Are we missing something really fundamental?

[guardian]

I believe I am posting this in the correct section. This is not a theory rather just a perhaps not-so-simple question regarding our understanding of space. If you feel this belongs better in pseudo-science, so be it, please move it. I'd like a nice discussion of the points brought up and if anything is misleading/incorrect please let me know.

 

Observing how physics is unravelling and dwelving deeper into the fundamental building blocks of our universe I can't help but see how more complex theories/models/formulae etc. are getting to describe what should be ever more simpler building blocks (particles/energy at fundamental level) and their interaction.

 

As physicists try to unify the four forces in one model we get ever more bizzare models like string theory, quantum gravity and from pseudo-scientific (or fringe-scientific) sources even stranger models. To me this seems a little odd. To describe fundamental particles and their interactions it should stand to reason that ever more simpler models should suffice not the other way around. Eventually, this reduction should lead to a handful or less of simple 'phenomena' (for the lack of a better word) and interactions that spawn everything else in increasing complexity.

 

Anyway, what I believe is happening is that although heading in the right direction (towards modelling the fundamental particles/interactions as best as we can for now) we have boarded the wrong train (of thought) and are on the wrong track. This DOES NOT mean that all the work that has been done up to now (and has been proven to correlate with observations) is wrong, it is not, but rather just an approximation based on a perhaps innaccurate starting point. This is similar to the Newtonian gravity equations - they were merely an approximation that worked quite accurately for massive objects but had quite large error domains for quantum/micro interactions - enter Einstein with relativity and voila the approximation gets even more accurate but is it the final cut? Perhaps and perhaps not. - this is not my question however.

 

Enter space-time and the way we have modelled it and based almost all our work on. My point is this, although accurate for most intents and purposes our representation of space-time as 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z directions) + time may well be ONLY AN APPROXIMATION that was bourne out of our rather 'primitive' (again words fail me) observation of our surroundings. Sure it is easy to say (looking at an object) it has height, width & breadth hence the cartesian coordinate system and various other geometrical derrivatives (can't remember the names now) BUT is that how space was formed (presumably during + post the big bang). Can we really say with absolute certainty that somehow a point of 0 dimension in nothing expanded in x,y & z directions. Well, for MOST intents and purposes yes, this is good enough & off we go modelling reality/equations etc with x, y, z coordinates & the complexity begins. Instead of getting simpler, to try to unify, we have added extra spacial dimensions (calabi-yau & string theory & derrivatives) as if things weren't complex enough as it is.

 

Now to the crunch. What if we have the wrong view of space itself. Being innaccurate with would make a rather HUGE difference because almost everything is modelled on our perception of it. Notice how universally everything has a 'tendency' to be spherical (or close enough) ie. astronomical objects (planets, suns, large non-shrapnel moons), solar systems (although planar they were formed physicists theorise from spherical cosmic dust clouds), galaxies, atoms, particles?, waves of energy (propagate spherically from point of origin), probability waves etc.

 

Now something else that struck me as little peculiar (& I KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT UNITS AND ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER) BUT nevertheless do you see a similarity (& similarity only in form): E=m*c^2 AND A=pi*r^2 ...both have a constant that cannot be known precisely ie. pi can only be approximated and I believe c is the same (although measured, to what precision is it?).

 

Thinking about this (and perhaps too much - ouch) space may not be 3 dimensional (although it can be interpreted as such) but rather 1 dimensional. How? - you ask. Simple. Consider an expanding sphere. The surface of the sphere is the PLANE - as in for example x-y plane BUT this plane is curved and is NOT infinate like x,y,z directions only r is infinate(?). Start from a tiny sphere and stack ever increasing r(adius) spheres - and you have SPACE. Just like with an x-y plane for an ever increasing z direction we have space.

 

This is where I believe our geometrical representation of the 'universe'/space may be fundamentally flawed. Although approximatelly correct (and good enough) the more detail we want to understand the more erroneous our current view will get.

 

Now instead of adding dimensions to unify, perhaps the dimensions (and resulting models) should be reduced to a 1 dimensional spherical geometry system and all (well most because some are already in the form - especially the ones that deal only with radius as compared to x,y,z distances) equations be transformed into this spherical coordinate system. Then we may see how our current formulae reduce to perhaps a simpler form.

 

Sorry about the length but there is no simpler way to explain without compromising understanding. Your thoughts on the above would be greatly appreciated.

 

As said this is only a question and in summary:

Is it not possible that we have the wrong/innaccurate understanding of space and its dimensions? I am at your mercy

[BigMoosie]

Notice how universally everything has a 'tendency' to be spherical... atoms...

 

Atoms are not spherical.

[guardian]

very true, I did generalise that one a little too much. What would the electron cloud (assuming 1 electron) resemble around a nucleus? And do we have a physical(?) model of a quark or is that too indeterminate?

[swansont]

Your example of GR refining Newtonian gravity is not a demonstration of your thesis that the grander theories should be simpler. Quite the opposite.

[guardian]

yes, I am quite aware of that one too but if the GR model is yet another approximation (although we have not found to my knowledge a significant or any deviation) then my 'thesis' may well still be on the right track. I suppose if this WAS a theory one could look for a deviation to GR (however small). Or one could look to derive the same from a spherical geometric coord system.

[BigMoosie]

E=m*c^2 AND A=pi*r^2

 

The reason comparing these makes little sense is because in the case of Einstein's equation the constant c is squared whereas with a circle the variable radius is squared.

[Klaynos]

yes, I am quite aware of that one too but if the GR model is yet another approximation (although we have not found to my knowledge a significant or any deviation) then my 'thesis' may well still be on the right track. I suppose if this WAS a theory one could look for a deviation to GR (however small). Or one could look to derive the same from a spherical geometric coord system.

 

I belive that most of our current theories will infact work quite well no matter what coordinate system you use, as long as you are consistanc in which one that is, whether it be cartesian, spherical polar or any others. Cartesian is offten used because it is the easiest for people to understand as it is localy observable, and what most people think about, "go down the road and turn left" you don't say go Xradians around the earth then Yradians accross... etc...

[guardian]

BigMoosie, that is quite obvious

 

Clearly, as stated, one has nothing to do with the other, I am merely pointing out the similarity. I can make r = 3*10^8 (approx. of course) and I can make m = 3.14..... etc. It is equally pointless because as stated the units will NOT match. One is clearly E(nergy) and the other A(rea). I am just pointing out a similarity in the form of the 2 equations. Perhaps with some type of well formulated spherical geometry coord. system a connection can be drawn - but then again maybe not.

[BigMoosie]

BigMoosie' date=' that is quite obvious

 

Clearly, as stated, one has nothing to do with the other, I am merely pointing out the similarity. I can make r = 3*10^8 (approx. of course) and I can make m = 3.14..... etc. It is equally pointless because as stated the units will NOT match. One is clearly E(nergy) and the other A(rea). I am just pointing out a similarity in the form of the 2 equations. Perhaps with some type of well formulated spherical geometry coord. system a connection can be drawn - but then again maybe not. [/quote']

 

I am not arguing units I am stating that the equations are in different forms:

 

y = xk^2

and

y = kx^2

 

Perhaps if Einstein's equation was e = c*m^2 I would see your point, otherwise you might as well have picked any two equations out of the air.

[guardian]

Klaynos, spherical polar is not quite what I have in mind. Spherical polar is essentially built on the same concept of 3 dimensional space. The spherical geometry coord. system 'concept' I have in mind is built on a 1 spherical dimension increasing in r essentially from every energy point/particle. This way you could somewhat 'visualise' energy radiation as energy 'riding' the spatial (spherical) dimension at c. The overlapping (or interference if you like)of these dimensional spherical waves when enough are stacked could start adding up to gravity. Does that make any sense?

 

BigMoosie, point taken.

[guardian]

Ok, still not the discussion I was after really but no skin off my back.

Perhaps I've buried the question in the long post, or perhaps it does not seem important, or perhaps you may feel it is too ridiculous(?) to discuss so let me 'rephrase' the question:

 

Is it not possible that we have the wrong interpretation of space (dimensionality) itself?

We interpret space as infinate x,y and z directions and most of physics uses this premise. In fact I am pretty sure ALL of physics uses this premise BUT we know (from relativity) that mass, energy and SPACE (3d or otherwise) is intimatelly related. Space is not a stand alone uniform property of the universe as it has been proven time and time again to be affected (curvature) by mass/energy.

 

My point and the reason for my post in the first place is that to me space (or dimensionality really) is more fundamental than anything else that we try to explain away yet we take it at face value to be x,y,z directions, leave it at that and then go basing everything else off of it. That's why I bring up the spherical (geometry) dimension that all matter (and to some much weaker extent energy) 'creates' dimensionality for itself. However this type of dimensional system is NOT the same as spherical polar coordinate system because even this system is preoccupied with x,y,z directions - it just represents coords. as (r,angle).

 

Some other questions you are welcome to discuss that are related to my probing...

- Was space here before the universe ? ie. did the universe expand into space (already dimensional) or was space (dimensionality) 'created' during the creation (big bang or otherwise) of the universe?

 

- If you believe space (dimensionality) was 'bourne' out of the universe how can you imagine it expanding in x,y,z directions (really resembling a cube) rather than all directions in increasing r(adius) - ie. spherical. Note I am talking about space and dimensionality not the other contents of the universe (particles/energy).

 

- Also, similar to the bolded question, is it not possible that if we have the wrong interpretation of this all-permeating property of the universe ie. dimensionality that a cascading effect of wrong interpretations (although as mentioned approximately correct) of all else will ensue?

 

Something else to consider for those that can 'visualise' the concept of spherical (1-dimensional) space, I suggest that a flat x-y plane for example is an APPROXIMATION to the surface of a curved spherical dimension when viewed from large distances of the dimensionality-generating particle/energy. Did I confuse yet?

 

Something else that strikes me as odd. We have been trying so hard (and so far in vain) to explain away gravity (perhaps not worded right but I hope you get my drift) yet no-one tries to explain dimensionality which is even more mysterious, in my opinion.

 

Some input would be greatly appreciated

[BigMoosie]

[b']Is it not possible that we have the wrong interpretation of space (dimensionality) itself?[/b]

 

Yes it is possible, but this spherical coordinate system doesnt seem to be any different to 3d space, as a sphere has dimensionality itself and you happened to pick a 2-sphere which exist once again in 3 dimensions.

[guardian]

At first glance it would seem so and 'spherical' is a little misleading. 3d space is traditionally interpreted as (for example) an x-y plane stacked in increasing z direction (or whichever planes you want to pick) each 2d plane is infinate and flat however, what I am describing is the surface of a sphere as being a finite dimensional plane (that's where the 'spherical' comes from) for an increasing r. As you stack these similarly to the traditional interpretation you will finish up with a sphere and the traditional x,y,z can be interpreted as fitting within it hence our traditional views may be quite a good approximation to it. The perplexing part may be that there is not 1 of these (ie. emanating from some central point in the universe which clearly is not so - there is no central point as far as we know) but from every particle/energy origin. Does that clear it up a little?

 

Thanks for taking the time - I was starting to think I'm re-inventing the wheel (although I may still be )

[Vanitas]

Traditionally, as hard as it is to grasp, the Big Bang theory states that the universe expanded from nothing, or rather a single mathamatical point. No space and no time. However I would like to post an alternative theory I've come across for discussion; that the physical universe began not with a primordial Big Bang but with a monumental collision with another universe. The "Big Collision" Theory surmises that time and space existed long before our universe exploded into physical reality. Scientists say that the universe began as a three-dimensional void in a higher-dimensional space. Attracted to another such universe, the two lined up and bumped into each other along their surfaces. Recent observations of background radiation from the "edges" of the cosmos, relics of early moments of the universe, reveal a startling homogeneity in all directions. The theory is supported by String Theory, however, it competes with the Inflation Theory. Although I'm not sure if I support the Big Collision theory, I would like to know others opinions on the matter.

 

Also, as a semi-related sidenote, can anyone explain monopoles? (The super-massive particles that should have been created during the Big Bang.)

[guardian]

I guess I've asked for it. Although it would stand better as a separate post this theory that you've come accross assumes that space and time 'existed long before our universe exploded into physical reality'. Is this string theory or a variation of it or completely new theory. Care to post a reference/link?

 

Personally, I don't support the brane-collision (M-Theory?) myself or string theory in general. It's been going too long with no real testable/falsifiable predictions but then again...fads do eventually fade away

 

But to keep my topic going and with reference to 'String Theory' as far as I understand the 'strings' are one-dimensional open-ended/closed-loop energy vibrations. Could these possibly be what I am describing as a vibrating 'spherical' dimension?

 

*post feels somewhat hijacked*

[Vanitas]

Here's a link briefly explaining Inflation vs. Brane Collision. http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html

 

Indeed some parts of my previous post were copy/pasted from an article I downloaded to save time and I forgot to put quotes.....Plus I'm lazy

 

Having reread your original post, I became intrigued by the rhetorical (?) question posed on the accuracy to which the speed of light can be measured. Do you have any further information?

[BigMoosie]

So this spherical coordinate system would mean that if I head in a straight line along one of the spherical dimensions I will end up where I started? Seems quite bizarre and though it may be possible there is little use discussing it unless you feel you can describe some observed phenomenon with this model. I mean all you have really done here is had a feeling that what we have is wrong and taken something completely random without any reason at all.

[guardian]

Yes BigMoosie, that is what you'd imagine would happen but this effect would only be prominent on a very small scale, on the order of atomic/quantum scale perhaps where this curvature is extremely high and 'strong' for the lack of a better word (could this be why energy is somewhat 'locked' as mass in particles? - just thinking out loud). As the spatial dimensional wave radiates outward its strength diminishes on the order of 1/(r^2)...starting to see a resemblance? and the curvature starts to be less prominent as r increases, obviously. Have a lot of mass in relatively close proximity (ie. mass of the earth) and the spatial dimensional waves stack and interfere to create, hmm, curvature on a larger scale ie.gravity...perhaps.

 

As I mentioned it is not a theory. My point was to question something that everyone has taken for granted (x,y,z space interpretation) and substitute with something that seems a little more logical (although for some this would seem counter-intuitive). I've only plucked this spherical dimensional geometry out because it makes more sense than what we currently have and it's the next best thing. I only hope that physics/science has room for logic. It may well be that it is also an approximation to something even simpler but for the time-being that's what I am hoping to start making computer simulations of. Although I am afraid at the quantum scale this would take perhaps millions of spherical dimensional interactions to start getting any results that we can correlate to 'observation'. And it is not random, it seems the best logical model considering spherical 'tendency' observed in the universe. Re-read my original post and you will see there's method to the madness, not randomness.

 

It seems though (from the lack of input to a rather simple question) that not many here are willing to admit that our interpretations of something like space (dimensionality) could be askew. And BTW, I tried to stay away from saying that we have been 'wrong' with our interpretations (although it may have slipped) rather I claim that we are approximating.

 

Thanks again BigMoosie

[guardian]

Vanitas, I guess it may be interpreted as rhetorical(?). There is a degree of error in ANY measurement so really no one can say with absolute certainty only with increasing precision (with increasingly better techniques) what the true speed of light is. Although the uncertainty is small - compare it to pi the certainty is only as good as the number of decimal places. I hope I worded that right.

 

Thanks to BigMoosie though (no sarcastic overtones), that part of my post should really be ignored it has little or no bearing really on the theme of the post. My bad.

 

Thanks for the input & I'll check your link out shortly.

[Conceptual]

This might make me unpopular but the reason things are getting so complicated is due to the assumption that mathematics always reflects reality. Don't get me wrong, math is very important, however, it can also create correlations, that work so well, they are assumed to reflect reality.

 

Let me give an example, if I was to propose the stupid theory that gravity was due to the repulsion of matter by space, someone with good math skillls could take the existing equations from everywhere and turn them into a recripcal of sorts. These new equations would correlate the data as well as the existing theory. I would now have mathematical proof for an illusion of science. Because these equations correlate so well, other may build upon this illusion as though it is true, using good science and math. The result will always be an illusion that correlates even more data.

 

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if the strings of string theory are found not exist. Oops, never mind! That correlation might still be excellent, but taken literally, it would be a illusionary understanding of reality. It should be called the String Correlation until its fundamental premise is proven. The same should be done for a wide variety of other mathematical correlations that are called theories. This simple change of nnomenclature would place them in the right place in our minds, i..e, still very useful for many practical applications, but maybe or maybe not a hindrance to our full understanding reality. This orientation keeps the options open rather than restricted down a couple of correlation trails.

[guardian]

This might make me unpopular but the reason things are getting so complicated is due to the assumption that mathematics always reflects reality.

...I agree, *feels unpopular*. I have great respect for mathematics but as you say it does not neccessarily reflect reality. As mentioned previously, it may very well be the case that some of our current mathematical representations of reality/observation are mere approximations that in itself hinder us to plug up the holes that they themselves have created.

[Severian]

I think the original premise is wrong. Our theories are not getting more complicated - they are actually getting simpler. By this I mean that the mathematics is becoming more elegant - we drive our theory forward by making statements of principle rather than saying parameter x=y.

 

The theories (like string theory) are only difficult when you try to calculate something with them, but that is essentially only because the approximations which we have used elsewhere break down and can't be used anymore, not because the theory is complicated.

 

Also, we are used to looking at the world through low energy, slow moving eyes, so it is natural for the Newtonian description of the world to be 'simpler' in our eyes than (say) the description of Einstein's relativity. But relativity is a very elegant theory (much more so than Newtonian physics).

[guardian]

Perhaps Severian, but more elegant does not neccessarily translate to simpler.

Take the Newtonian gravitation formula as compared to Einstein's relativistic one, as slow as my eyes may move they still see that one is more complex than the other. And I agree, relativity is very elegant.

[Locrian]

This might make me unpopular but the reason things are getting so complicated is due to the assumption that mathematics always reflects reality.

 

Nobody assumes this. I can produce a nearly infinite number of mathematical systems that do not reflect reality, and everyone working in physics understands well that these exist.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by Locrian

I can produce a nearly infinite number of mathematical systems that do not reflect reality, and everyone working in physics understands well that these exist.

. . . . understands well that these exist? What do you mean?