New mathematical model links space-time theories

May 30, 2013
The attached image shows a 'black string' black hole phenomenon with perturbation. Credit: University of Southampton

Researchers at the University of Southampton have taken a significant step in a project to unravel the secrets of the structure of our Universe.

Professor Kostas Skenderis, Chair in at the University, comments: "One of the main recent advances in is the holographic principle. According to this idea, our Universe may be thought of as a hologram and we would like to understand how to formulate the for such a holographic Universe."

A new paper released by Professor Skenderis and Dr Marco Caldarelli from the University of Southampton, Dr Joan Camps from the University of Cambridge and Dr Blaise Goutéraux from the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, Sweden published in the Rapid Communication section of Physical Review D, makes connections between negatively curved space-time and flat space-time.

Space-time is usually understood to describe space existing in three dimensions, with time playing the role of a fourth dimension and all four coming together to form a continuum, or a state in which the four elements can't be distinguished from each other.

Flat space-time and negative space-time describe an environment in which the Universe is non-compact, with space extending infinitely, forever in time, in any direction. The , such as the ones produced by a star, are best described by flat-space time. Negatively curved space-time describes a Universe filled with negative . The mathematics of holography is best understood for negatively curved space-times.

Professor Skenderis has developed a mathematic model which finds striking similarities between flat space-time and negatively curved space-time, with the latter however formulated in a negative number of dimensions, beyond our realm of physical perception.

He comments: "According to holography, at a fundamental level the universe has one less dimension than we perceive in everyday life and is governed by laws similar to electromagnetism. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card, but now it is the entire Universe that is encoded in such a fashion.

"Our research is ongoing, and we hope to find more connections between flat space-time, negatively curved space-time and . Traditional theories about how the Universe operates go some way individually to describing its very nature, but each fall short in different areas. It is our ultimate goal to find a new combined understanding of the , which works across the board."

The paper AdS/Ricci-flat correspondence and the Gregory-Laflamme instability specifically explains what is known as the Gregory Laflamme instability, where certain types of black hole break up into smaller black holes when disturbed – rather like a thin stream of water breaking into little droplets when you touch it with your finger. This black hole phenomenon has previously been shown to exist through computer simulations and this work provides a deeper theoretical explanation.

In October 2012, Professor Skenderis was named among 20 other prominent scientists around the world to receive an award from the New Frontiers in Astronomy and Cosmology international grant competition. He received $175,000 to explore the question, 'Was there a beginning of time and space?''.

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: AdS/Ricci-flat correspondence and the Gregory-Laflamme instability, prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v87/i6/e061502

Related Stories

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

Feb 03, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Metamaterials used to mimic the Big Crunch

Jul 29, 2011

Spacetime analogs is an emerging field of physics in which scientists investigate systems having mathematical links with general relativity, and test their theories about the early behavior of the universe. The latest in ...

A space-time magnifying glass

May 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —Bright arcs are smeared around the heart of galaxy cluster Abell S1077 in this image taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble space telescope. The arcs are stretched images of distant galaxies distorted ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (29) May 30, 2013
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

And somebody thinks this guy deserves $175k to "explore the question, 'Was there a beginning of time and space?''. Now I understand the derision by Q and others, tear down any theory that threatens their metaphysical mumbo jumbo theory so as to be able to secure continued funding for their religious devotion to fantasmical pseudo scientific mind games.
MarkmBha
1.8 / 5 (6) May 30, 2013
This is quite amazing.
Requires deep thought.
dbaz1
2.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2013
Reminds me of Slaughterhouse 5. The aliens didn't see time linearly like we did. They could see the whole of time all at once. Maybe time is just a projection onto our universe.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (22) May 30, 2013
In dense aether model this effect can be routinely observed in dark matter streaks with galaxies wrapped up on it. This similarity exists because the dark matter is five-dimensional effect as well.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (25) May 30, 2013
This illustration looks like the "anal bead" entering the "black hole" theory, and has all the legitimacy of it as well.
JIMBO
2.7 / 5 (7) May 30, 2013
More stringers, pushing AdS again. Why does holography `not work' in deSitter space ? AdS goes completely against known physics: The cosmo constant is positive, Not negative, as in AdS.
Ophelia
5 / 5 (3) May 30, 2013
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (18) May 30, 2013
And somebody thinks this guy deserves $175k to "explore the question, 'Was there a beginning of time and space?''
Nope, but even the mathematicians should get some money for living. It's sorta social service - east Asia countries are paying monks for praying and doing nonsensical things whole their lives for maintaining the chastity at the price - well, and we have mathematicians and theoretical physicists. So I'd tolerate it without problem - if just these guys wouldn't fight against cold fusion and similar research most obstinately. And I'm not talking about dense aether model, which answer this question easily. These parasites cannot admit it - or their existence would become meaningless immediately.
beleg
2.4 / 5 (9) May 30, 2013
Geometers at work. Like any frontier you plot the way for others to leave or stay the paths.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (18) May 30, 2013
Nope, but even the mathematicians should get some money for living.

yeah, behind a cash register, not trying to devise reality through metaphysical mathematics.
lonewolfmtnz
3.5 / 5 (6) May 30, 2013
Obviously, they grow/smoke some truly awesome shit in the UK.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) May 30, 2013
This is quite amazing.
Requires deep thought.

The idea behind what they did is amazingly simple (though do not mistake that to mean the same as 'easy'):

You look at what kind of information the various theories would give - and try to find a transformation from one to the other (much like you find a transformation from a 3D object to another, similar one that has been translated/rotated in space).
Effectively they are doing a principle component analysis of the independent assumptions that make up the individual theories and trying to match them.

The cool thing is: with this you can see whether two theories are equivalent (because then you get a flawless transformation). Any areas where the transformation is 'off' is somehere where you can devise a test to delineate which one has it right and which one has it wrong.
grondilu
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2013
They lost me at "negative number of dimensions".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (18) May 30, 2013
They lost me at "negative number of dimensions".
In dense aether model it would correspond the chaotic, tachyonic stuff from perspective of longitudinal waves of environment. For example the electrons within superconductors are moving in negatively-dimensional space-time from perspective of atom lattice. Note that whole the holographic model is inherently tachyonic, or it couldn't work at all. You cannot form the photons and similar fast particles with projection of waves, which aren't already superluminal.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (17) May 30, 2013
In particle simulations it's quite common, the more we compress the particles, the more their motion will remain constrained to certain locations (Wigner orbitals), i.e. zero-dimensional. But we can compress the particles even more and from this moment the motion of particles will become negatively-dimensional and unstable: they will shot itself in random directions with high speed. It can be even modeled experimentally with so-called plasma crystals. This is how you could visualize the consequences of negative dimensionality or motion freedom degree.
Ober
4.8 / 5 (13) May 30, 2013
For those whinging at mathematics, it is the best TOOL we have in order to compute observable phenomena, and to discover unseen phenomena. You may whinge at maths, but it is probably because most people can't do the level of maths that professional mathematicians do. Treat maths as a science, as it continues to grow, and discover novel approaches to calculate reality. The mistake YOU make though, is to try and "picture" the maths as a real physical process. NOPE, the maths simply allows you to COMPUTE a real physical process, NOT give an actual "mind, visual" representation of what is happening. Maths uses logic, and it must remain consistent. Any "theory" must remain self consistent, and make accurate calculations that match experimental evidence. Research Richard Feynman and his work on QED, and all will become clear.
If you still hate maths, then what tool do you prescribe to advance our ability to compute, and thus utilise knowledge of the Universe?
Ober
4.8 / 5 (11) May 30, 2013
For an example given by Feynman himself, consider a quantity such as the average houshold in a given town may have 2.3 people living in it. Now that makes perfect sense from a mathematical point of view, and allows you to compute the overall population of that town, or a good estimate in any given region of the town. However if you try to visualise this, can you really visualise .3 of a person, and they be alive??? Nope, however this does not detract from the mathematical model utilised. Mathematics therefore can perform operations and give results which do not make sense in your mind, however the results are useful if you wish to actually do something or build something and have a predicted outcome. So stop comparing each element of maths to reality and simply use it!!!! Though if a result does not match observation then it's just another paper to sit on the shelf as a failed attempt. Of course a failed mathematical attempt is also useful, to remove one approach as a possible solution
Argiod
1.5 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
It always amuses me when mathematicians and scientists tell you they're trying to unify; all the while throwing out math of increasing complexity...
When they can explain this to a 5 year old; then I'll think they may understand it themselves.
Until then; it's as good a theory as any...
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
It always amuses me when mathematicians and scientists tell you they're trying to unify; all the while throwing out math of increasing complexity...

Whereas the alternative is what? That you might actually learn something? But no: science has to be dumb or you won't believe it.

News-flash: The universe isn't as simple as you want it to be. So either get with the program or just admit to being not smart enough. But don't put the blame for your lazyness on the shoulders of others.

When they can explain this to a 5 year old; then I'll think they may understand it themselves.

They understand it well enough - never fear. YOU don't understand it - and are certainly not the person to judge what they understand or not.
Horus
4.5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2013
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

--------------

Tesla, no doubt, would have expressed far different sentiment if he lived in today's scientific world of wonder.
Zep Tepi
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2013
For an example given by Feynman himself, consider a quantity such as the average houshold in a given town may have 2.3 people living in it. -ober

Great, I have an 1/3 entity, reminiscient of Schrodingers cat, about the house. Not a live human and not a dead one.
Horus
5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2013
It always amuses me when mathematicians and scientists tell you they're trying to unify; all the while throwing out math of increasing complexity...
When they can explain this to a 5 year old; then I'll think they may understand it themselves.
Until then; it's as good a theory as any...

------------------

What nonsense. This isn't Star Trek where 7 year olds are discussing Maxwell's Equations all because the mythical bridge to understanding was perfected.
Zep Tepi
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2013
"According to holography, at a fundamental level the universe has one less dimension than we perceive in everyday life and is governed by laws similar to electromagnetism. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card, but now it is the entire Universe that is encoded in such a fashion

Lets take that further. Here I have quantum dot [more like a black hole]
.

and now I move it about _|_ on these 3 planes with said dot at the center [yes it is two dimensional at this point]. But let us make this move not just left right and up but also down

_|_

Then there are three dimensions created by moving about something with zero dimensions.

Numbers might then match what you perceive but cannot ever describe a quantum dot. [or what happens in a black hole]

         Lets expand that movement
_|_
  |

ah

_\|/_
  /|\

How many dimensions now, from none?

Requiem
3.1 / 5 (17) May 31, 2013
I'm so sick of reading about how dense aether model applies to every article on this site.

Who spends their life sitting on a mainstream physics website blabbing about some theory, crackpot or not? What is WRONG with you?

Do you even have any friends? If so, have you ever noticed that they all get that look like "humor the poor mentally challenged guy who I'm hanging out with so he doesn't commit suicide or something" every time you start talking about how the foam on your pint or the way that dart flew through the air confirms dense aether model?

At least I can understand the wierd indian guy and the vacuum mechanics guy, they're just plugging their sites. I even get the "mainstream science gave me PTSD" guy, at least he believes it's personal and egregious. Classic paranoia, complete with intangible malefactor and rare knowledge fantasies. You, however, appear to be nothing more than a fixated proselyte who obsessively comments on phys.org to make the voices stop.

Seek help...
Expiorer
1.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2013
This illustration looks like the "anal bead" entering the "black hole" theory, and has all the legitimacy of it as well.

This usually happens after strings theory and before big bang theory.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2013
... I move it about _|_ on these 3 planes ...


You've only drawn 2 lines, horizontal and vertical, but you can't draw one out of the screen so I'll imagine that one.

How many dimensions now, from none?


You drew lines on the screen which is 2D. If I imagine it coming out of the screen, that's a third.
Fleetfoot
4.6 / 5 (10) May 31, 2013
I'm so sick of reading about how dense aether model applies to every article on this site.

Who spends their life sitting on a mainstream physics website blabbing about some theory, crackpot or not? What is WRONG with you?


Worse than that, there is no such thing as "dense aether", he doesn't even have a crackpot idea. He just means what other people would describe by "IMO" and it is pure techno-babble.
Moebius
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2013
If you assume time isn't a dimension and I don't think it is, that leaves 3. But is it 3 or is it just 3 because we choose to describe it that way. To me there is only breadth and depth, 2 'dimensions'. Harder to describe that way but just as valid.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
The dense aether model provides just another way, how to think about Gregory-Laflamme instability. In dense aether model the gravity field arises from shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum (gravitational waves) with massive bodies. But the other massive bodies are shielding these waves too and after then we can get a legitimate action, how this shielding of shielding will appear at the case of two or more collinear objects. In this model the dark matter fibers should be the more pronounced, the more massive objects (black holes, galaxies) are sitting along line. But when these objects will get too close each other, then the gravitational effect of shielding will prevail over dark matter of shielding of shielding and the dark matter string will break into beads.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2013
Dense aether concept was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904


"Concept" yes but he never turned it into a theory, nor could he have because as you know gas doesn't support transverse waves. All he did was speak in favour of Lorentz's aether theory and then use some basic ideas to describe his ideas for a model.

If you never read it, ..


You know I did, when we discussed it last year. I asked your whereabouts in his paper he proposed anything other than Lorentz's formula and you refused to answer.

Your posts are driven with pure ignorance.


No, I've read the reference you gave me to his paper, you seem to imagine it contains something that it does not, the lack of knowledge is on your part.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
because as you know gas doesn't support transverse waves
It's foamy density fluctuations do. Such a fluctuations exist for example in dense supercritical fluids and inside of even more dense environment their foamy character will be pronounced even more. Such a strings/branes/whatever spread the energy like the membranes of foam. BTW the dense aether model is not about some particular form of matter, like the gas, fluid, foam or plasma. It considers all forms of matter including the vacuum as a dynamic emergent continuum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) May 31, 2013
BTW you can consider the well forgotten string-net liquid theory in this regard.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2013
because as you know gas doesn't support transverse waves
It's foamy density fluctuations do.


Nope, not without shear stress.

BTW the dense aether model is not about some particular form of matter, like the gas, fluid, foam or plasma.


Then again it isn't a theory. For that you need to be able to demonstrate that you can make numerical predictions of physical effects and you can't do that unless you know what material you are describing.

Like Lodge, it's all talk and no theory, as I said.

It considers all forms of matter including the vacuum as a dynamic emergent continuum.


Rubbish, read Lodge's paper if you're going to try to use it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (15) May 31, 2013
Nope, not without shear stress
Why not, the light waves are transverse, there is lotta "shear stress" (Maxwell's displacement current)
Then again it isn't a theory. For that you need to be able to demonstrate that you can make numerical predictions of physical effects
It's like the attempt to describe the waterfall with math equations. You can write thousand of it, but you will still never be able to imagine it.
Rubbish, read Lodge's paper if you're going to try to use it.
Rubbish, this is exactly his idea - just try to read his book. But the idea of dense aether model is surprisingly old, even the medieval physicists had started to think about it.

Robert Hooke, 1687: "All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space."

BTW Robert Hooke was first, who explained the colors with different wavelengths of aether waves.
xel3241
5 / 5 (9) May 31, 2013
The usual gaggle of natello, ValeriaT, Zephyr, and other pseudoscientists is beginning to take control of this thread, complete with references to vacuum-mechanics.com, dense aether theory, out-of-context quotes, and other outright lies. Almost everything they say, almost any argument they make, is uninformed and stupid at best and outright intellectually dishonest at worst.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) May 31, 2013
The usual gaggle of natello, ValeriaT, Zephyr, and other pseudoscientists is beginning to take control of this thread

You may not be around long enough - but those three (and a couple of other names) are all the same poster using various sockpuppets. You'll soon notice as they have the same idiosyncratic way of posting (and at some point he even tried a ludicrous ploy where he was arguing with himself but screwed it up by using the wrong name)

By now he's admitted to being all these. He's just the sort of crazy you have to learn to read past here.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2013
This illustration looks like the "anal bead" entering the "black hole" theory, and has all the legitimacy of it as well.

The sad thing is that theory is still more closely related to reality than the eu/pc theories.
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2013
Nope, not without shear stress
Why not, the light waves are transverse, there is lotta "shear stress" (Maxwell's displacement current)
Then again it isn't a theory. For that you need to be able to demonstrate that you can make numerical predictions of physical effects
It's like the attempt to describe the waterfall with math equations.


Then how are you going to derive Maxwell's Equations from your concept? That's what a theory is, not some vague philosophical hand-waving. Until you derive those, you have nothing.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2013
The delusion of time, space and the fourth dimension, some physicists claim time itself has been imperceptibly, steadily, slowing down for the life of the universe. I could have used that 175k to conclusively pinpoint Bugs Bunny's hideout, and put the whole matter to rest once and for all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
Then how are you going to derive Maxwell's Equations from your concept?
Maxwell originally used the elastic fluid model for derivation of his equations, as the similarity of equations for fluids and vacuum indicates clearly. We know about many hydrodynamical analogies of magnetic field, for example. This is because the elastic fluids deform in two perpendicular directions, which do result in propagation of EM field in form of electric and magnetic waves, which are mutually perpendicular to each other. After all, Maxwell was an aetherist, he didn't recognize any other model in his time - so he even couldn't use a different one.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
That's what a theory is, not some vague philosophical hand-waving
BTW The quantum mechanics and general relativity theories predict quite opposite things in many aspects (like the vacuum energy density). For example, the general relativity predicts, all massive objects will collapse into singularity, whereas the quantum mechanics predict, the wave packets of free particles will always expand into infinity. Such a theories can be never reconciled mutually in strictly rigorous way, simply because we cannot connect two sets of equations yielding the different solutions in strictly deterministic way (despite the mainstream physicists are trying it obstinately, because they don't realize it and because they're getting the money from dumb publics for it). The unitary theory therefore will always contain some "hand-waving" in its core.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
I often compare the attempts for reconciliation of quantum mechanics with general relativity to construction of Alexander's horned sphere. The deeply nested hyperdimensional fractality connecting the worlds bellow and above the human observer scale just corresponds the complexity of terresterial life and living forms residing between these two scales. The mainstream physicists have no idea, what they're attempting for with their silly low-dimensional models. Despite of it, the combination of four-dimensional general relativity and quantum mechanics theories can describe some aspects of five-dimensional reality like the small curved patches, which are used for paving of rough surface. In this sense you can consider the stuffs like the AdS/CFT duality and Gregory-Laflamme instability as a relevant models - they just manifest itself in more subtle way and at different places, than the theorists are expecting right n
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2013
Then how are you going to derive Maxwell's Equations from your concept?
Maxwell originally used the elastic fluid model for derivation of his equations, ..


No, he used the equations previously found by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere and rewrote them in a mathematically symmetrical form. Adding displacement current completed the symmetry. An elastic solid would give the transverse restoring force needed for propagation but any viscous fluid behaviour would damp it out and limit the range of EM. Maxwell's Equations are only compatible with a rigid (crystalline) aether.

After all, Maxwell was an aetherist, he didn't recognize any other model in his time - so he even couldn't use a different one.


Newton believed in absolute space but the equations he derived from it are Galilean Invariant so disposed of absolute motion. The history of the development isn't always reflected in the final outcome.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
he used the equations previously found by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere and rewrote them in a mathematically symmetrical form
Yep, this is how the mainstream physicists imagine the derivation of physical models - just the old equations are rewritten into another form. Not surprisingly the progress of theoretical physics during last forty years corresponds this paradigm closely.
but any viscous fluid behaviour would damp it out and limit the range of EM
Which is why Maxwell didn't consider the viscosity, but he still proposed to look for it. BTW the range of EM is limited anyway, which is why the universe appears red-shifted with distance and black at the end. The viscous effects of vacuum manifest itself with frame dragging effects.
Newton believed in absolute space but he ... disposed of absolute motion
In another words, he was confused in similar way, like during derivation of gravitational law. Robert Hooke got it better again.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2013
he used the equations previously found by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere and rewrote them in a mathematically symmetrical form

Yep, this is how the mainstream physicists imagine the derivation of physical models ..

Nope, it is how he derived the equations, not a model built on those. You need to learn the difference between a model and a theory.

but any viscous fluid behaviour would damp it out and limit the range of EM

Which is why Maxwell didn't consider the viscosity,but he still proposed to look for it.

Irrelevant, he derived the equations from those of others purely mathematically.

BTW the range of EM is limited anyway, which is why the universe appears red-shifted with distance and black at the end.

Nope, it would reduce the amplitude, not the frequency.
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2013
hold on, someone has been paid to explain the output of a model? thats really broken
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2013
it is how he derived the equations, not a model built on those
You're apparently confused: you must construct the model first, just after to develop the equations for it. The opposite way would be like the solving the homework in physics just with random combinations of equations without understanding of their sense. In particular, Maxwell's equations are based on "molecular vortex model". You can get all details from here, for example. In Part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell proposed the existence of a sea of molecular vortices which are composed of a fluid-like aether, whereas in Part III, he deals with the elastic solid that these molecular vortices collectively form. Maxwell's third equation is derived hydrodynamically, and it appeared as equation (9) in Part I.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2013
At the beginning of Part III, Maxwell says "In the first part of this paper I have shown how the forces acting between magnets ...may be accounted for .. innumerable vortices of revolving matter, their axes coinciding with the direction of the magnetic force at every point of the field. The centrifugal force of these vortices produces pressures distributed in such a way that the final effect is a force identical in direction and magnitude with that which we observe. Electric current is a solenoidal flow of aether in which a conducting wire acts like a pipe. The pressure of the flowing aether causes it to leak tangentially into the surrounding sea of tiny vortices, causing the vortices to angularly accelerate and to align solenoidally around the circuit, hence resulting in a magnetic field." Maxwell further says in the same part "conceived the rotating matter to be the substance of certain cells, divided from each other by cell-walls composed of particles"
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2013
It's evident - with compare to contemporary mainstream physicists - Maxwell perfectly knew, what he is trying to describe with his equations. He understood it. He had whole his model in his head in details before he started to write math about it, as follows from many illustrations of it - which is something, which you can never met in mainstream physics today. Please note, that his illustration of electromotive force acting to the charged object with spin is exactly equivalent to the contemporary illustration of Newton-Magnus-Robins force acting to the rotating objects. In particular, the equation (132) in his 1861 paper is equivalent to the famous equation E = mc² that is normally attributed to Albert Einstein more that forty years later.
Requiem
3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
Take your meds, go outside, get some fresh aether.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2013
it is how he derived the equations, not a model built on those
You're apparently confused: you must construct the model first, just after to develop the equations for it. The opposite way would be like the solving the homework in physics just with random combinations of equations without understanding of their sense.


Not at all. In his papers, Maxwell makes assumptions about the nature of charge which were badly wrong, but because they are only descriptive and all the real work is done by the maths, he still got the right answer.

In particular, the equation (132) in his 1861 paper is equivalent to the famous equation E = mc² that is normally attributed to Albert Einstein more that forty years later.


No, although his variables are differently defined, it's essentially the equivalent of

c = 1 / sqrt(u_0 * e_0)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2013
It's variables were defined correctly - after all, the Lorentz transforms can be derived from Maxwell's theory easily - Feynman did it routinely during his lectures. The modified Heaviside-Lorentz-Maxwell's theory is fully compatible with special relativity, because it allows only transverse waves, which have no reference frame in any material environment. Actually just the Lorentz was, who finalized the symmetric regauging of Maxwell's theory after Heaviside and made it fully compliant with Lorentz transform in this way.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2013
It's variables were defined correctly


Sure, they were just a bit different from the modern version, just as you can calculate currents in a circuit using either resistance or conductivity.
beleg
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2013
@T
Thks for the link. A migrated "Old World-ler" attuned to Europe and abreast to the latest of the world, especially science - his professional occupational passion of foregone days. Priceless, simply, 'non-lecturing' conversational explanations to high sounding theatrical words and concepts that one finds 'active' scientists addicted to now. He drops the jargon for the sake of clarity. His math bolsters his simplicity and strengthens the coherence and consistency for the advocacy of the concepts from science that worked for him. Überzeugung aus eigene Erfahrung! Applying what he learned (from science) in problem solving led to his conviction that what he now preaches still works - in theory and practice.
There is no better mentor for you.


Stevepidge
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2013
ValeriaT, I know you take alot of heat in here, and I may not always agree with you. However, you have alot of good ideas and they are of the type that keeps life interesting. For without the outlandish yet believable ideas the world would be incredibly dull. For that at least I thank you.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2013
Maybe it is just coincidence but the structure presented looks an awful lot like many portions of the mandlebrot set visualized.
BishopBalderdash
1 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2013
Have we forgotten that science is about that can actually be measured? There are no observables in this piece of mathematical speculation, thus it is not science. Black rings are only mathematical speculation.
Ober
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2013
Professor Skenderis has developed a mathematic model which finds striking similarities between flat space-time and negatively curved space-time, with the latter however formulated in a negative number of dimensions, beyond our realm of physical perception.

"Our research is ongoing, and we hope to find more connections between flat space-time, negatively curved space-time and holography. Traditional theories about how the Universe operates go some way individually to describing its very nature, but each fall short in different areas. It is our ultimate goal to find a new combined understanding of the Universe, which works across the board."


First it's a mathematical model. Second, the model is trying to connect other models, which DO have observables. So IF A LINK IS MADE between many models that do have observables, and previous attempts failed to connect them, but this theory does, then I'd say it is perfectly in the realm of science. The science here is CONSISTENCY!!!!
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2013
There are no observables in this piece of mathematical speculation, thus it is not science.

Science requires a theoretical foundation. Without that any measurement is just a point of data.
You have to start somewhere and set up a theory from which you can make deductions (which they did) by which you can verify/falsify the theory (which they haven't).

One step at a time. Without theory and prediction you can never get to the falsification stage. And it is important for a new theory to
1) either make predictions that are at odds with the current theories
or
2) make all the same predictions but be far simpler (which would mean one could show equivalence - and it wouldn't be a 'new' theory at all).

Look at our resident crazies: Aether, electrical universe, truth/gods, ...
They may have a 'theory' but they don't make any predictions which are conceivably testable. That's why they aren't science (and why this paper is).
mike_scullin
not rated yet Jun 03, 2013
Holographic Universe theory is not new. Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe", 1992.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
They may have a 'theory' but they don't make any predictions which are conceivably testable
Dense aether model is testable easily. For example, I explained above, that the dense aether model predicts Gregory-Laflamme instability - but around galaxies (dark matter fibers) - not around black holes.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2013
Dense aether model is testable easily. For example, I explained above, that the dense aether model predicts Gregory-Laflamme instability..


OK let's test that claim, post your derivation of that prediction from Lodge's theory.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.