Who cares about the fourth dimension?
February 3, 2009
Comic Gravitation (c) Florian Aigner
Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?
Some of the brightest minds of the world are doing research work in this sector - and still have not succeeded so far: Creating a unified theory of quantum gravitation is often considered to be the “Holy Grail” of modern science. Daniel Grumiller from the Institute of Theoretical Physics, Vienna University of Technology, Austria, can now at least unravel some of the mysteries of quantum gravitation. His results on black holes and gravitational waves are pretty mind-boggling - to say the least. Only recently he won the START prize and will use these funds to engage even more young physicians at the TU Vienna.
We perceive the space around us as three-dimensional. According to Einstein, time and space are inseparabely linked. Adding the time axis to our three-dimensional space makes our space-time-continuum four-dimensional. For decades, scientists have been wondering about the existence of additional dimensions so far hidden to our senses. Grumiller and his colleagues are trying the opposite approach: Instead of postulating additional dimensions, they believe that our universe could in fact be described by less than four dimensions.
“A hologram, as you find it on bank notes or credit cards, appears to show a three-dimensional picture, even though in fact it is just two-dimensional”, Grumiller explains. In such a case, reality has fewer dimensions than we would thinkit appears to have. This “holographic principle” plays an important role in the physics of space time. Instead of creating a theory of gravity in all the time and space dimensions, one can formulate a new quantum theory with one fewer spatial dimension. That way, a 3D theory of gravitation turns into a 2D quantum theory, in which gravity does not appear any more. Still, this quantum theory correctly predicts phenomena like black holes or gravitational waves.
“The question, how many dimensions our world really has, does probably not even have a proper answerprobably cannot be answered explicitly”, Grumiller thinks. “Depending on the particular question we are trying to answer, either one of the approaches may turn out to be more useful.”
Grumiller is currently working on gravitational theories which include two spatial dimensions and one time dimension. They can be mapped onto a two-dimensional gravitationless quantum theory. Such theories can be used to describe rapidly rotating black holes or “cosmic strings” - spacetime defects, which probably appeared shortly after the Big Bang.
Together with colleagues from the University of Vienna, Grumiller is organizing an international workshop, which will take place from April 14 to 24, 2009. Renowned participants, like scientists from Harvard, Princeton, the MIT and many other universities, reveal that the Viennese gravitation physicians are held in high regard internationally.
Source: TU Vienna
May 14, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
http://aetherwave...ime.html
We can realize it, if we consider the following facts:
1) The time and space always occurs together, in artifact, which is called a space-time
2) The space-time can have a different number of time and space dimensions, usually three spatial dimensions and one time dimensions. Albeit another models with different number of space or even time dimensions are considered as well in physics, so it's apparent, the number of space and time dimensions isn't limited.
3) Important thing is, the time has always an "arrow" despite of its actual definitions - while the space hasn't.
4) Fully chaotic environment doesn't enable the propagation of energy into distance, so it has no space. The time arrow cannot be observed inside of such system, so such system hasn't even time arrow - or it has an infinite time arrows, it depends on the onthologic perspective, you're preffering.
5) All massive objects are moving through space-time along geodesics, i.e. by analogous way, like the energy spreads through density gradients
The lack of trivial conceptual models following from missunderstanding and false refusal of Aether concept is what prohibits scientists to advance faster in understanding of Universe connections.
http://www.newsci...arn.html
The 3D version of that phenomena coresponds the ancient Fatio-LeSage model of gravity.
Now for my comments-
IF this turned out to be the case, and we're actually in a 2 dimensional plane of existence, this would completely and utterly turn all 5 string theories, and the M-Theory, upside down on their heads, and effectively disprove the theory.
I think it is infinitely more likely the universe is comprised of multitudes of dimensions, and in fact, I think that since we ourselves, and all known mass around us, is in a 3 dimensional shape, that this research will end up a bogus waste of time. But, I suppose you have to eliminate the obvious to come to the true conclusion.
Water surface can be divided into many dropplets. And these droplets can be divided into another, even much smaller dropplets. After then the string and brane models would obtain a much deeper meaning.
Not quite. For example, water surface is just two dimensional, because surface waves can follow just two mutually perpendicular directions, in which they cannot interfere mutually. We are saying, this surface has two degrees of freedom.
http://superstrun...age1.gif
By such way, the number of dimensions is apparently related to inertial energy spreading and it can be measured independently.
If I should adopt your rhetoric literally, I would say, neither you do not exist - just some complex system of fluctuations interacts with electrons at the other end of wire. From more general perspective, you're just strongly asymmetric piece of fractal chaos, by the same way like these electrons and other artifacts.
The most relevant stance will remain somewhere inbetween, as usually.
From issue 2691 of New Scientist magazine
http://www.newsci...ull=true
A theory that may be true, may also be not very useful.
Bear with me for a bit and I will explain. Our brains, being macro-things, like to categorize and simplify to aid understanding ( and thereby, survival ). Anyway, this mechanism is more or less the goal of the brain. When we present a method that shows our world ( universe ) in a wildly different manner than what we perceive, we are reluctant to accept.
Now, I am not saying this theory is right. And I am not saying it is wrong. These are often unimportant distinctions. However, is it useful? Asking that question has real value here.
Knowing what is true and false in the universe is all well and good, and I whole-heartedly support the endevor of knowledge-gaining, but we should not discard theories that are "probably not right" because they still may be useful.
If you still have trouble with what I am getting at, think Netownian physics versus relativity. Yes, relativity is "more correct" but Newtonian is still quite useful, which is why it is still taught.
Anyway, I hope this stimulates some thought.
By such approach the science would converge into religious camp very fast. Whereas the whole problem is quite simple: the mainstream science missed the point, environment can be never observed by its own waves. So it claimed negative result of M-M experiment as an ultimate proof of nonexistence of such environment, ignoring successfully all other indicias and particle models of reality.
Is not my problem, I'm not guilty for that mistake - so I'd expect some responsible stance from scientific community and the revalidation of Aether model ASAP. Simply because I'm just not willing to pay research based on trivial mistakes from my taxes anymore. Nobody is prohibited to continue in further research of existing theories - just from private sources, please.
I hope, my stance has certain logics at least for someone.
We should realize, validity of heliocentric model is based on tautology. It requires a checked gravitational law and known mass of planets at the same moment. But we cannot test one without the another. From pure formal perspective, heliocentric model was never tested by explicit way, as it remains implicit theory.
No wonder, nobody wanted to admit the heliocentric model for Galileo, until independent evidence was found in stellar parallax. From this perspective the Holly Church approach follows the Popper methodology of Mainstream Science very well and nobody can have something against it.
With the only exception, Holly Church has made no mistake in its deductions - whereas Mainstream Science missed the logics of particle environment from its very beginning. By such way, the contemporary scientists are trolling much more by now, then the Holly Church of Galileo era.
For example, we can say, the extinction of various species makes no problem for further human evolution: we can synthesize new ones by genetic engineering. But we cannot replace the million years of evolution so easily. What if some extinct strain contains cancer medications, which we are just searching for? Until we cannot travel into past, such lost of information is unrecoverable.
From AWT follows, the era of formal and nonformal approach alternates in science in less or more apparent waves, the density of which increases, because of increasing information density. The intuitive Plenum concept of ancient Greeks was replaced by abstract Newtonian concept of absolute space and time. With understanding of wave nature of light Aether theory was revived in 19th century and it was replaced by formal relativity in 20th century. Now we are facing Aether concept again, because the contemporary system of formal QM & GR theories has reached its limits in many aspects, because of its complexity.
For example, Aether concept brings a number of testable predictions concerning the speed of gravity and dispersion of gravitational waves by intuitive way even without any math - as follows from my posts here:
http://www.physor...399.html
This of course may lead into Einstein's utterance that 'I may have got the sign wrong', meaning that gravity is actually a PUSH - and planetary motion calculations do not need their minute fudge factors. Those Fudge factors that physics is so dangerously fond of.
- Space has (omnidirectional) extension.
- Time has duration. It shows (rate of) change of location of matter in space.
We normally consider space to have three essential extensions in three orthogonal (90 degree) directions, but this is a mathematical convenience only. It does not correspond to physical reality as there are no instances of this 90 degree separation of "spatial dimensions" in nature. They only exist in our mathematical model of reality. Also the terms "one dimensional" and "two dimensional" as used today are nowhere to be found in physical reality. If we talk about reality, we only find that there is extension in space, and that it is equally going in all directions. That is the dimension of space.
Just a thought for consideration...
magpies-have you ever heard of akhems razor? That being that given a set of possibilities, the simplest is usually the case (to put it simply). This ties directly into being "the" common understanding of things in many cases....at least from my perception. Akhems razor has proved to be good many times over....
SteveS-interesting article....I highly doubt thats the case, but interesting none the less :)
Alexa-there are many idiots even on this site that insist that science is nothing mroe than a religion (and I know youve seen them comment too as we comment alot of the same articles)....idiots...but I do agree with your statement for the most part :)
I do have to say though, unless I misunderstood you here: "With the only exception, Holly Church has made no mistake in its deductions - whereas Mainstream Science missed the logics of particle environment from its very beginning"
---- are you defending the church..aka, the first fairy tale writers? I don't think you are but had to ask....btw, the vatican publicly admitted it was wrong and apologized to Galileo not very long ago (maybe a couple months) :)
SexyMolecule-I don't think its a matter of explaining how things really are, but rather, getting the conversations heated and sparked enough to make them intelligent. For every answer, there is 5 arguements :) I GUARANTEE you could post something like 2 2=4, and you will have people saying "no, it's 5", or better yet, saying something like "2 2 is merely a sequence made up by man to explain the reality around him, and counting does not really exist"
:D