> Gravity, the thinking goes, can escape our brane and extend into the bulk. That explains why it’s so weak. All the other forces must play in only three spatial dimensions, while gravity can extend itself out to four, spreading itself much too thin in the process.
Wouldn't this cause gravitational force to fall off with distance using something other than an inverse-square law? I think this explanation would be a better fit for the weak force than gravity for this reason. Thoughts?
More broadly: inverse-square behavior (Gravity, EM etc) strikes me as an intrinsic property of 3D geometry; more so of a tell of dimensionality than the magnitude of the force. (I believe the article is inferring higher dimensionality from relative magnitude, vice distance falloff)
Yes, exactly. That is why we think the extra dimensions might be small, und the inverse square law is only violated at and below the size of the extra dimensions.
This is also why we are using the Yukawa Potential to constrain that possibility, because it has a length scale and a strength of a potential deviation from the inverse square law.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force
It could be a compact[0] dimension, i. e. of finite length. In the simplest case you might imagine it as a circle attached to every point in our 3-dimensional Euclidean space. The aforementioned length scale would be the circumference of that circle.
Trying to wrap my head around this explanation and I’m picturing a looping gif. You have your normal x and y dimensions and then time through the gif. If the loop length is very short then distance between any two pixels will mostly only depend on x and y. Is that right?
Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes in that garden hose in which gravity can be falling as cube or more while at small scale if our compact Universe we’ll see square, and only very precise measurements may notice a bit larger than square.
Another possibility is if our brane has a lot of folds coming close/touching - that would make gravity there stronger like say that dark matter idea inducing rotation speed curve of the disk stars.
> Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes […]
I think you're mixing up two different cases here: 1) Our established 3 dimensions are actually compact, i.e. loop around or hit a boundary somewhere. No multiverse here. 2) There are extra dimensions, meaning that for every point in that extra dimension there's another 3-dimensional universe as we know it.
The expansion of the space is the feature which prevents any physical process inside to distinguish between those options. Kind of a hack - make compact Universe, add expansion and it would inside look and feel indistinguishable from non-compact.
In the simplest case, yes. Though, once curvature (gravity) enters the picture, it could (in theory) become more complicated, as the additional dimension could get stretched or compressed.
Imagine if Flatland were a very long string in a big circle. In one direction you go around the big circle and it's a long distance. At a right angle to that, you go around a tiny little circle.
Because gravity will be observed to decay with distance cubed for distances on the scale of the extra dimension, and distance squared beyond that; and we have not found a scale where we see gravity decay faster than distance squared (but it gets harder and harder to measure at small scale, so the error bars grow).
IIRC experimental gravity data rules out any compactified dimension bigger than 50μm, but a question I keep coming back to is "surely the pictures of atomic bonds taken by electron microscopes rules compactified dimensions larger than 1Å?"
interesting question. my (somewhat naive) thought about it is that bonds are maintained by the EM force, which is so strong that it swamps out any contribution from gravity.
If a compactified spatial dimension exists in our universe, and was big enough to fit an atom, why couldn't we see two atoms that seem like they're in the same 3-dimensional coordinates?
Sometimes compactified dimensions are analogised to a straw: seen from a distance it seems one dimensional, up close (an ant's perspective) it's got one long dimension and one short dimension.
I don't know how far to take the analogy. It sounds like surely photons with wavelengths smaller than the compactified dimension would be likely to take a spiral path, looping around compact dimension n times for every m units of 3-space travelled, which would seem like they were mysteriously slow if you weren't expecting the compact dimension to exist.
I vaguely remember the idea of wavelength-dependent speed of light is a thing that's been ruled out by tests with supernova data, but not to what wavelength or sigma.
I think you're describing a completely different geometry than I'm describing.
An ℝ²-brane such as flatland existing in a ℝ³ bulk is different to an ℝ²⨯S¹.
If the S¹ part* is present in our universe to the degree that it can explain anything about gravity, it should also have an impact on everything else in the universe larger than the radius of the S¹ dimension's circumference.
* well, S^n ⨯ T^m, the version of string theory I hear most about has n+m = 6, but there are others, and this thread is a toy model where n=1, m=0
Edit: Apparently the U+1D54A character is stripped, so put a plain ASCII "S" back in.
Yes but you would sure as heck bump into it if it was big.
Like literally in the middle of your sitting room. Isn’t it a known meme horror thing - monster slices from another dimension splicing across into ours as they move through their planes .
Basically it doesn’t happen but the dimensions do exist so they must be small.
Fun fact: Newton attributed the inverse square law to Pythagoras. It’s esoteric, but it relates to harmony of the spheres and the fact that the weight/tension of a string has an inverse square relation to tone. More here, in this Royal Society article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250902005_Newton_an...
I wonder if a higher dimension could also be the explanation for extra mass in the universe instead of dark matter. It's outside our perceptible space, but it still exists as mass, poking through into black holes or gently resting on the skin of our 3d volume.
The weird thing about it though is that whatever the dark matter is it has to be spread out. It couldn’t be little planets or brown dwarfs or burned out stars (in a hidden dimension or not) because we’d see more gravitational lensing events than we do
> The weird thing about it though is that whatever the dark matter is it has to be spread out.
In fact, they'd have to be so spread out that rotation curves remain flat past a million light years [1]. There seems to be no plausible particle dark matter distribution that can satisfy all of the necessary constraints at this point.
After digging a bit into astromy, computationally myself... There are some heavy assumptions used in the functions that maps pixels to mass densities. Outsider's 2c, but I assess a misalignment between CDM confidence in papers, and this mapping.
Interesting. It would be extraordinary if many of the discrepancies dark matter is required to explain are actually caused by some flaw in the data analysis. It seems unlikely, but not impossible.
I'm not familiar with the topic. Did you have any particularly suspect assumptions in mind?
I am overall suspicious of the degree of confidence used in papers in conjunction with the sheer number of assumptions regarding luminosity, the model of gas and stars in galaxies etc, vs what is discernible in the images (It's a low-resolution set of pixels). Of particular note is inferring mass (or lack thereof) that doesn't correspond to leading-edge luminosity. I.e. gas and stars that are away from the camera, and dim gas.
I thought dark matter was only observed through movements of matter within galaxies. Outer layers of spiral galaxies are observed to move faster than they should, so there has to be additional gravity and therefore mass that binds them on their (fast) orbits around the center.
Perhaps there is a negative gravity outside of galaxies where space seems to bubble out of nowhere anyway and the universe is expanding.
This seems as an attempt to combine gravity with the standard model again, which in my very amateurish understanding comes with multiple extra dimensions anyway. Isn't the higgs field basically a recently discovered additional dimension already? Among the other forms of particles that can be seen as an excitation of fields that compose these dimensions.
But for extreme cases like neutron stars or black holes, we probably do need to combine these theories since gravity is a main reason these objects exist in the first place. And also isn't a curvature of space not already be an additional dimension as well? It would be mathematically as I understand it.
> The force of gravity is weak. And not just a little bit weak. It’s so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—that it’s almost impossible to provide analogies.
Nothing in nature prevents gravity from just being super weak. Some forces could just be super weak.
The unspoken premise of gravity being weaker than other forces is that all forces were unified at some point. So iff you assume all forces in nature were once one force, then gravity being weak is an anomaly.
if you use planck units instead of anthropocentric ones gravity isnt weak. its the mass of the proton that is much less than its charge. but why should those two values be equivalent to begin with?
Extra dimensions are always a desperate measure. If you add them to your theory you open up a huge parameter space, because you have no clue about the number, size and topology of the extra dimensions. What is missing is a real physical symmetry or reason that would enforce the existence of extra dimensions and on the other side restricts its geometry and topology.
Just adding more parameters to your theory will allow you to overfit the data better, but that does not mean you understand more about nature.
Far from expert in the field, but assuming that gravity is acts in a 3+ND and we observe it in our 3D world, shouldn't we observe weird peculiarities with it rather that just its amplitude?
Think that you live on a line, and you see projections of a 2d object doing circles on top of you. You would see the shade moving and changing sizes in a non-explainable manner to you.
We do observe really weird gravitational effects. Dark matter, for instance. Under Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, galaxies shouldn't be able to form in the way we observe. The way galaxies and their contents move makes no sense with our present understanding of gravity-- unless we assume there's a lot more mass. So we invented dark matter as a sort of placeholder variable to make the math make sense.
More anomalies: simply being near a large gravitational field alters the flow of time. Frame dragging around black holes (spacetime itself twists into a rotating spiral). The final parsec problem (co-orbiting black holes bleeding energy as gravitational waves). And don't forget the gravitational singularity of a black hole.
But perhaps the most important thing to know is that we've only just gained the ability to examine gravitational waves. Once we build more detectors (especially LISA), we'll probably discover a lot more is wrong with our understanding of gravity.
> More anomalies: simply being near a large gravitational field alters the flow of time. Frame dragging around black holes (spacetime itself twists into a rotating spiral). The final parsec problem (co-orbiting black holes bleeding energy as gravitational waves). And don't forget the gravitational singularity of a black hole.
These are not really anomalies per se - they are predicted by the relatively well tested theory of GR and (except for the singularity part) also experimentally observable. They are weird from our point of view, but not weird to contemporary physics.
From recent discussion though it seems as though the time dilation effects or that time itself moves differently in different patches of spacetime- that could remove the need altogether for dark energy/dark matter:
Yes, but none of that is anomalous. The primary novelty of the timescape model is just a more careful application of boring old General Relativity to cosmological models, which are highly idealized in order to make them tractable. It is still very misleading to characterize effects like frame dragging or time dilation as unresolved mysteries. They are very straightforward, experimentally confirmed, elements of classical General Relativity.
I thought the final parsec problem is that co orbiting black holes can't have accretion discs which makes GW the only way for them to inspiral, and that's way too slow for us to have seen any.
Movement doesn't make sense when we can't predict or explain it. Based on our understanding of gravity as confirmed by observations of our solar system we expect to see galaxies do X but instead they do Y, and then we collectively fail to identify a simple explanation like bad math or a bad assumption.
In one sense this is a vindication of our application of the scientific method and the way we make theories: a bad theory wouldn't be able to be checked, whereas a good theory can make precise enough claims that when a limitation is found (such as when our predictions about reality do not match our observations) that the results of the check are clear.
Being able to precisely calculate movement of planets in Solar system and also calculate their mass was a huge triumph of physics. The problem is the same math doesn't work with visible stars orbiting in galaxies nor galaxy clusters. Simplest explanation is there's much invisible mass - dark matter. Or the laws are different at these scales.
They greatly simplify models, otherwise they’re too complicated to calculate.
So they simplify the data points, assume point particles, assume no interactions due to electromagnetism, no tidal locks, and Newtonian gravity instead of relativity.
And then it turns out galaxies sometimes rotate too quickly.
Yeah, no shit. If your data is known to be wrong and your model uses the wrong theory of gravity and makes known false simplifications it would be quite strange if it somehow did predict without some discrepancies
The more distance along your 4th dimension you allow, the more strange geometric effects you will observe. If you let a 4th dimension be very, very, very small (imagine a 2d universe that actually has a third dimension, it's just subatomic in scale) the geometric effects are negligible.A 3d volume can exist in that 2d + 1 tiny dimension, in the technical sense, but not in any macroscopic sense. Your 3rd dimension curls around to where it started nearly immediately.
To what degree are these Nautilus stories based off of the work of a single researcher or lab that does not have broader consensus amongst the research community?
What's a good way for a layperson to tell if this is a new scientific consensus arrived at after hundreds of researchers come to the same conclusion or a breakthrough result that has shocked the entire research community?
This is not consensus. There are lots of anomalies in what we observe in the cosmos. Here someone links two of those to a speculation about extra dimensions. It would get interesting if they have predictions that can be checked.
A promising new theory should fit known observations, explain previously unexplained phenomenon, and predict something testable. That will be difficult to judge as a layperson.
> “In 1999, theoretical physicists Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum proposed a wild restructuring of the cosmos”
> “The brane-bulk model is a speculative idea for sure, but a fun one.”
I feel like it’s communicated pretty clearly that it isn’t some breakthrough finding that everybody agrees on. You could google the mentioned researchers/theories and find out more information if you still weren’t sure.
Agreed. Yes, a bit roundabout, but it's pretty wild that we live in a spot in the universe where the distance we need to travel to "confirm plausibility" of a "deep truth of the universe we just heard about" is just to type a few glyphs into a magic box and decide if the person speaking the purported truth has a reputation in the relevant human thought-stuffs.
The world we live in is crazy. To know such a thing so easily at an earlier time, would be unfathomable :)
Virtually all reasonable alternatives to GR have been strongly ruled out, including theories with large extra dimensions in them. In general, these theories have a some kind of parameter which measures their deviation from GR, which is being squashed to zero. There's also just generally no reason to think there are extra dimensions at all
This article brings up neutron stars being slightly larger than expected, but the reality is there's no real expected maximum mass for a neutron star - because the equation of state and physics for neutron star interiors is unknown. The spin, and magnetic field of a neutron star can also serve to increase the maximum mass of a neutron star, which are very hard to model as there are no analytic solutions to a spinning body (nor an oblate body)
There are too many approximations in the paper to even come close to saying that the brane model explains this better than standard physics, and there's no reason to think that this event isn't explainable by standard physics
I'm ignorant when it comes to physics, admittedly, so please forgive me if my question has an obvious answer... But when I read articles like this, in particular when they mention branes, I want to ask: How do we know that dark matter is not just some interaction coming from the "bulk"?
The problem is most of what you say is unmeasurable. So it’s not really something physics can comment on and those immeasurable quantities cannot really be commented on by physics. So maybe your thoughts are enjoyable to you or others but they don’t really have anything to do with how dynamics in the universe play out, which is all that physics has to say about things.
It took many years before Einstein's ToR was confirmed by pictures of light bending around our sun during an eclipse.
Paul Dirac predicted antiparticles purely by mathematical intuition. It wasn't until later that the theory proved true, and he was recognized to be the genius that he was.
First comes the theory, then experiments are devised. Then physics gets updated.
I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be.
That no one understands how these things can even be known, much less that they are true, is already known by me, but the truth is never beholden to the naysayers. I'm not a Boltzmann who was (sadly) bullied into suicide by the fools of his era. I don't really care if anyone believes what I say. I say these things because I love you all and maybe a few people will be stimulated to contemplate other avenues that may explain the as yet inexplicable.
And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose.
Put another way, Einstein knew what would happen to light that passed close to the sun (even though his calculations were off), but the naysayers were irrelevant, right? They, too, thought they already knew it all.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that you aren’t saying anything to agree or disagree with from the standpoint of physics. Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. From the standpoint of physics it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make it wrong or right nor does it make anyone replying you wrong or right about any of it. You simply have not crossed the threshold for physics to have a say. You are free to believe all of this. If you want physics to care you need to demonstrate how your beliefs predict system dynamics. How can your beliefs explain observations and do those explanations make sense in the context of everything else we know? All of the people you cite who were “free thinkers” expressed their ideas in the context of the current understanding of physics whether they were special relativity or information theory. They did this by offering predictions such as how general relativity predicts you can see a star that is currently behind the sun during an eclipse if you draw a line from the earth observer to the star or how quantum mechanics predicted the existence of semiconductors or how chaos theory explains why two systems with similar initial conditions could exponentially grow apart from each other. If you could offer such predictions from your ideas than they would “stimulate” physicists to think about them. But without such predictions your ideas simply are just your thoughts about how things work. They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.
> Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way.
That's fair, but I didn't say that I could offer any of that. All I offered was an explanation of the situation, specifically with respect to why only 1/6th of the mass of the universe can be accounted for, yet has been calculated rather accurately by measuring the inertial forces of distant galaxies.
> They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to do anything, and I couldn't even if I wanted to as it's way out of my area of expertise. I'm merely explaining the situation. It's up to actual physicists to figure out how this situation can be testable, if indeed it can be.
I'm also not putting any responsibility on anyone else. I shared these ideas with people who have no clue whatsoever where all this dark matter is. The universe itself provided this clue to y'all. I don't care if anyone believes it or tries to utilize it at all.
The reality is that with all major advancements in science, someone comes up with a "crazy" idea -- Boltzmann, Gaileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Newton -- and then theories are constructed around it, experiments are devised, and then the theories and experiments are iterated until the details are hammered out.
If I was a physicist, I would know that no one on Earth has a single clue where all this dark matter is, so maybe I would take a random "crazy" idea and stir it around in my head and see if it could be helpful, see if it could be used to tweak an equation or dynamical system description or something.
That's the extent of my thinking about this, and is the fullness of my purpose in my sharing this with y'all. That no one (or very, very few people) in science understands that this informatic universe can be queried directly means that I had no hopes of anything coming of this. I offered a gift and if no one is interested, I really don't care; I made a good intention, and tried to explain the situation as best I could. That is all I am capable of doing in this realm, so I'm at peace with the entire situation. No one here could possibly disappoint me because I expected nothing.
Peace be with you. I wish you the best of luck, success and happiness in your endeavors. I didn't mean to cause anyone here any consternation, but presenting ideas -- if one is honest about reality -- cannot possibly cause anything like that, any more than Boltzmann caused Lord Kelvin and his cohort to be a bunch of brutal bullies. The truth is the truth, and that is all that really matters, and we are all each free to go our own way, and treat others however we see fit. I hope I have treated you well; please forgive me if I have spoken harshly here, I didn't mean to.
My always welcoming new ideas means that I tend to share what I have learned without hesitation. Most people are too provincial to be open-minded enough to listen to foreign ideas with grace and either politely ignore them, or, better yet, see if they can be used to expand their worldview, in whatever dimension, pun appreciated.
Yes but because you wrap all this naïveté in both a condescending tone and a discussion about compassion, you don’t seem to realise that none of your ideas connect to anything. You can’t post stuff on the internet comparing yourself and your ideas to great minds and then expect people to politely ignore them or see if they can be used to expand their world view. Because your ideas are not deep nor are they connected to anything. They are just smoke coming from your bong. Everyone who has replied you has done so with an effort to have you develop your ideas while you are content to condescend them more while claiming compassion and that you are before your time. None of this is compassionate nor is it physics. Compassion would dictate that you would strive for others to understand since you claim they suffer in ignorance that only you can provide. I pity you because you cannot see beyond this and will likely continue to reply anyone and everyone in the same way as long as they keep replying you.
> Because your ideas are not deep nor are they connected to anything.
I didn't realize you were are the authority.
Or is it that you don't realize that you're not the authority?
I know the answer to these questions, and why your ego is telling you what you are relaying to me.
You have nothing but weak ad hominems.
> You can’t post stuff on the internet comparing yourself and your ideas to great minds and then expect people to politely ignore them or see if they can be used to expand their world view.
I'm not comparing myself to great minds, I'm comparing our situations with respect to our respective status quos.
If someone were to present such ideas to me, I have no ego that would call them names and disregard their ideas out of hand. No, I would listen carefully and then decide whether their ideas were something that I should incorporate into my worldview. And I would damn sure make sure that I wasn't an asshole to them.
I don't expect anything, and I'm not going to re-read all I've written here, but I'm pretty sure I have explicitly laid that out.
> I pity you because you cannot see beyond this and will likely continue to reply anyone and everyone in the same way as long as they keep replying you.
I stopped pitying others once I stopped pitying myself 30 years ago; over time I replaced it with empathy and compassion and humble seeking. You literally have no idea the advantage that gives me over you. It is why I do not condescend to anyone. It is because I know that I am just a human being like everyone else, with my own foibles and failings, and, even if I'm better at some things than they are, I'm sure that they have things to teach me from their superior areas of expertise.
I reply to others in a uniform way because my worldview is the work of decades of work, my friend. That I love you more than you love me is why I am having this conversation with you.
> since you claim they suffer in ignorance that only you can provide.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. What I provide is rare, especially here on HN, but you can find it elsewhere, you can even beg our Creator to give you the information directly as that is our highest human potential. The problem is that few people seek this kind of knowledge, and one cannot learn what one does not seek to learn.
> Compassion would dictate that you would strive for others to understand
You do not act like a person who has worked for decades to understand compassion.
You do not understand the universe, my friend. That's not condescending; that's just the plain fact of the matter.
My speaking of compassion makes many people angry. You should be asking me why that is the case, instead of telling me how much you know about something you are clearly not manifesting.
The truth is undefeatable, and my commitment to it is why I love you. And your refusal to admit that your lack of understanding is precisely why you are so angry with me explaining the truth of the matter to you.
If you are so superior in all these realms of knowledge, then why don't you just ignore me then? I know why you don't, my friend. The ego is a terrible thing and is ravaging the world in its idiotic self-righteous defense of itself. That's not me, brother. You see what you want to see when you could instead be seeing the truth. That attitude is epidemic on this Earth is is causing vast destruction and misery for many, many human beings.
It would be a lie to say that I don't know the truth of these matters, and I despise lying, so I won't. How you deal with the truth is yours alone to deal with. Maybe someday you will reach the level where you know that you know the truth instead of just thinking you do out of your self-defensive ego.
Special Relativity was accepted almost immediately (within 10 years) by the scientific community since it was so powerful and useful and correct when the community tested it.
General relativity took a longer time to be generally accepted since the sensitivity of the tests were mediocre for the time, but strong evidence of its correctness was already coming about within 25 years. The problem being it was hard to figure out which model was correct due to lack of accurate tests
Saying that the community rejected these theories is just ignorance.
It’s very few years in physics. Einstein was lucky to see so many outcomes and impacts of his work. Maxwell, Boltzmann, Meitner, noether, and plenty of other physicists didn’t really get to see the impact of their work. But like some things that Einstein predicted, like a BE condensate, were not verified until long after he died.
>I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be.
You think physicists don't smoke weed and dream up random ideas? Or formally study eastern religions?
The fact that they are trained physicist is why they don't conceive of the universe (and dark energy specifically) the way you do, and probably never will.
>And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose.
This is an example of your condescension. There are so many assumptions implicit in your statements that it's offensive to the audience. Its like the difference between a person raving in the street that everyone is free to ignore. Versus that same person deliberately entering a physics conference shouting the same things, then claiming they're only there to help.
Hey Bud, anyone who claims this kind of “deep understanding” without evidence is running a cult. Always trust but verify; if you can’t verify you can’t trust and it’s just faith. The desire to have faith can come from a place of love but that desire is often exploited by those seeking power over others.
Check out this book: Combating Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan.
Keep an open mind. I enjoyed reading your ideas of the universe but without evidence it’s just a fun idea. Science, empirical evidence, is what turns ideas into understanding.
"A fool is a person who hears the truth and calls it a lie." Sure, let's keep that sentiment going... a charlatan is a person who invents what they insist is a truth and then labels all who do not believe as fools.
> a charlatan is a person who invents what they insist is a truth and then labels all who do not believe as fools.
I completely agree, but the truth is that I am not a charlatan, nor am I a liar. A charlatan does his dirty deeds in hopes of some wrongful gain at the expense of others. My efforts here benefit me without negative effect for anyone else. That is a key indicator of a person acting solely on behalf of Love.
You are free to believe that that which you already believe is the truth, or you can learn some new truths that expand your consciousness. I am just here to plant seeds, and it makes me happy and at peace to do so.
I really don't care what you do, for only you are responsible for your choices, not me. I love you anyway, and, while I have recommendations for you that would improve your life's happiness and that of those around you, I have no ill feelings toward anyone here about how they treat me. I, unlike Boltzmann, am only responsible to the truth of love and the love of truth, not to naysayers who have yet to accept greater truths than they currently comprehend. I was once in the same situation, if not more ignorant.
As with all things human, the choice is ours, each of us, utterly freely, but within a sublime system of cause and effect that is relentlessly impersonal.
You don't need to want money to want something. Maybe you just want significance, or love, or connecting to others. Still, none of what you said makes any sense. It's crackpot stuff.
Your motivation is validation and support for your belief system. The fact that you posted a quote saying that people hearing but not following the "truth" (ostensibly as you define it otherwise why mention it, yeah?) are fools is the key indicator that you are not acting solely on behalf of love. You, like so many of your sort, are acting on what bolsters your personal beliefs and your need to have that belief.
> Gravity, the thinking goes, can escape our brane and extend into the bulk. That explains why it’s so weak. All the other forces must play in only three spatial dimensions, while gravity can extend itself out to four, spreading itself much too thin in the process.
Wouldn't this cause gravitational force to fall off with distance using something other than an inverse-square law? I think this explanation would be a better fit for the weak force than gravity for this reason. Thoughts?
More broadly: inverse-square behavior (Gravity, EM etc) strikes me as an intrinsic property of 3D geometry; more so of a tell of dimensionality than the magnitude of the force. (I believe the article is inferring higher dimensionality from relative magnitude, vice distance falloff)
Yes, exactly. That is why we think the extra dimensions might be small, und the inverse square law is only violated at and below the size of the extra dimensions. This is also why we are using the Yukawa Potential to constrain that possibility, because it has a length scale and a strength of a potential deviation from the inverse square law. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force
How can a dimension be smaller compared to other dimensions?
It could be a compact[0] dimension, i. e. of finite length. In the simplest case you might imagine it as a circle attached to every point in our 3-dimensional Euclidean space. The aforementioned length scale would be the circumference of that circle.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space
Trying to wrap my head around this explanation and I’m picturing a looping gif. You have your normal x and y dimensions and then time through the gif. If the loop length is very short then distance between any two pixels will mostly only depend on x and y. Is that right?
The classic example is a garden hose seen from afar looks like a line, but up close it is a cylinder that can be walked “around” by an ant.
Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes in that garden hose in which gravity can be falling as cube or more while at small scale if our compact Universe we’ll see square, and only very precise measurements may notice a bit larger than square.
Another possibility is if our brane has a lot of folds coming close/touching - that would make gravity there stronger like say that dark matter idea inducing rotation speed curve of the disk stars.
> Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes […]
I think you're mixing up two different cases here: 1) Our established 3 dimensions are actually compact, i.e. loop around or hit a boundary somewhere. No multiverse here. 2) There are extra dimensions, meaning that for every point in that extra dimension there's another 3-dimensional universe as we know it.
> Our established 3 dimensions are actually compact, i.e. loop around
Do they not loop? What other option is there? I assume you can't sail off the edge of the disk, so to speak.
Option 1: They loop.
Option 2: They go on forever without looping.
Option 3: They end - there is some kind of boundary to spacetime.
How does option 2 fit with the big bang? The obvious issue (at minimum) being accounting for the CMB.
The expansion of the space is the feature which prevents any physical process inside to distinguish between those options. Kind of a hack - make compact Universe, add expansion and it would inside look and feel indistinguishable from non-compact.
the 1. makes 2. "easier", i.e. having a multitude of compact Universes is "cheaper" than having a multitude of non-compact ones
Would also be nice for possibly bridging gaps
In the simplest case, yes. Though, once curvature (gravity) enters the picture, it could (in theory) become more complicated, as the additional dimension could get stretched or compressed.
Another visual that may be useful is imagine being stuck between two portals squeezed close together.
Yes, that sounds right.
And yet that circle has as many "points" as any other 1-dim independent axis, so ...
The "number" of points is irrelevant, topologically these are very different spaces (one is compact, one isn't).
Imagine if Flatland were a very long string in a big circle. In one direction you go around the big circle and it's a long distance. At a right angle to that, you go around a tiny little circle.
Why does the extra dimension need to be small?
Because gravity will be observed to decay with distance cubed for distances on the scale of the extra dimension, and distance squared beyond that; and we have not found a scale where we see gravity decay faster than distance squared (but it gets harder and harder to measure at small scale, so the error bars grow).
If it was big, you could see it.
IIRC experimental gravity data rules out any compactified dimension bigger than 50μm, but a question I keep coming back to is "surely the pictures of atomic bonds taken by electron microscopes rules compactified dimensions larger than 1Å?"
interesting question. my (somewhat naive) thought about it is that bonds are maintained by the EM force, which is so strong that it swamps out any contribution from gravity.
Not necessarily, 2D cannot easily see 3D, etc...
If a compactified spatial dimension exists in our universe, and was big enough to fit an atom, why couldn't we see two atoms that seem like they're in the same 3-dimensional coordinates?
Sometimes compactified dimensions are analogised to a straw: seen from a distance it seems one dimensional, up close (an ant's perspective) it's got one long dimension and one short dimension.
I don't know how far to take the analogy. It sounds like surely photons with wavelengths smaller than the compactified dimension would be likely to take a spiral path, looping around compact dimension n times for every m units of 3-space travelled, which would seem like they were mysteriously slow if you weren't expecting the compact dimension to exist.
I vaguely remember the idea of wavelength-dependent speed of light is a thing that's been ruled out by tests with supernova data, but not to what wavelength or sigma.
The same reason why flatlanders don’t see two circles in the same 2D coordinates, even if a 3D tube was penetrating through their world.
Because they can’t see above or below to the rest of the tube. They can only see a single infinitely thin slice of the tube.
I think you're describing a completely different geometry than I'm describing.
An ℝ²-brane such as flatland existing in a ℝ³ bulk is different to an ℝ²⨯S¹.
If the S¹ part* is present in our universe to the degree that it can explain anything about gravity, it should also have an impact on everything else in the universe larger than the radius of the S¹ dimension's circumference.
* well, S^n ⨯ T^m, the version of string theory I hear most about has n+m = 6, but there are others, and this thread is a toy model where n=1, m=0
Edit: Apparently the U+1D54A character is stripped, so put a plain ASCII "S" back in.
Yes but you would sure as heck bump into it if it was big.
Like literally in the middle of your sitting room. Isn’t it a known meme horror thing - monster slices from another dimension splicing across into ours as they move through their planes .
Basically it doesn’t happen but the dimensions do exist so they must be small.
Hence why we don’t bump into them.
Fun fact: Newton attributed the inverse square law to Pythagoras. It’s esoteric, but it relates to harmony of the spheres and the fact that the weight/tension of a string has an inverse square relation to tone. More here, in this Royal Society article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250902005_Newton_an...
I wonder if a higher dimension could also be the explanation for extra mass in the universe instead of dark matter. It's outside our perceptible space, but it still exists as mass, poking through into black holes or gently resting on the skin of our 3d volume.
The weird thing about it though is that whatever the dark matter is it has to be spread out. It couldn’t be little planets or brown dwarfs or burned out stars (in a hidden dimension or not) because we’d see more gravitational lensing events than we do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACHO_Project
> The weird thing about it though is that whatever the dark matter is it has to be spread out.
In fact, they'd have to be so spread out that rotation curves remain flat past a million light years [1]. There seems to be no plausible particle dark matter distribution that can satisfy all of the necessary constraints at this point.
[1] https://tritonstation.com/2024/06/18/rotation-curves-still-f...
After digging a bit into astromy, computationally myself... There are some heavy assumptions used in the functions that maps pixels to mass densities. Outsider's 2c, but I assess a misalignment between CDM confidence in papers, and this mapping.
Interesting. It would be extraordinary if many of the discrepancies dark matter is required to explain are actually caused by some flaw in the data analysis. It seems unlikely, but not impossible.
I'm not familiar with the topic. Did you have any particularly suspect assumptions in mind?
I am overall suspicious of the degree of confidence used in papers in conjunction with the sheer number of assumptions regarding luminosity, the model of gas and stars in galaxies etc, vs what is discernible in the images (It's a low-resolution set of pixels). Of particular note is inferring mass (or lack thereof) that doesn't correspond to leading-edge luminosity. I.e. gas and stars that are away from the camera, and dim gas.
I thought dark matter was only observed through movements of matter within galaxies. Outer layers of spiral galaxies are observed to move faster than they should, so there has to be additional gravity and therefore mass that binds them on their (fast) orbits around the center.
Perhaps there is a negative gravity outside of galaxies where space seems to bubble out of nowhere anyway and the universe is expanding.
This seems as an attempt to combine gravity with the standard model again, which in my very amateurish understanding comes with multiple extra dimensions anyway. Isn't the higgs field basically a recently discovered additional dimension already? Among the other forms of particles that can be seen as an excitation of fields that compose these dimensions.
But for extreme cases like neutron stars or black holes, we probably do need to combine these theories since gravity is a main reason these objects exist in the first place. And also isn't a curvature of space not already be an additional dimension as well? It would be mathematically as I understand it.
I guess it also implies the extra dimensions aren't massive. Unless that's the explanation for unexplained gravitation.
If anyone wants a super approachable lecture on Neutron stars, this was released just a couple of weeks ago - https://youtu.be/I12SQ7YOebY
That was a great watch, thanks!
> The force of gravity is weak. And not just a little bit weak. It’s so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—that it’s almost impossible to provide analogies.
Nothing in nature prevents gravity from just being super weak. Some forces could just be super weak.
The unspoken premise of gravity being weaker than other forces is that all forces were unified at some point. So iff you assume all forces in nature were once one force, then gravity being weak is an anomaly.
if you use planck units instead of anthropocentric ones gravity isnt weak. its the mass of the proton that is much less than its charge. but why should those two values be equivalent to begin with?
Strength is relative. It will always be a rounding error in particle interactions.
Extra dimensions are always a desperate measure. If you add them to your theory you open up a huge parameter space, because you have no clue about the number, size and topology of the extra dimensions. What is missing is a real physical symmetry or reason that would enforce the existence of extra dimensions and on the other side restricts its geometry and topology.
Just adding more parameters to your theory will allow you to overfit the data better, but that does not mean you understand more about nature.
Far from expert in the field, but assuming that gravity is acts in a 3+ND and we observe it in our 3D world, shouldn't we observe weird peculiarities with it rather that just its amplitude?
Think that you live on a line, and you see projections of a 2d object doing circles on top of you. You would see the shade moving and changing sizes in a non-explainable manner to you.
We do observe really weird gravitational effects. Dark matter, for instance. Under Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, galaxies shouldn't be able to form in the way we observe. The way galaxies and their contents move makes no sense with our present understanding of gravity-- unless we assume there's a lot more mass. So we invented dark matter as a sort of placeholder variable to make the math make sense.
More anomalies: simply being near a large gravitational field alters the flow of time. Frame dragging around black holes (spacetime itself twists into a rotating spiral). The final parsec problem (co-orbiting black holes bleeding energy as gravitational waves). And don't forget the gravitational singularity of a black hole.
But perhaps the most important thing to know is that we've only just gained the ability to examine gravitational waves. Once we build more detectors (especially LISA), we'll probably discover a lot more is wrong with our understanding of gravity.
> More anomalies: simply being near a large gravitational field alters the flow of time. Frame dragging around black holes (spacetime itself twists into a rotating spiral). The final parsec problem (co-orbiting black holes bleeding energy as gravitational waves). And don't forget the gravitational singularity of a black hole.
These are not really anomalies per se - they are predicted by the relatively well tested theory of GR and (except for the singularity part) also experimentally observable. They are weird from our point of view, but not weird to contemporary physics.
From recent discussion though it seems as though the time dilation effects or that time itself moves differently in different patches of spacetime- that could remove the need altogether for dark energy/dark matter:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversia...
Yes, but none of that is anomalous. The primary novelty of the timescape model is just a more careful application of boring old General Relativity to cosmological models, which are highly idealized in order to make them tractable. It is still very misleading to characterize effects like frame dragging or time dilation as unresolved mysteries. They are very straightforward, experimentally confirmed, elements of classical General Relativity.
I don't think anyone is stating it is a mystery, just that no one apparently had been willing to comprehensively do the math until now.
I thought the final parsec problem is that co orbiting black holes can't have accretion discs which makes GW the only way for them to inspiral, and that's way too slow for us to have seen any.
> The way galaxies and their contents move makes no sense with our present understanding of gravity-- unless we assume there's a lot more mass
Explain for a layman? I don't know what it means for movement to not make sense.
Movement doesn't make sense when we can't predict or explain it. Based on our understanding of gravity as confirmed by observations of our solar system we expect to see galaxies do X but instead they do Y, and then we collectively fail to identify a simple explanation like bad math or a bad assumption.
In one sense this is a vindication of our application of the scientific method and the way we make theories: a bad theory wouldn't be able to be checked, whereas a good theory can make precise enough claims that when a limitation is found (such as when our predictions about reality do not match our observations) that the results of the check are clear.
Being able to precisely calculate movement of planets in Solar system and also calculate their mass was a huge triumph of physics. The problem is the same math doesn't work with visible stars orbiting in galaxies nor galaxy clusters. Simplest explanation is there's much invisible mass - dark matter. Or the laws are different at these scales.
We know that in a vacuum everything falls that ~9.8m/s acceleration on earth.
We get a ball made up of something, and for some reason only it accelerates at 10m/s for no discernible reason.
It’s a bunch of nonsense really.
They greatly simplify models, otherwise they’re too complicated to calculate.
So they simplify the data points, assume point particles, assume no interactions due to electromagnetism, no tidal locks, and Newtonian gravity instead of relativity.
And then it turns out galaxies sometimes rotate too quickly.
Yeah, no shit. If your data is known to be wrong and your model uses the wrong theory of gravity and makes known false simplifications it would be quite strange if it somehow did predict without some discrepancies
The more distance along your 4th dimension you allow, the more strange geometric effects you will observe. If you let a 4th dimension be very, very, very small (imagine a 2d universe that actually has a third dimension, it's just subatomic in scale) the geometric effects are negligible.A 3d volume can exist in that 2d + 1 tiny dimension, in the technical sense, but not in any macroscopic sense. Your 3rd dimension curls around to where it started nearly immediately.
To what degree are these Nautilus stories based off of the work of a single researcher or lab that does not have broader consensus amongst the research community?
What's a good way for a layperson to tell if this is a new scientific consensus arrived at after hundreds of researchers come to the same conclusion or a breakthrough result that has shocked the entire research community?
This is not consensus. There are lots of anomalies in what we observe in the cosmos. Here someone links two of those to a speculation about extra dimensions. It would get interesting if they have predictions that can be checked.
A promising new theory should fit known observations, explain previously unexplained phenomenon, and predict something testable. That will be difficult to judge as a layperson.
> “In 1999, theoretical physicists Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum proposed a wild restructuring of the cosmos”
> “The brane-bulk model is a speculative idea for sure, but a fun one.”
I feel like it’s communicated pretty clearly that it isn’t some breakthrough finding that everybody agrees on. You could google the mentioned researchers/theories and find out more information if you still weren’t sure.
Agreed. Yes, a bit roundabout, but it's pretty wild that we live in a spot in the universe where the distance we need to travel to "confirm plausibility" of a "deep truth of the universe we just heard about" is just to type a few glyphs into a magic box and decide if the person speaking the purported truth has a reputation in the relevant human thought-stuffs.
The world we live in is crazy. To know such a thing so easily at an earlier time, would be unfathomable :)
Virtually all reasonable alternatives to GR have been strongly ruled out, including theories with large extra dimensions in them. In general, these theories have a some kind of parameter which measures their deviation from GR, which is being squashed to zero. There's also just generally no reason to think there are extra dimensions at all
This article brings up neutron stars being slightly larger than expected, but the reality is there's no real expected maximum mass for a neutron star - because the equation of state and physics for neutron star interiors is unknown. The spin, and magnetic field of a neutron star can also serve to increase the maximum mass of a neutron star, which are very hard to model as there are no analytic solutions to a spinning body (nor an oblate body)
There are too many approximations in the paper to even come close to saying that the brane model explains this better than standard physics, and there's no reason to think that this event isn't explainable by standard physics
I'm ignorant when it comes to physics, admittedly, so please forgive me if my question has an obvious answer... But when I read articles like this, in particular when they mention branes, I want to ask: How do we know that dark matter is not just some interaction coming from the "bulk"?
We don't know! But we also can't feasibly test for something like that.
God, so many words to cover only one phrase with a "possible hint" at an extra mass coming from imaginary source ...
If you could orient something along a higher dimension in the correct way could we conceivably create some kind of anti gravity or artificial gravity?
Where are the flaggers? Come on, you're slacking off.
Neutron Stars? Other Dimensions? This has GOT to be woke, right?
The level of flagging on HN lately is totally out of control.
And they complained that the woke were cancelling people...
[flagged]
The problem is most of what you say is unmeasurable. So it’s not really something physics can comment on and those immeasurable quantities cannot really be commented on by physics. So maybe your thoughts are enjoyable to you or others but they don’t really have anything to do with how dynamics in the universe play out, which is all that physics has to say about things.
It took many years before Einstein's ToR was confirmed by pictures of light bending around our sun during an eclipse.
Paul Dirac predicted antiparticles purely by mathematical intuition. It wasn't until later that the theory proved true, and he was recognized to be the genius that he was.
First comes the theory, then experiments are devised. Then physics gets updated.
I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be.
That no one understands how these things can even be known, much less that they are true, is already known by me, but the truth is never beholden to the naysayers. I'm not a Boltzmann who was (sadly) bullied into suicide by the fools of his era. I don't really care if anyone believes what I say. I say these things because I love you all and maybe a few people will be stimulated to contemplate other avenues that may explain the as yet inexplicable.
And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose.
Put another way, Einstein knew what would happen to light that passed close to the sun (even though his calculations were off), but the naysayers were irrelevant, right? They, too, thought they already knew it all.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that you aren’t saying anything to agree or disagree with from the standpoint of physics. Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. From the standpoint of physics it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make it wrong or right nor does it make anyone replying you wrong or right about any of it. You simply have not crossed the threshold for physics to have a say. You are free to believe all of this. If you want physics to care you need to demonstrate how your beliefs predict system dynamics. How can your beliefs explain observations and do those explanations make sense in the context of everything else we know? All of the people you cite who were “free thinkers” expressed their ideas in the context of the current understanding of physics whether they were special relativity or information theory. They did this by offering predictions such as how general relativity predicts you can see a star that is currently behind the sun during an eclipse if you draw a line from the earth observer to the star or how quantum mechanics predicted the existence of semiconductors or how chaos theory explains why two systems with similar initial conditions could exponentially grow apart from each other. If you could offer such predictions from your ideas than they would “stimulate” physicists to think about them. But without such predictions your ideas simply are just your thoughts about how things work. They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.
> Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way.
That's fair, but I didn't say that I could offer any of that. All I offered was an explanation of the situation, specifically with respect to why only 1/6th of the mass of the universe can be accounted for, yet has been calculated rather accurately by measuring the inertial forces of distant galaxies.
> They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to do anything, and I couldn't even if I wanted to as it's way out of my area of expertise. I'm merely explaining the situation. It's up to actual physicists to figure out how this situation can be testable, if indeed it can be.
I'm also not putting any responsibility on anyone else. I shared these ideas with people who have no clue whatsoever where all this dark matter is. The universe itself provided this clue to y'all. I don't care if anyone believes it or tries to utilize it at all.
The reality is that with all major advancements in science, someone comes up with a "crazy" idea -- Boltzmann, Gaileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Newton -- and then theories are constructed around it, experiments are devised, and then the theories and experiments are iterated until the details are hammered out.
If I was a physicist, I would know that no one on Earth has a single clue where all this dark matter is, so maybe I would take a random "crazy" idea and stir it around in my head and see if it could be helpful, see if it could be used to tweak an equation or dynamical system description or something.
That's the extent of my thinking about this, and is the fullness of my purpose in my sharing this with y'all. That no one (or very, very few people) in science understands that this informatic universe can be queried directly means that I had no hopes of anything coming of this. I offered a gift and if no one is interested, I really don't care; I made a good intention, and tried to explain the situation as best I could. That is all I am capable of doing in this realm, so I'm at peace with the entire situation. No one here could possibly disappoint me because I expected nothing.
Peace be with you. I wish you the best of luck, success and happiness in your endeavors. I didn't mean to cause anyone here any consternation, but presenting ideas -- if one is honest about reality -- cannot possibly cause anything like that, any more than Boltzmann caused Lord Kelvin and his cohort to be a bunch of brutal bullies. The truth is the truth, and that is all that really matters, and we are all each free to go our own way, and treat others however we see fit. I hope I have treated you well; please forgive me if I have spoken harshly here, I didn't mean to.
My always welcoming new ideas means that I tend to share what I have learned without hesitation. Most people are too provincial to be open-minded enough to listen to foreign ideas with grace and either politely ignore them, or, better yet, see if they can be used to expand their worldview, in whatever dimension, pun appreciated.
Yes but because you wrap all this naïveté in both a condescending tone and a discussion about compassion, you don’t seem to realise that none of your ideas connect to anything. You can’t post stuff on the internet comparing yourself and your ideas to great minds and then expect people to politely ignore them or see if they can be used to expand their world view. Because your ideas are not deep nor are they connected to anything. They are just smoke coming from your bong. Everyone who has replied you has done so with an effort to have you develop your ideas while you are content to condescend them more while claiming compassion and that you are before your time. None of this is compassionate nor is it physics. Compassion would dictate that you would strive for others to understand since you claim they suffer in ignorance that only you can provide. I pity you because you cannot see beyond this and will likely continue to reply anyone and everyone in the same way as long as they keep replying you.
> Because your ideas are not deep nor are they connected to anything.
I didn't realize you were are the authority.
Or is it that you don't realize that you're not the authority?
I know the answer to these questions, and why your ego is telling you what you are relaying to me.
You have nothing but weak ad hominems.
> You can’t post stuff on the internet comparing yourself and your ideas to great minds and then expect people to politely ignore them or see if they can be used to expand their world view.
I'm not comparing myself to great minds, I'm comparing our situations with respect to our respective status quos.
If someone were to present such ideas to me, I have no ego that would call them names and disregard their ideas out of hand. No, I would listen carefully and then decide whether their ideas were something that I should incorporate into my worldview. And I would damn sure make sure that I wasn't an asshole to them.
I don't expect anything, and I'm not going to re-read all I've written here, but I'm pretty sure I have explicitly laid that out.
> I pity you because you cannot see beyond this and will likely continue to reply anyone and everyone in the same way as long as they keep replying you.
I stopped pitying others once I stopped pitying myself 30 years ago; over time I replaced it with empathy and compassion and humble seeking. You literally have no idea the advantage that gives me over you. It is why I do not condescend to anyone. It is because I know that I am just a human being like everyone else, with my own foibles and failings, and, even if I'm better at some things than they are, I'm sure that they have things to teach me from their superior areas of expertise.
I reply to others in a uniform way because my worldview is the work of decades of work, my friend. That I love you more than you love me is why I am having this conversation with you.
> since you claim they suffer in ignorance that only you can provide.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. What I provide is rare, especially here on HN, but you can find it elsewhere, you can even beg our Creator to give you the information directly as that is our highest human potential. The problem is that few people seek this kind of knowledge, and one cannot learn what one does not seek to learn.
> Compassion would dictate that you would strive for others to understand
You do not act like a person who has worked for decades to understand compassion.
You do not understand the universe, my friend. That's not condescending; that's just the plain fact of the matter.
My speaking of compassion makes many people angry. You should be asking me why that is the case, instead of telling me how much you know about something you are clearly not manifesting.
The truth is undefeatable, and my commitment to it is why I love you. And your refusal to admit that your lack of understanding is precisely why you are so angry with me explaining the truth of the matter to you.
If you are so superior in all these realms of knowledge, then why don't you just ignore me then? I know why you don't, my friend. The ego is a terrible thing and is ravaging the world in its idiotic self-righteous defense of itself. That's not me, brother. You see what you want to see when you could instead be seeing the truth. That attitude is epidemic on this Earth is is causing vast destruction and misery for many, many human beings.
It would be a lie to say that I don't know the truth of these matters, and I despise lying, so I won't. How you deal with the truth is yours alone to deal with. Maybe someday you will reach the level where you know that you know the truth instead of just thinking you do out of your self-defensive ego.
Holy shit, wow so untrue.
Special Relativity was accepted almost immediately (within 10 years) by the scientific community since it was so powerful and useful and correct when the community tested it.
General relativity took a longer time to be generally accepted since the sensitivity of the tests were mediocre for the time, but strong evidence of its correctness was already coming about within 25 years. The problem being it was hard to figure out which model was correct due to lack of accurate tests
Saying that the community rejected these theories is just ignorance.
> within 10 years
> within 25 years
That is "many years" in my view.
> so untrue
So you're saying his ideas were immediately accepted?
I guess that's why he was still working at the patent office for fourish years after his Miracle Year?
And I guess this is like all the other cases where new scientific theories were immediately accepted, of which you can name precisely zero, I imagine?
It’s very few years in physics. Einstein was lucky to see so many outcomes and impacts of his work. Maxwell, Boltzmann, Meitner, noether, and plenty of other physicists didn’t really get to see the impact of their work. But like some things that Einstein predicted, like a BE condensate, were not verified until long after he died.
>I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be.
You think physicists don't smoke weed and dream up random ideas? Or formally study eastern religions?
The fact that they are trained physicist is why they don't conceive of the universe (and dark energy specifically) the way you do, and probably never will.
>And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose.
This is an example of your condescension. There are so many assumptions implicit in your statements that it's offensive to the audience. Its like the difference between a person raving in the street that everyone is free to ignore. Versus that same person deliberately entering a physics conference shouting the same things, then claiming they're only there to help.
Hey Bud, anyone who claims this kind of “deep understanding” without evidence is running a cult. Always trust but verify; if you can’t verify you can’t trust and it’s just faith. The desire to have faith can come from a place of love but that desire is often exploited by those seeking power over others.
Check out this book: Combating Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan.
Keep an open mind. I enjoyed reading your ideas of the universe but without evidence it’s just a fun idea. Science, empirical evidence, is what turns ideas into understanding.
[flagged]
I'll have what he's having.
[flagged]
"A fool is a person who hears the truth and calls it a lie." Sure, let's keep that sentiment going... a charlatan is a person who invents what they insist is a truth and then labels all who do not believe as fools.
> a charlatan is a person who invents what they insist is a truth and then labels all who do not believe as fools.
I completely agree, but the truth is that I am not a charlatan, nor am I a liar. A charlatan does his dirty deeds in hopes of some wrongful gain at the expense of others. My efforts here benefit me without negative effect for anyone else. That is a key indicator of a person acting solely on behalf of Love.
You are free to believe that that which you already believe is the truth, or you can learn some new truths that expand your consciousness. I am just here to plant seeds, and it makes me happy and at peace to do so.
I really don't care what you do, for only you are responsible for your choices, not me. I love you anyway, and, while I have recommendations for you that would improve your life's happiness and that of those around you, I have no ill feelings toward anyone here about how they treat me. I, unlike Boltzmann, am only responsible to the truth of love and the love of truth, not to naysayers who have yet to accept greater truths than they currently comprehend. I was once in the same situation, if not more ignorant.
As with all things human, the choice is ours, each of us, utterly freely, but within a sublime system of cause and effect that is relentlessly impersonal.
Peace be with you.
You don't need to want money to want something. Maybe you just want significance, or love, or connecting to others. Still, none of what you said makes any sense. It's crackpot stuff.
Your motivation is validation and support for your belief system. The fact that you posted a quote saying that people hearing but not following the "truth" (ostensibly as you define it otherwise why mention it, yeah?) are fools is the key indicator that you are not acting solely on behalf of love. You, like so many of your sort, are acting on what bolsters your personal beliefs and your need to have that belief.
[flagged]
Hmm without evidence this is just another fanciful fiction and we know the human mind can create an endless series of speculative fictions -
[flagged]
[flagged]
No they don't