[deleted]
Ms Vasilyeva,
Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?
Ms Vasilyeva,
Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?
Dear Israel,
Thank you for your feedback on my essay. It is regrettable that you approached it with some preconceived notions and also lacking certain understanding of the 4D geometry, which is clear from your following comment:
"You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. "
It appears that you do not know that the surface of a 4D object, such as a hypersphere, is 3-dimensional in the same way as a surface of a sphere is a 2D plane. The 2D surface of a sphere is not "some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of" a sphere, but is an integral part of it. Similarly, the 3D surface is an integral part of a hypersphere. It seems all your confusion about my essay stems from this lack of basic geometric awareness. In line with other multidimensional models, I called this 3D surface a membrane, instead of always referring to it as a (hyper)surface.
In addition, I am not sure what you mean by "solid dimensions" which you differentiate from "geometrical dimensions". This seems your original definitions and usage, on which I cannot comment.
Regarding the KK model predictions that you refer to, they were based on the wrong assumption that the extra dimension was equally accessible to both matter and radiation as the observed 3. The same wrong assumption was the reason why Klein invented compactification: to ensure that the extra dimension was well hidden and thus in line with the question of why we do not see it. In my essay I show that this was both wrong and unnecessary.
Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.
You also say: "... that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?"
That physics decreed 100 years ago that space was empty is in fact the topic of my essay, in which I argue that it was the wrong turn.
In no way does my model contradicts current views. You seem to have missed the part where I say that the model is the same overall as other models with large extra dimension (which are in line with relativity).
You also say: "Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. ... What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions? "
In the essay I say, "in line with big bang theory, we could assume that initially the structure had infinite number of dimensions, but once it cooled off, it settled into 4D." I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space. When space cools off, its structure precipitates from higher-dimensions into lower, i.e. it looses dimensions, as if energies hidden in higher dimensions trickle down all the way to 4D, increasing the bulk and hyperssurface area, which corresponds to expansion.
Similarly, going in the direction of increasing energy, when the structure is put under too much pressure locally, because it is non-compressible, it will bulge out into an additional dimension (and by the way, in this context, the appearance of singularities is what marks the door into a higher dimension). When the local pressures let go, the energies hidden in extra-dimension trickle back into the 4D bulk, causing it to expand, which, in turn, increases its 3D surface area, causing perceived expansion of space.
Regarding the process of "precipitation into a lower D", being only an analyst, I can't adequately speak for topology. My hunch is that the method based on Hamilton-Ricci flow, quite possibly the one perfected by Grigory Perelman in his latest work, may shed some light on the specifics.
Again, thank you for your feedback.
I have read your essay today and found it interesting, even though I cannot conceive of an absolute reference frame, for which you advocate. I see absolute reference frame an abstraction that cannot exist in reality. But it is the plurality of our views is that is valued in this contest. Best regards to you!
Hi Vic Kley,
Thank you for your question, even though I'm not sure what else to say in addition to what I already said in the essay. I offered several explanations, from simple ones, such as, why a nucleus appears so small (because it exists in 4D, outside the 3D that we perceive and is only touching it) to why voids are empty, why light gets tired, or why there is no need to invent dark matter and dark energy, because both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerges from the same property of the hypersurface of the hypersphere, which is our world, to minimize its hypersurface area. (after e-talking to Israel above I am not sure what terms to use, since a membrane or brane confused him).
How about the solution to the paradox of space? From the exchanges with other contributors here I see now that the problem is worse than it appeared to me initially. After 100 years people have become so used to the incongruous idea of waves propagating through emptiness, without any medium, that they do not see a paradox. But this is fundamentally wrong. Waves do require a medium. The medium in question cannot be "ether", simply because the phenomenal speed of transverse waves imply a super-rigid solid. Or a surface of incompressible fluid.
It's late here. I will think over your question and post tomorrow. In the mean time, would you please tell me why what I already listed in my essay does not seem for you enough. Thank you.
Hi M. V.,
I read through your essay briefly - to be honest I was more intrigued by your discussions. I'm not a physicist myself but I've been vertically tunneling to collect 'core' samples, developing a personal understanding of gravitation in order to address some specific issues (i.e., see my brief essay 1419).
While waves do often propagate in a material medium, as I understand EM waves propagate not in a medium of spacetime but in their own energy - it is EM energy that is waving as it self propagates! In media waves, some external energy absorbed by the medium is dispersed as energy waves pass through the medium, diminishing as they disperse. As I understand, light is a linearly directed energy quanta that disperses through its own propagation. I hope perhaps this provides at least another perspective...
As for spacetime, I think that there is a concept of vacuum energy that should be fully considered. IMO, gravitation is not completely a property of matter (especially not quantum matter), but an interaction between localized potential mass-energy and the kinetic vacuum energy that fills space. Conceptually, if matter is viewed as localized, crystallized space energy, its presence can be seen to proportionally localize or contract external space-energy, producing an external gradient field of accelerating kinetic space-energy.
That vacuum energy exists is evidenced by the materialization and temporal annihilation of virtual particles and antiparticles. If these loose conceptions are correct, the rate virtual particle annihilations is space should increase with proximity to significant objects of mass, as a function of a kinetic space-energy gradient.
Gravitational effects produced by a 'cooperative' interaction between universal vacuum energy density and aggregated local potential mass-energy explains why gravitation seems to be 'weaker' than other material forces. It also explains why its (diminishing) spatial influence far exceeds those of material forces.
Back to vacuum energy, its thermal density was exceedingly greater in the initial universe. I suggest that quantum bubbles appeared in the initial universe, producing a quantum 'foam' of spacetime into which discrete particles could be emitted, or crystallized. Since the quantum foam was so hot and dense, emitted particles could neither linearly self-propagate nor be reabsorbed. As a result, their linear emission energy was physically reconfigured, producing an enveloping, inwardly directed, self-opposed field of potential mass-energy. As vacuum energy density diminished with expansion, particles could increasingly self-propagate. I think it is this temporally diminishing vacuum energy density that determined which persistent particles were imparted with mass (quarks), performing the particle selection function attributed to the Higgs field...
I'll cut off there - sorry to ramble on, but I hope these loose conceptions might stimulate some productive thoughts. Sorry I can't better communicate in the context of established thinking.
Sincerely, Jim
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,
I have by now read your most interesting and thought-provoking essay several times with growing intrerest and, at least I hope, also with some growing understanding.
What fascinates me most of all is that you, more or less in one blow, explain both the large-scale structure of the Cosmos, and the small-scale structure of elementary particle interactions. The fluid in the "headroom" above the 3D membrane being in both cases the medium of interaction, and the membrane the border between matter and space.
Or have I completely mis-understood? If so, since I'm netither a physicist nor a mathematician (as you already know) I don't apologize for my lack of knowledge. It is better to try to understand and miss the point, than not trying at all - and be sure to miss it
Your history of time is perhaps a bit brief in comparison, but I like your concept of time as energy - and your down-to-earth Tick-tack. "Tack", as we say in Sweden when we mean thank you! You have given me more than a lot to think about.
My very best wishes!
Inger
Thank you Inger! You can't imagine how much I appreciate your comment.
Please see the post bellow (coming up) in response to Mr. Kley's question above in which, within the framework of my model, I attempt to dispel the mystery of the wave-particle duality.
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you for reply, I appreciate it. Some times the discussions between people is only a matter of semantics. Unfortunately, I did not express my ideas properly and so you replied with something like this: "It appears that you do not know... ...is a 2D plane." My apologies for this.
Clearly I understand geometrical dimensions, and according to your reply you propose that space has a structure. You also say this in your essay:
As to what this structure is made of, we could go with Poincaré idea of a FICTICIOUS FLUID or take the Faraday vision of vibrating lines of force, which happened to nicely resonate with the leading theories of the day. Or we could combine the two in an image of incompressible, PERFECT FLUID, consisting of vibrating strings. Details don't matter. The important thing is that we get a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space.
So, a space with structure seen as a fluid is not only geometry but topology or theory of fluid mechanics. In this sense your proposal is not merely geometrical but substantial this is why I referred to solid dimensions.
You say "details don't matter". May be for the sake of illustration details are not important but in the construction of the theory they do matter. Today physics knows that the 3D space is filled with fields. According to you what is space filled with? what is 3D space made of? fields? matter? energy? or what?
It seems that you haven't realized that by conceiving space with an internal structure as a fluid or strings you are contradicting the background independence of the general theory of relativity. That space has this kind of internal structure means that space is not geometry as GR states. This is why I ask you to define how you conceive space.
You: "I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space"
From where did you get that? The BB theory is based on GR and it assumes that since the beginning of time the universe is 3+1 dimensions, no matter how hot or cold the universe was.
You say: Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.
There is a model assuming space as a material fluid and it works. Moreover, besides supporting transverse waves it supports longitudinal waves. But again, these are material dimensions that have clear mechanical interpretation. The fact that the model assumes space as a massive fluid (i.e., it has some internal structure) contradicts current views, GR.
Another example of this can be found in my reference 23 in my essay. There the authors argue that the sapce has an internal structure and assume it as a medium for EM fields with a degraded refractive index, but this view, again, goes against the geometrical character of the GR. Since you are not defining what space is made of, your idea of space appears to be quite ambiguous. If you define it as a massive fluid and as the medium for EM fields, implicitly you are contradicting the GR. Otherwise, I do not see the relevance of your idea. If you have a paper in which you mathematically state your ideas I would appreciate it.
Best regards
Israel
Mr Kley,
Thank you for your interest in my essay. It was very late for me when I saw your question. In my reply I used wrong terms in the sentence which should have read: both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerge from the same property of the hypersurface of the 4D structure of space that seeks to minimize its hyperarea.
You asked, "Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?"
Having thought your question over, I decided to address the wave-particle duality, with which physics replaced the paradox of space. This duality is best revealed in the double slit experiments. I would like to use this opportunity to demonstrate that, from the 4D perspective, there is no mystery why both matter and light appear to move in waves. In my essay I only briefly mention this in the Flatland analogy.
Before we begin, it is important to appreciate that a hypersphere has 3-dimensional surface, each point of which is equidistant from its center, in the same way as each point of the 2D surface of a sphere is equidistant from the center of the sphere. This topological fact is what makes the 3D space we perceive invariant in all 3 directions and precludes the possibility of selecting a preferred reference frame. The dynamic nature of the 4D structure also makes it unsuitable for the role of the absolute reference frame (just like sea captains can't use ocean as a reference frame and must rely on the external clues such as stars or GPS).
The other aspect of the 4D geometry worth remembering is that form a 4D perspective, each point of the volume of a cube is visible in one sweep just like we grasp each point of the 2D plane in one glance. In a sense, from a 4D perspective, a 3D volume of a cube appears flat, similar to a 2D plane seen from 3D.
With this in mind, let us see how a double slit experiments works out in 4D, on the simplified analogy of the Flatland Plane (the Flatland analogy is indispensable, because 4D is virtually impossible for most people to visualize).
First, I would like you to please take a look at the following image from google images, since I can't post images here:
http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/94/2/20004/Full/epl13428fig1.jpg
The top image, (a) is a side-view snapshot of a hexagonal lattice aggregate of bouncing droplets on a vibrated liquid bath that interact via the surface waves they emit and form various types of stable crystalline clusters [1]. Suggested by Andrew Norton, it is indeed an excellent model of the Flatland nanoscale with droplets representing nuclei confined to the outer, empty side of the Plane (in the "headroom"). Please take a good look at the image again and imagine 3 such aggregations, at some distance apart from each other. These 3 aggregations of droplets/atoms represent the solid structure of the plate with 2 slits in between.
Now please appreciate the fact that light waves, an electron, an atom or a molecule, all move along the surface of the Plane (or hyperplane in 4D) that contains the EM field. The difference between a light wave and, say, an atom, is that the light wave is the transverse disturbance in the surface itself (just like a transverse wave in the surface of water) and as such is entirely confined to the EM field it contains, while "matter" (stuff with intrinsic mass) glides just above this surface in the 3rd dimension (3rd dimension in the Flatland analogy and in the 4th dimension in our world). Nuclei are integrated into the surface by their electron clouds interacting with the EM field in it. The electron cloud makes the indentation a nucleus makes in the surface locally even with the rest of the surface and at the same time acts as a sort of a roller or better yet, a surf-board on which the nucleus surfs the light waves themselves. (In this context, the increase in the inertial mass at high speeds is mostly due to the electrons interacting with the EM field contained in the surface.)
Thus there is no difference in the path a particle of light or a material object takes. A light particle is a convenient abstraction that stands for the momentum of a light wave in space (or, a hyperplane). A material object, such as an atom, can also be represented by a point that too follows the same path. It is the structure of space itself that dictates all movement by expelling the deformation introduced into it locally into the direction that gives (even though, of course, there is a difference in the transverse disturbance that we perceive as light and a longitudinal disturbance we perceive as mass).
In this model it is essential to realize that everything we perceive directly or with the help of our technology are the projections onto the 3D surface of the hyperplane. Matter moves along the same surface as light waves themselves. Thus the interference pattern seen in the double slit experiments is the reflection of the fluid nature of the structure of space itself.
I also would like to emphasize that the strict separation between matter and space of the model I propose is applicable only at low energies of our own experience. At very high energies, the number of space dimensions grows in proportion to the energy density. At high energies, in higher number of dimensions, the geometries of space and matter intermix and are best described by the multidimensional models of string theories.
Again, I thank you for your interest in my essay and for giving me opportunity to address this important question, which I could not do within the constrains of the requirements.
References
[1] A. Eddi, A. Boudaoud and Y. Couder, (2011, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/94/20004), Oscillating instability in bouncing droplet crystals. http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20004
Hello James!
Thank you for your interest in my essay. I like the vividness with which you describe how you perceive the world. I will certainly read your essay and will comment in your thread.
Mr Kley, I replied to your question in a comment below.
Thank you for your interest to my essay.
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
It is basically alright. The de Broglie wavefunction is described in the four dimensional spacetime. The slit takes one dimension and the light-beam takes another dimension, therefore, the equations of the double slit interference can be described in 4-2=2 dimensional space-time. Of cause you can still argue about the width of slit and the 3D surface electron cloud, and so on. My essay "Rethink the double slit experiment" have the detailed calculations compared with many experiments. There are real math-physical calculations, not a graphic illustration. The most important part is the connection between the two slit by the cross-linked angle, which is derived from the particle scattering to the wave function. In that way, the particle-wave duality paradox is linked to the space-time. I have my email in the essay, please send an email if you like to talk more.
Yours
KX
Thank you Ke Xiao for your feedback. Even though it was somewhat difficult for me to read your highly technical essay, I did grasp its main point, namely that the wave-particle duality paradox lies in the structure of spacetime itself. Here we are in agreement; and while you amply speak to the professionals, I offer a geometrical representation of the same on the simplified analogy, making it accessible to the lay public.
Xie xie!
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the dimension of time emerges from 1D eigen-rotational string that demonstrates 3D tetrahedral-brane transformation from 2D membrane surfaces by the eigen-rotational phases of that string.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
" To remove water from a cup, it is necessary to fill it instead of water by the air. Further, in my
interpretation to remove air from a cup, we should fill the cup instead of air by the ether. Thus,
the cup can not be empty, only one medium can be replaced by another. Ether, according to
Aristotle, "is more subtle substance" than the air."
I also think the gap or space is not empty but full of energy; Nothingness does not exist.
I read your essay with carefully. It is interesting approach and I would like to have your view point about a gravity question : what do you think about gravity and space or dark energy, which relationship do they maintain between them.
Do you think that the expansion of the space is a force opposite to the Gravity ?
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552
Thank you and lall the best.
Dear Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou,
I tired reading your essay but had a very hard time understanding your "accent in print". This is because, even though I know several languages, I have not studied yours. I think it is important to have our papers checked by a native English speaker before submission. This becomes especially important when introducing new ideas.
Regarding your question of gravity, my approach is purely geometrical and is inline with Einstein's general relativity, which treats gravity as a curvature in 4D spacetime. My take on it is that this curvature is due to surface tension of a 4D ocean of perfect fluid that seeks to minimize its hyperarea (similar to water tension in 3D).
In a topological sense, in 4D, there may be another reason for 3/4 - 1/4 distribution of energies. It may be due to the fact that a convex 4-space can be broken down into 4 contiguous, adjacent 3-spaces. This means that a convex 4D object, such as a hypersphere discussed in my essay, can be broken down into 1/4 for its 3D surface and 3/4 for its bulk. (The same does not work for a sphere, but works, with different numbers, for all n-spaces where n>3.) The same overall distribution of hypersurface to hypervolume, 1/3 to 3/4 respectively, applies to other convex 4D objects, even though actual proportions may vary a bit when they deviate from a hypersphere, which has the minimal surface area.
Take care!
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,
I write in French and I translate into English.
To be honest, I must admit that it is advisable for me what you have just made as remark.
The reason is that I discovered this contest only later.
Then, I had only two choices, to quickly write the article in my language and then translate it in a record time, or not participate at all, and wait until next year.
I chose the second option. I said to myself that if someone is interested in my ideas, we are human and I can always catch me up later.
What is important, is the idea and not the way that it is formulated.
And I sincerely believe that the idea which I have formulated will mark the history by its relevance and will make smile also by its shape, these are the vagaries of life.
If you are interested by any side of this model please let me know it, I would answer, with pleasure, your expectations.
I hope my translation is enough good for more understanding.
I wish you all the best.
P.S. your 1/4 and 3/4 interest me.
Ms. Vasilyeva,
You say:
"But in this model there is no gravity per se. What we call gravity emerges entirely from the interaction of mass (which is displacement of volume) with the surface tension of the structure wanting to minimize its surface area."
What are your thoughts on dark energy as opposed to gravity?
Jim
Mr Hoover,
I am not certain what is meant by dark energy currently (it keeps on changing). Trying to see from where you are coming to it, I read your essay and saw this picture, which I also found on google images:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/05/23/549761main_pia14094-43_946-710.jpg
This is an artist rendition of a 4D model of space, with one dimension removed, the green grid representing gravity (= curvature of the 3D surface on which "matter floats") and purple grid representing dark energy that pushes on matter, pressing it into the surface, displacing a volume and causing it to curve. That's how I understand it. The articles that came with the same image says, "This contradicts an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory... gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances." I agree that gravity becomes repulsive at great distances (where voids form in my 4D model of space). This is stems from pure 4D geometry.
I personally do not agree that the universe is expanding, especially at ever-increasing rate. First, why don't we see it right where we are? The whole idea is based on the redshift and in my essay I offer another explanation to it.
But I understand what you're interested in and that is the enigma of UFOs and how they move as if inertia is none of their concern. I happened to see 2 small saucers at a very close range. I saw them about 25-30 meters away and then I ran towards them and got even closer. I was an adolescent then, and my impressions were vivid and observations sharp. Because of this I do not disregard other people's accounts.
I absolutely agree with you that there is a way to manipulate the curvature of the 3D surface (on which we live, according to my 4D model of space) which we call gravity. For this we need to have a better understanding of space, which we don't. In fact, the situation is just deplorable, as this contest demonstrates. The establishment is so entrenched in a particular way of looking at things that they are incapable of even considering anything else. And now with this idea of ever-expanding universe, which is happening everywhere except just where we are... People got Nobel prizes, defended their PhDs and built their academic careers on it, which means that they will defend it tooth and claw, all the way till the end. It will be another generation, after this one goes away, before an alternative view on things could even have a chance.
Dear Vasilyeva
Just to remind you that I have replied to you in my previous post above (Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT). I thought you may have overlooked it.
Israel
Yes, Mr. Perez, my apologies! I did overlook your post. I am reading it now and will certainly reply.