# Extra dimensional explanation of gravitation lensing

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

#### PJay_A

##### Guest
It occured to me that the "warping" of space-time that happens in gravitational lensing - the very thing that helped prove Einstein's theory - may have more to it than what is traditionally understood and that invisible nonunderstood extra dimensions could be at play.

According to Einstein, the mass of objects in space warps the space-time around it, creating a gravity well which causes light to fall around it instead of being blocked by the object if light were to try to travel through it. This is called gravitational lensing. Notice how objects close enough to a gravity source will move towards the two objects' center gravity point and those further away would be dragged around a gravity source. If one is to ask "in what direction two objects of gravitational influence have," the answer for the close objects is "down" (referring to the smaller one of less mass) and "up" (referring to the object of greater mass). The close objects attract on a one dimensional plane with two possible directions: up or down. Once far enough, the direction of the gravitational influence of up and down of the two objects cancels out, leaving the entire dimension ("height") free from gravitational influence, but now the objects move around each other moving (orbiting) in any of four new directions of two dimensions relative to the larger object of more mass.

It's as if objects of gravitational influence are being pulled in a direction that just isn't there so it ends up going around the object or being blocked by the mass of the object in the case of the closer objects of gravitational influence. M-theory explains this with the graviton (a theorized particle that has yet to be discovered). M-theory says all particles are symmetrical pairs but the graviton has its counterpart anchored in a dimension unrecognized by science. All other particles, according to M-Theory, have counterparts within the 4 dimensions recognized by science. The greater the mass, the more gravitons to pull us in the extradimensional direction, causing gravity.

I had to mention that background info on Einstein's theory and M-Theory to make my idea clear. I'm thinking that maybe photons move through these theorized extra dimensions besides M-Theory's hypothesized graviton. Maybe light doesn't go around space objects as it is understood with gravitational lensing. Of cause it can't go through the object without getting blocked by the object. Maybe the path traveled by the light is neither around nor through but via space along an axis of an invisible extra dimension that maybe one day will be proven and recognized by science.

When science (starting with Einstein) talk about the warping of space-time (the current explanation for gravitational lensing), I have to ask in what dimension does it warp through? You need more than four dimensions to warp to. My thinking does not question or doubt that space-time warps, but helps build a more complete picture of a much greater reality.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
PJay_A":jiy1ft19 said:
When science (starting with Einstein) talk about the warping of space-time (the current explanation for gravitational lensing), I have to ask in what dimension does it warp through? You need more than four dimensions to warp to.

Nope. Not in general, you don't. This is a pretty understandable misunderstanding - our everyday experience happens in a 3-D Euclidean world where if you have a curved surface, it has our flat Euclidean space to curve into. So the Earth's surface is curved, but it curves into the (basically) flat space around it.

But mathematically, a curved surface can have an intrinsic curvature just as easily as it can curve into a higher dimensional space. There's no requirement for there to be such a space; in fact, Einstein's equations (which we've verified experimentally to a pretty startling degree of accuracy) depict spacetime as just such a manifold without that higher dimensional space. Sure, you could posit that there is one, but it's completely unnecessary and just complicates the picture, so there's really not much reason to believe it's there.

P

#### PJay_A

##### Guest
ramparts":193w44df said:
PJay_A":193w44df said:
When science (starting with Einstein) talk about the warping of space-time (the current explanation for gravitational lensing), I have to ask in what dimension does it warp through? You need more than four dimensions to warp to.

Nope. Not in general, you don't. This is a pretty understandable misunderstanding - our everyday experience happens in a 3-D Euclidean world where if you have a curved surface, it has our flat Euclidean space to curve into. So the Earth's surface is curved, but it curves into the (basically) flat space around it.

But mathematically, a curved surface can have an intrinsic curvature just as easily as it can curve into a higher dimensional space. There's no requirement for there to be such a space; in fact, Einstein's equations (which we've verified experimentally to a pretty startling degree of accuracy) depict spacetime as just such a manifold without that higher dimensional space. Sure, you could posit that there is one, but it's completely unnecessary and just complicates the picture, so there's really not much reason to believe it's there.

I've been hinking about this for the past two years now. My gravitational lensing concept is just my latest thinking on the subject. I wish I could summerize all my thoughts so far as each gives strength to the next like the gears in a clock. To date, advancements in M-Theory support my thoughts, but with many core differences. Garet Lisi's theory makes some other points I've been trying to articulate, but he makes too many baseless assumptions that could give his theory a dead end.

Key differences in my theory: All dimensions have their center of gravity at an object's center, time happens as a indirect result of extra dimensions and it not a dimension on its own, subatomic particles curve through extra dimensional space as it travels at light speed, black hole punction the membrane of space-time, quantum entanglement happens through a pathway accross extra dimensional space, paticles can exist in several places at once because they share a same side that we can not see in invisiible extradimensional space, the curvature if extradimensional space may be all around us and we may pass through it without even knowing because our senses have no way of knowing where theese curves or folds are, we may see a hint of this in nature as nature is filled with fractal shapes; could the repeating patterns of the fractals be where the "fold lines" are of an extradimensional larger picture that we see before our very own eyes but in 3D? Why does it so how happen thatthe estimated length of the Universe divided by the extimated age of the Universe equal a number that's very very close to pi? This must mesn that light curves through extradimensional space, extradimensionally completing a spherical Universe. Right now, I'm working on showing how the extra dimensions are creating "wave function" of particles and how the role of the observer is but an optical illusion caused by the blockage of dimensions caused by our limited yet collective line of sight.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Dude: this is not a theory. I hate to be harsh, but it's not. It's just a collection of qualitative thoughts gleaned from reading books and watching TV shows. There's no math, there are no quantitative predictions, there's no awareness of any of the details of the theories that came before it. You can't just put words to paper describing how you think the Universe works and call it a theory; those words are meaningless until there is a rigorous mathematical model behind it, and the reason is that pretty much any collection of words that sounds nice can sound like a valid theory, and you'll never know if it's right or wrong, but only a very very select few can actually be put into an elegant mathematical form whose predictions agree with the outcome of experiments.

E

#### emperor_of_localgroup

##### Guest
Gravitational lensing can also be explained by
simple law of index of refraction.

Use index of refraction as a function of space coordinates n(x,y,z), light will bend in such media.

This is also how light travels in a graded optical fiber.

C

#### csmyth3025

##### Guest
ramparts":1ex35rhw said:
Dude: this is not a theory. I hate to be harsh, but it's not. It's just a collection of qualitative thoughts gleaned from reading books and watching TV shows. There's no math, there are no quantitative predictions, there's no awareness of any of the details of the theories that came before it. You can't just put words to paper describing how you think the Universe works and call it a theory; those words are meaningless until there is a rigorous mathematical model behind it, and the reason is that pretty much any collection of words that sounds nice can sound like a valid theory, and you'll never know if it's right or wrong, but only a very very select few can actually be put into an elegant mathematical form whose predictions agree with the outcome of experiments.

At the risk of making a similar unscientific "collection of words" as those attributed to pjay_A, I wonder if the spacetime manifold that describes or universe has its own intrinsic "peaks and valleys" separate from the distortions caused by massive bodies. In this sense, the "valleys" would amount to "folds" in spacetime in which matter tends to collect and the "peaks" would correspond to the great voids where matter is scarce. Have there been any conjectures along these lines? Are there reasons to suspect that such an intrinsict unevenness is improbable or impossible?

I know nothing about the properties of manifolds, so if this thought turns out to be a complete load of cosmic poo I wont be offended.

Chris

P

#### PJay_A

##### Guest
Everyone who has answered my post:

First, thank you for taking your time to post your reply. Skepicism and criticism are both important elements to the scientific process. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact that we are even discussing my ideas is a necessary first step. I may not have a PhD, but I do understand the concepts behind what I am trying to discuss here. My mind 'sees' these ideas in abstract that's clearly logical to me. The more I learn the details behind established theoretical physics, the more convinced I am that these abstract ideas are very much conceptually similar.

When I first learned about M-Theory, I was very excited because was saying a lot of the same things mathematically I've been thinking abstractly. As M-Theory develops, more of the things I've been thinking are being echoed into the theory, such as my extradimensional explanations for dark energy and dark matter.

But I think there may be some problems with some of the things M-Theory assumes that may lead that theory into a dead end, such as the nature of these extradimensions and the effects they may have on known particles. Let me try to explain my ideas by making it real simple. I will start by asking a simple question and I will build on it in later posts.

So here is the question: if there are extradimensions, wouldn't an object with mass share a center of gravity with all dimensions (visible and invisible, if they exist)?

S

#### SteveCNC

##### Guest
PJay_A":13im02ug said:
So here is the question: if there are extradimensions, wouldn't an object with mass share a center of gravity with all dimensions (visible and invisible, if they exist)?

I would doubt that mass is a factor in all dimensions , I believe time is the 4th dimension and as we know what we see is considered 3 dimensions heigth,width,depth and untill you are looking at all three , mass doesn't even enter the picture . I do believe that mass does have something to do with time also because gravity seems to be the result of mass and gravity can dilate time . But that does not mean that other dimensions occupy space or require mass .

P

#### PJay_A

##### Guest
SteveCNC":14e76af8 said:
PJay_A":14e76af8 said:
So here is the question: if there are extradimensions, wouldn't an object with mass share a center of gravity with all dimensions (visible and invisible, if they exist)?

I would doubt that mass is a factor in all dimensions , I believe time is the 4th dimension and as we know what we see is considered 3 dimensions heigth,width,depth and untill you are looking at all three , mass doesn't even enter the picture . I do believe that mass does have something to do with time also because gravity seems to be the result of mass and gravity can dilate time . But that does not mean that other dimensions occupy space or require mass .

Okay, you're jumping ahead. Let's stay focused on the question with established science. Let's even limit the focus to the known 3 spacial dimensions (we'll get back to time and extra spacial dimensions later). The 3 known spacial dimensions all intersect and share the space they occupy at any object of mass' center of gravity.

Would you agree with me so far?

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
PJay_A":s4yoyv5w said:
The 3 known spacial dimensions all intersect and share the space they occupy at any object of mass' center of gravity.

Would you agree with me so far?

No. That is a non-sensical sentence.

P

#### PJay_A

##### Guest
ramparts":2gyjxsdy said:
PJay_A":2gyjxsdy said:
The 3 known spacial dimensions all intersect and share the space they occupy at any object of mass' center of gravity.

Would you agree with me so far?

No. That is a non-sensical sentence.

Okay, I will reword the question. If you think it's still non-sensical, then please explain why you think it's non-sensical.

Rephrased question:

Would the center of gravity of any 3 dimensional object that has it's mass evenly distributed (example:a solid sphere made of a single material of a density proportionate throughout) be the center of that object? Would that point also be where the balance of it's weight intersect along it's width, length, and height axis lines? There is one center of gravity, not 3 separate centers, right? That center is where that object is balanced in 3 dimensions (at it's core, if the mass is evenly distributed), correct?

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Yep, any object has only one center of mass. If you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense for there to be a separate one along height, length, and depth because those are completely arbitrary coordinate choices. You can choose any system of coordinates - spherical or cylindrical, for example - and the actual physics happening should be exactly the same, so the laws of physics are never going to pick out preferred height, weight, and depth directions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
0
Views
574
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
570
Replies
5
Views
657
Replies
1
Views
496