The Vacuum Catastrophe

[Gibsense]

---

Hypothesis: Mass-Energy Density Distributed in Four Spatial Dimensions​

With help from an AI I am posting this as a back-up to discussion on Space Does not Stretc : True or false? thread

1. Premise​

• The vacuum energy predicted by quantum field theory is significantly higher than what is observed in cosmology.
• Standard models assume that vacuum energy is confined to three spatial dimensions.
• If mass-energy is actually distributed across four spatial dimensions, the observed energy density in our 3D space might appear much lower than theoretical predictions.

2. Key Assumptions​

• The universe possesses an additional spatial dimension, beyond the three we perceive.
• The total vacuum energy is spread across four spatial dimensions, reducing its apparent influence in three dimensions.
• Gravitational interactions extend into this higher dimension, influencing cosmic expansion and structure formation.
• The extra dimension may allow for alternative physical constraints that affect fundamental forces, including the behavior of time and cosmic acceleration.

3. Expected Consequences​

• Lower Effective Energy Density in 3D Space – The vacuum energy might be diluted across four spatial dimensions, naturally resolving the discrepancy between theoretical and observed values.
• Modified Gravity Effects – Mass distributed in higher dimensions could alter gravitational behavior, potentially explaining phenomena like dark energy and accelerated cosmic expansion.
• A Natural Explanation for Dark Energy – Instead of invoking a separate force, dark energy could be an apparent effect of higher-dimensional mass-energy distribution affecting the expansion rate of 3D space.
• Implications for Cosmic Expansion & Large-Scale Structure – The additional dimension may influence the evolution of galaxies and their clustering patterns in ways we could test observationally.

4. Testable Predictions​

• Gravitational Anomalies – Observations of galaxy rotation curves and gravitational lensing might reveal deviations from standard models due to extra-dimensional mass interactions.
• Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Patterns – If the vacuum energy is distributed across a fourth dimension, its imprint on the early universe could appear in CMB fluctuations.
• Particle Physics Experiments – High-energy collisions might produce signatures of extra-dimensional interactions, such as deviations in expected energy conservation laws.

5. Connections to Existing Higher-Dimensional Theories​

1. Brane Cosmology – In string theory and M-theory, our observable universe is considered a 3D "brane" embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk space. If vacuum energy exists in the bulk, it could manifest in our brane as a diluted effect.
2. Kaluza-Klein Theory – This early unified field theory proposed that fundamental forces arise from extra spatial dimensions, which could influence mass-energy distribution.
3. Randall-Sundrum Models – These models propose a warped extra dimension where gravity behaves differently, potentially explaining why vacuum energy is perceived as weaker.
4. Holographic Principle – Some researchers suggest that our universe may be a lower-dimensional projection of a higher-dimensional reality, which could relate to how mass-energy is distributed.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, is this (after 1. and 2.) the unedited product of AI?

In the most general terms (and I am not referring to your post) there is "fact in - fact out" as opposed to "garbage in - garbage out". There is also the possibility of biased editing. Again, I am not referring to your post.

Page 3 - Universal Motion Theory

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, is this (after 1. and 2.) the unedited product of AI?

Yes

In the most general terms (and I am not referring to your post) there is "fact in - fact out" as opposed to "garbage in - garbage out". There is also the possibility of biased editing. Again, I am not referring to your post.

Yes

Artificial intelligence could have very dangerous consequences. Mankind is capable of misusing anything for its own benefit. Just imagine social media programmed into using AI to "brainwash" humanity into controllable avenues. Maybe the stuff of horror fiction - but take care in the long run!

I agree that right now, 3/5/2025, AI is not quite capable of being misused in that horror Sci-Fi way. However, my recent experience with AI is humiliating. Your comment is likely applicable in some way quite soon.
We are capable of fact-checking to a point, but where AI seemingly extends beyond our knowledge and capability, things may get dangerous.

I admit to using AI more and more to make my poor prose more presentable. That is, I am becoming lazy and reliant in that respect. And although the concept under discussion is mine, the AI adds loads of gaps in my knowledge. I think so far I have managed to challenge some stuff wrong (misunderstood/communicated) but cannot rule out being misled.

The other side of the coin is I would not like to be without my cash flow spreadsheet that tells me what my daily bank balance will be each day for 7 months and a year's worth of end-of-month balances, and have to work it all by pencil and paper without also a banking app o give up to date input.

 

[promytius]

Hypothesis: Mass-Energy Density Distributed in Four Spatial Dimensions
With help from an AI I am posting this as a back-up to discussion on Space Does not Stretch : True or false? thread
Holographic Principle – Some researchers suggest that our universe may be a lower-dimensional projection of a higher-dimensional reality, which could relate to how mass-energy is distributed.

That is a very interesting idea. I quote you above briefly, to shorten my response. The Holographic principle is generally problematic for me, especially in determining what is "real." Projections can suffer from pre and post enhancements, meaning the true reality could program the projected reality. There's so much uncertainty in this theory, I don't think you need, nor want its support; the others are sufficient.
Thanks for the post!

 

[Gibsense]

The reason I would not discount it is that when time runs opposite, it seems a simulation of time on the other side of the universe (assuming radial expansion of a hypersphere) such that both directions (consider positrons and electrons) can occur in the same space (briefly) lol. It is a weak argument, though, so I tend to agree, but do not discount it

 

[billslugg]

I don't care how AI is used as long as it is labeled.

 

[Gibsense]

I don't care how AI is used as long as it is labeled.

I nearly always label it unless it is just prose improvement. But in a long 'argument'/diatribe, it is not obvious where the source of a comment originates. This sentence is constantly monitored for spelling and punctuation, and mostly, I do as I am advised/told, inserting commas, etc. Grammarly does that.

As for the meaning in posts, the basic concepts are always mine, and sometimes I have to correct the AI where I think there is an error, or I have not been clear. Increasingly, the ideas for further investigation are entirely AI's
As I am typing, a little dot changes from green (everything looks ok) to orange (could be improved) to red (you must try harder)

 

[Gibsense]

I wonder. The AI has made scores of recommendations for further research, but mostly, I select where I want it to go, and never return to the list. Many are overlapping from different themes. It might be a good idea to list all the recommendations made so far and note the issue they are concerned with. Maybe someone would be able to advise on the relevance. This paragraph earns me an orange dot, equivalent to schooldays "C"; could do better

 

[Catastrophe]

The reason I would not discount it is that when time runs opposite, it seems a simulation of time on the other side of the universe (assuming radial expansion of a hypersphere) such that both directions (consider positrons and electrons) can occur in the same space (briefly) lol. It is a weak argument, though, so I tend to agree, but do not discount it

Gibsense, "on the other side of the universe" presumably means "as far away as you cn get" which would be beyond the observable universe?

But you can receive nothing from outsude your "observable universe" - by definition.

I cannot think that you meant "on the other side of the Universe" as "Univers" does not exist in any real sene.

I cannot understand this at all: "when time runs opposite, it seems a simulation of time on the other side of the universe".

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, "on the other side of the universe" presumably means "as far away as you cn get" which would be beyond the observable universe?

Correct. Assuming that the observable universe does not reach the opposite, far-distant side.

Consider:

• A positron mathematically is the reverse time of an electron ie an electron would be a positron if its time ran in the opposite direction. Mathematically, at least. This is known.
• Let's drop a couple of dimensions and represent the universe (a spherical closed universe) as a circle. Place your observer anywhere on the circle and draw a line from the origin to the observer
• Make the radial line you have just drawn into an arrow ending at the observer (this is time in an expanding universe, and it has a direction
• Opposite to the observer, a position on the circle an arrow can be drawn in a similar way toward the opposite observer.
• The arrows point in opposite directions (each observer would view the other as having negative time). Each observer would view the other's electron as a positron

I forget why this is an issue in the context of the thread. Ah I remember.

• To experience both positrons and electrons at the same time I imagined each being projected to the same flat plain somehow physically. Or better that the circle was flattened to a diameter such that both hemispheres were together a diameter passing through the origin.
• A far-out and weak theory of holistic-type stuff which I wish I had not mentioned in the first place, lol

 

[billslugg]

If time ran backwards for positrons they could not be created on demand.

 

[Gibsense]

If time ran backwards for positrons they could not be created on demand.

Yes perhaps it appears that the time reversal bit is inoperable. I must think about that one!

 

[CryptoCraig]

@Gibsense, from what we observe within the Milky Way, do calculations work out correctly to what is observed for determining orbital speeds around BH Sagittarius?

Is it possible that, like our solar system's Oort Cloud, galaxies simply have tiny celestial objects that are currently unobservable and cause very, very little disturbance in the orbits of larger objects which has caused scientists to add dark matter into equations?

 

[billslugg]

When we look at orbital velocities around a point mass at the center of our galaxy, the equations work out well. The problem is as we move towards the edge of the galaxy, those equations don't work given the visible mass. There is some mass there we can't see. We can also eliminate all possible sources. It is a real head scratcher.

 

[CryptoCraig]

When we look at orbital velocities around a point mass at the center of our galaxy, the equations work out well. The problem is as we move towards the edge of the galaxy, those equations don't work given the visible mass. There is some mass there we can't see. We can also eliminate all possible sources. It is a real head scratcher.

ALL possible sources?!? But how? Every day (it seems) we discover something that challenges a long-time theory.

How distant would an Oort Cloud type of debris field be from its central black hole if proportional to our solar system?

What technology do we have that could detect these icy bodies at that distance?

 

[billslugg]

The most obvious possible source of mass we can't see from here would be bare black holes or maybe cold, dark asteroids. Neither of these could be seen far away very easily. However, if there were enough of them to account for another 4 times the normal mass we can see, then they would occasionally block the starlight from behind them. We look at enough stars constantly to know this does not happen.

There are other proposed particles that might account for the mass but we really don't have good ways of detecting them. Many experiments are underway to look for these particles but so far, nothing.

 

[Greenlight]

When we look at orbital velocities around a point mass at the center of our galaxy, the equations work out well. The problem is as we move towards the edge of the galaxy, those equations don't work given the visible mass. There is some mass there we can't see. We can also eliminate all possible sources. It is a real head scratcher.

a gradual deviation based on distance sounds like an artifact of the measurement.
Probably because of a bad assumption like that they think time flow is linear.

 

[CryptoCraig]

Maybe a blackhole's spin somehow makes matter closer to it orbit faster and faster. Maybe stars that are further away aren't in an orbit, but actually being pulled in. Maybe stars that are close to the BH aren't in orbit either.