4th dimension and light

[4dcon]

Hello, like many people here I have a a theory that I want some feedback on. I have posted my theory on a blogsite and can provide the address if anyone is interested. If that is not allowed in this forum I could post the whole theory here. I have a question first though. My theory explains some things like why the speed of light is a factor in the mass/energy equation, why distant points are observed to be accelerating away from us and why the speed of light is a constant. I have not seen anything that adequately explains any of these other than saying the math works. Has any one seen a theory that does explain this?

[4dcon]

I see a number of people have read this but no one has suggested a theory that answers these questions so I will explain a little further. The basis of this theory is that a contraction in the fourth dimension is the driving force of the universe. The fourth dimension can be envisioned as a sphere surrounding the other three dimensions. As the size of this fourth dimension increases or decreases it will drag the other three dimensions along with it either stretching or compacting them. It follows from this that the fourth dimension could be considered time as the change in the fourth dimension over time alters the other three supposedly fixed dimensions.

 

That was the basis of the theory and from that a number of other deductions naturally followed that explain the questions I posed that were (in my opinion anyway) unexplained before. The blog site is 4dconstriction.blogspot.com. If I am not supposed to post links here I am sorry and if someone lets me know I will instead post the whole theory.

[swansont]

We prefer that you post here.

[4dcon]

OK. Here it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structure of the Universe Explained

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

The purpose of this document is to describe a way of looking at our universe that may give us a better understanding of it. It challenges a few concepts and agrees with others but overall gives a better understanding of not just how the universe works but why it works that way in a manner that should be understandable to an average high school student. There is still much to flesh out but this lays the groundwork.

 

 

 

 

Expanding Universe

 

 

 

It is generally accepted that space is expanding but there is much confusion about the nature of the expansion. Everyone knows about the three dimensions, usually denoted by x, y and z but most people think of the dimensions simply as a framework of straight lines centered at the centre of the universe with all the matter travelling away from this center. The location of every point can be determined by its three co-ordinates. This does not adequately define an expanding universe.

 

 

 

Many scientists have conjectured the balloon theory where the universe is a balloon shape that is expanding and the universe as we know it is on the surface of the balloon. Everything is moving away from each other as the universe expands. The balloon model is superior in that it displays how space is actually expanding and the “grid” of space is expanding with it. It falls down in several ways though because it cannot adequately explain how the third dimension fits in nor does it explain why, if the universal grid is expanding, that we could notice any result of the expansion because we would be expanding with it. In effect, our “yardstick” for measuring the universe would be expanding at the same rate as the rest of the universe so we would see no change over time. This expansion would also result in the mass of the universe increasing which is contrary to the most basic laws of physics.

 

 

 

 

Fourth Dimension

 

 

 

The fourth dimension can be represented by a sphere surrounding the other three dimensions and as the size of the sphere changes it will either stretch or compact the other three dimensions.

 

 

 

New Model

 

 

 

Under this model the megaverse (known universe plus surroundings) is a vast sea of matter/energy. In effect, in this megaverse E=M. At the beginning of time as we know it there is a constriction in the 4^th dimension starting at what we consider the center of the universe. This would be the prime constriction rather than the big bang. When the fourth dimension begins shrinking around the matter/energy it constricts the matter component causing an imbalance. There are two ways to compensate for this. Either the universe expands in the 4^th dimension or the energy increases. Neither one alone would give rise to the universe as we know it so it must have been both.

 

 

 

 

Matter/Energy Relation

 

 

 

Looking back at the E=M that this universe started with and seeing that the mass is decreasing we could say that Original Mass=The Current Mass times the amount of constriction. If the mass decreases the energy must increase to maintain balance and we can see that the Current Energy=Original Energy times the amount of constriction. Rearranging we see that Current Energy/constriction=Current Mass times constriction or E=M(constriction)² which would suggest that the constriction is equal to the speed of light.

 

 

 

 

Basic Force of the Universe

 

 

 

The decrease in the 4^th dimension also causes mass that is close together to be drawn toward each other and slight variations in the constriction rate of particles causes them to interact with each other in a way that eventually builds atoms and then larger matter. When particles group together the effect of their combined 4^th dimension constriction fields is the force of gravity.

 

 

 

 

Light

 

 

 

The speed of light has long been accepted as a constant. Under this theory it is still constant but not in the way most scientists think. Light has a constant speed with relation to the megaverse but appears to move faster as our frame of reference becomes smaller. The rate of change is so slow however that from the time the pyramids were built until now we would likely not be able to detect it. This does explain though why the amount of constriction is equal to the speed of light. In a megaverse of matter/energy movement of light would not exist. Light movement began in the first instant of constriction and that is the reference speed of light. As our local space continued to shrink the distance light travels appeared to get larger. That is why the current distance that light travels is equal to how much our local space has constricted which is the amount of constriction of matter and expansion of energy.

 

 

 

 

Age of the Universe

 

 

 

Using the observed data of any point 1Mpc distant from us travelling away at 74km/s the acceleration rate of the universe is: A=V/T=2D/T².And solving for T gives an age of the universe of 8.339676x10¹⁷s or approximately 26.4 billion years. From there we can plug the time back into the equation and get an acceleration of 8.87326x10^-17 km/s². Unfortunately it is not that simple. For one thing this would give us not the age of the universe but only the age with regards to our region. The center of the universe is where the constriction began and it reached here much later. Also, when we plug these numbers in to find the speed of light it does not work. The reason for this is that we are also being drawn toward the center of the universe so the acceleration we observe is not entirely from 4^th dimension constriction of local space but also from this pull toward the center. At this time it is not known what the values are relating to that but it would give us a younger age than the above calculations.

 

 

 

 

Atomic Theory

 

 

 

As subatomic particles are drawn together because of the pull caused by the reduction in the 4^th dimension they combine to form atoms. When massed together the combined reduction in the fourth dimension combines to attract other atoms which combine to form molecules and so on. It is the combination of all these fourth dimension reductions that is responsible for gravity.

 

 

 

 

The fourth dimension theory poses some questions about the way atoms and subatomic particles react. While this part of the theory requires much more thought, here is the initial proposition:

 

 

 

 

As with even the smallest subatomic particle a proton tends to attract surrounding particles to it but this attraction drops off significantly with distance. Electrons have slightly lower 4-d acceleration, so relative to the neutron it has a repulsion force. The electron is attracted to the neutron but at very small distances the attraction/repulsion balance out. This distance is so small that even with our best microscopes we cannot yet see it. The neutron with a low orbit electron becomes a proton. When another electron comes close it likewise takes a balanced orbit around the neutron (now proton) but at a higher orbit (that we can see) because of the initial electron. Thus we have a hydrogen atom.

 

When another electron comes close it would again take a higher orbit but, because of the declining attraction of the original neutron with distance, a stable orbit cannot be found and if it does orbit for awhile it can be easily drawn away by other forces. This balancing of the 4-d forces is what makes it appear that the proton and electron have opposite charges and the neutron has none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

I was originally hoping that this theory would radically change the way we view the universe but now it seems it is not as radical as I originally thought. What it does is:

 

 

 

 

1. Give a better understanding of what our 4-dimensional universe actually looks like so that such a seemingly complex concept could be explained to a child.

 

2. Redefine the speed of light as a constant velocity in the megaverse with increasing speed from our reference as the 4^th dimension changes. (note: in terms of a human lifetime the increase in speed is virtually negligible so the original definition would be close enough)

 

3. Explain why every distant point in the universe seems to be moving away from us with the speed accelerating over distance.

 

4. Explain why the speed of light is such an important figure in many calculations and why it is we see the results we do when observing particles travelling at near light speed.

 

5. Demonstrate that the universe may be older than originally thought.

 

6. Describe how slight variations in the 4^th dimension (possibly time) is the basic force in the universe that all other forces derive from and postulates a new way of looking at atoms based on this.

 

 

 

 

Extra

 

 

 

As a side note, I originally became interested in the structure of space because I did not want to believe that travel faster than the speed of light was impossible. Now it appears that rather than disproving that my theory has entrenched it even further. The 4^th dimension could be seen as time, since it is contracting everything in the universe on a regular period. There is some hope though because it appears that if travel faster than the speed of light was achieved it would amount to travelling in the fourth dimension (time). That could explain why we have never detected anything moving faster than the speed of light because if anything did it would effectively be travelling through time.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately for science fiction it does not appear that travelling through time would allow us to visit our own future or past. Rather, from our point of view, an object travelling away from us would disappear when it breaks the light speed barrier and reappear a great distance away when it dropped below the speed of light. The time that it is travelling faster than light would be changing it to a new 4-d perspective.

 

 

 

 

Under this model there was no big bang and the universe could be much older than we thought. So what was observed that was thought to be the big bang? That would be the universe/megaverse boundary, where even now matter/energy is being converted to matter with energy. At the opposite extreme, we have discovered recently a giant black hole type of entity that is absorbing galaxies. Under this theory that is what the center of the universe would look like, where matter has reached its limit of compaction and is almost entirely energy and the gravitational force is incredibly strong.

 

 

[michel123456]

A scaling theory. I like it.

It reminds me Masreliez's EST.

[4dcon]

Thanks. I had never heard of Masreliez's EST but I can see similarities between it and my theory. I initially was working with an expanding universe as is typically thought of and postulated the 4th dimiension of the universe expanding at the same rate as the 4th dimension of matter was decreasing. I noted that it could be viewed from the opposite viewpoint of decreasing matter in an unchanging universe and it seemed to make much more sense. There were still some issues though so I went with a universe that is expanding, but only in 3d while the matter is constricting in 4d. I can see it in my mind but am not sure if my descriptions can make other people see it. If I was better with graphics I would do an animation.

 

A scaling theory. I like it.

It reminds me Masreliez's EST.

[Bignose]

6.Describe how slight variations in the 4^th dimension (possibly time) is the basic force in the universe that all other forces derive from and postulates a new way of looking at atoms based on this.

 

So, please show the unification of the gravity, electromagnetic, and strong forces, then.

[Realitycheck]

The reason for this is that we are also being drawn to the center of the universe ...

 

Could you please elaborate?

[4dcon]

So, please show the unification of the gravity, electromagnetic, and strong forces, then.

 

 

I'm no expert in physics so I am learning as I go along. This is still a work in progress which is why I said it still needs work. The basic idea is that the 4d constriction causes a warping in 3d space that draws particles together (that would probably be the strong force) and the fact that the rate of constriction is not identical for all particles will cause them to react differently. For example my initial thoughts on electrons would be that they probably have a higher acceleration rate making their matter/energy ratio leaning more towards energy. I need to find out how the values for subatomic particles were determined because from what I have seen so far some of the data is measured and some is calculated using E=MC². But if this theory is correct the value of C is an average that applies to our general area of space and not the same for all individual particles. I am currently trying to sort out what is known about all of this and what is conjectured. Since what is conjectured may be wrong it is not my priority to explain them but to make sure my theory fits with what is known. If you can be patient on this I will write more as I can but if anyone else has specific ideas that may help I would be glad to hear them.

 

 

 

Could you please elaborate?

Under this theory the constriction began at some point and spread to the surrounding matter/energy. Assuming we are not the center of the universe and we do not see it near to us then its constriction began some period of time (at least billions of years) before us. That means that area has been constricting billions of years longer than us and would certainly be not just a black hole but a super black hole that would be drawing everything nearby into it and expanding its attractive field. The 3d space around every particle is warping because of the 4d constriction and in this super black hole the space is extremely warped. That warping would stretch out to some degree right to the edge of our universe, thus pulling everything towards it to some degree, increasing in strength both as the black hole gets larger and the objects get closer.

 

 

 

[Bignose]

If you can be patient on this I will write more as I can but if anyone else has specific ideas that may help I would be glad to hear them.

 

I can be very patient. But, until you can demonstrate specific predictions made by your model, compare them to the prediction made by the current model, and show how your model is superior to what we have today, I don't think you're going to get much interest.

 

The promise of the unification of the forces is pretty huge, too. You best collect a mountain of strong evidence to support that claim. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

 

Good news is that if you can do what you claim, there's a Nobel in it for ya, as physicists have been looking for a unification of the 4 forces for quite, quite some time now.

[4dcon]

I can be very patient. But, until you can demonstrate specific predictions made by your model, compare them to the prediction made by the current model, and show how your model is superior to what we have today, I don't think you're going to get much interest.

 

The promise of the unification of the forces is pretty huge, too. You best collect a mountain of strong evidence to support that claim. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

 

Good news is that if you can do what you claim, there's a Nobel in it for ya, as physicists have been looking for a unification of the 4 forces for quite, quite some time now.

Thanks. This is still very early stages for this theory. I've only been working on it a couple of weeks so far. Once I saw the fourth dimension as I described everything else started falling into place and the universe started to make sense so I had to try developing it more. I may be looking at it wrong but I think I need to work out the details of how the theory explains what is known before I can come up with predictions for something that isn't known that will prove this theory correct.

 

 

 

[4dcon]

So, please show the unification of the gravity, electromagnetic, and strong forces, then.

This is a preliminary explanation. It is just thoughts on how 4d constriction might unite the forces. I realize there is a lot I have not considered yet and I have no equations, only explanation. That will all take time.

 

Quarks and electrons are basic particles resulting from the 4d constriction of matter/energy. They all have different rates of constriction. Quarks have two rates of constriction and can be thought of as fast and slow. Electrons have a faster rate of constriction than the fast quarks. Each of these particles has a matter and energy component and the 4d constriction is shrinking the matter and expanding the energy.The energy component is more malleable than matter and the matter can move within the energy field. Think of each quark or electron as atiny ball (the matter) suspended in the center of a large hollow sphere (the energy) by elastic strands. When the matter is drawn towards each other the energy fields hit first but the matter can continue to move towards each other and stretch the strands thatsuspend them, moving closer to one spot on the energy sphere. Eventually the limit of stretch will be reached and the matter will be as close as they can be to each other.

 

The 4d constriction of all of these particles warps the 3d space around them. When two quarks are in close proximity the tendency is for the space between them to unwarp by shrinking to match the relative space around the quarks, thus drawing them closer together. This would be the strong atomic force. Unless they are somehow accelerated to high speeds they will not touch because the energy component of the quarks keeps them apart. As they are drawn towards each other without colliding they tend to rotate around each other in a two dimension plane. Fast and slow quarks tend to be more attracted to each other because of the difference in constriction speeds and form a strongerbond. The attraction between the two quarks combines with the constriction to give a greater combined attraction than the sum of the individual constrictions. This increase would be the weak atomic force. A third quark of either fast or slow constriction, coming from above or below the 2d plane, would combine with the two to give a 3d rotation and set the combination as a stable group. A fourth quark could not combine with the three because they effectively become one large particle with a bigger surrounding energy field and an individual quark cannot get close enough to the matter of the large particle to establish a bond.

 

 

If we have two slow constriction quarks and one fast we get a neutron. The combined attractive force of the matter components is not enough to keep an electron in orbit against the repulsing energy fields so it is neutral as far as electrons are concerned. Two fast and one slow gives a proton. The combined force of the proton is greater than that of the neutron and is enough to keep an electron in orbit despite the opposing energy fields. This difference in force between the proton and neutron is the electric force. Electrons repel each other because the repulsive force of their energy fields is greater than their attractive force due to 4d constriction. Protons repel each other for the same reason.

 

When protons, electrons and neutrons combine to form atoms we again have a combined force of attraction of the matter components that is greater than the individual attraction of the particles. This difference would be the gravitational force. Where the weak force was a fraction of what the strong force was gravity is likewise only a fraction of what the weak force was. This might give a different gravitational force on objects of varying materials and mass, which is contrary to what we have seen. For all practical purposes though the combined gravitational force of the Earth is so massive compared to any item on the Earth that the difference would be completely negligible.

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2011 by 4dcon

[Bignose]

the story is great and all, but to really get somewhere, there needs to be mathematical predictions.

 

By the way, the idea of increasing the dimension count isn't new, and has been tried many different ways as unification schemes. You probably would want to study those failed attempts in order not to repeat the same mistakes that have already been made.

[md65536]

most people think of the dimensions simply as a framework of straight lines centered at the centre of the universe with all the matter travelling away from this center.

Some advice I got from this site that I think is applicable is that a paper pretty much needs to have references in order to be taken seriously.

In this case, you make a claim that I disagree with, and there is no reference for me to follow, to see that the claim is backed up with evidence.

 

Otherwise, you could explain a claim and provide evidence yourself, or omit it if it's not important. Is the above statement necessary?

 

However, I don't think that you'd find any good references to back up that statement, because I don't think it's true. If gathering references seems like a chore or unnecessary, it might indicate that not enough research was done. In that case you can still write a paper but it's best to avoid making claims or assumptions about what is known and what is out there in existing sources.

 

The little details are important because probably most serious readers will tend to start losing interest after reading statements that are wrong or hard to understand.