Glimpes-of-a-New-Paradigm-by-K-v-K-NEHRU

Free from; />
GLIMPSES
NEW
PARADIGM
OF A

K.V.K. NEHRU
Reflections and Comments
Glimpses of a New Paradigm
How do We Meet the New Age Ushered in by the Reciprocal System?
Subversive Reflections on the Practice of Physics
Dialogue with D. B. Larson: Part I
Dialogue with D. B. Larson: Part II
Scientific Correspondence

Particle Physics
Lifetimes of C-Atom Decays
Lifetime of C-Argon, the Muon
Internal Ionization and Secondary Mass


The Lifetime of the Neutron
Relative Abundance of the Elements
The Inter-regional Ratio
The Nature of Scalar Motion
Electric Ionization
The Law of Conservation of Direction
Is Ferromagnetism a Co-magnetic Phenomenon?
Theoretical Evaluation of Planck‘s Constant
Superconductivity: A Time Region Phenomenon
On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation

The Photon as Birotation
Birotation and the Doubts of Thomas
Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System
―Quantum Mechanics‖ as the Mechanics of the Time Region
‗Non-Locality‘ in the Reciprocal System
Some Thoughts on Spin
High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System

Astrophysics
Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System
New Light on the Gravitational Deflection of Radiation Path
Gravitational Redshift according to the Reciprocal System
The Gravitational Limit and the Hubble‘s Law
Precession of the Planetary Perihelia due to Co-ordinate Time
Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part I
Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part II
Distribution of the Masses of Protostars in Globular Clusters
Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit
The Quasar Paradox?
Radio Component Separation in Quasars
Another Look at the Pulsar Phenomemon
The Cosmic Background Radiation: Origin and Temperature
The Large-scale Structure of the Physical Universe


GLIMPSES OF A NEW PARADIGM
For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a universe of matter
contained in space and time. All scientific theories hitherto have been built on this
paradigm. Now Dewey B. Larson introduces the new paradigm that motion is the basic
and sole constituent of the physical universe, and space-time is the content—not the

container—of the universe. We review in this article some of the highlights of his theory,
the Reciprocal System, which he develops from the new paradigm.

Introduction
The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being called The
Reciprocal System. Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting from two Postulates as
regarding the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe and the
mathematics applicable thereto, builds a cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to
being a general theory. As it is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space
of an article, an attempt has been made to present only those salient features that do not
require lengthy explanation and have a broad-enough scope to enable the interested
reader to appreciate its potentialities. More esoteric features of the theory have been
intentionally omitted from this preliminary treatment. They are, of course, available in
the published works of Larson[1-7].

The Conceptual Roadblock
The view that the physical universe is made up of basic units of matter, embedded in a
framework of space and time, has been held by the common man and the
scientist/philosopher for over the entire period of recorded history. Every new century
has brought new and revolutionary ideas about the Universe that shook and changed our
earlier views, but the concept of matter contained in a space-time background has
remained unquestioned. Larson finds that it is this concept—which we shall call the
concept of the universe of matter—that stood in the way of development of a truly
general physical theory, one that explains all domains of physical facts—from the atomic
to the astronomical—from the same set of fundamental premises. He has carried out the
needed review of the concepts of space and time and finds that the introduction of the
new paradigm, that the fundamental and the sole constituent of the physical universe is
motion, leads us to an understanding of all the physical phenomena, and makes possible
the construction of the long-sought after general theory.
To be sure, there have been earlier thinkers who attempted to build a general theory based

on motion as the fundamental constituent. Larson points out that the lack of success in all
earlier attempts was due to the fact that these thinkers failed to realize the crucial point
that in a universe based on motion (which is a relation of space and time), space and time
cannot have independent existence (or definition), that they cannot be regarded as a
background (or ‗container‘) for themselves. No matter what conceptual reforms these
thinkers introduced into physical theory they all alike continued to subscribe to the
container view of space and time and as a result blocked themselves from true progress.


Space, Time and Progression
The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson
derives every aspect of the physical universe is
―The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three
dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.‖
Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as the measure of
motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum quantity that can exist in the
universe of motion, since fractional units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory.
Since one unit of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to
be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space to a unit of time,
each of which is the minimum possible quantity. Certain corollaries follow.
Corollary (1)
Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to speed: that doubling the
space with constant time, for example, has the same effect on speed as halving the time at
constant space. As a recognition of the far-reaching significance this reciprocal relation
holds for the explanation of all the physical facts, Larson names his theoretical structure
The Reciprocal System of theory.
Corollary (2)
At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of
space is equivalent to a unit of time. Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties
of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Thus

he concludes that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that space, like time,
progresses.
At this juncture it may be pointed out that in order to understand (or evaluate) the new
ideas engendered by the new paradigm, namely that the physical universe is a universe
composed of units of motion (speed), it is necessary to view them in their new context.
On the other hand, the most frequent mistake committed by the novice is to view the new
concepts from the habitual viewpoint of the previous paradigm, that the universe is a
universe of matter, embedded in a framework of space and time. Such an attempt leads
one, often, to seemingly absurd, impossible or incredulous conclusions. To avoid slipping
back involuntarily into the old and inadmissible frame of mind while evaluating the
Reciprocal System theory is one of the most difficult tasks that a critic has to constantly
accomplish .
Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing space-like in the three
dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal parameters. The common belief that time
is one-dimensional is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our
experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity in
the equations of motion lies in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may
exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space.


The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look more weird than
the idea of multi-dimensional time. Our immediate experience is that of stationary space.
But history has repeatedly shown that our immediate experience of space has always
proved to be a bad guide in understanding the true nature of the universe. We first
thought that the earth is flat. Then we made the mistake of thinking our earth to be the
center of the universe and ended up in the maze of epicycles. Larson draws our attention
to the fact that the increased scope of our scientific observations has brought us to the
point where too many epicycles have once again been accumulated in the field of science
in the form of unresolved old questions, fresh new puzzles and ever-increasing
complexity of physical theory. He questions whether our anthropocentric view of space is

not once again the culprit that is barring progress.
He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only locally (that is, in
the context of a gravitationally-bound system). The true nature of space is to progress, to
expand ceaselessly outward. Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes
negligible, weakened by distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent.
The observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from this space
progression, not from any hypothetical ‗big bang.‘ In fact, the observed Hubble‘s law is
derivable from the postulates of the Reciprocal System.
Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion, the most
primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression of space coupled with the
progression of time: in other words, a motion at unit speed. Beginners usually encounter
here the difficulty of imagining the existence of motion without it being the motion of
anything. But a little reflection should show that in a universe of motion the most
fundamental constituent is motion, and all ‗things‘ are derivatives of motion. Since every
space unit is like every other space unit, and every unit of time is like every other unit of
time, such a condition appears to our view as a featureless uniformity in which nothing is
happening and constitutes the null background. Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns
out to be nature‘s starting point. Larson refers to this background space-time progression
as the ‗natural reference frame,‘ and identifies the unit speed with the speed of light, c.

Emergence of Physical Phenomena
By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could progress inward,
rather than outward as they do in the case of the space-time progression, speeds other
than unity become possible. Larson points out that it is these deviations (or
‗displacements‘) from the unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely,
radiation, gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest. These are autonomous,
independent motions in contra-distinction to the ever-present background progression.
This gives rise to two possibilities. Suppose k number of reversals occur in the space
component, and suppose the unit speed of space-time progression contains n space units
per n time units (n/n = 1). Such a situation produces less than unit speeds, (n-k)/n. Since

such a motion detaches itself from the space-time progression in its spatial aspect, we
find it to be a motion in space. The second possibility is that the reversals occur in the
time component of the motion. This results in greater than unit speeds, n/(n-k). In this
second case it is the time component which gets detached from the background


progression and we note that it constitutes what might be termed a motion in time (not
‗time travel‘). This is the reason why unit speed (c, the speed of light) is the upper limit
for motion in space. It does not mean, as concluded in Relativity, that speeds greater than
c are impossible in the physical universe: it only means that such speeds do not manifest
in our conventional, stationary reference frame of three-dimensional space as
displacements in space. These greater-than-unit speeds (namely, the motion in time) can
be represented truly only in a ‗stationary‘ reference frame of three-dimensional time.
Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that motion means
motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has never been imagined, much less
investigated. While such motion cannot be truly represented in the conventional, spatial
reference frame, it has nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse
relationship between space and time. For example, in a supernova explosion, if sufficient
energy is available, Larson points out that some of the constituent matter of the star gets
propelled to greater-than-unit speeds. The less-than-unit speed component manifests itself
as a cloud expanding in space. On the other hand, the greater-than-unit speed component
manifests itself as a cloud expanding in time (since it is a motion in time). In view of the
reciprocal relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in time
manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this component as a
superdense and compact star. Thus we have the red giant/white dwarf combination so
frequently found as supernova product.
Larson‘s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion in time can
explain every other type of superdense astronomical phenomena, not just the white
dwarfs. He shows that as age advances, the central regions of massive galaxies keep on
accumulating motion in time (since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in

space, this matter does not leak out). When enough energy accumulates, it results in a
stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets ejected and is found as
a superdense star system, which, of course, is observed as a quasar. All the strange and
unconventional characteristics of quasars—like their high density, large redshift,
stupendous luminosity, jet-structure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can be
deduced from the theory.
We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit speed and that a
‗displacement‘ from this condition takes the form of either less than unit speed (s/t) or
greater than unit speed (the latter being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s).
Larson identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed displacement with its
frequency. While the photon gets detached from the background space-time progression
in the dimension of its oscillation, it does not have any independent motion in the
dimension of space perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs.
Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the space-time progression in
which it is created. But from the context of the stationary spatial reference frame any
location of the space-time progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed.
Thus, while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame, ostensibly it
appears to move away at unit speed. Incidentally we might note that, when in a single
process a photon pair happens to be created, while the individual photons seemingly
appear to fly off in space in opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time.


This results in a correlation between them that is not representable in three-dimensional
space (the EPR paradox).
Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears wherein the
photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (covering all
the three dimensions of space). Larson identifies such units of compound motion with the
atoms of matter. Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and
that the background space-time progression is already taking place at that speed in the
outward (away from each other) direction, all autonomous (independent) motions

(speeds) have to take place in the inward (toward each other) direction only. Thus the
units of rotational displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern
of space-time progression. Larson identifies this inward motion with gravitation. We now
see that there is no propagation involved in gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the
inherent motion of each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other
location of the space-time progression, whether or not occupied by an atom. The nonexistence of propagation time and the seeming action-at-a-distance, both owe their origin
to the above fact.
Theoretical analysis reveals that elements with atomic numbers 1 through 117 can all
exist in young matter. In old matter, however, elements with the higher atomic numbers
become subject to radioactive decay, by a process identified by Larson.

The Regions of the Physical Universe
An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational displacement that
constitutes the atoms could be either of the less-than-unit-speed type or the greater-thanunit-speed type. In either case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward
progression of space-time). But in the case of the former type of atoms, since less-thanunit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward in space, resulting in the
formation of aggregates in the three-dimensional spatial reference frame. Larson calls this
portion of the universe the material sector. On the other hand, the atoms constituted of
greater-than-unit speeds manifest motion in time. The resulting gravitation acts inward in
time, and produces aggregates in the three-dimensional temporal reference frame. Larson
refers to this matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation, and
this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector. We therefore discover another half
of the physical universe where all the phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated,
but with the roles of space and time interchanged. Even though cosmic matter occurs as
ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it readily. Firstly, the
atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are aggregated in three-dimensional time but are
randomly distributed in space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but
atom by atom. Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms inward in
time, our own matter progresses outward in time. Thus, even the chance of encounters of
atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more than one natural unit of time (about oneseventh of a femtosecond).
Larson identifies all the exotic particles that abound in the high-energy environment of

the particle accelerators with the ‗cosmic atoms,‘ with some additional features acquired
under the artificial environment.


A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the stars of our sector is at
a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic stars would be at a high inverse
temperature, that is, at a low temperature. Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed
being the border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from both the
sectors, in whichever sector it originates. Therefore, the radiation emitted by the cosmic
stars, as it comes from a region not localized in space, is received in the material sector
(that is, the three-dimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform and
isotropic distribution. We observe this as the low-temperature, cosmic background
radiation. In the Reciprocal System, we find no necessity to reconcile the absolute
isotropy of this background radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the
material aggregates.

The Grand Cycle of the Universe
We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit) speed explosion
products of aged galaxies. When gravitation in space is attenuated by distance (time) and
becomes negligible, the quasar as a whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed
(conventional spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the threedimensional temporal reference frame). Gravitation ceases to act in space and starts
acting in time. This leaves the outward progression of space-time without check (as there
is no inward progression of gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start
flying out in space at unit speed. Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a spatial
aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector. In other words, the atoms of
the erstwhile quasar emerge into the three-dimensional temporal reference frame of the
cosmic sector at totally random locations (in time).
The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic sector—cosmic atoms
aggregate in three-dimensional time forming cosmic stars and galaxies, parts of which
explode on attaining a size limit and eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the

cosmic sector and end up entering the material sector. Since they come from a region not
localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and isotropically
distributed throughout the three-dimensional space. Since the transfer occurs at the unit
speed we ought to observe these particles at unit or near-unit speed. These, of course, are
the observed cosmic ray primaries.
The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being greater-thanunit-speed structures in a less-than-unit-speed environment, promptly decay, ejecting
speed (energy) and ‗cosmic mass‘ (that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most
primitive atomic structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen. Then the entire
cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins. In the long run, as much
matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the material sector. Thus the dual sector
universe as a whole is in equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to
expand in space or in time as the case may be. There is no necessity to assume the
singularity of a ‗big bang‘ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as in ‗continual
creation.‘

The Solid State


Because of the fact that the minimum space that can occur in physical action is one
natural unit of space (the quantum of space), if two atoms are made to approach each
other they cannot come any nearer than one unit of space. However, by virtue of the
reciprocal relation between space and time, these atoms can accomplish the equivalent of
moving inward in space by actually moving outward in time. This they promptly do until
a force (motion) equilibrium is achieved, giving rise to the solid state of matter. Since
less than one unit of space does not exist, within the unit of space all motion could be in
time only. The inside of unit space is therefore referred to as the time region by Larson.
The space-time progression always acts away from unity. In the outside region away
from unity is also away from zero (outward). But in the inside region away from unity is
towards zero. Therefore the space-time progression is inward in the time region. Since
gravitation always opposes space-time progression, it acts outward in the time region

(repulsion). Further, while the space-time progression is constant at unit value,
gravitation attenuates with distance. The two motions (forces) therefore reach a stable
equilibrium at some distance in the time region and produce the configuration of solid
state. Larson finds that a single theory of cohesion explains all kinds of bonds. Basing on
purely theoretical computations he is able to accurately calculate the various solid state
properties of hundreds of elements and compounds.

New Light on Quantum Phenomena
Since in the time region only motion in time can truly exist, the appropriate reference
frame that ought to be adopted for the description of the phenomena is the threedimensional temporal reference frame, and not the conventional, spatial reference frame.
The origin of the conventional reference frame is at zero speed, whereas the origin of the
temporal reference frame is at zero inverse speed, which is tantamount to infinite speed in
the context of the conventional spatial frame, and consequently a location pertaining to
the temporal reference frame is found not to be localized in the conventional reference
frame. This is the origin of the nonlocality characteristic so perplexing in quantum
theory. This reciprocal (inverse) relation between these two types of reference frames
also explains why a localizable particle in the context of a temporal reference frame
needs to be regarded as an endless repetition, namely, as a wave, in the context of the
spatial reference frame. Thus the Reciprocal System throws new light on the concepts of
quantum theory. As the time region is a region of motion in time, it requires the adoption
of a temporal reference frame for the description of particle phenomena. But, being
irrevocably wedded to the spatial reference frame of the material sector, we are unable to
accomplish this. However, we are able to accomplish the equivalent of adopting the
temporal reference frame by resorting to the expedient of adopting the wave picture in the
place of the particle picture.
This insight resolves the problem of the wave-particle duality. It further clarifies that the
question of adopting the wave picture arises only on entering the time region, the region
inside the unit of space. To associate a wave with every gross object is unwarranted.
There are yet unforeseen insights brought to light by the Reciprocal System. In the
outside region, that is, in the context of the three-dimensional spatial reference frame,

speed (s/t) is directional (vectorial). However, in the time region, that is, in the context of


three-dimensional temporal reference frame inverse speed (t/s) is the quantity that is
‗directional‘ while speed appears scalar. But it must be cautioned that this ‗direction‘
pertains to the realm of three-dimensional time and has nothing to do with direction in
space. Thus inverse speed, though it could be ‗directional‘ in time, is not a vector. In the
universe of motion all physical quantities can be reduced to space-time terms. Larson, in
a major overhaul of the dimensions of various physical quantities, arrives at the
conclusion that the dimensions of energy are those of inverse speed, namely, t/s.
Consequently, energy needs to be represented by complex numbers in the time region and
negative energy states are as natural in the time region as negative speeds (velocities) are
in the spatial reference frame.

Conclusion
We have endeavoured to sketch out some of the important contributions of the Reciprocal
System to the understanding of the physical universe starting from a new paradigm—the
concept of a universe of motion, in place of the current one of a universe of matter
embedded in a framework of space and time. The examples cited here are expected to
convey the broad-enough scope of the theoretical system and establish that a prima facie
case exists for a general theory. It is only fair to record that some of the more esoteric
aspects of the theory, such as multi-dimensional motion, the scalar region of the universe,
etc., have had to be omitted entirely for pedagogical reasons and hence interesting
questions concerning two large and important fields, namely, of electricity and
magnetism, could not be considered in this article. Mention must also be made of the fact
that Larson finds the basic constituent of the universe according to the new paradigm,
namely, motion, to be scalar motion. Even though the existence of this kind of motion has
been recognized, it has played a very minor and insignificant role in physical theory
hitherto. So, Larson carries out a full-scale investigation of the properties and possibilities
of scalar motion and discovers that this type of motion plays a central role in the drama of

the physical phenomena. He finds, for example, that some of the unexplained physical
facts are really the unfamiliar features of certain types of scalar motion. In this
preliminary article we have refrained, for practical reasons, from dwelling on this
important contribution of the Reciprocal System.
Surely one might question the rationale of omitting some of these important contributions
of the theory when at the same time emphasizing its all out nature. The real reason is—as
has been hinted at the outset—no matter how simple and logical the new conclusions are
from the viewpoint of the new paradigm, since one is habituated to the old paradigm,
some of them might look unimaginable or utterly unscientific. Having invested one‘s
entire professional career in the existing paradigm, one‘s mind does not take kindly to the
prospect of a basic paradigm change. The first few contacts are the most difficult ones as
Kuhn points out. One would not be inclined even to pay attention to the new conclusions,
much less evaluate them on their own merit.

References
1. Larson, D.B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, (North Pacific Publishers,
Portland, OR, USA, 1963)


2. Larson, D.B., Beyond Newton, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA,
1964)
3. Larson, D.B., New Light on Space and Time, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland,
OR, USA, 1965)
4. Larson, D.B., Nothing But Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA,
1979)
5. Larson, D.B., Basic Properties of Matter, (ISUS, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1979)
6. Larson, D.B., The Neglected Facts of Science, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland,
OR, USA, 1982)
7. Larson, D.B., The Universe of Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR,
USA, 1984)

HOW DO WE MEET THE NEW AGE
USHERED IN BY THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM ?
The student of the Reciprocal System is often beset with a peculiar difficulty, the nature
of which he does not recognize readily. The result is that he does not even suspect that his
progress is being blocked by this difficulty. I have writen several times referring to this
but find that it is by no means easy for the student to realize the point I am endeavoring to
show. For instance, in a recent communication, circulated by Maurice Gilroy (Re:
Message 17 of Conference 01 mailed 8/19/93), we find Robert Tucek asking: ―What
observations correspond to a basic rotation of natural units?‖ (Please see the short note on
STP at the end. ) The context of his questioning was, of course, about the possibility of
rotation as a primary motion as against linear translation. A little later he emphasizes,
―Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object!‖
The prevailing view in the ISUS seems to be that while linear motion can exist without
any object, rotation is not possible without an object. We wish to show that this view is
not applicable in the context of the universe of motion postulated by the Reciprocal
System. Larson has repeatedly pointed out to us that the most basic component of the
universe of motion is motion, not matter or any other ‗object.‘ On the other hand, the
most basic component of the universe of matter is matter: motion being regarded as
something added on to these primary units, namely, matter. Let us highlight these:
Concept of the Universe of Motion:
Motion or space/time: the content of this universe; primary component
Concept of the Universe of Matter:
Matter: the content of this universe; primary component
Space/time: the background or container
Motion: something that could be acquired by objects, like matter.
Therefore, referring to the primary units of motion, in the context of the universe of
motion, when we speak of rotational motion, we do not mean the rotational motion of an
object, for the simple fact that there is no ‗object‘ logically prior to the primary motion.

The term ‗primary component‘ implies logical priority. In fact, the expression ‗rotation of
natural units,‘ used by Tucek, as also by so many other students, is positively misleading:
as though the natural units are first existing and then are given a rotation. The truth is that
when we speak of a rotational space unit (as against linear space unit) we do not mean
―the rotation of the space unit;‖ rather, we mean ―the rotation that is the space unit.‖
Our preoccupation with the Cartesian (rectangular) co-ordinate frame has some biasing
inf luence. Turning, instead, to the polar co-ordinates, r and q, we find that the linear and
rotational space are on an equal footing. A scalar parameter has only magnitude and no
direction in space. Examples are wages (dollars/hr) or production (units/min) etc. Though
speed (cm/sec)—in contrast to velocity—is taken to be scalar, it is not scalar in the
absolute sense of the previous examples (in the sense that dollars or numbers have no


relation whatsoever to direction in space). This is because distance between two points,
say, A and B, does have an intrinsic direction, namely, AB or BA (which wage or
production does not have). ‗Scalar speed‘ merely means that this intrinsic direction is not
oriented in any direction of the reference system. That is to say that there is no specific
relation between this intrinsic direction and the conventional reference frame. Thus we
use the word ‗scalar‘ either in a strong (or absolute) sense or in a weak sense. Wage is an
absolute scalar in that it does not have an intrinsic direction, whereas speed has a
potential direction in space that could be actualized in the context of a spatial reference
frame.
In exactly the same manner a scalar speed could be rotational (radians/sec) instead of
linear (cm/sec). Rotation also has an intrinsic direction, namely, the axis of rotation. Our
pre-occupation with rectangular reference frames might make us think that the direction
germane to rotation is the ever-changing direction of the radius. But this is not correct.
The intrinsic direction of rotation is that of its axis (adopting the righthand screw
convention). The problem is that we are not used to think of rotation without imagining a
rotating object. Even if we are careful enough not to picture any gross physical object, we
cannot help imagining a conceptual object, a sphere or disk of space, and see it rotate.

The catch here is that we are still envisioning ‗the rotation of the disk,‘ instead of ‗the
rotation that is the disk,‘ and so are back in the trap! But the truth is that in the case of
rotational speed, d /dt, there is no radius, r, involved. In the case of translational speed
we can imagine dr/dt without any connection or reference to !
One useful excercise that might help us overcome this difficulty is first to imagine a
rotating disk and then to visualize the disk to be shrinking progressively, such that we are
ultimately left with only rotation (radians per sec). Having realized that the intrinsic
direction of rotation is its axis, and not the changing direction of the radius, we see that
rotation could be as much a scalar quantity as translation is, so long as the intrinsic
direction, in either case, is not oriented in any specific direction of the conventional
reference frame.
Tucek‘s assertion, which is a statement of the difficulty that is common to many other
students, that ‗Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object,‘ is true only in the
context of the concept of the universe of matter, not in the context of the concept of the
universe of motion. In the context of the universe of motion, primary motion—whether
translational or rotational—by definition, does not require an object. This is the
implication of the expression ‗basic component of the universe.‘ This demonstrates that it
is by no means easy to dislodge our moorings to the concept of the universe of matter.
We—our generation—are born and bred in the context of this concept. So even though
we are repeatedly cautioned we continually keep slipping back into the old view point.
When I talk of the primacy of motion—either linear or rotational—as when saying:
―Rotation is possible prior to the existence of ‗things‘ or ‗objects,‘...‖ and if someone
finds that either it is
a. absurd,
b. illogical, or


c. impossible,
then it does not establish that I am wrong. It only indicates that either one of us is wrong.
Therefore it becomes necessary to examine whether one has, by dint of inveterate habit,

slipped back to the view point of the universe of matter. Our thinking is guided by the
language, and the present grammatical patterns are thoroughly conditioned by the
viewpoint of the universe of matter. Great caution must be excercised in using ellipsis,
metaphor or other figures of speech in our discourse. Tedious repetition of long
expressions may have to be resorted to so as to avoid misguiding, or evoking semantic
responses incongruous to the new view point.
For the conventional scientists of our generation (let us call them Group A) there is no
difficulty: they are wedded to the viewpoint of the universe of matter from the beginning
to the end. For the scientists of the future generation (Group B) there is no difficulty
either: from birth they would be raised in the context of the viewpoint of the universe of
motion, and the viewpoint of the universe of matter would only be a matter of historical
interest. The difficulty is only for those of our generation (Group C) who, while having
been bred in the viewoint of the universe of matter, are promoting the study of the
Reciprocal System that requires the new viewoint, namely, that of the universe of motion.
We keep slipping back to the conventional viewoint. And trying to study the universe of
motion from the background of the concept of the universe of matter leads to absurd
results. While persons of Groups A and B might be intelligent, those of Group C have not
only to be intelligent in the conventional way, they must be intelligent in a different way
too. This latter involves an ability to perceive whether, down the line, one has
involuntarily reverted to the viewoint of the universe of matter. ‗Illogical,‘ ‗absurd,‘
‗non-sensical‘and ‗impossible‘ are some of the watchwords that should alert us to this.
Surreptitious pride in one‘s intellectual superiority is the first stumbling block. An
attitude of cocksureness and finality is the second impediment. The tendency to take the
unfamiliar for the inadmissible is the third. Reliance on majority opinion is the fourth.
In the chain of deduction from the Fundamental Postulates, far down the line, work is not
so difficult. So some of us might have published ‗learned‘ papers or literature on the
Reciprocal System. The true difficulty is nearer the Fundamental Postulates, most at the
first step, in deducing the primary motions. This is where the clash between the viewpoint
of the universe of motion that needs to be adopted and the viewpoint of the universe of
matter to which we keep slipping back (unconsciously) has the most deleterious effects.

Advocating censorship has good intentions. But implementing it is tricky: we might be
unwittingly jeopardizing the very cause which we are professing to promote. We, in our
eagerness to reject all that is alien to the Reciprocal System, might commit the mistake of
rejecting all that is alien.
In the recent ISUS Newsletter (ISUS News, V(1), Spring 1993, pp. 5-8) I have discussed
point by point how the President was misguided in his ruling. However, I know that truth
cannot be forced, it must dawn on oneself. Only he who has been able to extricate himself
from thinking in terms of the inadmissible viewpoint of the universe of matter and is
constantly on vigil to see if he has slipped back to this view point, either in his own study


or in criticizing others‘ work, is the right person to censor. The prevailing correspondence
clearly shows that not one of us is equal to the task.

The Space-Time Progression
The question is often raised that if rotational motion is as primary as linear motion, what
is the observable effect, in the case of rotation, which corresponds to the outward
progression of space-time (STP) in the case of linear motion.
The natural reference system manifests in the conventional reference frame as a onedimensional scalar outward progression. Let a length AB grow to ABl in x (natural) units
of time, such that BBl = x units of space. We make the following observations:
Observation I: Since the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i) any direction and (ii) any
reference point of the conventional reference frame.
Observation II: The effect of the non-dependence on direction is to distribute the
progression into spherical symmetry.
Observation III: The effect of the non-dependence on reference point is to distribute the
increase in length, namely, the x units of space, uniformly throughout the original length
AB. That is, it is not the case that a length BBl is added to the end of the original length
AB at B, but additional linear space emerges between every two adjacent points
(locations) on AB. Suppose M was the midpoint of AB. After x units of time it occupies
location Ml such that it is still the midpoint of ABl . It is extremely important to

distinguish this type of increase of length from an increase that is merely appended to the
end of an existing length. Both the ubiquity of the STP and the ‗action-at-a-distance‘ of
gravitation stem from this non-dependence of scalar motion on reference point.
The same state of affairs holds good in the case of rotational motion too, but first we must
note the following correspondences between translational and rotational motions:
i.

Length is measured between two points, one of which is a reference point. Angle
is measured between two directions, one of which is a reference direction.

ii.

The scalar speed cm/sec has an intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any
direction of the conventional reference frame. The scalar speed radians/sec has an
intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any direction of the conventional
reference frame.

Now we are ready to make three observations in the case of rotation as we did in the case
of translation above. Let /POQ be an angle f, such that O is the origin, OQ the reference
direction and OP another direction. In y units of time let f increase by y units of angle.
Observation I: Since the rotational counterpart of the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i)
any rotational direction and (ii) any reference direction of the conventional reference
frame.
Observation II: The effect of the non-dependence on rotational direction is to distribute
the rotation into spherical symmetry.
Observation III: The effect of the non-dependence on reference direction is to distribute
the increase in angle, namely, the y units of angle, uniformly throughout the original


angle /POQ. That is, it is not the case that an angle y is added to the end of the original

angle /POQ at OP, but additional angular space emerges between every two adjacent
directions in /POQ
It is extremely important to distinguish this type of increase of angle from an increase
that is merely appended to the end of an existing angle. Now a complication arises that
the conventional reference frame cannot accommodate more than 2 radians of angle (or
4 steradians of solid angle). Therefore, in the case of the former type of increase, as
soon as this limit is reached, no further observable effect manifests. Thus the rotational
counterpart of the linear STP is seen as no (or zero) rotation. On the other hand, since no
such limitation exists for accomodating linear space we observe an unlimited outward
progression in the linear case.


SUBVERSIVE REFLECTIONS
ON THE PRACTICE OF PHYSICS
―The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one is far from a cumulative process.
Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals.‖
—Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 84-85
In the article High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System¹ we indicated that high
energy physics is a field approaching a crisis, and therefore the Reciprocal System,
originated by Dewey B. Larson, has greater chances of getting a hearing since it offers a
truly general theoretical framework resolving long-standing problems. We believe that
the dawning of a new century is particularly propitious for new ideas—as it always has
been—and the Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm of scalar motion as the sole
content of the physical universe, has much to contribute. The need of the times is a good
number of interface articles that could bring the knowledge of the Reciprocal System to
the orthodoxy, or at least to the iconoclastic thinkers in its ranks.
The title of this article is adopted from that of an article² written by A. J. Leggett in the
Indian journal of Current Science. I shall quote extensively from this article, giving the
page numbers in parentheses. Prof. Leggett is well known in the field of condensed
matter physics. He advances in the above article forceful arguments against the

reductionist viewpoint in science. Reductionism implies that the behavior of macroscopic
systems is in principle entirely determined by the behavior of their microscopic
constituents. Leggett is not alone in drawing attention to the limitations of reductionism.
Since the pioneering work of the celebrated thermodynamicist and Nobel laureate, Ilya
Prigogine, there has been a growing awareness of the limited applicability of the
reductionist viewpoint in the fields of physics and life sciences.

Epistemology of Reductionism
Leggett observes that the reductionist argument goes like this: ―We have analyzed the
properties of macroscopic bodies in terms of those of atoms and molecules; these systems
in turn behave as they do because of the properties of the electrons and nuclei; the
behavior of the nuclei is determined by that of their constituent nucleons; and now we
trace the properties of the nucleon itself to that of its constituent quarks. What could be
more obvious than that the behavior at each level is determined by that of the constituents
at the next level below?‖ (p. 787).
He then tracks down that ―our experience of ‗understanding how things work‘ starts with
mechanical devices made by other human beings, and that the most natural way of
achieving such an understanding is precisely to take the device apart into its constituent
parts, since these are what the maker started with. Does this experience subconsciously
color our perception of what constitutes an ‗explanation‘ of natural phenomena as well as
of human artifacts?‖ (p. 787)


He questions that would it be really obvious ―that the behavior of complex bodies is
entirely determined by that of their constituents‖ (p. 792) were it not for this
subconscious conditioning about what constitutes ‗explanation.‘ ―Reductionism is
probably as deeply ingrained in the thinking of most of us as any single element in the
whole of our scientific world view.‖(p. 792)

Who Put Reductionism in Nature?

Let us inquire, says Leggett, what most of the contemporary experimentalists and
theorists in the field of high energy physics are involved in.
―Most high-energy experimentalists are engaged in a single enterprise which,
conceptually if not technically, has a very simple structure. Namely, they accelerate
particle A and particle B so as to hit one another, and watch where they and/or particles
C, D, E emerge, and with what energy and (sometimes) spin. In particular, the
experiment is designed so that, as nearly as possible, the incoming beams are each
described by quantum-mechanical pure states of definite momentum; and while the
theory certainly predicts that, in certain cases at least, the outgoing states are not simple
classical ‗mixtures‘ of products of plane wave states, but have built into them subtle
quantum correlations of the type which are important in Bell‘s theorem, the whole setup
is designed precisely so that such subtleties can be neglected.‖ (p. 787)
Now when the particle physicists claim that experiments show that Nature is actually
simpler at higher energies, might it not be due, Leggett wonders, at least partly ―to the
fact that we have chosen to ask her only questions, which by their very construction allow
no subtlety in the answers?‖ (p. 787)
Referring to the theoretical front he says: ―A few years ago, at least, there were high
hopes (I am not clear how far those at the forefront of the field now share them) that in
the ‗super-string‘ picture the constraints imposed by the need for self-consistency would
be so severe that they would uniquely determine the parameters of the theory, including
as outputs not only the masses and coupling constants of the known elementary particles
but even the ‗true‘ dimensionality of space-time.‖ (p. 788)
He then raises the genuine epistemological quandary: ―Can mathematics—a subject
which is usually taken to be concerned with analytic truth—really put constraints on how
Nature can behave?‖ (p. 788)

The Whole is the Sum of the Parts—Or is it?
Leggett now surveys the evidence for and against reductionism in science. He points out:
―So long as one is dealing with those phenomena, and only those, where we believe that
the predictions of quantum mechanics are well approximated by those of classical

physics, then the evidence for the reductionist point of view is very strong, and moreover
there is absolutely no a priori, internal reason to challenge it.
―For example, in a typical ‗macroscopic quantum effect‘ in the conventional sense, such
as the Josephson effect, what we are actually seeing is the effect of a macroscopically
large number of Cooper pairs behaving in identical fashion; the observed supercurrent is


simply the sum of the supercurrents carried by the individual pairs of electrons. Similarly,
in laser diffraction, we are simply seeing the coherent sum of the behavior of many
individual photons. So long as we are dealing with the summed effects—even the
summed quantum effects—of a large number of small groups, there seems no reason to
doubt a reductionist approach.‖ (p. 793)
He continues: ―It is only when we come to intrinsically quantum phenomena that we have
a problem. First the positive evidence in favor of reductionism in this regime is much less
strong than it looks at first sight and secondly, there are indications, which are intrinsic to
the quantum formalism itself, that the reductionistic program not only might, but must
eventually fail.
―Let us start with the phenomenon usually known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect. In this,
the current flowing through a region of metal which encloses a hole turns out to be
affected by the magnetic flux through the hole, even though the magnetic field vanishes
everywhere within the metal itself. In other words, the electrons carrying the current are
sensitive to the conditions in a region which they never enter, but only enclose with their
paths! This already demonstrates that quantum mechanics forces us to give up some of
our classical notions about the ‗locality‘ of physical effects.‖ (p. 793)
As the next example he considers Bell‘s theorem and the related experiments: ―given that
we make our normal assumptions about local causality in the sense of special relativity
theory, and about the statistical properties of ensembles being determined entirely by the
initial conditions, then what Bell‘s theorem and the associated experiments show is that
even though two regions of the universe may be spatially separated and physically
noninteracting, we nevertheless cannot ascribe to each of them individual properties; any

‗realization‘ of properties takes place only at the level of the combined system.‖(p. 793)
What Bell‘s theorem experiments have shown us is that, in the context of reductionism
which implies that ‗the behavior of macroscopic systems is entirely determined by that of
their atomic-level constituents,‘ we are not justified in assuming that the concept of
‗constituent‘ is necessarily associated with spatially localized region. So Leggett
exclaims that ―the Bell's theorem experiments are a death-knell for reductionism.‖ (p.
793)

The Quantum Measurement Paradox
There is one more feature of the current quantum mechanics world view to which Leggett
draws attention, which gives us reason to doubt the validity of reductionism—the
quantum measurement paradox.
―Consider an ensemble of systems which can go from some initial to some final state by
either of two paths B and C. At the microlevel, we believe that despite the fact that
‗measurement‘ of the path followed by any individual system will always show that it
followed either B or C, the quantum formalism must nevertheless be interpreted as in
some sense saying that if no measurement was made, it simply is not the case that one
(unknown) possibility out of B and C was realized; rather, both possibilities are in some
sense represented in the correct description. as a matter of experimental fact, the


properties of our actual ensemble are not identical to those which we would obtain from a
combination of the two ensembles obtained by allowing only B and only C respectively;
i.e., we verify, experimentally, the phenomenon of interference between the two paths. So
it seems that the quantum formalism in some sense either ascribes ‗reality‘ to both the
possibilities B and C, or ascribes it to neither.‖ (p. 794)
"At the macrolevel the formalism of quantum mechanics remains exactly the same; but
there is now no direct experimental evidence against the hypothesis that one of the
possibilities B or C has been realized in each particular case.
―We have here a case in which we have two maps of reality—the quantum-mechanical

map which we apply to atomic phenomena, and the ‗'common-sense,‘ classical map
which we use for the macroscopic, everyday world. The problem is that they claim in
principle to describe the same level of reality—the world of counters, cats etc.—and yet
no one has succeeded in showing that they are compatible.‖ (p. 795)
Now, Leggett‘s penetrating insight into this enigma, which first fastened our attention
onto his article, was the realization that ―under appropriate circumstances if we
extrapolate [the quantum] formalism up from the microlevel to the macrolevel, there is
no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ (p. 794) [my emphasis]
He is unequivocal in his conclusion: ―My own belief is that the quantum measurement
paradox can have no solution within our current reductionist world-view.‖ (p. 795) He
opines that the quantum field theory is only a half-way house, sure to be supplanted by ―a
radically new picture of physical reality whose nature we cannot at present even guess.‖
(p. 795) He adds: ―I for one intend to use my best efforts to hasten that day.‖

Enter the Reciprocal System
The Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm that (scalar) motion is the sole constituent
of the physical universe, resolves all the difficulties. Larson‘s finding that space and time
are discrete in nature and quantized answers the crucial question raised by Leggett above,
that ―there is no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ Such a natural
discontinuity does occur at the boundary of the natural unit of space. We have explained
in detail in a previous article how at the boundary between the time region (the region
inside unit space) and the familiar³ three-dimensional spatial region a discontinuity
occurs, and how the apparent directions of the forces applicable (the gravitation and the
space-time progression) change from outward to inward and vice versa. We have shown
that this gives rise to the solid, liquid and the gaseous states.
Larson‘s discovery that space and time are reciprocally related had been a crucially
important finding. This led to the discovery of the existence of coordinate time analogous
to the familiar coordinate space. We have shown³ that the phenomenon of spatial nonlocality arises due to the switching from the spatial reference frame to the temporal
reference frame on entering the time region. This makes for the equal possibility of all the
alternative paths, at the microlevel. At the macrolevel, however, this is not the case since

the interaction is no longer in the time region but is in the conventional spatial frame. We


have further explained the concept of temporal non-locality which is responsible for
producing the statistical pattern out of the independent microlevel events of an ensemble.
Larson pointed out the fact that correlated particles—like in the EPR experiment—
maintain contiguity either in space (if separated in time) or in time (if separated in space).
We also note that in the Reciprocal System there are two kinds of time: the coordinate
time and the clock time. These are respectively the reversible time, t, which occurs in the
equations of classical physics and quantum mechanics, and the irreversible time, T,
which is relevant to living processes and consciousness. This distinction arises naturally
and logically in the Reciprocal System, whereas in the world view of the current science,
as Prigogine finds, it is to be introduced as an ad hoc necessity. Analogous to coordinate
time and clock time we also find that there are two kinds of space: the familiar coordinate
space and what Larson terms clock space. The latter manifests itself to us as an
irreversible and continual expansion, as is evidenced in the recession of the distant
galaxies. In the Reciprocal System there is no need for the purely ad hoc assumption of
the ‗Big Bang‘ to account for the galactic recession!
The Reciprocal System repudiates reductionism at the very outset. Larson finds the atom
to be a unit of compound motion and without parts. The so-called sub-atomic particles
turn out to be incomplete atoms and without parts. In the Reciprocal System there is no
need for quarks and gluons, not even for nucleons. We can identify the cosmic ray decay
particles and the exotic particles generated in the accelerators to be the transient
apparitions of the atoms of the conjugate sector of the physical universe, which Larson
refers to as the cosmic sector.¹ The cosmic sector is a complete duplicate of our material
sector with the roles of space and time interchanged.
Larson was able to explain the characteristics peculiar to biological systems by the
possibility of conjoining the structural units pertaining to the cosmic sector with the
material structures. Remember that the structural units of the cosmic sector are not
aggregates in space. Rather, they are aggregates in time, and hence their control on the

cells, for example, appears totally nonlocal. This makes it possible for the logical
inclusion of self-organization and creativity among other things.
All these insights about the quantum phenomena which the Reciprocal System is able to
provide acquire even greater significance when we realize that its creator, Dewey Larson,
had never explicitly thought out these aspects when he originally developed the theory. A
perusal of his early correspondence with other students even reveals that he looked upon
these quantum-mechanical phenomena, like the tunneling, with hesitation. (This,
however, does not mean to underestimate his genius: he was so pre-occupied with the
overall development of the theory so as to establish its generality, accuracy and cogency
that he hardly ever had the time to go into the quantum subtleties. He used to do all his
typing work himself, and imagine that his typewriter didn't even have the '+' key: he used
to type '-', then backstep and overtype '/'.) Be that as it may, the actual fact is that the
logical development of the Reciprocal System of theory comes up to match with the
requirements to be satisfied by the ‗new picture of physical reality‘ we are looking for,
and whose nature could not even be guessed by the scientists. The next question,


therefore, is since such a theory did appear now, whether or not we can see the truth of
this!

References
1. Nehru, K. V. K., ―High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity,
Volume XXVI, No. 2, Summer, 1997.
2. Leggett, A. J., ―As a Martian might see us: Subversive reflections on the practice
of physics,‖ Current Science, Volume 67, No. 11, 10 December 1994, pp. 785795
3. Nehru, K. V. K.,―‗Non-locality‘ in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Volume
XXVI, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 7-14


DIALOGUE WITH DEWEY B. LARSON, PART I

Reproduced below are comments on D. B. Larson‘s Nothing But Motion (NBM) and New
Light on Space and Time (NLST) interspersed with responses by the author. The
correspondence from which this dialogue is excerpted took place c. 1980.
1. KVK: p. 156, 13th line from bottom, NLST: Instead of the words ―basic vibrating
unit‖ it must be ―rotational base.‖
p. 123, 10th line from bottom, NBM: in ―However, the rotational
displacement...,‖ the word ―rotational‖ should be replaced by ―vibrational.‖
DBL: You are right on both of these items. I have expressed the first one in the
correct manner on page 140 NBM.
2. KVK: There is a difference in the notations used for representing the rotations of
atoms (e.g.: 2–1–0, p. 236, NLST) and of the sub-atomic particles (e.g.: 1–0–(1)).
In the former the numbers represent double natural units whereas in the latter they
represent single natural units. This divergence is a source of confusion as no
attempt was made to clarify it, and both modes of notation were used at the same
places, as in p. 236, NLST.
DBL: I gave a brief explanation on page 231 NLST, but this book is, as I said in
the preface, a ―bird‘s eye view,‖ and I could not go into much detail on anything.
There is a more extended explanation on page 140 NBM, including setting up a
new system of notation to avoid the difficulty that you point out. I do not believe
it advisable to try to use the same notation for both atoms and sub-atomic
particles, as this would lead to complications in the development of the theory.
3. KVK: p. 170, last but one para, NLST: It is not clear how a proton, M 1–1–(1),
can acquire a positive electric charge (see p. 145, NBM). From what has been
explained in the para cited above and elsewhere, as its electric rotational
displacement is space-like, the proton can only acquire a negative electric
charge—like the electron.
DBL: An electric charge is a one-dimensional rotational vibration. In order to be
stable and identifiable as a separate entity it must oppose the rotation with which
it is associated, but this does not have to be the rotation in the electric dimension.
The charge can oppose the rotation in one of the magnetic dimensions. Since the

magnetic rotation is always positive in the material sector, this means that all
material elements can take positive electric charges under appropriate conditions.
In fact, at high temperatures, such as those in the stars, all elements are positively
charged.
4. KVK: On p. 155-6, NLST, the apparent reduction in the velocity of light in a
material medium is attributed to the additional space involved due to the


rotational space-like displacements included in the structure of most atoms of
matter. On this score, the apparent velocity of light in a material medium with
only positive rotational displacements should be greater than c!
DBL: I am not quite clear as to the point of your comment. I will say, however,
that ordinary matter is a time structure; that is, one in which n units of time are
associated with each unit of space (as we see the situation in the context of the
conventional fixed system of reference). When the photon passes through this
matter, the total time involved in the motion is increased by the addition of the
time component of this matter. The photon speed, the ratio of space to time,
therefore decreases. Conversely, in the cosmic sector, where matter is a space
structure, the speed of light is increased in passing through cosmic matter.
5. KVK: Speaking of the progression of the photon in the free dimension it is
remarked that ―...the combination of a vibratory motion and a linear motion
perpendicular to the line of vibration results in a path which has the form of a sine
curve.‖ (p. 51, NBM) In the case of HF radiation, the space component of the
vibration progresses unidirectionally while it is the time component that oscillates
back and forth. As such ―the linear motion perpendicular to the line of vibration‖
referred to above cannot be the scalar progression of the space component of the
general space-time progression. Is the sine curve form, then, taken to be
pertaining to the three-dimensional time?
DBL: The frequency of the radiation is irrelevant. In either case, HF or LF, the
progression of the natural reference system in the dimension of the vibration is

neutralized by the reversals. This permits a progression to take place in a
perpendicular dimension. The scalar motion (progression) in this second
dimension is totally independent of that in the first, as scalar quantities cannot be
combined vectorially.
[KVK: Apparently, my question was not clear here. What I meant was: a
progressing sine wave has two components— (i) the oscillation in the lateral
dimension and (ii) the uniform forward progression. Now my point is, that both
these components must be of the same nature—either spatial or temporal. Thus, if
the oscillation component is in time, the progression component in the
perpendicular dimension to be compounded with this has to be in time also; and
the sine wave must be envisaged as occurring in three-dimensional time and not
in three-dimensional space.]
6. KVK: Explaining the effect of adding rotation to the vibrational units of a photon,
it is said that the ―remaining vibrational units of the originat photon continue as a
photon of lower displacement‖ (p. 123, 3rd para, NBM). But it is not clear how
the detachment of one of the vibrational units (which are anyway discrete) reduce
the displacement of the original photon.
DBL: The units that I am talking about here are units of displacement—that is,


units of speed. (See explanation of the use of the term ―displacement‖ on pages
119-121 NBM.) When one unit is detached to join the rotational motion, the
photon continues on its way with one less unit of speed (a lower frequency).
7. KVK: The liquid state is the result of vanishing of the force of cohesion in one
dimension (and the gaseous state in three dimensions). However, whether the
vanishing of the cohesion in two dimensions results in any specificalty observable
distinction is not made clear. Is it to be equated to the vapor state?
DBL: Probably. I had not covered this subject fully twenty years ago when I
interrupted my research work in order to start publication of my results, and I
have not been able to get back to it since. My conclusions in this area are

therefore somewhat tentative.
8. KVK: p. 173, top para, NLST: Not only this—if the hypothesis of the tendency of
atoms to assume a stabler structure like that of inert gases by gaining an electron
is true, should not the atoms, say, of chlorine, tend to transform to those of argon,
if placed in an environment of negative electrons, by absorbing single electrons?
DBL: It looks that way to me, too, but I suppose we will have to let the supporters
of conventional theory answer this question.
9. KVK.: p. 50, bottom para, NBM: It is not clear why do the inward/outward scalar
reversals result in vectorial direction reversal in only one dimension? Why they
do not produce a three- or two-dimensional vibrating unit?
DBL: We are dealing with a scalar motion, and the only latitude that we have, at
this stage of the step-by-step development, is to change from + to - and vice versa.
This does not necessarily preclude introducing additional dimensions of motion
later in the development, but multi-dimensional scalar motion has some
unfamiliar features. I intend to discuss this type of motion at considerable length
in Volume II.
10. KVK: p. 195-6, NLST: In view of the dimensional differences in the origin of
electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces which are actually motions of the
same general nature, it is shown that the force exerted by an electric charge on an
uncharged mass is only 1/c² as great as the force on an object with a charge of
comparable magnitude. However, no mention is made of the force exerted by the
electric charge on a magnetic charge, which, though it must be less than the force
of an electric charge on electric charge, must, nonetheless, be greater than the
force exerted by electric charge on uncharged mass. Hence this must be within the
possibillty of detection, like the weak force exerted by a magnetic charge
(referred to in the para cited) on a (magnetically uncharged) mass unit.
DBL: I have not arrived at a firm conclusion on this point as yet. It had occurred
to me, and I have given it some consideration. So far, I am inclined to believe that