|
|
What's the evidence for the existence of higher dimensions?By Engineer Saviour - Blaze Labs In physics, the inverse square law relation is quite common. This relation is valid for the gravitational attraction between matter, for the electrical forces between charges and for magnetic forces between moving charges. A force that varies with the square of the distance means that the force will increase with the square of the distance if we reduce the distance, and it will decrease with the square of the distance if we increase the distance.
Electromagnetic energy decreases as if it were dispersed over the area of an expanding sphere, 4π R2 where radius R is the distance the energy has travelled. The amount of energy received at a point on that 3D sphere diminishes as 1/R2. This clearly shows the origin of the inverse-square law.
As a result, a force that varies with the square of the distance can be considered as a conventional 1-dimensional force vector (x-axis) that is scattered into 2 additional dimensions (y, z) due to the 3-dimensional nature of space. The square power of the distance indicates the projection of such a force over a 3D spherical surface area. But what happens if the force is also acting in higher order dimensions? What if the force is originating force is being projected on a higher dimensional surface area? Are there forces which vary to other powers than the inverse square law?
The Casimir force related by the above equation is known to vary as the inverse d4, which is two orders of dimensions higher than the more common forces, and coincides with a force projected over the surface area of a 5D hypersphere (see table above). Such force that varies with the fourth power of the distance can be thus considered as a force vector that is scattered in a 5-dimensional space. Therefore, it is evident that the field that originates the Casimir force is a 5-dimensional field, that it is in fact a hyperspace field that produces the corresponding effects in our restricted 3D vision of our universe. Next Page: Can
dimensions be limited, or is the universe really infinite? |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| constantine | Thursday, 12th April 2007 2:10am - No.1135 |
| what i dont get about all this talk on dimentions is the idea that we should not be able to see them. why? if you had 1 eye you may not be able to see 3d space but you could feal it. is it possible the missing dimentions needed for so much of the current theorys are simply being over looked? we have out 3 planes (dimentions) to discribe an objects given position at any infinitly small period of time. we only have one time dimension? why? 3 make scence to me. just as just having one axis would let you know how long something is and nothing else. surely more time axis would allow you to know how much time there is in a given area of space time (i understand that this can very) also the idea of traveling sideways in time always makes scence to me. ok. energy you can messure it is it a dimension? it seems that a particales energy affects so much it should be, and if so only one energy dimension or can there be more? direction? everything in the universe is moving, i understand that velocity and speed are not true dimensions as they are calculations based on the other dimensions. but to properly discribe something direction would beem inportant. ok not got a full mental grasp on that one but it feals right, oh and "spin" or direction of movement reletive to self. or whatever you want to call it. seems increasingly important in string theory and the like, so cummon on tell me what a jerk i am. but more importantly. tell me why im wrong. | |
| constantine | Thursday, 12th April 2007 9:20am - No.1141 |
| oh something else kust occured to me. the universal observer. does he see every possibe variation of time ( in science fiction terms, is there really a whole bunch of universes whare every posibility is played out) and he simply sees them all as one thing with no distinction. or does he just see a static universe with no varioation along our 4th demension. meaning the future is set and nothing we do changes anything in the long run. it would explain why we can only persave time running in one direction. if everything is set but kinda makes existance pointless. from my point of view lol | |
| Max Sevarins | Tuesday, 31st July 2007 10:56pm - No.1523 |
| Evidence? Why provide evidence? Dimensions are a model, just like everything else mankind knows about the workings of the universe. They are a hypothesis which can neither be proven nor disproven, simply because the 4-dimension theory says "there is time, and we call it the 4th dimension". What exactly a dimension is, for this purpose remains undefined. You scientists crack me up.. | |
| Bobo | Thursday, 2nd August 2007 8:34pm - No.1528 |
| Sounds like someone doesn't understand what they just read. lol. | |
| DimensionallyChallenged | Friday, 10th August 2007 3:17pm - No.1567 |
| Keep in mind that dimensions are something imposed by the observer to quantify something. (be it a force, an object, whatever) When evidence of a higher dimension is indicated it is really stating that someone has found an observable effect that can only be explained by something happening that we can't fully observe. Despite this lack of observation it can be represented by mathematics which are not limited to our sense of perception. As for three dimensions of time existing, no one is saying that they don't, however we as observers are unable to perceive of more than one. The simple reason why three dimensions of time aren't universally accepted is that they are not needed to explain what we can observe. Scientists like using the theory of Occum's Razor, that the simplest solutions tend to be the correct solutions. (pardon me if I mis-spelled the theory's name or mis-quoted it in its entirety, but I do believe that is the gist of it) The concept of adding dimensions came about to simplify the mathematics (or rather to make the mathematics work in the first place) to describe all of the forces that we can perceive. In order to fully understand the reasoning behind this you would have to understand tensor mathematics, which is far to large a subject to discuss here, but there are many books on multi-dimensional space that may be able to explain it in more detail. Technically, dimensions are just ways to describe something, so technically the number can be infinite: length, width, depth, color, energy, mass, sound, etc... could all be labeled as dimensions, but the dimensions that are being discussed by all of these theories actually are the minimum number of dimensions to fully describe the existence of a thing. Many of the dimensions I listed above can be derived from other dimensions, and therefore are not part of the minimum set. This may be hard to grasp, but remember that color and sound are both simple interpretations of vibrations, which are nothing more than movement of 3D things. The reasoning behind the 11 or 13 or 26 dimensions that some theories use vary by the theory, but are usually based on part of the mathematics being stable (for lack of a better term) when that number of dimensions are used. In other words, that number of dimensions are theorized because it makes the math work correctly. As of yet, I don't believe anyone has found an observable effect that requires x dimensions to work, but theories that accurately describe observable effects require x dimensions to not contradict themselves. | |
| Klaatu | Sunday, 2nd September 2007 2:44pm - No.1682 |
| It's OCCAM'S Razor, your "gist" is absolutely correct, and you're forgiven for your speling. :) | |
| custennin | Sunday, 28th October 2007 12:53am - No.2067 |
| fair play. though recently i have seen people say that atomic spin is being considered. But the but about the universal observer is the bit i need explaining. If he sees all of the univese, all of our future as simply one of his observable dimensions. is time irrevocably fixed. can we afect it? if not existance kinda becomes pointless. | |
| constantine | Tuesday, 6th November 2007 11:43am - No.2130 |
| and the multiverse (which no seems to be considered fact) are the multiple (or parallel) universes observable by the universal observer? if not it does mean thin in a way there is still freedom of movment through time even if the universal observer seems time as fixed. but tis an interesting conundrom. | |
| the chaos drone | Thursday, 17th January 2008 3:25pm - No.2446 |
| sorry but i just can't imagine how to calculate a volume of a circle ,and how can we simply be able to calculate vols of higher dimension . and in my own understanding the oly difference between a 3d hollow sphere and it's corresponding 4d one is that the latter is solid (consisting of infinitew frames varying in sizes between null and the max volume that of the 3d sphere) another stupid question ... sorry again | |
| varsha | Thursday, 23rd October 2008 9:03am - No.3214 |
| reading his i realize that we are mere on lookers of the queer absolutely strange UNIVERSE! GOT A DOUBT! IS My head spnning or the earth. | |
| varsha | Thursday, 23rd October 2008 9:11am - No.3215 |
| what if the universe which appears to be this complicartd to yhe world is just something as small as an atom to the unknown universal obsrever? did you get what i meant? probably a crazy thought. | |
© 2006. All Rights Reserved.
