Theorys on the 5th dimension

[Tormod]

Here is an article from the AAAS, February 2002:

In search of extra dimensions: Hang on-a new reality may be around the corner

BOSTON, MASS. - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one," according to the late Albert Einstein. But, "if everything is an illusion and nothing exists," humorist Woody Allen has observed, "I definitely overpaid for my carpet."

Hang onto your carpet receipts:

Our understanding of reality - that is, a world where events happen over time within a three-dimensional space - may be turned on its head by the year 2005, scientist Maria Spiropulu said today during the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting.

"The way we think about things is about to change completely," said Spiropulu. "This is truly a revolution in the way we understand our world."

Spiropulu, a 32-year-old scientist with the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago, is hot on the trail of extra dimensions. She's using new methods to prove, experimentally, whether our reality is more complicated than we previously assumed.

"We are very close" to a new reality, she said. "Right now, we imagine space and time as a static question, and we solve equations as a function of space and time. But, what we're learning is that, at the very large scale or the very small scale, space and time are dynamic. What is happening at those scales, we cannot explain. So we have to wonder, do these scales hold some extra dimensions?"

Traditionally, physicists have mathematically explained all that happens in the world by using a "standard model." In this system, all matter is made of lightweight "leptons" (such as electrons and neutrinos) and quarks. Three forces manipulate these particles: electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear reactions.

But, this traditional approach doesn't explain gravity, the fourth force. The conventional rules of quantum mechanics have been successfully married with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which explains the behavior of very fast objects-but not with his Theory of General Relativity, the guidebook to gravitational force. Mathematical gobbledygook usually results from trying to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity. Consequently, we still don't know, for example, what happens to particles sucked into a black hole.

In an effort to uniformly explain all events, physicist Gunnar Nordstrom (1881-1923) first introduced the notion of an extra dimension at the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps, he thought, gravity happens in a realm we don't understand and can't mathematically define. Some 10 years later, Theodor Kaluza (1885-1954) and Oskar Klein (1894-1977) took Nordstrom's ideas another step forward: An extra dimension may be curled up like an unimaginably small ball, they said, on the order of the Planck scale-the smallest unit of length in the universe (10 to the minus 33 centimeters).

The idea of an extra dimension was resurrected yet again in the late 1990s, as scientists began to ask whether Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation reliably predicts gravity's behavior below the centimeter scale, Spiropulu explained. Physicists were energized in 1997 by the discovery of possible links between the standard model and "superstring theory"-the notion that a series of extremely tiny, vibrating strings may lurk beneath the level of quarks and leptons.

Researchers Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Gia Dvali then caused further excitement, by suggesting that at least one of these tiny dimensions might, in fact, be large enough to measure. Still, no one has produced undeniable proof of superstrings, and many questions persist.

Since then, Spiropulu reported to AAAS attendees, experiments have shown that Newton's Law is valid down to the 200-micron level. That is, gravity "follows the rules" at that scale. But, the physical reality below this level remains a mystery. Somewhere within the Planck scale, or at extreme energy

[the transient]

[the transient]

[the transient]

Tormod, it seems that between the two of us this subject has been effectively dealt with until more advanced observational tools and methods can be discovered. Also realize, that if there can be a previously undiscovered dimension of force interactions, then there can be limitless such steps beyond even the here-to-fore unknown one. A linear mind seeks always to make peace with its non-linear world.

[Tormod]

@transient, I thought the article was kind of fun, actually. There are so many theories on this subject that it is hard to keep up with them.

Now if only someone would find out we had not only a number of spatial dimensions but several time dimensions as well...that would make linearity a non-issue.

I don't believe in limitlessness, though...I think it is a construct of the mind. Cosmologist John Barrow has written some great stuff in infinities, and even a play ("Infinities") which I hope to see one day.

Tormod

[the transient]

The speculation of finding anything fundamental about reality sounds very much like just another more finite level of Leibniz's monadology hypothesis, which was just a deeper understanding of the ideas of Democritus' atoms. Sometimes I think that, once Occam's razor starts to cut, any notions of other universes or dimensions or realities seems to become trivial. However, if anything is governed by the mechanics that comprise it, then those forces can be laid open and manipulated. Chaos theories allude to an infinite progression of self-similar phases, which could be applied to particles, dimensions, galaxies, universes, and the notion of what this playing-field called reality is. Also, how can there be anything that is ultimately finite, that would imply it was created ex-nihilo, or from nothing, and how could "nothing" come to be, even nothing would be a state, and states arise from other states! Lastly, I've heard ideas of 8, 9, 10, and 26 dimensions curled very small within sub-atomic particles, does anyone know what these dimensions are alluding to?

[Tormod]

Yeah, Occam's Razor is a cool concept, but it does not necessarily hold true. Look at DNA and self repair - I think you could easily find examples like that were complexity, not simplicity, is the norm.

As for string theory, which is the part of physics that require 11 or 26 dimensions, that is a good example. They have yet to predict anything at all - except perhaps that they need 11 or 26 dimensions (now that's a catch 22). I interviewed Michael Green, one of the fathers of string theory, last year and must admit I had a real hard time understanding it.

But it is a truly marvellous idea, though.

Check out our hypography on superstringsfor some more info and links.

Michio Kaku has written a lot on this stuff.

Tormod

[Tormod]

Transient, to claim that "something cannot come out of nothing" is a typical empirical statement. You can, of course, not prove it.

However, one theory which is gaining ground is that of a multiverse, in which our universe is just one of an ensemble of universes (we have discussed the before in this forum). It would obviouvsly just move the point of "nothingness" even further back (a classical problem in cosmology)- but it would easily explain that indeed, our universe did not spring from nothing but from something.

How can there be anything that is ultimately finite? A human life span is finite.

Tormod

[the transient]

Tormod, I am indeed familiar with the multiverse concept ( the roots of which stretch as far back as 250 b.c.). However, the linguistic assigning of arbitrary quantifications like this is the parameter of "this" universe as opposed to the other phenomena that might be synthesizing into it, or trickling into it, is alot like all of the other fallacious limits in understanding the true size of reality that we've made in the past. As to the empiricist nature of my assessment of nothing, I find it reflects more the idea of chaotic infinitudes of dimensional interactions.

I do not believe in the limitation of mans neural network to understand the most ultimate complexities if only given sufficient time to develope, both technologically and psychologically.

[the transient]

What is a human life-span , just an illusion of seperation. A human life-force on the other hand, indeed its very energy, is as limitless as the whole of reality's mysterious energy interactions.