Posted on 05/25/2006 1:35:30 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
Scientists at Duke and Rutgers universities have developed a mathematical framework they say will enable astronomers to test a new five-dimensional theory of gravity that competes with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model. The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence "braneworld") embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating in the ocean. The "braneworld universe" has five dimensions -- four spatial dimensions plus time -- compared with the four dimensions -- three spatial, plus time -- laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.
The framework Keeton and Petters developed predicts certain cosmological effects that, if observed, should help scientists validate the braneworld theory. The observations, they said, should be possible with satellites scheduled to launch in the next few years.
If the braneworld theory proves to be true, "this would upset the applecart," Petters said. "It would confirm that there is a fourth dimension to space, which would create a philosophical shift in our understanding of the natural world."
~snip~ "When we estimated how far braneworld black holes might be from Earth, we were surprised to find that the nearest ones would lie well inside Pluto's orbit," Keeton said.
Petters added, "If braneworld black holes form even 1 percent of the dark matter in our part of the galaxy -- a cautious assumption -- there should be several thousand braneworld black holes in our solar system."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Oddly enough, I have never felt threatened by beautiful women that are more intelligent than I am. Maybe it's because I don't listen to any of them. It's that whole visual male thing.
My favorite fifth dimension was Marilyn McCoo.
What's the loaf of bread metaphor?
Hmmmm how dimensions are there in a line? one. Now imagine that line is a phone line. From distance it still appears one dimensional but if you get close, you see that it's actually three dimensional with the 2nd and 3rd dimensions wrapped around it. That's an analogy to the idea that the 4th and 5th spatial dimensions are wrapped tightly within and around 3rd dimensional space, but you have to get down to the sub-quantum level to "see" it.
The way I see it, in our current paradigm you can remain stationary in the x, y, or z axes while moving on any of the others. The trick in describing the fourth dimension is to remain stationary in the x, y, AND z axes while moving in yet another axis. To me, that means that the axes themselves are moving through yet another space, so in reality, by positing anything outside of the three dimensions with which we're familiar, we're necessarily positing yet another three within which our space moves, and so on, without touching time.
MAN IN BLACK:You've made your decision then?
VIZZINI : Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
MAN IN BLACK:Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
WoW, brilliant and beautiful. Yes, sign me up. This is a huge potential breakthrough advancing the picture of the universe as we understand it.
This whole discussion is beneath me. Work out your theories then come back to me.
I would hit that in five dimensions.
No matter how you slice it, you can't get more than THREE (3) spatial dimensions!!! You can use many "dimensions" in a vector to "represent" something in reality but that's all it is: just a representation and NOT reality.
When it comes to Big Bang, I am a non-believer.
If you could 'stand outside of our spacetime' and look 'in', all of time would be occurring simultaneously. It's like saying all present occurs simultaneously.
She has to be more than bright to conceptualize and put a sound theory to such an idea.
As for the creationists and evolution debate, it's not even worthy of her time.
Nor anyone's in my opinion. It's entirely about science vs. people who want to argue outside science.
I've never understood why people can't understand evolution as part of God's process since there are so many other things beyond even our understanding.
As if God were not capable of such a process.
Silly.
(Not an endorsement or question of finality on the evolution theory.)
bump
Yes, but if you could actually do that you would have to watch out for the Langoliers.
By "moving" you just introduced time. We exist in 3 dimensions without time regardless of movement. Movement introduces time. x/t = v
The trick in describing the fourth dimension is to remain stationary in the x, y, AND z axes while moving in yet another axis.
Again, there should be no need to move through anything with 4 dimensions of space. Movement is time. We should, somehow, exist in 4 dimensions of space without the consideration of moving or time.
To me, that means that the axes themselves are moving through yet another space
4 dimensions of space should not require any type of movement. Movement is time.
I personally cannot imagine 4 dimensions of space.
These clowns are bush league compared to Buckaroo Banzai.
Thinking about this makes my brane hurt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.