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