DIBARTINI-HALPRIN CORRESPONDENCE (1968-1972).PDF
David Halprin davrin999@gmail.com
PREFACE
The paper below contains the correspondence between David Halprin and Robert di Bartini from
1968 to 1972. Since it was done by surface mail, and di Bartini's address was c/o Doklady there were long
delays and Halprin was not aware of di Bartini's death in 1974 until some years later.
DIBARTINI-HALPRIN CORRESPONDENCE (1968-1972)
DAVID HALPRIN 1014 LYGON STREET,
NORTH CARLTON,
VICTORIA 3054,
AUSTRALIA.
24-10-68
MR. ROBERT OROS DI BERTINI,
DOKLADY AKADEMII NAUK SSSR.
PODSOSENSKI PERSPEKT 21.
MOSCOW K-62
Dear Sir,
I take the liberty of writing to you. About three months
ago, your paper, (in English translation), was brought to my
notice. I have been especially interested in the concept of a
(3+3)-dimensionality of space-time, for over one year. I have
been studying the work of another researcher in this field.
However, your approach has a strict mathematical foundation,
whereas the approach of the other author is from another
standpoint.
The importance of such a discovery cannot be overstressed, and since its inherent implications are as diverse
as to affect the theoretical models of the atomic and subatomic
particles, right up to an explanation of galactic recession,
there doesn't appear to be even one aspect of science that is
not affected by the implication of the three aspects of time
that go hand in hand with the three aspects of space.
In the last paragraph or your paper, you stated
"It will be proved in a second report that the (3+3)-dimensionality
of space-time is an experimentally verifiable factor etc."
I have searched, in vain, through the English translations of the
Soviet Physics-Doklady, that have been issued since February '66.
My conclusion is that either the paper has not been presented
yet or the English translation was not made. In either case
I am very excited and enthusiastic with the prospect of seeing
this second paper and also any other work that you and/or
B.M. Pontecorvo may have made in this direction, that I make
this urgent request of you.
Please reply to me and tell me of your subsequent work
in this field and if possible send me any subsequent papers.
Unfortunately I am only able to understand English, however if
you cannot send to me an English version, please send me the
version in Russian or other language, and I shall go to the
University here in Melbourne for the translation.
I am eagerly looking forward to a favourable reply,
Yours sincerely,
David Halprin
----------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. David Halprin
1014 Lygon Street
North Carlton, Victoria 3054 ,
Australia
1
Dear Sir,
I have now the opportunity to answer to your kind letter of 24-10-68, with some delay, being absent
for nearly two months.
The only subsequent work publicated by me on the mentioned problem was issued in 1966
(Symposium: "Problems of Gravitation and Elementary Particles", which I enclose herewith. I regret
that there is no English translation. The article is in fact a more ample exposition of the paper published in
the "Dokladi". I am preparing a more detailed explanation of the concept, including its experimental
verification, yet not defined where it will be published.
One has to take account, that in contraposition to the classical (3+1), three plus one-dimensionality,
the 6-dimensional concept equals not the sum of (3+3) dimensions, but the (3x3) product of six orthogonal
coordinates.
The n-dimensional extension contains
different
m-dimensional formations. Thus the 6-dimensional space contains nought (-1)- and (7)-dimensional fields,
one sort of (O)- and (6)-dimensional space six different (1)- and (5)-dimensional extents, fifteen different
(2)- and (4)-dimensional extents and twenty different (3)-dimensional spaces, being by no means the simple
sum of two 3-dimensional formations.
Our perceptional apparatus and acknowledgment, such as they appear to us, are incapable to
distinguish more than three substantial and one imaginary coordinates, the space-time is an objective reality.
I suppose, in the sense of being a reflection of a more complex multiformity.
Excuse me, please, for the delay of this reply
Yours sincerely
Robert Oros di Bartini
Moscow, 20-12-68
The Book of the symposium and this letter were received 19/3/69
INSERT HERE jpg IMAGES OF THREE PAGES OF THE RUSSIAN PAPER FROM 1966, WHICH WAS
CITED ABOVE
2
3
4
------------------------------------------------------------------1014 LYGON STREET,
NORTH CARLTON,
VICTORIA 3054.
AUSTRALIA.
6-4-69
Robert Oros Di Bartini,
Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R.
Podsosenski Perspekt 21,
Moscow K-62
Dear Sir,
Firstly I wish to thank you very much for your kind letter
and generous sending of the book of the Symposium. I received
them both on 19/3/69, and since then have been giving much thought
to your ideas in the letter. As yet I haven't made contact with
anyone for the translation of the passages, which were omitted in
the Doklady translation from America, but are in the book.
However, I have made arrangements for such a contact. I have
got several mathematicians interested in your work, however, so
far, they admit that the advanced topological knowledge required
surpasses their own knowledge, and of course this is also my
trouble. However from the philosophical point of view, I find
that I have much to say.
Are there many people interested in your theory,
and is there much resistance to it in some circles???
Many thanks for guiding my thoughts along the directions
of the many "extents" of dimensions. The enumeration of them in
your letter, at first sight, puzzled me, until I realised that
they are simply an arithmetical evaluation of
where it is self evident that nCn is the `space' to which all
the other n extents are subspaces; my thoughts on this
immediately made me consider what each extent represented and/or
contained as a maximum construct, real or hypothetical, and
tho less obvious ones are the interesting and perhaps a rewarding
challenge. Another person has published a great deal of
philosophical research based on the idea of the three aspects
of time, without touching on the idea of all the subspaces, or
dwelling too much on the mathematical treatment of these three
aspects, in fact he finds that he cannot fit this concept in
with most modern theories, that it represents so radical an
outlook that new theories evolve out of necessity. I was fortunate
to be asked to write a book review for a local scientific journal
dealing with the books of this gentleman, so I wish to put my
thoughts down, together with the relevant thoughts of this author
for your comment and evaluation. My approach is step-wise,
firstly dealing with three-dimensional space alone. Secondly
dealing with three-dimensional space together with
one-dimensional time, this being current theory, and finally
the jump to six-dimensional space-tine. We may call it
"space-time' conventionally, because of the accent on space,
heretofore, being a vector and therefore always being in the
numerator of fractions. We may find on investigation however,
that there are `situations' or `events', in which the accent is
on time and its three aspects, and space being unidimensional,
where we may be justified therefore to refer to this region as
"time-space". Be that as it may, it is an interesting
5
consideration to attempt to evaluate the `maximum constructs'
within any given space (or subspace).
Starting with three-dimensional space alone.
This is three-dimensional space itself. Infinite
emptiness in all directions-TotaL absence of energy
and matter. A suitable model for statics and geometry.
This is a point.
Each is a straight line (Euclidean).
Each is a plane.
Now to consider four-dimensional space-time
This is total four-dimensional space time. This contains
the universe as we perceive it,so current theory tells us
This is infinite space throughout all time, without
beginning or end. The time coordinate allows the
existence of all matter and energy, because of the
inherent motion, associated thereto.
This is a point in space time. That is, a point in
three-dimensional space for an instant of time.
Three of these subspaces are straight lines in space,
and the other is a time interval, whose maximum
construct is the rotation of a point, which doesn't
have much meaning.
Three of these subspaces are planes. The other three
consist of one spatial dissension and the time dimension.
These three can each contain as a maximum construct
the motion of a point in a straight line. This is
hypothetical, because of the absence of matter & energy.
One subspace is three dimensional space itself.
The other three subspaces consist of 2 dimensions of
space and the time dimension. The maximum construct
would be motion within a plane, other than linear motion.
At least here we have reached the minimum requirement
for radiation energy, but still no matter.
6
NOW to (3+3)-dimensionality.
This is the six-dimensional space-time, proposed by you.
This is the maximum `space' whilst all the others,
namely:-
are subspaces. We have exactly three dimensions of space,
so we can logically conclude that the other three are
aspects of time, (temporal dimensions). These must be
investigated thoroughly. It seems reasonable to assume
that time has comparable relationships within it,
as does space, but that our `perceptive apparatus'
does nor discern this, so we leave it to the power of
reason to evaluate these three aspects of time, and
their feasibility and usefulness. The foremost question
is:- Are the three aspects of time combined in our
previous knowledge and experience of time, and its
passage and duration?
OR are we only perceptionally familiar with one (or two)
of these aspects, the other(s) being only evident
in another region of the universe? Perhaps one of
these aspects of time is the major one, which we
experience, there being an arbitrary choice of axes as
with spatial axes, and the other aspects only come into
calculations as small corrections. Perhaps these
other two aspects must be taken into account when
considering rotations and perhaps this involvement
only occurs noticeably when one deals with speeds
approaching the speed of light, whether linear or
rotational or vibrational. Perhaps also, acceleration
is a link-up with an extra aspect of time. In this
respect, I think of Einstein and his invention of
curvature of space etc. to explain what had been
inexplicable about acceleration until then, so
perhaps time corrections will serve us equally well?
Whatever we decide of these alternatives leaves us with
a necessary re-examination of the laws of physic in
their entirety, without allowing formal teachings to
influence us away from these apparently heretical beliefs.
Gravitation and its explanation could be
simpler than we now believe, for instance, since
without time we have no matter or energy, therefore
the aspects of time necessarily influence the
various properties of matter, individually in discrete
particles, and collectively.
For instance, the results of an experiment in a linear
accelerator could be interpreted within the
framework of three-dimensional time. Remember that
with all these new particle experiments, Newton's
Laws were found insufficient to explain what went
on at high speeds, so all sorts of explanations were
invented, and the inventors were deified, as though
`Ultimate Truth' had been discovered with Einstein and
his contemporaries. Needless to say, one model is as
good as another, if they both explain the same event,
7
however, neither is necessarily the truth, for as newer
experiments are devised and higher speeds attained,
the theory is strained and occasionally does not stand
up to the strain, so new appendages are added to the
theory, and so on. This is where we may find a very
valuable tool in having time with three aspects.
Since, we are only capable, with our senses and
instruments to recognise three dimensions of space
and one of time, perhaps we will never perceive more
than one aspect of time, however when we consider events,
which involve motion, especially at speeds approaching
the speed of light, then it may well be that there is
another interpretation of the results. I try to reason
by analogy. Since we observe the three dimensions of
space, while we `travel' through one dimension of time,
then perhaps our best way of evaluating the three aspects
of time, is where there is one-dimensional motion in
space involved. e.g. A linear accelerator (already
mentioned) or the recession of the galaxies.
A hypothetical observer existing in only two spatial
dimensions would measure space displacement between
points A and B and then points B and C. If the two
distances are added arithmetically and they equal
the displacement between points A and C, he then
concludes that B is in the straight line joining
A to C. However if he finds that this is not so,then
he concludes that the straight lines AC and BC meet
at B at an angle other than 180 degrees, and that the
two displacements can be formed into a resultant
by the law of vector addition. By analogy, I believe
that there can be examples quoted, where there is only
one spatial displacement involved and more than
one temporal displacement, which means that the
times have to be added vectorially, which would then
give a consistent result with what one would have
expected with the Laws of Newton, and treating space
to be Euclidean and that rays of light travel in straight
lines, as defined by Euclid. Obviously there could be
more complex events where the six dimensions of
space-time are involved. The method of solution may
be either to add the times vectorially and to treat
this corrected time as a scalar in a vector equation
OR perhaps both space displacement and time displacement
are vectors and s = v.t where s,t are vectors and
v is a tensor (bisor). These comparatively simple
expedients may do away with Relativity as such,
curvature of space, shrinkage in direction of motion,
and the velocity of propagation of gravitation, which
I believe to be especially repugnant, since it is
a wild conjecture, without supporting evidence.
This is a point in space for an instant of time.
Three of these subspaces are straight lines in space
and the other three are durations of time, whose
8
maximum constructs are hypothetical rotations of a point.
Three of these are planes.
Three of these are analogous counterparts in time,
(temporal planes), however just as a duration of time
is the equivalent of a line in time, so then we would
only recognise this temporal plane as a duration.
With each aspect of space we have three choices of
link-up with the aspects of time, therefore there are
nine such relationships, giving us the expected
3+3+9=15 subspaces,(see immediately below).
There are three ways of linking up the three aspects of
time with one aspect of space. These three subspaces
must be considered along with the 9 two-dimensional
subspaces immediately above. (Similarly see later for a
link up of 2 aspects of time with one aspect of space.)
In these cases we have one aspect of space linked up
with 1, 2, or 3 aspects of time. The maximum constructs
within these subspaces is motion of a point in a
straight line.
There are three ways of linking up three aspects of
space with one aspect of time. The maximum constructs
within these subspaces would be comparable to the
universe that we perceive, however the exact difference
is conjecturable, due to the role of the three aspects
of time being, as yet, undefined.
There are nine link-ups with two aspects of space
and two aspects of time. These are planes, whose
maximum constructs would be motion within the plane,
other than linear motion. Probably vibration would
be a reasonable assumption, (as well as circular or
other curved paths), hence radiation energy is a
probable maximum construct.
One subspace is three dimensional space. Infinite
emptiness in all directions. Total absence of
energy and matter. Suitable for statics & geometry.
One subspace is three-dimensional time. An infinite
time interval. The maximum construct with this
subspace is the hypothetical rotation of a point.
There are nine subspaces linking up two aspects of
time with one aspect of space, which has been dealt
with above.
There are nine subspaces linking up two aspects of
space with one aspect of time. These are planes and
the maximum construct within each is motion within
a plane, other than linear motion. Here there is the
possibility that radiation is excluded, due to only
one time aspect being present.
Three of these subspaces are two aspects of space,
9
linked up with three aspects of time. These are
planes and their maximum constructs would be
motion of a point within a plane other than linear
motion, including radiation energy.
The other three subspaces would be three aspects of
space linked up with two aspects of time. The maximum
constructs within these subspaces would be similar
to the universe of six dimensions, the exact difference
being conjecturable, since the exact roles of the
three aspects of time have yet to be clearly
ascertained. Perhaps one form of motion will be
impossible due to the absence of one time dimension.
This is may be a rotational vibration???
A POSSIBLE TIME TABLE?????
Each aspect of time is a duration, which can be measured by a
hypothetical clock, but if we divide time into its aspects,
and call them A, B, and C, we can tabulate various types of
motion, and the possible number of aspects of time involved
in each motion.
TYPE OF MOTION
Uniform linear notion
Accelerated linear motion
Uniform rotation
Motion along a curved path
Accelerated rotation
Vibrational linear motion
Vibrational rotation
ARBITRARY TIME ASPECTS INVOLVED
A
A and B
A OR A and B ????
A OR A and B ????
A and B
A and B
A and B and C
If the above-stated motions are being considered, perhaps the
above differentiation of time aspects can serve to explain them.
Perhaps many experiments, which for explanation in the
past, required ad hoc assumptions can now be interpreted in the
light of this new approach to vector time???
I hope that you do not mind me passing my thoughts
on to you for comment.
I would be grateful if you would outline your method
of experimental proof of the existence of (3+3)-dimensionality.
Are you having trouble to find a magazine or journal to print
your sequel to the paper presented at the Symposium? I would
imagine that there would be a certain amount of resistance to
this new concept, by the `old school' of thought-is this so????
I would be very interested to hear of your
profession, since I can only surmise that you are connected with
a University. Is this thesis of yours something which you pursue
in your spare hours, because of other commitments???
I hope sincerely that I shall have a reply from
you in the not-too-distant future,
Yours sincerely,
David Halprin
POST SCRIPT
If we wish to measure a spatial displacement with a
10
wheel by counting the number of revolutions turned by the wheel
it doesn't matter whether the displacement is a straight line
a curve in a plane, or is curve drawn on the surface of a sphere,
although the spatial aspects involved are one, two and three
respectively. The measuring device is independent of what it
measures.
By analogy, a clock measures a duration of time.
It doesn't matter if this duration involves one, two or three
aspects of time, since the clock is independent of what it
measures, in that respect. What counts is the relationship
of the observer with the clock, to the event.
e.g. If a person looks at a circle, which is drawn on a corrugated
tin roof, and he is situated on the top storey of a high
building, he only sees the circle as being a true circle.
If a person on the roof runs a measuring wheel around the
circumference of the circle, the calculated distance would be
greater than the expected result, if the observer had calculated
the diameter by optical means & then calculated the circumference.
If, however, the observer knew of the corrugations, he could make
due allowance, and in fact, calculate the magnitude of the
corrugations.
By analogy, any event, which is timed, can involve
1, 2 or 3 temporal aspects, and the clock only measures the
resultant time.
e.g. In an experiment to measure the speed of light. If it is
conducted in vacuo, the result is the expected speed, c.
However, when conducted through a medium, the light has a lesser
speed, which could be explained in the new framework of time.
In vacuo, the motion of the light beam is linear and vibratory.
However, through a medium, (say water), the motion of the light
wave is altered by the medium, sufficiently to bring in the
extra aspect of time, hence the overall result is an increase
in the clock time measured, thereby increasing the denominator
of s/t and of course the speed is thereby shown to be less than
the speed in vacuo.
If two bodies, A and B, are moving towards, (or away from),
each other at constant speed, then the time factor of an event
on A, which is observed from B, where the clock is, is unaltered
by this motion. It would be the same if A and B were relatively
stationary. However, if there is an acceleration of A to, (or away
from), B then the observer on B has to allow for the compounded
motion of the event on A together with the motion of A relative
to B. An extra aspect of time has been added into the clock
measurement made on B, thus affecting the result.
However, the mathematics of this would be identical with the
mathematical equation of current theories. This being merely
a different interpretation of the results, based on a more
realistic model-Nicht Wahr????. D.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------1014 LYGON STREET,
NORTH CARLTON,
VICTORIA 3054
AUSTRALIA
4-12-70
Robert Oros di Bartini.
Dear Sir,
During the last two years I have been engaged in further
studies, dealing directly with the results of your paper.
Also I have been attempting to interest many others in your work.
I have had several photostat copies of your paper, (in English),
11
made, and distributed amongst mathematicians, and also two copies
made from the original Russian paper, made from the book which
you sent me. However, those people, who could understand the
entire paper, I find that they are always busy with their own
work in the Universities, and are not at all anxious to comment
on a work, which is so original, and therefore contentious.
So I decided to write a paper for publication in a
mathematics magazine here in Victoria, and I had a photostat
made for you to see. I deliberately started the paper as a
very simple mathematical approach to space of 1, 2 and 3 dimensions
and gradually built up the possibilities, (with small diversions),
to end with the (3+3)-dimensional space as concluded by you.
This was my goal throughout the paper, although not obviously so.
I quoted certain passages from your work and mentioned your name
and address. This, I hope, will stimulate some more interest.
I have sent this paper to you by surface mail, and it
should arrive in late December or early January. I addressed it
care of Doklady, as is this letter. So would you please look
out for it. It would be a shame for it to go astray.
Also would you please reply to me when you receive it, and include
your actual address, so that I may write directly next time.
I did write to you in April 1969, where I made many
comments on the possibilities, which came to my mind within the
few weeks after receiving your letter and book of the Symposium.
However you may have felt that I had nothing worth saying, and
therefore worthy of comment then, however I do earnestly request
a reply after you see my paper, since I am trying very hard
to make your work known here in Australia.
Have you had your next paper published yet?-the one, in
which you show an experimental proof of the (3+3)-dimensionality
of space-time. I have been most anxious for its publication.
I have looked through the Doklady translations from time to time
with no success in finding it.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID HALPRIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. David Halprin
Dear Sir,
I am much obliged for your letter of 4-12-70 and for the sapid paper on dimensionality of space, that
you kindly have sent to me and which I received recently, after return to Moscow.
The gradually built approach to pluridimensional spaces as developed by you seems to be very
interesting.
The problem may be treated, I guess, on base of generalised reflection of n-dimensional manifolds in
(n-k)-dimensionalities by means of some aequatio directrix of transformation.
The Legendre-transformation of this function
which may be considered as the adequate aequatio directrix, where
12
a form suitable for variation, reducible to canonical form
allowing establish analogy between geometrical and kinematical aspects of matter.
Such mode will be perhaps useful in treating the question.
Yours sincerely
Robert Oros di Bartini
Moscow, 17.02.71
-----------------------------------------------------------1014 LYGON STREET,
NORTH CARLTON,
VICTORIA 3054
AUSTRALIA.
3-4-72
Robert Oros di Bartini.
Podsosyensky Pyeriulok Dom 21
Izdatyelstvo Dokladi
AN- U.S.S.R.
MOSCOW K-62
Dear Sir,
It is now 13 months since I received your letter, in
answer to my earlier letter of 4/12/70.
Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding
Legendre transforms.
At long last I have several people interested
in your theory, so much so, that they requested to see your
letters to me, which I have sent them only recently. They have
read your paper in English, and I have also sent them
photostat copies of the Russian language text, which you sent me,
in the hope that this will help then further.
In your letter to me on 20/12/68, you wrote that you
are preparing a more detailed explanation of the concept,
including its experimental verification. Since it is now more
than 3 years, I have been waiting patiently. I now write to you
on behalf of my several friends and myself:PLEASE LET US HAVE THIS EXTRA INFORMATION.
IF IT IS NOT PUBLISHED YET, COULD WE HAVE A PHOTOSTAT OF IT
FROM YOUR OWN MANUSCRIPTS? IT WOULD MEAN SO MUCH TO ME APTER
WONDERING ABOUT IT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.
Also, would you please let me have in English lettering
your own address, so that I may write to you directly in future.
Yours sincerely,
David Halprin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------David Halprin davrin999@gmail.com
13