Dark matter and existence of hidden dimensions

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJay_A

Guest
Let's say for argument's sake that unproven dimensions (at least one) do exist. If matter does exist within coordinates outside coordinates of our 3d space and time, but is existing very close, close enough where it's gravity would be measurable if it were within our 3d space, would it be possible for it's gravity to have a measurable effect on our 3d space?

Could dark matter exist just outside of our 3d space on, mappable with the addition of a fourth coordinate?

Also, I studied the recent space telescope imagery mapping the clusters of dark matter in the Universe and I noticed mathematically correct shapes of hypercube shadows at the major node points where galaxy clusters intersect. I would post the image and circle the shapes but I am writing this with my iPod. Can some one here please find that image and post it and if possible circle where the hypercube shadow shapes are. It's not difficult to find. They stand out at the largest galaxy cluster intersections.

D

DrRocket

Guest
PJay_A":339pnj6w said:
Let's say for argument's sake that unproven dimensions (at least one) do exist. If matter does exist within coordinates outside coordinates of our 3d space and time, but is existing very close, close enough where it's gravity would be measurable if it were within our 3d space, would it be possible for it's gravity to have a measurable effect on our 3d space?

Could dark matter exist just outside of our 3d space on, mappable with the addition of a fourth coordinate?

Also, I studied the recent space telescope imagery mapping the clusters of dark matter in the Universe and I noticed mathematically correct shapes of hypercube shadows at the major node points where galaxy clusters intersect. I would post the image and circle the shapes but I am writing this with my iPod. Can some one here please find that image and post it and if possible circle where the hypercube shadow shapes are. It's not difficult to find. They stand out at the largest galaxy cluster intersections.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "dimension". IF it turns out that our universe is of some higher dimension, those dimensions are not isolated from the three with which we are familiar, and theyare EVERYWHERE. They are no more "somewhere else" than length is isolated from width.

Further, the only serious hypotheses involving higher dimensions involve those dimensions being compactified at a very small scale in the manifold that is space-time. You are dealing here with the dimension of a manifold and not of a complete Euclidean space. That precludes anything even remotely resembling what you are called a "shadow of a hypercube."

P

PJay_A

Guest
kg":1c53vyrc said:

No, this is the one:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/dar ... bution.jpg

And here's the shape I'm talking about (animated):

http://content24977.clipmarks.com/blog_ ... A6273850E3

Also, I'm starting to think that maybe this extra dimension isn't hidden and is actually all around us, but due to our limited 3D perception, it's compressed and folded within our 3D environment. In other words we are lacking "4D depth perception". But understanding this, some math might help "visualize" 4D depth and how all that space is folded and compressed according to our 3D depth perception. In fact, this may expain why we find fractal patterns commonly throughout nature. The fractal patterns may be where 4D space appears in our POV as folded and compressed.

S

SHU

Guest
If there are higher dimensions, they would not be physical, as we define the term. If we do not have "4d depth perception", it can only be because it is abstract. Not sure if a physical dimension can be abstract. Nevermind.

T

tuba

Guest
not to razor the assumptions too quickly - it's philosophically valid to assume we do have
4dim visual perception .

then , most likely , a specific condition of light is necessary and
as well - an object of reference native to 4dim .

D

DrRocket

Guest
SHU":2w7kqrzm said:
If there are higher dimensions, they would not be physical, as we define the term. If we do not have "4d depth perception", it can only be because it is abstract. Not sure if a physical dimension can be abstract. Nevermind.

Actually the dimensions of space-time beyond the usual four, if they exist, are thought to actually be spatial dimensions, compactified. I believe that Brian Greene has published some very speculative notion that dark energy, not dark matter, might be explained via a version of string theory using those extra dimensions.

IF the extra dimensions exist, then the explanation for why we don't "see" them is that they are compactified at such a small scale that they are quite irrelevant to our everyday experience. This is rather like our perception of a kite string as a line rather than as a tube when viewed from any significant distance. The length of the string is important, but the diameter is not particularly important for most simple applications.

P

PJay_A

Guest
DrRocket":47kr98qi said:
SHU":47kr98qi said:
If there are higher dimensions, they would not be physical, as we define the term. If we do not have "4d depth perception", it can only be because it is abstract. Not sure if a physical dimension can be abstract. Nevermind.

Actually the dimensions of space-time beyond the usual four, if they exist, are thought to actually be spatial dimensions, compactified. I believe that Brian Greene has published some very speculative notion that dark energy, not dark matter, might be explained via a version of string theory using those extra dimensions.

IF the extra dimensions exist, then the explanation for why we don't "see" them is that they are compactified at such a small scale that they are quite irrelevant to our everyday experience. This is rather like our perception of a kite string as a line rather than as a tube when viewed from any significant distance. The length of the string is important, but the diameter is not particularly important for most simple applications.

Dr. Rocket, I have several scattered points. I'll tie them all together later. First, would you agree with the following statement: Five hundred years from now people will look back at today's science in wonderment of how little we know in relation to "major discoveries that changed everything" during the intervening years. Much like we do today, looking back 500 years from today, while also acknowledging the great thinkers of the period like Newton. Five hundred years from today, people may look back with much new knowledge gained, placing Einstein's theories new meaning in a much greater web of understand of knowledge, much like how Einstein's theories on gravity build on that of Newtons.

I would bet that farm that modern theories, from Relativity to String are small elements of a much greater framework of which modern science knows nothing or very little of. Einstein's mind's eye got a glimpse of something he had tried his whole life to explain through theory. I think many others, in their mind's eye, got a glimpse, but have no clue as to what they just saw, such as those working on String theory.

My take is they are on the right track, but their ideas (as of now) are flawed and based on conjecture. I even think Einstein may have been very close, but his explanation is coming from his very limited POV. If others could see the same as what Einstein thought he understood, I bet you we would have had many Relativity Theories, each saying essentially the same thing, but different ways of understanding the mechanics behind it.

I think I totally "get" what Einstein saw in his Mind's Eye. Dare I say it, but I think there may be other explanations. I'm not saying Einstein was wrong, but I'm saying his theories aren't complete. That there's more going on here. For Relativity, for example, Einstein's words shouldn't be the last words, but an introduction.

Here's what throws me for a loop. Why do we all accept time as the fourth dimension? Because Einstein said so, it should be "Case Closed, End of Discussion"? Why should the dimension of time be any different from the three spacial dimensions? If time is a dimension, then it should behave as such, but it behaves as a totally different thing. From my POV, I see that there can't be time or even the expansion of the Universe without the existence of greater dimensions. Greater dimensions is what makes time and expansion possible, not the other way around. New 3D space is a requirement of time and expansion. That space is being fed into our 3D membrane through the folding and unfolding of greater dimensional space. If time is a dimension, then it must have two directions, but it only moves forward. Does time really move? And why? And how fast?

It is not time that's actually moving. Something must be attracting photons in a fourth dimensional gravity well. Like all orbits, there are two polarities of directional movement. I believe that a truer explanation of time will be understood once the greater dimensional existence of photons and associated behaviors thereof are all understood.

D

DrRocket

Guest
PJay_A":y90u3052 said:
Dr. Rocket, I have several scattered points. I'll tie them all together later. First, would you agree with the following statement: Five hundred years from now people will look back at today's science in wonderment of how little we know in relation to "major discoveries that changed everything" during the intervening years. Much like we do today, looking back 500 years from today, while also acknowledging the great thinkers of the period like Newton. Five hundred years from today, people may look back with much new knowledge gained, placing Einstein's theories new meaning in a much greater web of understand of knowledge, much like how Einstein's theories on gravity build on that of Newtons.

I would bet that farm that modern theories, from Relativity to String are small elements of a much greater framework of which modern science knows nothing or very little of. Einstein's mind's eye got a glimpse of something he had tried his whole life to explain through theory. I think many others, in their mind's eye, got a glimpse, but have no clue as to what they just saw, such as those working on String theory.

My take is they are on the right track, but their ideas (as of now) are flawed and based on conjecture. I even think Einstein may have been very close, but his explanation is coming from his very limited POV. If others could see the same as what Einstein thought he understood, I bet you we would have had many Relativity Theories, each saying essentially the same thing, but different ways of understanding the mechanics behind it.

I think I totally "get" what Einstein saw in his Mind's Eye. Dare I say it, but I think there may be other explanations. I'm not saying Einstein was wrong, but I'm saying his theories aren't complete. That there's more going on here. For Relativity, for example, Einstein's words shouldn't be the last words, but an introduction.

Here's what throws me for a loop. Why do we all accept time as the fourth dimension? Because Einstein said so, it should be "Case Closed, End of Discussion"? Why should the dimension of time be any different from the three spacial dimensions? If time is a dimension, then it should behave as such, but it behaves as a totally different thing. From my POV, I see that there can't be time or even the expansion of the Universe without the existence of greater dimensions. Greater dimensions is what makes time and expansion possible, not the other way around. New 3D space is a requirement of time and expansion. That space is being fed into our 3D membrane through the folding and unfolding of greater dimensional space. If time is a dimension, then it must have two directions, but it only moves forward. Does time really move? And why? And how fast?

It is not time that's actually moving. Something must be attracting photons in a fourth dimensional gravity well. Like all orbits, there are two polarities of directional movement. I believe that a truer explanation of time will be understood once the greater dimensional existence of photons and associated behaviors thereof are all understood.

I can agree with your assessment that in 500 years our understanding will be greater and the fundamental theories of todays physics --- general relativity, quantum chromodynamics, and the electroweak quantum field theory -- will be be seen to be approximations to a more complete theory that encompasses all of them.

I don't agree that there was any reasonable probability for several theories that would have been equivalent to relativity, but formulated in apparently different ways. There were several people who were closing in on general relativity at the time that Einstein announced his formulation, and more people who contributed afterwards. Poincare and Lorentz leap to mind as examples of the first group and Minkowski in the second.

General Relativity is a bit different. It is pretty clear that Einstein formulated that pretty much on the basis of personal insight and that it would taken quite a long time for it to emerge from other quarters. This despite the fact that David Hilbert, the great mathematician, actually understood tensor analysis sufficiently well to have published the Einstein field equations a short time before Einstein himself.

I doubt the you "totally get" what Einstein saw in his mind's eye, unless your name is Roger Penrose. Nevertheless, your notion that Einstein's theories are incomplete is very likely correct. It is well known that general relativity and quantum field theories are mutually incompatible. It is likely that both will require revision before we have a "theory of everything." One reason that I am confident that you don't "totally get" Einstein's vision, is your statement regarding the dimension of time.

In general relativity time and space are only locally distinguishable. Globally, space-time has curvature and time and space are mixed together and not separable. The inseparability of space from time is even present in special relativity, particularly in the formulation in terms of 4-vectors by Minkowski and gave rise to his rather famous statement;

“The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” –Hermann Minkowski, 1908"

So, your notion that time is not particularly different from space, is really not radical and is part of the formulation of space-time as a Lorentzian 4-manifold with curvature.

It is important to recognize that time and space are not simply 4 dimensions of an ordinary Euclidean space, but rather are simply local coordinates of a 4-manifold with a Lorentzian metric. Accepting that there are at leas 4 such dimensional parameters is quite easy, and is the stuff of everyday experience -- to specify a meeting you need to supply 3 spatial coordinates and the time.

Dimensions, including time, don't move. Your analogy and analysis is flawed in that respect. You seem to be stuck int he past with Newton's idea of ever flowing and universal time. That simply doesn't work any longer.

Sorry, but your last paragraph is just gibberisn.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
723
Replies
2
Views
2K