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 ...
No matter how they try, no one can explain 4 dimensions in a way that I can understand""
Me either...but I find all this stuff fascinating..
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypercube.html
http://keycurriculumpress.com/sketchpad/javasketchpad/gallery/pages/hypercube.php
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/dimens.html
http://www-geo.phys.ualberta.ca/saig/conf/Bin_seg04.pdf
Nice hypercube. :-)
bump
Have you ever read Flatland?
WALOGIMBAT there are 3 positive and 1 negative terms; the signs could be reversed without changing the physics. This "metric" or "distance formula" produces a hyperbolic geometry. Were there a fourth spatial dimension (call it w), then the distance between (w1,x1,y1,z1,t1) and (w2,x2,y2,z2,t2) would be given by (w1-w2)2+(x1-x2)2+(y1-y2)2+(z1-z2)2-c2(z1-z2)2. This describes a different geometrical structure. According to physics (I think), there should be measurable differences between the two models. (I don't know what these would be.)
I have ignored interactions between the various dimensional coordinates. For those interested, see things like quadratic forms or metric spaces, etc.
One need not actually see the dimensions with one's eyes, but only find a method of measuring the effects of such dimensions's existence. This is already done with the quantum variables called "spin" for example.
.
Did they put a pencil through a piece of wood?
It is fun but conjuring the numbers doesn't get the job done.
But it lets us describe the underlying physics. If not, we'll just invent some more mathematics.
Alas, I have to go with your description. Remember the Far Side scientist who proved he didn't exist? ;)
The point of the algebra is that one can describe what cannot be visualized directy.
At least that's what those who buy evolution hook line and sinker claim...
Could you please document this?
What I see on the crevo threads is the claim that the theory of evolution could be falsified, but that ID, not being a scientific theory, cannot, even in principle, be falsified. Of course, evolution never has been falsified.
It's quite possible that this new theory could predict phenomena that differ from those predicted by general relativity, and a suitable test could disprove one or both of them.
Think of the motion of Mercury and how it disproved Newton.
You cannot divorce time from the expressions of space in our existence/in reality since any expression of energy involves a temporal component ... and as far as I know there isn't anything expressed in reality that doesn't involve energy in one way or another.
The roll it up!
Entropy has an arrow.
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.