Adding a large dimension to reality.

String theory is known for compressing dimensions. This allows additional dimensions to be added to the discription of realtiy that at our level of observation are unobservable. A line is actually a long thin cylinder, etc. I would like to show how a “large” dimension can be added to our reality.

Lets say we have a disk and a ruler and we measure the disk with the ruler. If we impose a uniform expansion to the disk and the ruler, all relative measures between the disk and the ruler remain the same. The disk and the ruler both expand the same relative amount.

In order to describe this change, it is possible to establish a frame of referance independent of the expansion. This “eye of God” perspective allows us to see how the relative measures of the ruler and the disk have increased.

This “absolute scale” of measurement now becomes an additional dimensional measure of reality. Evidence of this dimension would not be locally observable, but the possibility of detecting this extra dimension may be possible by observing events in the past.

Snowflake

The idea of larger extra spatial dimensions isn't particularly new since the developments of M-Theory have shown the branes can in fact be the size of the entire universe and still be extradimensional. While I think I agree with your notion of an extra "perspective" required within which the measurements take place, I'm not sure that you can generalize this. How would you measure the 3rd "obervers" rate of change of any variable? You would need another "eye of God" in order for the events in the 2nd frame to exist. This would go on ad infinitum, which means either it's not the right track, or there are an infinite number of dimensions (universes).

Hi normandy6644

Your concern about generalizing dimensions, such as one upon another, resulting in an infinite number of dimensions is valid.

Also, your description of such a model as consistent epistemologically with brane theory is accurate.

It is my belief that if geometric rules are consistent in describing the relationship between extra dimensions and our known dimensions, then they hold promise for consideration. Arbitrary dimensions, while perhaps indicating the possibility of other universes within our own universe, verges, as you imply, on the edge of daydreaming.

Examples illustrating inter-dimensional geometric principles are as follows. The Pythagorean theorem describes the geometric “rules” between the three spatial dimensions. The time interval between points as described by Special Relativity describes the geometric relationship between points in space and time. If other dimensions are necessary to describe reality, there should be the same kind of inter-dimensional geometric interrelationship.

Equally important to me, besides the necessity for conformance to a geometric relationship, is the idea that the “rules of physics” should be consistent from each dimensional perspective, even if they are unobserved.

As you know I propose a uniform expansion to space-time, and this expansion results in the necessity for an additional “large” dimensional measure from which to describe the expansion in “absolute” terms. The geometric description of this extra dimension in relation to our observed dimensions is required and its description has many of the characteristics of brane theory. I use such a model to explain the following 1 a geometric explanation for the speed of light; 2. why E=mcc; 3. why matter has, as Einstein characterized it, “ intrinsic energy”; and 4. an explanation for the cosmological red shift. (While my uniform expansion hypothesis predicts the loss of energy of a photon traveling through an expanding space-time field, it also predicts that initially the photon started off with more energy due to the denser electromagnetic field around the atom, the two effects cancel, resulting in no cosmological red shift).

I’d post the explanation for the above now but no one reads long posts, and who knows if anyone is interested in another person’s application of brane theory. I really started this post to introduce the concept of an extra large dimension and to provide an example as to how it can be established in the hopes of finding others who share the same kind of ideas.


snowflake

I did.

Me too...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Thanks for your time.

Ok. I’ll present my version of a brane type interaction that allows a geometric explanation for the speed of light, e =mcc and intrinsic energy. (Three of the 4 physical properties I proposed a brane model could explain).

I would be interested if some readers could provide links to explanations of brane interactions that others felt were explained well. I do not want just a link to a brane model, I would like a link to a model that has a good explanation as to how the interaction takes place.

The key component of a brane model is that inter-dimensional interactions result in physical properties. Additionally, some of the inter-dimensional relationships may be based upon dimensional measures we are not directly aware of. (I gave an example in which a uniform expansion can result in a kind of “absolute” dimension). Also, for me, any brane model must have the inter-dimensional relationships geometrically tied one to another.

Visualizing the interaction of our reality with an unobserved dimensional is tricky, (but I think it is kind of fun). How I do it is to first reduce reality to a Flatland universe. This allows the “unobserved” vertical dimension to describe the unobserved dimensional relationship in a way that we, as three spatial dimensional beings, can now observe.

For example, if a vertical cone were to intersect flatland, the residents of flatland would first see a “dot” than an ever expanding ring. Residents of flatland could describe the expansion of the ring as the result of phenomena only in there flatland universe, but we from our three dimensional perspective would have a the “true” picture; a conic shell is interfacing with a flatland universe and the intersection of these dimensional structures results in the expanding ring.

There now also arises the issue Normandy6644 pointed out regarding additional dimensional measures. In the flatland model is it the intersection of the cone with flatland or is it the intersection of flatland with the cone that causes the expanding ring? An additional frame of reference, resulting in additional dimensional measures of the “unobserved” variety now pop up. What is the velocity describing the rate of intersection, and what is the “pitch” or shape of the cone? This seems to be leading to disorder but if the “rules of physics” are consistent, the number of dimensional measures need not proliferate to the point of hopeless confusion. A “trial and error” approach can be used to evaluate various inter-dimensional relationships and the one that is the simplest and which is consistent with observation is chosen.

In this case let us assume that the cone is stationary and it is the motion of flatland itself that causes the expanding ring.

The expanding ring in flatland corresponds to the expansion of light in Flatland. A photon of light can be visualized as “sailboat” caught between two intersecting planes.

In order for light everywhere in flatland to expand in a “ring”, the properties of the cone have to exist “everywhere”. In order for this to be true, the properties of the cone have to exist in three dimensional space. It is as if a “cloud” which carried dimensional relationships was being intersected by Flatland. Also, this three dimensional relationship includes as one of the three dimensions an unobserved dimension.

The intersection of this “dimensional cloud” with Flatland is a brain type interaction. It results in a geometric or physical description as to why the speed of light is the speed of light.

If we now imagine this “dimensional cloud” intersecting three dimensional space instead of Flatland, we now complete the visualization process. Instead of expanding rings describing the motion of light, it is expanding shells.

This results in a geometric description for the speed of light. It is caused by the intersection of an extra dimensional relationship with our spatial dimensions and the effect it has on a photon.

(Of course there are other explanations as to why a photon moves at the speed of light. Such explanations include rather complex distortions of electromagnetic fields around the photon).

If three-dimensional space were actually in motion in an unobserved dimension, matter in three-dimensional space would have “intrinsic” energy. This gives a physical explanation for Einstein’s intrinsic energy. If three dimensional space were moving in the unobserved dimension at the square root of two divided by two times the speed of light, (V unobserved) , the intrinsic energy of matter becomes 1/2 m Vunobserved^2. = E = mcc. It is simply kinetic energy.

It is the simplification of relationships, ie intrinsic energy equals kinetic energy, that restrains the number of extra dimensions as well as how the extra dimensions are interrelated.

Snowflake.

Some of you might be interested in looking over a previous topic I posted regarding adding "large" dimensions to spacetime.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?

Snowflake.

Sorry about the link back to the same posting, I ment to post it as a link to Platinum Rhymer post on other dimensions.

ops:

Snowflake

Pardon my asking some naive questions for better understanding:

What do you mean exactly when you say "inter-dimensional interactions result in physical properties"? In Abbott's Flatland similie you cite, a cone is a physical 3-D object and it appears as a 2-D slice in Flatland. The object is physical in both environments.

Also, what is your understanding of a brane? It is an object, or a demarcation of a spatial, n-dimensional region?

Thanks

Hi gzhpcu

There are several issues you brought out in your post.

You said the following

“In Abbott's Flatland similie you cite, a cone is a physical 3-D object and it appears as a 2-D slice in Flatland. The object is physical in both environments. “

You point out a shortcoming of my explanation, thank you.

First, you are right in noting that a cone is a physical object, which is misleading. A more complete description would be to say that the cone represents a property of space-time, which has a specific shape and orientation. It is the movement of the flatland universe through the structural pattern of space-time that causes physical properties.

In this case the physical property would be the expansion of a ring, which in three-dimensional space would be analogous to the motion of photon. It is the motion of our space-time and it’s interaction with a structured “absolute” framework composed of extra dimensions that causes light to move at the speed of light.

Regarding my understanding of a brane, it is as you stated a “demarcation of a spatial, n-dimensional region”. I would add additional temporal dimensions to the mix. These extra dimensions must also conform to specific geometric rules and the rules have to be consistent between all the dimensional measures. For example, Special relativity is essentially a geometric relationship in which time is integrated with spatial measures according to the Pythagorean theorem.

Extra dimensions must also be geometrically tied to the existing spatial and temporal relationships, even if we cannot directly observe them from our local observation of a three spatial and one temporal universe. The physicists of flatland may describe the expansion of the ring as strictly the result of relationships based upon their perceptions, but we as three-dimensional beings can see that the expansion of the ring is actually the result of a geometric relationship of their observable universe with a structured configuration of space-time outside their direct awareness. This is analogous to how our universe works. Everything is geometry.

Hope this is better.

John M. Kulick
AKA snowflake

Thanks for the clarification. Another question: you cite "temporal dimensions", meaning I assume more than one time. How would these temporal dimensions map to each other?

Hi gzhpcu
Thank you for your questions. They mean a lot to me.

You asked,
"Another question: you cite "temporal dimensions", meaning I assume more than one time. How would these temporal dimensions map to each other?"

This is an insightful question. It is also not that easy to describe using words for geometric relationships, but I will try.

Absolute time describes a point’s location historically.
Relative time describes the interval of time between points.

Absolute time and relative time are perpendicular to each other.

Imagine a collection of points in space-time organized as if in a cubic matrix with constant time intervals between them. The constant time intervals between the points correspond to relative time measures. The location of the points historically relative to the beginning of time corresponds to an Absolute measure of time.

In order for there to be two unique dimensions of time, the description of space-time will require that one of the dimensions of time alone will not be able to describe fundamental characteristics of reality. This criterion is met in the proposed model by allowing space-time to uniformly expand without altering the relative time measure between the points as they move away from each other. The relative measure of time is constant even though the points in space-time are constantly moving away from each other. Since this process of uniform expansion occurs according to very specifically described geometric rate, some kind of additional measure of time is going to be required to describe how this expansion is proceeding.

What is happening in this model is that there are two reference frames, relative and absolute. Relative reference frames are what we observe, all our measurements are relative to our perspective. The Absolute reference frame is the “Eye of God” perspective of our universe. The necessity for this extra reference frame can be understood by considering the effect of a truly uniform expansion of space-time, meaning that matter itself expands. If the distance between two objects doubles, and size of the two objects doubles and the rulers correspondingly doubles, what relative measure can be used to describe the change? What is needed is some kind of reference frame outside of the relative perspective. This necessity results in the Absolute Reference frame. This Eye of God perspective not only requires a fixed ruler to describe how spatial measures change, a fixed measure of time is needed to describe how these spatial changes are evolving.

Relative measures of time are not affected by a uniform expansion, i.e. a relative second is always a relative second. All physical processes are changed at the exact rate to keep their proportional local measure. Initially this seems to be impossible, but by using just 9th grade math, the proof can be born out. A light clock, chemical process, pendulum and vibrating crystal, all keep their proportional measure of an interval of time in an expanding space-time field. This reaffirms the necessity for another measure of time since the process of expansion occurs at a very specific geometric rate.

So in answer to your question as to how the two dimensions of time would map to each other, the geometric relationship is established by describing the rate by which space-time expands in order to preserve our local measures of relative distance and relative time.

I should note that it is possible for us locally to observe the relationships associated with absolute measures of time. By looking at events historically, which is achieved by looking at events in the past, the faster rates by which these distant clocks demarcated the passage of time can be observed. I use this to explain the energy output of quasars without resorting to super massive black holes. I also use it to explain the lack of time dilation of the variation in the output of quasars. It is also possible to eliminate all the non baryonic matter that is assumed to be keeping the rotation rates in spiral galaxies in line, as well all the “black holes” with hundreds of millions of stars that are supposedly residing in the center of galaxies in a effort to explain the rotational rates of stars near the center of galaxies. After all, theory has to correspond to observation.

John M. Kulick
AKA Snowflake