2 denotes the uncertainty. We obtain at n ≤ ⅔ (upper dimension of ⅓ of the electric
charge) a large acceleration space of a ≈ 10
21
. For n ≥ ½ and a > 0 we obtain a relatively
random distribution of real solution “patches” for the acceleration. We can clearly see that in
the region occupied by ⅓ charge, below ½ dimensions there is no space for acceleration,
while at n > ½ there is a strongly chaotic behavior of the function a(r, n), reaching
acceleration values of over 10
37
within unit distance.
18
0.08
0.082
0.084
r
4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5
n
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
a
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
a
Figure 7
If we then look further at the conditions our acceleration minima (a = ½) show in the same
dimensionality, and if we notice the “patched” allowed paths of our point having an
acceleration, we see that our point needs slight dimensional changes to cover its path through
acceleration space. These changes look random like a “dimensional percolation” rather than a
straight path, and thus we can expect zitterbewegung that will for larger r cover two
dimensions and resemble Brownian motion. This type of motion is suggested by the
properties of the available space constructed by our moving point.
The acceleration plots show a constraint to constant acceleration only between n = even + ½,
while around odd dimensions (reminder: every second odd dimension is purely real) the
acceleration space allows (or even suggests) strong chaotic accelerations and with that
zitterbewegung. In Figure 7 the overlap regions of the constant acceleration regions in a(r, n)
with the regions of p ≥ ½ in p(r, n) are very small and occur very closely around the
experimental numerical values of the interaction constants (error ~1.8%). In the other regions
where zitterbewegung dominates, an additional velocity or momentum component needs to
be added to our half momentum. It is remarkable that the interaction constant is determined
19
0.08
0.082
0.084
r
4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5
n
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
p
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
p
by constant acceleration and not by the minimum r ~ αof the momentum (velocity) p(r, n)
≥ ½, where the acceleration a(r, n) shows chaotic behavior. V
j
shows as well chaotic behavior
and is dimensionally discontinuous.
A short discussion of one possible scenario referring to the initiation of acceleration by a jerk
function alone or by a jerk initiated by a snap may direct to some fundamental ideas about
motion and interaction. What does the geometry of the spherical ndimensional space
element tell us about interactions, minimum time intervals and minimum lengths? – An
instant of time, for example, cannot be determined at a ground state with zero energy. Time
would spread to infinity. According to Machian ideas time as a result of motion of points
without further properties is therefore not determinable without the knowledge of two
positions. If we do not know the energy and angular momentum of a Newtonian system, we
need at least three instants of time to reconstruct the spacetime where Newton’s laws are
fulfilled. In a Machian system, however, two instants of time suffice, and the two
configurations can be “best matched” to recover the information [20]. This still does not give
us an absolute minimum time or space interval, but we know that Δx and Δt cannot be zero
for two distinguishable configurations, and hence, spacetime itself underlies uncertainty
principles. The quantization itself is determined by the products of the respective
complementary spacevolume functions and their dispersion relations, as we have seen
above. Furthermore, any interaction is also dependent on space volume functions.
We will now discuss the scenario of a uniform jerk of strength 6 over unit time and what it
does to our point. Therefore we determine the product volume of position and acceleration
under those conditions and get
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n r i
n
n n r i
n
n n
n
r
n
n n
n
r
n
n r a
1 2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
1
)] 1 (
2
sin ) ( ) ( ) 1 ( 2
2
sin ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( 2
2
sin
) 1 ( ) (
2
cos ) ( ) 1 ( 2
2
sin ) 1 ( ) (
2
cos ) ( 2 [
2
1
) , (
−
−
−
−
+ Γ
]
]
]
− Γ − −
]
]
]
+ Γ − Γ +
]
]
]
+ Γ − Γ
]
]
]
− −
]
]
]
+ Γ − Γ
]
]
]
− ×
×
,
`
.

+ Γ
·
π
π
π
π
π
π
π
π π
π
π
For the real part of a (r, n) we can plot 100 dimensions where the dimensions 1, 5, 9, …
possess real solutions only. This is shown in Fig. 8. We subtracted 6 from the acceleration so
that only values equal or bigger than 6 are shown in our plot. We can clearly see the region
where a ≥ 6 which is necessary to transport our point over unit length in unit time will limit
the smallest length for each dimension below which the acceleration will be higher than 6.
Analyzing r
min.
(n) we find a minimum at 40 dimensions (which is around the 10
th
purely real
dimension) of the order of magnitude of one. The lowest dimensions resembling unit length
with 10 to 20% zitterbewegung we found to be 20 to 24 which is the region where we find
the square root of the gravitational interaction constant as shown above. In our system of
units this minimum length is very close to the Planck length. The same order of magnitude
acceleration that allows the transportation of the point to v = c = 1 we find in the appropriate
dimensions of electroweak interaction at the Compton length scale. Below those lengths the
acceleration would lead to superluminal speeds reversing the chargeparitytime product or
20
violating Lorentz invariance. It seems to follow that for each interaction type there is a
minimum length set by the limit of maximum velocity c.
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
r
0
20
40
60
80
100
n
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
a
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
a
Figure 8
Klinkhamer [21] argues for a fundamental length scale not necessarily equal to the Planck
scale that is related to a nonvanishing vacuum energy density or cosmological constant. If
there is no direct presence of matter or nongravitational fields this fundamental length can be
different from the Planck length. He further alleges that a subPlanckian spacetime structure
determines certain effective parameters for the physics over distances of the order of the
Planck length or larger. Seiberg [22] states that gravitational interactions cause a black hole
at r < l
Planck
. From the calculations of section 5 we saw that from five dimensions onwards the
momentum becomes larger than ½ at a length scale of the order of the electric charge’s
numerical value. This lies within the Planck length as well as all the other fundamental
constants’ numerical values found in section 6a. The exception is the strong interaction, but it
lies well within the Compton scale and well within the region where a ≥ 6.
We may speculate that we can regard the physics within the Planck length as a sort of
reservoir for interactions. According to Seiberg’s statement we may regard the domains
below the critical lengths found for different dimensions as a formation length for different
“charges” characteristic for the fundamental interactions. If we take the black hole idea for
gravitation seriously, we might as well generalize this for all other interactions and propose a
scenario where lengthlike dimensions swap into timelike dimensions. There then remains
for all interactions only one spatial dimension the point can move on. This region can be
described as a mirror image of negative dimensions, where we can regard the negative
dimensions as timelike. Probing this, we found that in negative dimensional space the
acceleration reaches an average of 6 over a time interval of about one in 21 to 25
dimensions which corresponds to 20 to 24 dimensions in positive dimensional space. The
point acquires zero acceleration at t = 1. This means after such time interval we have force
free movement along one spatial dimension. After this time the acceleration within these
21
dimensions reaches values below 6 so that it can be transposed into positive space. With that
happening sequentially through all relevant dimensions, the point may acquire all its
properties as a particle on its way to the Compton scale. As we will see, this includes also
spin.
Since the induction of acceleration is jerk, we need to determine what orders of magnitude
jerk are available to transport the point into ndimensional space and which preferred
interaction governs which dimension. It seems that if the jerk j = 6 (in Fig. 9 j = 0 is
equivalent to j = 6) over minimum a length of one continuously, the dimensional maximum
for that condition lies just below 10 dimensions, suggesting dominant electroweak and strong
interactions, leaving gravitation untouched. As we can see from Fig. 9, gravity shows only a
tenth of the length of a jerk present in the first ten dimensions. Additionally the strength of
the jerk becomes weaker with increasing dimension. This clearly means a delay for the point
to reach over the Planck length in the gravitational dimension.
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
r
5 10 15 20
n
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
j
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
j
Figure 9
We can interpret this further in the sense that the strong and electroweak forces thermalize
long before gravity comes into the play outside the Planck length. This means the
gravitational energy would remain within the Planck scale until the electromagnetic part of
our point reaches the Compton scale and acquires mass as its gravitational part leaves the
Planck scale. Speculating further, the not yet thermalized gravitational degrees of freedom
remain inside a very small volume for a longer time than the degrees of freedom of the
standard model forces. They cannot leave this volume element inside the Planck scale, but
have to overcome a volume inflation of a factor of 4×10
23
from r = 0.1 to r = 1. Since we talk
about negative energy here, and this process takes about 10
20
Planck time units until the other
forces reach the Compton length and gravity comes out of the region where the energy
(acceleration) space is larger than necessary to accelerate our point’s gravitational degrees of
freedom to c, but the jerk to do that is not strong enough to achieve this, our spatial volume
around the gravitational degrees of freedom stays small (1.5) against the spatial volume
around the standard model degrees of freedom (2×10
240
) at the Compton scale. The geometry
22
became with that: three real dimensions with their surroundings spanning up a six
dimensional spheroid wrapped into a six dimensional spheroid with hardly any volume but a
high negative energy density. This could be interpreted as a possible cause for inflation. To
test this interpretation our “one point moving” scenario to make up an ndimensional sphere
needs to be modified to an energy density model similar to existing inflationary models, but
this is beyond the scope of this paper.
To go further to a snap as the cause for our point to move and span up a space does not
fundamentally change the above scenario. We think, however, it may be worthwhile to
examine the issue of inflation further in a different paper.
On the curve of Fig. 5 we can find the numerical values of the fundamental interaction
constants in Table 2.
Dimensional range 0  4 4  8 8  12 12  16 16  20 20  24
Interaction strong Electromag. weak spin spin gravitation
Numerical value
√αr
2
or αr
9.98 1/√137.036 8.3×10
4
1.3×10
10
5×10
16
4.18×10
23
Purely real
dimensions
0<n<2 4 < n < 6 8<n<10 12<n<14 16<n<18 20<n<22
Table 2
Besides the four fundamental forces we found around the dimensions 13 and 17 orders of
magnitude for interactions that could resemble the Lorentz invariance violating spin
dependent interaction constants predicted by ArkaniHamed et al. [23]. Insofar as spin is
concerned, we have not yet made attempts to find conditions for the induction of spin in this
structure besides the numerical values as we became aware of ArkaniHamed’s work during
the compilation of this paper. We included the numerical values of his predictions, because
we find it highly interesting that they appear seemingly “at the right spots” but regard these
dimensions with caution.
7. Some suggestions on the question of dimensionality
It seems disturbing that the electric charge and its fractions appear within the realm of six
dimensions at places that are anything else but straight forward integer dimensions. The fact
that the smallest fraction of ⅓ charge appears explicitly around half a dimension and has a
codimension of little less than about a quarter suggest that the existence of a “point charge”
is questionable in any dynamic system. Since any interaction constant needs motion or
dynamics to be able to be determined, by experiment or by mathematical technique, the terms
“complementarity” and “uncertainty” become a key feature of both mathematical and
physical reality. For the dimensionality of a moving point to be determined, we need to
consider that we need one dimension to enable movement of a point which has zero
dimensions as such, if at rest. The minimum value of the uncertainty between position and
momentum is ½. Hence, we can conjecture that a “point particle” in the conventional picture
needs to be replaced by a pointlike geometrical object of a dimension between 0.4 and 0.66
dimensions. Remarkable here is the asymmetry around ½ dimensions. The exact meaning of
½ dimensions is not very clear, but may be derived from the meaning of 1.5 dimensions, as
23
we will see. If this point would move without uncertainty in position, it would create at least
a second point which creates a line between the point’s positions before and after movement.
If now some noise or zitterbewegung is added to its movement due to uncertainty, the total
codimension becomes greater than one. If the point stays in its position with uncertainty and
thus exhibits dimensionality of smaller than one and greater than zero, a quarter co
dimension may be explained by its uncertainties in velocity (momentum), position (radius)
and dimensionality. One could say, the point tries to move and become a line. The nearer the
dimensionality gets to codimension one the greater the probability that it actually will move.
A quarter codimension suggests that ⅓ of a charge cannot be isolated on a particle which is
experimentally verified, while ⅔ of a charge has a little more than one codimension and can
move alone which is also in agreement with experiment (quark isolation problem).
We have used a product of momentum difference and difference in position to determine the
dimensions where the interaction radius corresponds to the experimentally determined
charge. Hence, the uncertainty in position needs to correspond to an uncertainty in dimension
as well. In this picture, a point’s dimensionality between zero and one dimension denotes its
readiness to move at the minimum average speed of ½.
17
A further interesting issue is that because of the fractional dimensions involved in our
determination of minimal interaction constants, we need to consider defects in the space
structure which automatically will lead to defects in the time structure. Rowlands [24] points
out some very interesting aspects on continuity and divisibility of space and time. In the
conventional perception time seems to be infinitely divisible. At least two arguments may be
considered against such an allegation. First, there arises the very well known paradox of Zeno
of Elea, and second, if we would try to infinitely divide time we would need to construct a
periodic motion of infinite frequency which means infinite energy would be needed to drive
such motion. Space, on the other hand, gives no rise to the allegation that it is not infinitely
divisible as such, but this becomes a fundamental issue if such space contains dynamic
systems or, in the Machian sense, is dynamically evolving due to the dynamics of its
contents. In the definitions of velocity, acceleration, jerk or snap, time is the independent
variable, and space is the dependent variable. As we have seen above, interactions are taking
place where irregularities like zitterbewegung are involved and acceleration in regards to the
radius of our toy universe becomes noisier the smaller our structure is. According to
Seiberg’s allegation mentioned above, we swapped spacelike coordinates into timelike ones
and tacitly accepted this also happening to fractional dimensions. If we accept this, we have
to accept defects in time and allow fractal time. In such case it is essential to discuss the
effect of defects in time on the physics that is happening around such defect. If we allow
fractional dimensions for space, our situation is somehow clear and the consequences for
experimental predictions are known, but if we allow a deviation from the onedimensionality
of time, those consequences are not entirely clear. If we, however, define the arrow of time or
the flux of time as a consequence of the thermodynamic behavior of the distribution of matter
in space, a fractal time dimension becomes thinkable. This may result in a discontinuous and
heterogeneous flux of time.
17
Our calculations above rely often on mean values, because of the imposed constraints in observability.
We remind the reader that we look at our length and time interval defined as one as the smallest discernable
distance which is not scaled.
24
In Kobelev’s papers [25] the fractality of time produces preferred coordinate systems, but we
think this can be remedied by leaving the overall dimension of time an integer, meaning the
fractality is localized. One possible solution to this dilemma is to consider an initial jerk or
snap for an input of energy, but then we consider our toy universe as open to inputs from
objects of negative dimensionality which could be regarded as reservoir spaces or sinks
making the observable universe a dissipative system. We have such objects in the form of
black and white holes or naked singularities available in our universe. The contents of such
objects may reside inside the singularities, and could be interpreted as residing in negative
dimensions, if one accepts the notion that negative dimensional space is contained in a
singularity. Both positive and negative dimensional spaces together may then be regarded as
a conservative system with an average integer time. An interesting feature of fractal space
time is its time asymmetry that is restored to symmetry if the fractal and nondifferentiable
features are taken out of this picture.
This speculative discussion reveals a very essential question: Is the presence of
zitterbewegung a necessary requirement for time asymmetry? – If the answer is yes, this has
far reaching consequences for how we need to look at the physics of our universe. Fractality
and nondifferentiability of timerelated spaces that we represented as Fourier transforms can
become a very simple explanation for timeasymmetry, uncertainty and similar features of
the structure describing physics of the universe, but building such structure still requires
observation and interpretation. Otherwise we have no right to assume that we see the
emergence of for example the fine structure constant from the geometry of an emerging
spherical ndimensional space, and we have to assume Einstein’s relativity principles as
valid.
Another point that we want to put our attention to in future work is the influence of the
acceleration function a (r, n) and the jerk and snap function on the behavior of strings. In
particular the acceleration’s irregular surface may cause some interesting chaotic behavior
when applied to strings.
8. Conclusions and outlook
We have demonstrated the dependence of a purely mathematical uncertainty on
dimensionality. From geometrical considerations we have arrived at numerical values for
minimum space for movement and movement densities in n dimensions. We have not scaled
our results to any physical size; nevertheless the results are somehow intriguing, if we scale
to natural units. We have done this implicitly by scaling to one. We want to conclude with a
discussion what the dimensional treatment of a moving point in n dimensions reveals and
what it does not.
The moving point’s velocity or momentum can only be determined by two positions in space
time. If the movement is accelerated, one does not know what exactly happens between these
two positions, mathematically and experimentally. We determined an emergence of the
numerical value of the fine structure constant at codimension ≈1.1 around 5 dimensions in
our representation. This reveals that the point needs at least one dimension to move plus
some dispersion of that movement. To cover around one codimension between zero and two
space dimensions we need at least ⅔ of that value of the fine structure constant. Between the
25
same dimensions momentum density considerations revealed numerical values in the range
of the strong interaction at m
Z
[2], where fractional electrical charges occur as charges of
quarks. This should be further investigated but lies beyond the scope of this paper.
Furthermore we have to ask the question whether time is determinable with absolute
exactness. The answer is no, because time is measured by clocks, and clocks have the
intrinsic property of periodic movement to which we compare a position in spacetime.
Hence, spacetime has to be “rough” and only differentiable in a “blurred” picture. If this is
taken into account, our spherical position space element needs to have a rough surface as well
which amplifies the effects observed on our allegedly smooth model.
Because of the minimum momentum and uncertainty considerations, it can be alleged, a
resting point fulfilling both cannot exist. Hence, we cannot speak of a zerodimensional
object, if any interaction and with that any physics is concerned, also because any interaction
requires motion or at least motionlike behavior of said object as below one dimension.
Quantum mechanically, we would need a ground state of zero momentum (energy) for the
realization of a resting point. For p = ½ this cannot be realized, unless we expand our sphere
to infinite radius in zero dimensions. What this means is not entirely clear and shall be treated
elsewhere. For now, we only want to suggest some speculative ideas which might be
interesting for considerations such as the growth of a mathematical structure from
nothingness that could represent or even be a physical reality.
Before we do that, we want to give an interpretation of dimensionality in position and
velocity space. In our representation the movement at p = ½ alongside a particular dimension
gets a real value only at odd dimensions while even dimensions are asymptotically
approached. Between zero and two dimensions the case seems to be clear cut how to interpret
what is allowed to happen to a movement of a point on a twodimensional surface, while in
higher dimensions we see a certain analogy, but is it a necessary or sufficient (or both)
condition to generate an electric charge by a point in moving same within e.g. 4.5 and 5.5
dimensions at a little more than p = ½?  What our analysis does not show is how exactly
this object or its movement looks like when it makes up that charge. We only know that a
slight zitterbewegung is involved besides a straight and smooth movement. It also does not
show us why such charge necessarily should be quantized. The only plausibility is to look for
standing waves in a resonator (space?), or just take multiples of unit intervals in position
space and relate them to a set of dimensions as we have done with momentum density
volumes. For that set of dimensions we take the largest radius equivalent to an interaction
constant minimum as a measure for our volume element and extrapolate to the other
dimensions.
We conclude that we found an interesting way to construct a mathematical structure around a
very simple “phenomenon”, a moving point producing a unit nsphere by its motion. By
minimal input of phenomenology we succeeded to reliably find the numerical value for the
fine structure constant in natural units, which also seems to be the most fundamental constant
as it can be found without resorting to calculate momentum densities. Using the simple
concept of position and some of its time derivatives we arrived at a (less reliable) way to
determine numerical values of other interaction constants. A remarkable and somewhat
surprising property of our “evolving toy universe” is the behavior of its shape when Fourier
transformed into complementary spaces. By simple conceptual assumptions of limitations of
observability it rendered at least the fine structure constant reliably and showed conditions
26
for chaotic movement like zitterbewegung being included in that fine structure constant. We
think we have shown a simplistic but viable example for a relatively naïve mathematical
structure and minimal conceptual input, what richness lies in the structure’s (spherical
space’s) transformations, if interpreted. Without such interpretation there is no way of
recognizing such structure as a (simplified) physical reality, and such interpretation has to be
made by an observer. So, we come back to Wheeler’s signposts and the space between them:
only if all the space between them can be filled with certainty, we can say we have a
mathematical universe that is determinable without an observer and his or her participation.
The very scalability of r = 1 in our model and the independence of the fine structure constant
from this scaling shows at least in this model no reason for a Planck or Compton scale as they
appear to us in meters, seconds and other arbitrary manmade units. The nature of time and
our conclusion of the inevitable “roughness” of spacetime, however fine that may be, it will
be a finite value dependent on the means of the observer, forces us to assume mean values for
position or for time derivatives of position. Uncertainty is mathematically ubiquitous even
without quantum mechanics; it exists for complementary spaces and definitely for classical
mechanics as well.
Besides the unfinished items “beyond the scope of this paper” mentioned above we want to
suggest a few things worth looking at in the context of this little model that rendered α =
1/137 so surprisingly:
A paper by David Hestenes [19] tries an interpretation of quantum mechanics by
zitterbewegung. Extending our little toy universe towards such an idea would be interesting.
Another idea is the generalization of charges to Noether charges representing symmetries
could help to understand symmetry breakings in a dimensional context. An action
minimalization and such symmetry breaking could be helpful as a “conceptual” plugin for
Lisi’s TOE attempt.
Last not least we ask whether the constraint of minimum two spacetime points in the
primary structure of position space to determine any complementary spaces with all its
uncertainties is a must for observer participation or not. We think it is, because of Wheeler’s
signpost model and Mach’s principle where we define time by movement.
Finally, we can answer the question in the title as follows: mathematical structure and
physical reality can well be the same thing, but will that structure ever be complete? – We
doubt it, without observer participation in form of at least interpretation, not to speak of
measurements, and encoding it into something we call “insight”, it may well be the same
thing and even complete, but we will not recognize it for lack of completeness in our human
way of using mathematics as a language. Some fillins between Wheeler’s signposts will
always remain papiermâché as long as mathematics is incomplete, at least for a TOE (this
expression is also subject to a definition agreed upon by individuals by consensus – a
compromise). Last not least we need to remark that all distinctions like Tegmark’s “reality
independent of us humans” are manmade separations dependent solely on the manmade
decision where to draw the line. In a real GUT or TOE those lines must be moveable at
random, because all needs to be one and indistinguishable, otherwise it cannot be a GUT or
TOE.
27
Acknowledgements:
The author thanks Ehud Duchovni of the Department of High Energy and Particle Physics of
the Weizmann Institute of Science for the suggestion to look at the “strange geometry of n
dimensional objects” and Lorne Levinson, Moshe Kugler, Gad Maimon, Israel Oshry and
Shlomo Makmel for many fruitful discussions. Special thanks go to Shlomo and his wife
Ruth for their tremendous hospitality during the final writing of this paper.
References:
[1] F. Wilczek, Fundamental Constants, ArXiv: 0708.4361v1 [hepph] 31 Aug 2007
[2] M. Tegmark, A. Aguirre, M. Rees, F. Wilczek, Dimensionless Constants and other
Dark Matter, ArXiv: Astroph/0511774v3 11 Jan 2006
[3] A.S. Eddington, Fundamental Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1946
[4] E.L. Koschmieder, Theory of Elementar Particles, ArXiv: 0804.4848 [physics, gen
ph] 15 May 2008
[5] M. MacGregor, A “Muon Mass Tree” with αquantized Lepton, Quark and Hadron
Masses, ArXiv: 0607233 [genph] 20 July 2006
[6] M. MacGregor, Electron Generation of Leptons and Hadrons with Reciprocal α
quantized Lifetimes and Masses, ArXiv: 0506033 [genph] 25 May 2005
[7] M. MacGregor, The experimental lifetime αquantization of the 36 metastable
elementary particles, ArXiv: 0806.1216 [genph] 1 June 2008
[8] L. Nottale, Scale Relativity, Fractal Space Time, and Quantum Mechanics, in Chaos,
Solitons and Fractals 4, 361388, Pergamon Press 1994
[9] L. Nottale, The Theory of Scale Relativity: Nondifferentiable Geometry and Fractal
SpaceTime, Computing Anticipatory Systems, CASYS 03 – Sixth Int. Conf. (Liège,
Belgium, 11 – 16 Aug. 2003), Daniel M. Dubois (ed.), American Institute of Physics
Conference Proceedings, 718, 68 – 95 (2004)
[10] A. Garrett Lisi, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, ArXiv: 0711.0770
[hepth] 6 Nov 2007
[11] Max Tegmark, The Mathematical Universe, subm. to Found. Phys., ArXiv:
0704.0646v2 [grqc] 8 Oct 2007
[12] F. Hausdorff, Dimension und äuβeres Maβ, Mathematische Annalen, 157 – 179,
1918
[13] R.W. Hamming, Learning to Learn, Session 9, ndimensional Space, Naval
Postgraduate School, U.S. Navy, Feb. 2008.
[14] J.A. Wheeler, Law without Law, in J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Quantum Theory
and Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1983, p. 182 216
[15] M. Pinsky, Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Wavelets, Brook/Crole 2002
[16] E. Stein, R. Shakarchi, Fourier Analysis – an Introduction, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J., 2003
[17] A. Einstein, P. Podolski, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 – 780, 1935
[18] H. Jung, Ueber die kleinste Kugel, die eine räumliche Figur einschliesst, Journal für
die reine und angewandte Mathematik 123, 241 – 257, 1901
[19] D. Hestenes, The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Found.
Phys. 20, No. 10, 1990, 1213 – 1232
[20] J. Barbour, The End of Time, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 1999.
28
[21] F.R. Klinkhamer, Fundamental length scale of quantum space time foam, JETP Lett.
86, 73 (2007), ArXiv [grqc] 0703009v5.
[22] N. Seiberg, 23
rd
Solvay Conference in Physics, Dec. 2005, ArXiv [hepth]
0601234v1, 31 Jan 2006.
[23] N. ArkaniHamed et al., Universal dynamics of spontaneous Lorentz violation and a
new spindependent inverse square law of force, ArXiv 0407034v3, 2004.
[24] P. Rowlands, A foundational approach to physics, ArXiv [physics] 0106054, 19 Jun
2001.
[25] L.Ya. Kobelev, Physical consequences of moving faster than light in empty space,
ArXiv [grqc] 0001043v1, 15 Jan 2000.
L.Ya. Kobelev, Can a particle’s velocity exceed the speed of light in empty space?,
ArXiv [grqc] 0001042v1, 15 Jan 2000.
29