Right, we can't be "outside" since we will always be from the inside. Just like the flat-lander that got stuck in his two-dimensional world.
So the next fundamental question to ask is can we detect the extra dimension since we are strapped inside our 3-dimensional world (or four if you also count time).
Last edited:
It's a question of perspective. I was led into a very Cruel experiment as a young 15-y-o biologist. 😡
We were told to look down the microscope at a tiny single-celled animal-like organism called an Amoeba. All it liked to do all day was eat up equally tiny green plant-like organisms called, IIRC, phytoplankton.
Everything Copacetic, IMO. Just Nature isn't it? Quite Natural. What I didn't realise until later, was that the whole micro-ecology was shrivelling up and dying under the heat of my hot microscope lamp.
I felt bad for days. that little Amoeba probably, in its dying minutes, saw a horrible magnified hot eye gazing down on him or her.
Maybe thought it was some Fierce all-knowing God come to punish. Ever since, I have never laughed at the Monkeys in the Zoo. Because they are probably laughing back at me.
Make of it what you will. 99% of everything is unknown. Amazing we have made it so far.
We were told to look down the microscope at a tiny single-celled animal-like organism called an Amoeba. All it liked to do all day was eat up equally tiny green plant-like organisms called, IIRC, phytoplankton.
Everything Copacetic, IMO. Just Nature isn't it? Quite Natural. What I didn't realise until later, was that the whole micro-ecology was shrivelling up and dying under the heat of my hot microscope lamp.
I felt bad for days. that little Amoeba probably, in its dying minutes, saw a horrible magnified hot eye gazing down on him or her.
Maybe thought it was some Fierce all-knowing God come to punish. Ever since, I have never laughed at the Monkeys in the Zoo. Because they are probably laughing back at me.
Make of it what you will. 99% of everything is unknown. Amazing we have made it so far.
That's one of the Standard Model approaches. Unfortunately Einstein gravity model (as a distortion/curvature of the space-time) doesn't fit in the Standard Model (and there are good reasons to believe it won't, at least not directly) and/or QFT. There could be a missing link here, a TBD more general Standard Model description of Gravity that would have the Generalized Relativity as a consequence.
Standard Model is Broken right now. Everybody knows this. But no better ideas.
@ Disco-Pete: It could all end tomorrow for Homo Sapiens! A Giant meteorite, a SuperNova, an Ice-age, a Volcano, Who knows? 🙂
I do know a bit about extra dimensions though, which andy2 raises. Bit short on references at short notice. But plough on.
If an extra dimension passes through a lower dimension, us "Flatlanders" merely see something pop out of nowhere, expand and grow bigger, then shrink away into nothingness. Like a 4D sphere passing through our 3D Space. OK so far?
But surely we see this every day in the Quantum World? 😎
Virtual particles. Pop out of nowhere, do their job, and promptly disappear again. 😱
Whatever is going on? More research needed,
@ Disco-Pete: It could all end tomorrow for Homo Sapiens! A Giant meteorite, a SuperNova, an Ice-age, a Volcano, Who knows? 🙂
I do know a bit about extra dimensions though, which andy2 raises. Bit short on references at short notice. But plough on.
If an extra dimension passes through a lower dimension, us "Flatlanders" merely see something pop out of nowhere, expand and grow bigger, then shrink away into nothingness. Like a 4D sphere passing through our 3D Space. OK so far?
But surely we see this every day in the Quantum World? 😎
Virtual particles. Pop out of nowhere, do their job, and promptly disappear again. 😱
Whatever is going on? More research needed,
Indeed - it seems the two views of reality are just not compatible with our current knowledge.
It's hard to comprehend "things" that come out from nowhere. I am not sure we have to "tool" to figure out. Particle collider is our best hope but ...
First it was earth centric. Then it's solar-centric. Then it's galaxy centric. Finally we found out it's more than just our galaxy.
But we are still stuck in our own 3-dimensional centric. Maybe some day somebody will figure out the extra dimension so we will be no longer a 3-dimension centric.
I can see it won't be easy.
Last edited:
My gut feeling is EM propagates through the time field which is simply the time difference between objects using c as the universal ruler or meter. Distance and time are considered the same thing by physicists. You cannot have a time difference between objects without the expenditure of energy. Energy can propagate through a vacuum because it distorts or ‘imprints’ on the time field and propagates out from the source. When it encounters another object, it shifts it’s time reference wrt to local time, imparting energy to it. The mechanism is completely relativistic.
So, you don’t need ‘vacuum energy’ or strange particles to enable this process as some have suggested (and Sabine Hossenfelder has some pointed comments about this as well). All you need is time, which in this view is not a blank canvass upon which the events of the universe play out, but an integral force tightly bound to energy and entropy.
Last edited:
Really, I don’t. I thought it was beautifully re-enforced by the experimental confirmation of the Higgs boson.
There is no “nowhere” as much as there is no “vacuum”, stricto sensu. Virtual particles appearing from nowhere are a common event in the quantum world, as quantum fluctuations; they pop and vanish constantly, since they do not violate any conservation laws, as long as their existence doesn’t exceed the uncertainty principle. Both real and virtual particles are resonances of the underlying quantum field, only that virtual particles are never indices of a process scattering matrix. Therefore, they cannot be identified by any experimental procedure.
That’s all I recall since I studied QM too many years ago.
The part that really does my head in with the standard model is how much work they had to do to incorporate mass. If pesky mass didn't exist it would be beautifully compact. Possibly because I'm not clever enough to full understand it it just looks too unwieldy. Those who can grasp tensor calculus probably are shaking there heads at this poor fool 🙂
What I have never seen is a good justification of WHY we need a unified theory, other than to keep theoretical physicists in a job.
What I have never seen is a good justification of WHY we need a unified theory, other than to keep theoretical physicists in a job.
I have very little real views about Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's Gravity, or Geometrical Algebra, Prime Numbers or any thing else. Though am fairly gifted at all of them. And still haven't written off the lucrative Nobel Prize if I am honest. 😱
NO. You have to decide which side you are on. Men have ruled the Science World for centuries. It's apparently all over now.
Are you a Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder fan, or a Doctor Becky Smethurst fan? I leave you to decide...
TBH, I'd happily take them both out. On consecutive nights. 😀
NO. You have to decide which side you are on. Men have ruled the Science World for centuries. It's apparently all over now.
Are you a Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder fan, or a Doctor Becky Smethurst fan? I leave you to decide...
TBH, I'd happily take them both out. On consecutive nights. 😀
Attachments
I believe it is still beautifully compact, the only odd thing about mass is that the Higgs boson is the illustration of the one and only scalar field we know about. Other may exist, we just don't know about yet, but integrating them in the Standard Model will not be that difficult after Higgs. The Graviton, if it would exist (many think it's unlikely), would also be a resonance of a scalar quantum field. But there are many other things in the GR that conflict with QM, beyond the existence of the Graviton. Probably the most difficult to overcome is exactly the unification of space and time in GR; unlike the GR, in QM, time is understood as an external "classic" variable readable using a "classic" clock, or, if you prefer, the "classic" spacetime metric applies. Or even more intuitive, QM and QFT have no explicit dynamics.
And we already know that the relativistic QFT is perfectly consistent, since it proved that EM field is actually nothing but a rather simple relativistic field theory; the magnetic field is exactly an electric field in motion (or the other way around).
BTW, tensor calculus is much more used in GR than in QM.
P.S. Seeing System7 comment, I understand now this is a topic about pub Physics, which I don't appreciate.
Last edited:
I hadn't noticed the time thing before. Thank you, I've learned something. I also need to check back on something ref the tensor calculus as I've filed something wrongly in my brain. Either way beyond my maths abilities.
Sorry, syn08, I must answer this. I can hardly believe what billshurv is saying. I can't imagine for a minute that young women take me seriously on dating. Far too old. This is Irony. And the higher function of Humour.
I have always been stronger on Women's Rights and Anti-Racist than most people. I grew up in a Liberal and Multi-Cultural background. Rarely I get cross. But the Forum should know, I beat billshurv in some insignificant matter of Moving-Coil cartridges, He hates me. Don't you, billshurv?
But the Science will win. I have always stood up to Bullies. Just my Nature. 😀
Things seemed to get heated last night. Sorry. Everything Copacetic with me and Bill this morning. 😱
As it goes, we did a lot of good stuff on the back of a beermat in the Pub. Derived the Dirac anti-electron in 3 lines!
I suspect we struggle with Gravity, partly because we are OK with regular attractive forces, but have little real experience of Tidal forces which happen in the extremes.
OK with trajectories of balls and such, but rotation is another thing we really don't have a good feel for. So particle spin is a nightmare to visualise.
In 4-dimensions there is no rotation axis, it is rotation around planes. Cue the tesseract...
Since Physics relies on symmetries, by Noether's Theorem, doubtless any new stuff will find new symettries. As far as I have got.
This is my current interest:
Just needs a pocket calculator... 😎
As it goes, we did a lot of good stuff on the back of a beermat in the Pub. Derived the Dirac anti-electron in 3 lines!
I suspect we struggle with Gravity, partly because we are OK with regular attractive forces, but have little real experience of Tidal forces which happen in the extremes.
OK with trajectories of balls and such, but rotation is another thing we really don't have a good feel for. So particle spin is a nightmare to visualise.
In 4-dimensions there is no rotation axis, it is rotation around planes. Cue the tesseract...
Since Physics relies on symmetries, by Noether's Theorem, doubtless any new stuff will find new symettries. As far as I have got.
This is my current interest:
Just needs a pocket calculator... 😎
"Make of it what you will. 99% of everything is unknown. Amazing we have made it so far."
Actually, did see a documentary yesterday where the accelerated expansion of universe was one of the topics. That contradicted many previous hypothesis, but what was "know" to this day was that 5% of matter in the Universe was know, the rest was Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
I have no opinion and watch with great interest and am a great fan of Sabine Hossenfelder, because she's not only good at explaining stuff but also has a rather "dry humour".
What more?? I am following intelligent people debunking the FLatheads on YT who believs that Einstein's theories supercedes Newton's. And then it's the quantum theories that supercede Newton's. But one theory just emerges into another when conditions change - when masses become TOO BIG, or we are handling too small particles. My wild guess is that we may (or may not) eventually find new theories, that become valid when Einstein's theories starts falling apart.
Actually, did see a documentary yesterday where the accelerated expansion of universe was one of the topics. That contradicted many previous hypothesis, but what was "know" to this day was that 5% of matter in the Universe was know, the rest was Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
I have no opinion and watch with great interest and am a great fan of Sabine Hossenfelder, because she's not only good at explaining stuff but also has a rather "dry humour".
What more?? I am following intelligent people debunking the FLatheads on YT who believs that Einstein's theories supercedes Newton's. And then it's the quantum theories that supercede Newton's. But one theory just emerges into another when conditions change - when masses become TOO BIG, or we are handling too small particles. My wild guess is that we may (or may not) eventually find new theories, that become valid when Einstein's theories starts falling apart.
He did describe the observations very well. Amazing simplicity and a description we can visualize, though only a warped membrane and most would have a hard time visualizing it in rotation.
But, it seems like he was wrong. We have measured gravity waves. This implies it just might be a force and that in turn implies a carrier. It does not mean we could have a big enough collider to find it, but it implies it is there. This does make a total mess of time, which Einstein was able to tie in.
Nature likes the easy way out. It likes to re-use rules. Fun to watch. It can make your head work. I do like Feynman's comment. " If you don't understand it, that is OK but that is the way nature is" or something like that.
Is the expansion of the universe being driven from within, or is it being pulled by external universes. No need for dark energy than.
But, it seems like he was wrong. We have measured gravity waves. This implies it just might be a force and that in turn implies a carrier. It does not mean we could have a big enough collider to find it, but it implies it is there. This does make a total mess of time, which Einstein was able to tie in.
Nature likes the easy way out. It likes to re-use rules. Fun to watch. It can make your head work. I do like Feynman's comment. " If you don't understand it, that is OK but that is the way nature is" or something like that.
Is the expansion of the universe being driven from within, or is it being pulled by external universes. No need for dark energy than.