|
Shut up all of you semi-theortical physicists! Cut the noise. Here's a name sounding like Russian. Let's sit down and listen to the real space man. 
Go ahead Mr R. Giskard Reventlov! 
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
The approach taken by superstring theorists is to add variables to represent motion in additional spatial dimensions. So while they cannot visualize in ten dimensions, by extension they can still calculate the behavior of particles moving in that many dimensions.
The problem is to avoid topological defects such as magnetic monopoles (particles that emit a magnetic field at rest). This is an amusing point in relativity theory: we know that a charged particle in motion curves under the influence of a magnetic field. But what if we shift to a reference frame that moves along with the particle. If the particle is at rest in that frame, there is no velocity, and so no force exerted by the field. The answer is that the fields themselves are also altered by the change of reference frame: in the particle's rest frame, there is an electric field that cause it to accelerate.
Similar things happen in General Relativity. One of the side effects in rolling up higher-dimensional spaces (to produce our three-dimensional reality) is that magnetic field lines can be forced into spatial rifts, which then appear as magnetic monopoles. A brilliant Indian mathematician "proved" (I'm not sure anybody understands the proof) that avoiding magnetic monopoles requires that the universe sit in ten or eleven spatial dimensions.
That current theory opts for the "ten" option may have something to do with the seven seals in the Book of Revelation. I'm not aware of any theoretical reason for the choosing ten over eleven. Much as Gell-Mann named his model of particle zoology the "eight-fold way" as a reference to Buddhism, my paranoid brain is half-convinced that some theorist chose ten because at the "end of days" that would mean the seven "sealed" dimensions would open upon our return to the Godhead - matching the number of seals on the scroll opened by the lamb.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I will argue a Lizard Brain was created for these things.
The human mind was created with an additional ability to recognize ever increasing complex patterns.
Plus the ability to use pattern compression (like a cross between fractal and zip compression), and once again, re-iterate the pattern recognition process.
Mix in a little bit of curiosity, and a few free cycles to notice the world at varying levels. And we eventually stumble across communications and science. Communication only works because the definition of things like CUP is relatively fixed and contextually determinant (Sports vs. drinking).
So. I argue that we are designed to SEE patterns. Including ones that we do not yet understand (Gravity), and then we find ways to study them (lasers?) until we can produce devices that manipulate what we see. Once we are there, our endless creativity at trying different things (testing conjectures) until voila, we find something (spinning magnets<scifi guess="">) that appear to manipulate the gravity we see via lasers... Until we get a unique result.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
So, it is REALLY hard to explain a 4th or 5th dimension to someone who truly only sees 3 dimensions. But I will argue it becomes easier to mathematically accept an n-th dimension when we know how to manipulate it to get a non-linear result in 3D space.
Meaning. We will get there! And given a billion years of evolution, testing, recording, I would only take the counter bet because I would not live long enough to pay the winner!
|
|
|
|
|
Those are definitely good points, but here comes the turtle.
Spacetime has been confused, widely, because of the terms of "sheet" for spacetime. Although the analogy is good, simple and easier to imagine. The problem comes, when you are trying to depict how gravity works; straight-line in which direction, how much space bends, how is it that a space is always bent towards the centre? These are a few problems that arise in minds when we consider spacetime to be a sheet.
I don't believe in dark matter, dark every and stuff similar to that. What I believe and can theorize is that "spacetime" is just the medium for "electromagnetic waves". We were lied when we were told, "light travels in vacuum". Physics books should be updated to include accurate descriptions over simplicit wrong explanations. Accordingly, the dark matter is nothing, but just another "level" of electromagnetic spectrum, which we have not yet discovered or come up against. We know Gammas are the strongest (in the means of their energy), who knows of the other way around?
This is where Quantum jumps in and breaks the very simple common sense. They take us in worlds, where we cannot go, and try to explain our worldly problems in an inter-universal solution format. For example, instead of explaining Big bang, they are finding answers to Multiverse, instead of creating equipment sensitive enough to focus on a single electron particle, they are calling it a wave.  What a lame excuse; same as the one programmers make by saying, "It works on my machine!".
Physics, needs abnormal people, who are able to imagine the world in an unusual way. Normal people are just making it worse. 
Or... am I missing the joke symbol here? 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: I don't believe in dark matter, dark every and stuff similar to that
Quite.
What these people don't seem to realise is that if there's all this "dark" stuff distorting everything, then everything they're seeing through telescopes is distorted and wrong, therefore all their assumptions based on that information are wrong, therefore there's no "dark" anything.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is this:
Fall of the angel of light resulted in the fall of light speed. The slowing light generated massive red shift. And was now moving slower to be affected by gravity.
Dark matter/dark energy was an entity invented to make the naturalistic explanation fit. Occam's razor would removd it.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn those angels! They're always confusing things!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh they realise it, alright.
I bet they all regret coining the phrase 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'
Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong. Could well be the latter (after all, Newton was) in which case DM and DE are just letters in an equation.
But don't be fooled into thinking that they are actually Matter or Energy
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong.
I'll go for :
2: The effect that was recorded was the most minuscule amount of data (equivalent to a handful of pixels on a screen the size of a football field), and could have a thousand different explanations. The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
That's the joy of astronomy: You can spout any old bollocks, and no-one will live long enough to prove that you're wrong.
How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data), but we have to send ships to the Moon, Mars, Saturn, etc?
"Hey! We're real smart! We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What? Oh. Well, how should I know how many planets there are in our solar system? That kinda stuff's Hard, man!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
I don't think many people would deny that it could be the wrong one...
Mark_Wallace wrote: How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data),
Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Mark_Wallace wrote: We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What?
For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits.
Similarly with supernovae - there's a theory, the maths holds together and observations support the theory. sure, they could be caused by aliens' wars, time travelling weebles or bad spaceship drivers - but there's little reason to discount the theory until either a better theory comes along, or observations show the theory to be wrong.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Indeed, but what troubles me is that the observations are of such tiny amounts of light/radio waves, that have traveled God knows how far and through God knows what (e.g. if it travels through a tiny patch of blue dust, in the billions of miles between here and its source, it becomes more yellow), so grand assumptions simply cannot be made.
But grand observations are made, nonetheless, and compounded with further grand assumptions, then backed up with numbers that are tailored to fit, until we have a model of the universe that makes very little sense, and is constantly being challenged by observations that are "more accurate" because they are backed up by three photons more than the previous observations.
And nowhere along the way does anyone admit that it's all guesswork -- they call it "great, new discoveries", rather than admit it's all guesses.
We need more data, not more guesses. Guessing is easy, but getting it right requires more than 2000 photons per month.
_Maxxx_ wrote: For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits.
But so would a thousand simpler theories -- i.e. plain ol' boring dust or temperature gradients could far more easily be proven to be the cause of wibbles.
But that wouldn't make people famous or get them big research grants, would it?
And when a few more quanta of the EMS arrive, which should easily prove that something else is the case, they'll just "massage" their Grand Unprovable Theories to make them fit the new data.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: tiny amounts of light
The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field Image, a study of galaxies as old as 13.5 billion years at distances up to 60,000 light years was a composite of 288 exposures of approximately 20 minutes. Many degrees of magnitude more than 2000 photons collected in considerably less than a month I would suggest!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about the (was it five or six?) novae at Extreme ranges that were used to cobble together the ridiculous "dark energy" theory.
60,000 light years is just down the road.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: Physics, needs abnormal people, who are able to imagine the world in an unusual way.
I have to disagree with that.
IMO, Physics needs people who can see the bleeding obvious without getting bogged down by ideas that sort-of work but don't.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what 'shape' space/time takes in the slightest. The flat rubber sheet is, after all, a huge abstraction for the purposes of demonstrating the displacement theory of gravity. What 'dark energy' is supposed to explain is not expansion per se but the perceived acceleration of that expansion against all logic if you accept the standard cosmological model. Personally I can't help thinking that if you have to start making up stuff to fill in the gaps in your model than it's probably time to bin the model but then my living doesn't come from grants for research in theoretical physics!
I did wonder to myself the other day if the explanation could simply be that as inflation increases, and the distance between masses increases along with it, gravitational drag is reduced, ie. the brakes are taken off, but then I figured if I'd thought of that there's probably a couple of thousand papers out there telling me why it's rubbish. Sometimes it's easier to sleep at night just knowing what you don't know.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it's all based on "observations" of a handful of supernovae seeming to cool faster than expected, and an assumption based on that that they're moving further away quicker than was previously assumed.
Me, I reckon that since we don't know precisely the dynamics of supernovae, something else is happening either to make them cool faster than anticipated, or to block/absorb some of the heat, again making them appear to cool faster than anticipated.
Something like an expanding cloud of dust that's recently been fused into higher-order atoms and molecules would likely have that kind of effect -- but what are the chances of something like that conveniently surrounding a supernova, eh?
Nah, it's much more likely that some idiot needed to publish something radical quickly, or lose his research grant there's some mysterious "dark" thingummy that's at back of it all.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
When peer reviewed papers are, erm, peer reviewed that's exactly the sort of question that gets asked.
And just to be picky, they're not 'moving away more quickly' they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
the analogy of the 'raisins in dough' so often used is only legitimate if raisins also expand in the oven.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx wrote: if raisins also expand in the oven
Which of course they do, absorbing moisture from the mix.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Weeeellllll that depends on how dry they are, how moist the dough and how long you cook for, and what is the cosmological constant...
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
I think you might have misunderstood something you read, there.
Nothing's getting bigger (well, novae get bigger because they're explosions), it's all just moving apart. It's the universe that's expanding, not the suns, planets, and teaspoons.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
you're right. I was wrong!
damn - I'm as confused as when I found that the Hubble constant isn't!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Not your fault.
There's so much written on the topic using such poorly crafted language that it's not surprising that people get wrong ideas.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Some sorta "dark energy" is driving some posters here.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that when these ideas are presented above, it is assumed that the ball(s) are attracted by a force below the rubber surface. I might say that it is in the center of that expanding rubber "balloon". Now here is an interesting clue. It has been discovered that not just the universe is expanding, the expansion is accelerating. The balls or mass-objects are not attracted to anything, it is the moving rubber surface that is accelerating toward the mass-objects(balls). If the expansion of the universe was just at a constant rate, there would be no gravity. It all runs on dark energy. It's just a thought. No, I didn't do the math.
|
|
|
|
|
ronDW wrote: it is assumed that the ball(s) are attracted by a force below the rubber surface
Nah, it's just an analogy that, although it uses three dimensions to demonstrate the movement of smaller objects, only demonstrates the effect in two-dimensions.
ronDW wrote: It has been discovered that not just the universe is expanding, the expansion is accelerating
It really hasn't been "discovered"; it's been huge-leap-of-silly-supposition assumed, based on virtually zero data.
ronDW wrote: If the expansion of the universe was just at a constant rate, there would be no gravity
This is true. Coulomb's Law (known only as the Inverse-square law, in the US, because Coulomb wasn't American) wouldn't have it otherwise.
ronDW wrote: I didn't do the math
Nor did I, but Physics isn't about Maths; it just uses it to confirm observations.
And these guys didn't do the Maths, either. They used statistical analysis -- and real mathematicians don't like statistical analyses.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
