Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

  1. #11
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    The 1.) and 2.) are fine and good. Of cause. It seems to be so, that there in fact exist not any good 4+1 model yet. So the whole thing is not yet possible to understand thoroughly.

    This article looks pointing to other kinds of dimensions as this one. There might be for example the spirit world (this is of cause not science, but there might be things that we don't know and which are not visible and so on). As the time, the other possible dimensions are not exactly dimensions, the invisible dimension is not a space- dimension, it is the spirit world dimension (or something else), as time is a time- dimension. But the 4. space dimension is real and is a space- dimension.

    Well, maybe somebody knows more. Let's wait.
    Your example of a "Spirit Dimension" is, I think, a good example.
    The concept is; "What if something is there for which we can see no evidence?"

    The problem with that is that almost anything we accept as "real" needs more than one piece of evidence to support it.
    I might show you an orange. It is a holographic orange. Your eyes tell you it is there, but you cannot smell it. You try to pick it up, but you cannot feel it. You need more than one piece of suggestive evidence in order to accept that there really is an orange, there.
    If I set this hologram up across a room, you might accept easily that there is an orange. Especially if I set it up in a restaurant. You would be at your table, enjoying your night out and not give two shits if the orange is real or holographic. You may not notice it at all and if you do, you will process "Orange" in your mind and leave it at that.
    It would only be an issue if you were to go over to it and try to devour it.
    Suddenly, you mind would question the reality of the universe if you went to grab what you had already accepted as there and your hand passed right through it.
    For the Scientific Method, the standards of evidence are much more strict that for the casual observer. For good reason: The casual observer often is misled by what they think they observed. They often pay no notice to it.
    So, the spirit world idea as if it were a Dimension: Before we can consider if there is one, we must first question if there are spirits to populate it. Our brains demonstrate a Physical Necessity for our minds to exist. We are much like computers; shut it down and there is no longer any operating system. A seizure is like a Blue Screen error. Gotta reboot. This being the case, there is no evidence to support the concept of a Soul or Spirit or any ethereal form of a living creature after death.
    As we go bit by bit, piece by piece of where to find evidence to support a Spirit Realm, and the more we find the evidence for any of it lacking; the More Irrational it becomes to continue to believe in the possibility of that spirit realms existence.
    Not just in the lack of evidence, but so too in the evidence we CAN see, like Brains, which suggest that the possibility is quite unlikely for spirits.
    It simply is not enough at that point to say, "Well, maybe we just cannot see it." With so many testing methods available far beyond "sight," the best explanation as to how something could be impossible to detect by any and all means of measurement is that it probably "simply does not exist."
    If we transfer this logic and your example back to the topic above: I think your questions could be:
    -What evidence Supports a higher dimensional Universe?
    -What evidence contradicts the concept of higher dimensions? What observations do not fit the predictions the Hypothesis offers?
    -How much supportive evidence is Necessary?
    -Is it possible dimensions can exist, but be impossible to measure?

    According to String/Branes super-symmetry Hypothesis, it IS possible for a dimension to "exist" but not be measurable. The idea is that these dimensions were developed during the initial inflation of the Universe, but also "destroyed" in the process: they had a counter action against the sudden expansion and sprang back on themselves, bundling up into themselves like a sprung elastic band. And this is part of the trouble with these models, they make predictions that cannot be tested. I don't know about you but, that doesn't sound like science, to me.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Your example of a "Spirit Dimension" is, I think, a good example.
    The concept is; "What if something is there for which we can see no evidence?"


    According to String/Branes super-symmetry Hypothesis, it IS possible for a dimension to "exist" but not be measurable. The idea is that these dimensions were developed during the initial inflation of the Universe, but also "destroyed" in the process: they had a counter action against the sudden expansion and sprang back on themselves, bundling up into themselves like a sprung elastic band. And this is part of the trouble with these models, they make predictions that cannot be tested. I don't know about you but, that doesn't sound like science, to me.
    Well, I don't see any need for spirit world in the cosmology, it was a comment to the article of the unknown things in matter. My point was to state that the 4. dimension is a fact in the reality.

    Of cause this is maybe not a fact either. The space has 3 dimensions and the 4. dimension is more connected to the matter how we think the whole space of the universe. If we think there is all and no outside, as everybody normally thinks in astronomy and philosophy, mathematically it is so easy as to put one vector more. Is it really a space dimension or something else, for example a wholeness- dimension, not e space- dimension, is dubious. Anyway we can take it as a dimension as well as we take the time as a dimension in the equations. So we can also speak of the 3+1+1 dimensional universe. Three space- dimensions, one- time dimension and one wholeness- dimension. All taken as vectors in mathematics, even if that is a simplification of the reality. But the important thing is that all these five things really exist in the physical reality. Other dimensions are dubious. The spirit world is only a thing of the religions and the human life, and maybe particle physics (if there exists spirits), but not a question of the cosmology.

    But we can not be dogmatic in the cosmology. Whenever we find something new, it has its consequences for the whole packet. When we found that the earth is revolving we abandoned the sun as the center. When we found the going away of the galaxies, we thought that the space is expanding and not static. When we think the space has 4. dimension, it has some meaning to the whole packet.

    There is:
    1) The space
    2) The time
    3) Other possible "dimensions", (if found, not before), and the things in QT
    4) Matter (quantums, atoms, stars and galaxies as the most important things) and energy
    5) Forces (gravity as the most important thing) and radiations (light and else)
    6) Movements and developments

    Which are the changes we must do to each level if we take the 4. dimension seriously? Is it a fact that this has not really studied?

    The time for example will not be the same. There is no time for (the space of) the universe, because it is not a moving particle. And already now the time is different as the 3 space- dimensions, it goes only to one direction, it changes with the speed, it exists only in the present (the time is the most difficult thing to understand). The galaxies will move in a 4. dimensional space and not in a 3. dimensional space. Is it possible that this explains the red shift without expansion? To movements the 4. dimension means that the space can not expand. For the universe it means that there cannot be "other universes", because there is no space for them.

    Whenever something changes in our understanding of the parts of this wholeness, it has some meaning for the other parts and the view of the whole cosmology. Nothing is eternally fixed in the cosmology. The same as in all the science until we know everything.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Not accepting the unsubstantiated is not being dogmatic, iti s being methodical, you only accept that which has the proponderens of evidence supporting it.

  4. #14
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Well, I don't see any need for spirit world in the cosmology, it was a comment to the article of the unknown things in matter.
    I hadn't thought so, but the example was a good one to use to explore why it is that something may appear to have supportive evidence, but is still scientifically rejected: because some evidence may be misleading, creating the necessity of strict standards of evidence for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    If we think there is all and no outside, as everybody normally thinks in astronomy and philosophy, mathematically it is so easy as to put one vector more. Is it really a space dimension or something else, for example a wholeness- dimension, not e space- dimension, is dubious. Anyway we can take it as a dimension as well as we take the time as a dimension in the equations. So we can also speak of the 3+1+1 dimensional universe. Three space- dimensions, one- time dimension and one wholeness- dimension. All taken as vectors in mathematics, even if that is a simplification of the reality. But the important thing is that all these five things really exist in the physical reality. Other dimensions are dubious. The spirit world is only a thing of the religions and the human life, and maybe particle physics (if there exists spirits), but not a question of the cosmology.

    But we can not be dogmatic in the cosmology. Whenever we find something new, it has its consequences for the whole packet. When we found that the earth is revolving we abandoned the sun as the center. When we found the going away of the galaxies, we thought that the space is expanding and not static. When we think the space has 4. dimension, it has some meaning to the whole packet.
    Excellent point and it is as necessary for science to be open to possibilities as it is to be skeptical.
    While we cannot accepts as a Theory something that is not well supported; We can Wonder. We can imagine.
    I think it is perfectly ok to daydream a bit, fantasize about what may be. Once we go to work on the Scientific Model, we must bring it back to reality and be the skeptic. To keep your feet on the ground and NeverFly.
    But when you stare upwards at the heavens and stargaze, think abut the possibilities, that is the time to let your "spirit" fly- The time to question the unquestionable; The time to explore the strangeness and unique.
    Now, you know how I got my name.
    I really like how you expressed what you were thinking above: That a dimension needs not be the kind of dimension that we are used to thinking of. That a dimension may be something else- Something we have not thought of, yet. That, in itself, is not science. It is the inspiration FOR science. You have wondered and dreamed; you have considered the possibilities and now you want answers.
    The questions being:
    -Is it possible that our universe has greater dimension than we currently know about?
    --Yes.
    -Are we able to model these dimensions mathematitcally?
    --Yes.
    -Are we able to observe these dimensions?
    -- It depends on the dimension. Observing something can be done either directly or indirectly; You either see it or you see the effects of it. (e.g. A black hole can be observed indirectly by seeing the gravitational pull on nearby objects.) But some 'dimensions' hypothesized by Super-Symmetry hypotheses (They are hypotheses and NOT THEORIES because they have not been Tested. A theory is an idea that has been tested.) no longer interact with our universe. They act as placeholders mathematically but cannot be observed either indirectly or directly by any means we currently can imagine. Not without taking a stroll outside of the Universe. Some of these Hypotheses show 26 dimensions where dimensions after 11 are curled up infinitesimally small only to have higher dimensions interacting with our universe again. So, if we could test, measure and observe these highest dimensions, we may have indirect evidence of the intermediate dimensions.
    At this time, we utterly lack the technology to test for the higher dimensions; where warping spacetime itself is needed to test for them. Some of the energies needed to test for these dimensions would be equal to all the energy produced in the Milky Way Galaxy over the course of a year.
    It makes it a worthy Footnote in our history as we walk into our future; but pursuing Super-symmetry models is not going to pay off for us anytime soon.
    Super-Symmetry and Brane Hypotheses are great for getting the imagination going. They are excellent at inspiring curious minds. But they just are not science. Maybe someday, they will be. Maybe. But today, they are merely a product of imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Which are the changes we must do to each level if we take the 4. dimension seriously? Is it a fact that this has not really studied?

    The time for example will not be the same. There is no time for (the space of) the universe, because it is not a moving particle. And already now the time is different as the 3 space- dimensions, it goes only to one direction, it changes with the speed, it exists only in the present (the time is the most difficult thing to understand). The galaxies will move in a 4. dimensional space and not in a 3. dimensional space. Is it possible that this explains the red shift without expansion? To movements the 4. dimension means that the space can not expand. For the universe it means that there cannot be "other universes", because there is no space for them.
    Time as a dimension has been exhaustively studied since it is the basis of The Theory of Relativity. Just as you had, above, Einstein also considered whether a dimension could take on a form other than what we are familiar with. He wondered if Time was such a dimension and he also realized something else that was interesting: That dimensions could be warped. Einstein, like all scientists, stood on the shoulders of giants in order to see the horizon. Using the works of the mathematicians Maxwell and Lorentz, Einstein built a model that demonstrated that dimensions could be shortened or lengthened, twisted and warped or even bent. He showed that a dimensional value was not a constant of the universe but rather that the dimensions within the universe relied on a set framework of the Universe. This opened up a myriad of possibilities for Testing and Observation that has been a nonstop effort since scientists first began testing Relativity Theories decades ago.
    Given this Mountain Of Evidence in Support of Current Theory, literally we could list it out over Hundreds of pages: We can conclude that there is no evidence that Space follows 4 (or more) dimensions. The reason why this is so is because if space had a fourth dimension, objects in space could fold in such a way as to be larger on the inside than they are on the outside. Light traveling vast distances could be warped in unusual ways when passing nearby one of these objects. But it has never been observed in spite of exhaustive seraching. The only naturally occurring structure that hints at the possibility of such a phenomenon is a Black Hole. But since we cannot observe the interior of a Black Hole, we cannot know what is going on inside of one.
    Which brings us back to your original proposal: Can a dimension be something Else? Not necessarily space or time but something different?
    What I say in response to this is not a scientific postulate but rather, to spark the imagination: What about the Structure of Spacetime itself? We already observe that the structure of the Universe sets Rules. For example; The constants. The constants "c" and "G" and Lambda. The constant "c" limits all things to an upper bound of velocity, yet, spacetime itself is not limited to that constant and can exceed the speed limit imposed by "c"! More interesting, that same structure allows for objects within the universe to change mass and size if they act against the constant. We do not know what this structure is. Some suggest a name of Quantum Foam in which the dimensions we know of follow a radically different set of rules. If you were to tunnel into the Quantum Foam in order to send information across 46 billion light years, you could send it within a second of time.
    Your "dimensions" may well be found in that structure, whatever it is. But our currently observed testing of theories suggests that they are not found in the structure of our inner Universe: The Cosmos that we can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Whenever something changes in our understanding of the parts of this wholeness, it has some meaning for the other parts and the view of the whole cosmology. Nothing is eternally fixed in the cosmology. The same as in all the science until we know everything.
    Very well put and EmperorZelos said it well when he pointed out in the post above this one that the only course open to us, if we want to find answers, is to patiently seek out rational and verifiable results.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Fine discussion. I will read them thoroughly. Many times more.

    It seems to be so that the 4. dimension has not been studied very much. Every possibility has been studied somehow but not so much. If it does not fit everywhere, there also can be some cosmological or other "constant" that saves it.

    We always come back to the red shift. It can be explained by the expansion. But expansion itself has no other proof. If the red shift can be explained by the 4. dimension it is a better explanation than the expansion, because we have the 4. dimension somehow in the reality: there is all and no outside, this can be the 4. space- dimension.

  6. #16
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Fine discussion. I will read them thoroughly. Many times more.

    It seems to be so that the 4. dimension has not been studied very much. Every possibility has been studied somehow but not so much. If it does not fit everywhere, there also can be some cosmological or other "constant" that saves it.

    We always come back to the red shift. It can be explained by the expansion. But expansion itself has no other proof. If the red shift can be explained by the 4. dimension it is a better explanation than the expansion, because we have the 4. dimension somehow in the reality: there is all and no outside, this can be the 4. space- dimension.
    Well, right off the bat: redshift and expansion are not mutually conclusive. You say that expansion is only supported by Redshift, but that is not the case.
    For example, we observe that the rate of expansion is not constant or consistent. Up until about 5 billion years ago, the rate of expansion was 'decelerating." However, after about 5 billion years ago, the rate began to accelerate and is still accelerating now. The current cause of acceleration is Unknown. But a 4+1 dimensional universe would have much greater problems with the "deceleration" and that is minimal compared to the change in rate to the acceleration we now observe. It deeply contradicts the physics of a 4+1 universe. These accelerations do not contradict the Lambda CDM currently in use, even if the cause is unknown for the current acceleration. It's not contradicted.
    Next, we look at the physics of cosmology to see what it predicts. Theory of Relativity predicted that The Universe itself would contract as a mathematical model. This was prior to the Friedman equations that predict expansion given Hubbles Constant. But it would have been Strong Evidence for the rate of change had Einstein not wanted to keep a Static World View of the Universe and "fudged the numbers." He later called it his greatest blunder and corrected it... Theory Of Relativity also then presented a model wherein the Universe expanded.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedm...3Walker_metric
    We then come to the Homogeneous distribution of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMBR measured by WMAP and COBE that demonstrates very strong evidence for Big Bang Cosmology. The Big Bang Model also accurately predicts the expansion ans an inflationary model, without needing to refer to redshift at all.
    Hubble noticed the redshift evidence early on in the 20th century. But it was rejected by Einstein who favored a static model. Once that model was grudgingly corrected, Redshift observation was merely the method of testing all three of these models and that testing showed all three to be accurate.
    The next evidence is the Isotropic distribution of structures within the Universe and the Uniform Cooling of the CMBR which matches the the rates of expansion currently modeled. But these direct observations are in contradiction with Multiple-Dimension Hypothesis which are unable to reconcile with the CMBR cooling rate.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Let's wait. The history is so as you said. The history continues. The 4+1 model is very good and will be studied. Or the 3+1+1 model. With some cosmological "constants" they also will be good. Better than 3+1, and these "dimensions" all are in the reality of the space and the universe. Let's see. I'm happy to have made my thoughts a part of the cosmological discussion.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    If there is no expansion there can not be accelerating expansion. In the 4+1 model there is no expansion because there seems to be a fixed radius for the space of the universe. The acceleration and the expansion follow from the theory, the 3+1 presupposition and the interpretation of the red shift. So, the acceleration can not be used as a critic against the 4+1 model, but the 4+1 model can be used against the interpretation of the red shift as an expansion.

  9. #19
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    If there is no expansion there can not be accelerating expansion. In the 4+1 model there is no expansion because there seems to be a fixed radius for the space of the universe. The acceleration and the expansion follow from the theory, the 3+1 presupposition and the interpretation of the red shift. So, the acceleration can not be used as a critic against the 4+1 model, but the 4+1 model can be used against the interpretation of the red shift as an expansion.
    The presupposition? I could just as easily call the 4+1 model presupposition. There is evidence of 3+1 but none of 4+1. By wording it as you have, you are misleading the conclusion.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: 4+1 Universe. Where and how to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The presupposition? I could just as easily call the 4+1 model presupposition. There is evidence of 3+1 but none of 4+1. By wording it as you have, you are misleading the conclusion.
    The evidence is that the space of the universe is such that it has no outside and everything belongs to it. This thing exists in the reality and it can be understood as the 4. space- dimension. Now we are again and at last lawfully in the center of this whole matter. So, why it is not a fact and an evidence?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •