seek so shall ye find

Re: 16

How about sixteenth dimensionality? The model stands along with the principles of the universe. The answer you seek RMT is written all around you. Try checking the recipe books of the ancient ones.

Until later becomes now.
 
Re: 16

Hi There, Transient001!
How about sixteenth dimensionality? The model stands along with the principles of the universe. The answer you seek RMT is written all around you. Try checking the recipe books of the ancient ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, what you see in the theories I am describing DOES come right out of one of the biggest recipe books of the ancients: Qabalah!

However, I am all ears (or eyes in this case) to learn, if you are willing to teach. But what I don't take too seriously is a person who writes one-liners saying "hey, I know the secrets of the universe...why don't you go find them." I will listen and trust a person much more if they provide reasoning and discussion of their theories.

My mind is open, Transient001. Are you willing to help me fill it up some more? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Calabi-Yau

How about this analysis,

A 10 dimensional universe made up of the normal three-dimensions of space, plus one of time, plus six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds located at every point in normal three-dimensional space.

A Calabi-Yau manifold looks kind of like a balled-up piece of paper, except its one whose curves and twists and turns are intricate and mobious-like, looping back over and around themselves with clear disdain for Euclidean geometry. It knows no straight lines. Imagining oneself inside one of these manifolds is like a fun house, mirrors everywhere deflecting your gaze in every direction, so that at any time you could be looking straight ahead and see your back. Except its not quite that there are no mirrors, there is only space itself. So while you can still look forward and see your back, you could also theoretically throw a baseball at it only to feel the little missile smacking your spine two seconds later. That baseball might have traveled up and around, roller coaster-like through six dimensions, eventually ending up at your back...

Certainly a strange thing! Check it out:

http://www.lactamme.polytechnique.fr/Mosaic/descripteurs/Vcatalogue.11.html
 
Re: Calabi-Yau

Friend CAT

That was interesting indeed. It made me think of the Hourglass, very similar in shape. I wonder, maybe it is in that direction that the road was taken several years in the future.


Until later becomes now
 
Re: Calabi-Yau

but how do we know there is only 3 dimentions of space, maybe tehre is more that we can't comprehend now?
Click to expand...

Yes, this certainly could be true. But the scientific side of me has a difficult time buying-into such theories that claim the "extra" dimensions are just "folded up so small that we can't perceive them." It may sound good, but to me is a bit of a cop out.

Here is something I'd like to point out about the 3x3 matrix model of Massive SpaceTime that I discuss in another thread: It does not rely upon "extra, unseen dimensions", at least in how it quantifies the 3x3 matrix. Instead, it takes those elements of reality that we ALREADY know and can observe: We all observe 3 spatial dimensions. We all acknowledge the 3 temporal dimensions, at least insofar as we recognize the difference between Past, Present, and Future. And we all have learned about the observation of active (electron), passive (proton), and neutral (neutron) elements that comprise the mass dimension. Why do we need to posit "hidden" dimensions, when the 3 we have can be shown to form a neatly woven (and counter-balanced) 3x3 matrix?

Now let me again state my "bigger" belief: I tend to believe that what we perceive as "distinct" elements of Mass, in distinct areas of Space, over distinct segments of Time, are "illusions" insofar as the REALITY of how they intgrate is much different, as viewed from "outside" our dimensionality. So, instead of Mass, Time, and Space, we could just as easily name them Tom, Dick, and Harry....and if they were defined ORTHOGONALLY (at right angles to each other), then this "model" of reality would be just a valid as "mine".

As I have said before: ENERGY is the integrated measure of Mass, Time, and Space. That is scientific fact. If we could observe what energy looks like from outside our dimension (i.e. at the next higher level of dimensionality) we would see it in such a way that would "make sense" out of what we perceive locked within our level of dimensionality.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Calabi-Yau

I've got something in mind...It might be manifestly ridiculous...

The universe as we know it is merely a three-dimensional "brane" (not brain) suspended in a four-dimensional bulk.

We live on a brane; a brane is like a membrane. Imagine the skin that forms on your soup when it gets cold, a brane is like that. A brane is some sort of lower-dimensional thing (2-D) sitting in a higher-dimensional space (3-D soup). However our brane sits in a 4-D space called the bulk, like so much congealed fat we are prevented from escaping the brane and going into the higher-dimensional soup. However only "gravity" is allowed to do that!

Some think that gravity is the strongest thing around; it moves planets and clusters of galaxies, not to mention keeps us pinned to the ground. But rather "gravity is weak"!

When you compare it to the other forces, say the electromagnetic force, gravity is incommensurably less powerful. Think about the simple refrigerator magnet and the forces acting on it as it pins a photo to the fridge. There's the combined gravitational force of the entire Earth pulling the magnet down to the ground and the magnetic attraction of a little strip of iron anchoring it to the fridge. Those few grams of magnetic material WIN; not even a planet-size helping of gravity is enough to overcome its intrinsic weakness.

Which leads me to look back again at nature. There is only one physical process that determines how things happen, one truth, the (big T) of the universe, and that is particle physics to describe the workings of gravity.

Particles interact by exchanging particles with other particles. Take for example an electron exerts a force on another electron by shooting a little photon (particle of light) out to the other electron, which the second electron catches and responds to. Yes particles "communicate"! Forces using "mediating" particles like photons. This what the process looks like in my head: (Electron-photon-Electron.) The two electrons "communicate" by tossing the ball like photon back and forth to each other. This tossing pushes the electrons apart, which agrees with what we see in the world, negatively charged electrons repel one other. With particles other than electrons, the net effect can be attraction, not repulsion, but the principle remains the same in that a force, "any force" is caused by things throwing particles at other things. The more particles that are thrown/caught, the stronger the force will be.

Gravity fits into the whole scheme of thing because it's caused by massive particles throwing "gravitons" attractive particles at each other. These gravitons work to pull massive particles closer together invoking the exchange of subatomic particles.

Now to really get a grip on gravities weakness, there is a symmetry between the graviton and the other force carrying particles in that the strength of both the electromagnetic and gravitational force diminishes with distance and in magnitude.

Now enter "brane" theory where we are trapped in our 3-dimensional world, which is itself floating in a higher dimensional space. We cannot travel into this higher dimensional space and nothing we know of can travel into it, not electrons, quarks or even exotic muons except for the "graviton". It alone can journey into the higher dimension, and as gravitons spread out in to that extra dimension there are fewer here to do the work of pulling heavy things together as the result of particles throwing particles at other particles. When there are fewer particles being caught, that force gets weaker. Now in brane theory, we lose gravitons out into the fourth dimension, the results, gravity is weak! And if you were a graviton, and each extra dimension is curled up in a circle, you would be able to move in this circular direction at every point in space while still moving in a straight line through the three dimension we are familiar with, we would arrive at the 4th dimension.

So in all theory only "gravitons" can escape into the extra dimension.

Somebody really smart might be thinking of how to "grow" a space-time fabric to dissipate weakness...

Any good cooks around here?
 
Back
Top