View Full Version : Finding a Fourth Dimension

Fraser

2006-May-30, 04:53 PM

SUMMARY: Scientists have been intrigued for years about the possibility that there are additional dimensions beyond the three we humans can understand. Now researchers from Duke and Rutgers universities think there's a way to test for five-dimensional theory (4 spatial dimensions plus time) of gravity that competes with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This extra dimension should have effects in the cosmos which are detectable by satellites scheduled to launch in the next few years.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/randall_sundrum_braneworld.html)

What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

antoniseb

2006-May-30, 05:44 PM

Good luck with that. Finding little micro-black holes by finding gamma-ray energies that interfere sounds like a pretty unlikely scenario.

agesilaus

2006-May-30, 11:20 PM

Check out this for a debunking of this by Woit:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=398

Grand_Lunar

2006-May-30, 11:44 PM

Would be interesting to see if this works.

Dragon Star

2006-May-30, 11:46 PM

I like the open minded atmosphere of this...pretty cool.

altizar

2006-May-31, 03:13 PM

I remember reading sometime ago about the Asteroid that "exploded" in Siberia before impact. The article I read had many different "explanations" of how this most improper meteor like behavior could have occured. One of them was that it could have been the result of a "primordial blackhole", which sounds a lot like one of these braneworld guys.

All things being equal I like the blackhole explanation for Dark Matter better than any other "invisible matter" explanation I've heard.

robertgrunberg

2006-May-31, 10:01 PM

To clarify philosophical and scientific terminology, the univerrse for millenia has been defined as a sphere which is a two dimensional surface with uniform curvature. The expanding sphere of the universe contains the growing volume of the cosmos and this gives constant space if the radius extends at c as at the Hubble sphere. As the universe expands, the cosmos must grow.

As Einstein determined for SR, there is a dimensional transformation from distance to mass as the velocity of a matter object aproaches the speed of light. The same has happened with the fourth distance dimension; it is already responsible for the mass of matter in the cosmos. Four distance dimensions in a brane-world become three distance dimensions and one mass dimension outside a black-hole and in the volumetricity of the cosmos. Now here's the corker:

Spacetime has been equated to dc^2 and this means that spacetime already has five dimensions, [L]3[T]-2; not four, [L]3[T]. This five dimensional spacetime describes the volumetric acceleration of the cosmos observed since 1998. Space is the jolt of volume and space equals c-cubed so space is a constant.

robertgrunberg

2006-May-31, 10:55 PM

As Einstein determined in special relativity there is a distance to mass transform that occurs as a matter object approaches the speed of light. With four distance dimensions, this same transformation occurs from four brane-world distance dimensions to three distance and one of mass. It happens that in the volume of the cosmos these four dimensions regarded either way are responsible for matter defined by Newton as the product of mass and volume. This is how we understand the volumetric cosmos and proposing four distance dimensions and not three, six or nine is a confusing impossibility in a local frame. The fourth distance dimension is the mass of matter.

But spacetime itself can be described as five dimensional, not four: Spacetime has been equated to dc^2 = d^3/t^2 and this describes spacetime as the volumetric acceleration of the cosmos observed since 1998. By this equation, space can be equated to the cube of the speed of light such that space is a constant; C^3 and is the mathematical jolt of volume. For space to equal the cube of c, the diameter of the universe must increase at the rate of 2c and this coincides with the Hubble sphere.

The ancient Greek philosophers defined the universe as a sphere which is a two dimensional surface with uniform curvature. The volume contained by the expanding universe is the constant space of the cosmos. As the universe expands, the volume of the cosmos must grow.

ngeo

2006-May-31, 11:40 PM

robertgrunberg, if a volume of space rotates at the speed of light, will this equate to it having mass? Is that compatible with SR?

robertgrunberg

2006-Jun-01, 01:07 AM

robertgrunberg, if a volume of space rotates at the speed of light, will this equate to it having mass? Is that compatible with SR?

Talking about rotational motion is not relevent to what I have said so I do not know the answer. But I say that any volume of space equates to having mass whatever it is doing and this is hinted at by dark matter and the superconductivity of space to photons. Dark matter is distributed throughout the vacuum volume of the cosmos and not concentrated in mini black-holes. The aether exists as an electron Bose-Einstein condensate and can account for dark matter. Dark energy by a continuous matter creation process at the concave surface of the universe. We are in a white-hole sourced from an all encompassing black-hole and the expanding universe is the boundary and this is where four brane-world distance dimensions change to three of distance and one of mass creating matter.

This model of a c-cubed cosmos gives the present diameter of the universe at 55 gigalightyears and this means that the oldest part of the cosmos is the (tabou word) origin at 27.5 gigayears old. This is based on the 13.75 Gyr age of the CMB emanating from the universe where it was then, not 380000 years after.

QuantumFog

2006-Jun-02, 03:54 PM

I'm favorably impressed by robertgrunberg's grasp of the matter. That said, I join Altizar's inquiry regarding the more practical aspect of any effect we might encounter. With several thousand brane-world holes inside our solar system, there should be routine encounters between these objects, moons and planets. What is the scale of the effect?

SactoGuy88

2006-Jun-04, 04:22 AM

I remember reading sometime ago about the Asteroid that "exploded" in Siberia before impact. The article I read had many different "explanations" of how this most improper meteor like behavior could have occured. One of them was that it could have been the result of a "primordial blackhole", which sounds a lot like one of these braneworld guys.

Not very likely. Given the fact there are comfirmed eyewitness reports of something streaking across the sky before that explosion over Tunguska, that tells me it was either a meteor or comet remnant travelling across the lower atmosphere at such high velocities that the atmospheric heating may have finally caused the explosion of the object, with a yield of around 15 megatons of TNT. Is it small wonder why both NORAD and the Soviet IA-PVO closely tracked space objects to make sure they didn't mistake a falling meteor or comet remnant for an incoming ICBM warhead? :exclaim:

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.