Hints of extra dimensions in gravitational waves?

June 28, 2017, Max Planck Society
Merging black holes generate gravitational waves. These ripples in space-time might be used to unveil hidden dimensions. Credit: © Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS)

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam found that hidden dimensions – as predicted by string theory – could influence gravitational waves. In a recently published paper they study the consequences of extra dimensions on these ripples in space-time, and predict whether their effects could be detected.

LIGO's first detection of from a black-hole binary in September 2015 has opened a new window onto the universe. Now it looks like with this new observing tool physicists cannot only trace black holes and other exotic astrophysical objects but also understand gravity itself. "Compared to the other fundamental forces like, e.g. electromagnetism, gravity is extremely weak," explains Dr. David Andriot, one of the authors of the study. The reason for this weakness could be that gravity interacts with more than the three dimensions in space and one in time that are part of our everyday experience.

Extra dimensions

Extra dimensions that are hidden because they are very small are an indispensable part of – one of the promising candidates for a theory of . A theory of quantum gravity, unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, is sought after in order to understand what happens when very large masses at very small distances are involved, e.g. inside a black hole or at the Big Bang.

"Physicists have been looking for at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN but up to now this search has yielded no results," says Dr. Gustavo Lucena Gómez, the second author of the paper. "But gravitational wave detectors might be able to provide experimental evidence."

The researchers discovered that extra dimensions should have two different effects on gravitational waves: they would modify the "standard" gravitational waves and would cause additional waves at high frequencies above 1000 Hz. However, the observation of the latter is unlikely since the existing ground-based gravitational wave detectors are not sensitive enough at high frequencies.

On the other hand, the effect that extra dimensions can make a difference in how "standard" gravitational waves stretch and shrink space-time might be easier to detect by making use of more than one detector. Since the Virgo detector will join the two LIGO detectors for the next observing run this might happen after late 2018/beginning of 2019.

Explore further: Researchers uncover new gravitational wave characteristics

More information: David Andriot et al. Signatures of extra dimensions in gravitational waves, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2017). DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/048 , Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.07392

Related Stories

Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

December 21, 2015

Gravitational waves are tiny distortions of space-time caused by some of the most violent cosmic events such as colliding black holes. The observation of these 'ripples of space-time' requires exquisitely sophisticated new ...

LIGO veteran gives talk about gravitational waves

February 19, 2017

Caltech's Stan Whitcomb, who has been involved with nearly every aspect of the development and ultimate success of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), will give a talk about the project's historic ...

Making waves in spacetime

July 22, 2016

Waves on Earth's oceans move in endless rhythm along sandy beaches. Another kind of wave ripples to our planet from distant black holes in the universe.

Recommended for you

A new neptune-size exoplanet

December 16, 2018

The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. ...

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

73 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BackBurner
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2017
That photo appears to be a simulation but it's presented as an actual photo. That should be corrected.
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
Hmmm, is this another effort to keep SST alive? If it is I think it is unnecessary because most of the scientific community, at least, know of it's details and I'm sure would use SST should experiments reveal unknown effects.
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
How is smell not its own dimension.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2017
That photo appears to be a simulation but it's presented as an actual photo. That should be corrected.

Think that could be readily intuited by reading farther into the Credit: section of the photo caption...
Here, let me help you -
Credit: © Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS)
Operative word - Simulating...

Mimath - Super Symmetry Theory? Super String?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2017
That photo appears to be a simulation but it's presented as an actual photo. That should be corrected.


Jeez, you don't say? They aren't really black holes orbiting each................ahh forget it. I despair sometimes.
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
Whydening Gyre, I did mean Super String theory since the article refers to String Theory but I admit SST could mean Super Symmetry too.

PowerMax
5 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
Enough with these titles!!!! this article doesn't say anything new!!! stop hyping s***t!!!!!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
@Mimath, whatever gave you the impression that string physics needs to be "kept alive?"
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
Da Schneib, well that's the point, I don't think so. Just that a short time ago I had a conversation with someone who had read 'Not even wrong' and was convinced that SST would be forgotten soon (I disagreed) and I guess it was just on my mind.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
That photo appears to be a simulation but it's presented as an actual photo.,,,.

What! You mean it wasn't taken with someones mobile phone as a close up right up close to the black hole!? We wouldn't have ever guessed! :P
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Mimath, the big reason string physics isn't advancing quickly is because the math is incredibly complex. We just don't know enough to figure out how to discriminate among the possible Calabi-Yau spaces and find whether there's one that corresponds to our universe. Eventually we may "brute force" this if computer power continues to increase (and quantum computing may turn out to be a key to this), but it will not be quick and it will not be easy (unless some math genius comes along and figures out a way).

Many people find this frustrating. Other approaches (LQG comes to mind) have been attempted, and don't seem to be working out any better. With a very difficult problem like this standing in the way, it's hard to see how to make progress. In this case, it's a waiting game.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
[contd]
Right now the "hot" area of research is AdS/CFT correspondence; we'll have to wait to see whether it helps with string physics, but it has already yielded some important physics even without directly pointing to more string physics, so whether it does or not eventually it has already been useful.

GRT is an enormously complex theory mathematically, and we are still figuring out some of its implications nearly a hundred years after it was first found. We'll be very lucky to have a theory of quantum gravity, by all the signs, a hundred years from now. So I wouldn't hold my breath, but it's certainly vastly premature to claim that any approach is non-viable; I wouldn't count out string physics, nor LQG, nor any of the other ways folks are trying to find a way to move forward at this point.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2017
There are hints of pseudoscience in this fanciful pontification.
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2017
any sufficiently advanced point is indistinguishable from a universe
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
Interesting paper; they emphasize the "breathing mode" polarization and high frequency effects, and suggest some variations on current gravity wave detection that might yield fruit once other GWOs come on-line in the coming decade. This actually bolsters some results we have been discussing here on Physorg in the last couple of months, specifically to do with the breathing mode polarization.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib, yep, I agree. I have books on SST so I have some idea, I did say 'some', of how complex the math is. And anyone that has read 'The road to reality' also gets an overview of other theories too Then there is the Simulation Hypothesis, which is another mind-bender. As I far as I'm concerned, as a layman, it's all fascinating and worth reading about and anyone, or group, that are 'exploring', stretching the limits of our knowledge, gets my vote.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
any sufficiently advanced point is indistinguishable from a universe

VF;
I don't usually lend much credit to your comments, but that -
was funny...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
the big reason string physics isn't advancing quickly is because the math is incredibly complex. ....Eventually we may "brute force" this if computer power continues to increase (and quantum computing may turn out to be a key to this), but it will not be quick and it will not be easy (unless some math genius comes along and figures out a way).
Already here, DS! :)

I have posted clues, hints, examples of what 'maths' flaws exist; and what is needed to make it capable of modeling actual real universe without 'blowing up' into singularities/undefined/other 'unreal' GIGO 'things'.
Many people find this frustrating. Other approaches (LQG comes to mind) have been attempted, and don't seem to be working out any better.
Already done, DS! :)

I even posted some insights for you/gang; but you/they just attacked/trolled/insulted, and missed it all; so now must wait until I publish it all complete. In the meantime, try to be more objective/polite, hey? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2017
@Mimath224.
@Da Schneib, yep, I agree. I have books on SST so I have some idea, I did say 'some', of how complex the math is. And anyone that has read 'The road to reality' also gets an overview of other theories too Then there is the Simulation Hypothesis, which is another mind-bender. As I far as I'm concerned, as a layman, it's all fascinating and worth reading about and anyone, or group, that are 'exploring', stretching the limits of our knowledge, gets my vote.
This rings a little hollow, mate:
and anyone, or group, that are 'exploring', stretching the limits of our knowledge, gets my vote.
You've been doing the exact opposite whenever I tried to point the way forward by identifying maths flaws/what is needed to fix it to make it capable of actually modeling reality without 'blowing up' into inconsistencies and unreal 'things' that are patently nonsense (or we would ALREADY have had the ToE from current mainstream maths/physics approaches). True? :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2017
@Da Schneib.
the big reason ...(unless some math genius comes along and figures out a way).
Already here, DS! :)
I have posted clues, hints, examples of what 'maths' flaws exist; and what is needed to make it capable of modeling actual real universe without 'blowing up' into singularities/undefined/other 'unreal' GIGO 'things'.
Many people find this frustrating. Other approaches (LQG comes to mind) have been attempted, and don't seem to be working out any better.
Already done, DS! :)
I even posted some insights for you/gang;...

Nothing remotely interpretable, if you have.
so now must wait until I publish it all complete.

Exactly what you've been saying for years, now.
And once again, you attempt turning the thread into about wonderful, incredible, magnificent - you.
From where I'm sitting, the only clue you've provided in the last 5 years is that YOU don't have one....
Mimath224
5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2017
@RealityCheck Ha! I was wondering if you'd turn up. Yep, took the bait. Don't waste your time on me because I'll ignore you and I hope others do too. Bye
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2017
@Whyde.
@Da Schneib.
the big reason ...(unless some math genius comes along and figures out a way).
Already here, DS! :) I have posted clues, hints, examples of what 'maths' flaws exist; and what is needed to make it capable of modeling actual real universe without 'blowing up' into singularities/undefined/other 'unreal' GIGO 'things'.
Many people find this frustrating. Other approaches (LQG comes to mind) have been attempted, and don't seem to be working out any better.
Already done, DS! :) I even posted some insights for you/gang;..
Nothing remotely interpretable, if you have.
so now must wait until I publish it all complete.

Exactly what you've been saying for years, now.
And once again, you attempt turning the thread into about wonderful, incredible, magnificent - you., From where I'm sitting, the only clue you've provided in the last 5 years is that YOU don't have one..
You missed that I posted that to inform DS's 'hopes' re issues. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2017
@Mimath224.
@RealityCheck Ha! I was wondering if you'd turn up. Yep, took the bait. Don't waste your time on me because I'll ignore you and I hope others do too. Bye
What "bait"? I addressed Da Schneib's comments wherein he hoped for advances in the areas he mentioned. I merely informed his hopes (and opinions etc) regarding what is coming up on those fronts. So it appears that you've lost the plot, like your 'mates' have. You are in denial and ignore what is 'inconvenient' to your own biases. Not good, mate! Do better. And if you don't read you don't find out, and you make yourself more likely to be irrelevant/incorrect. Just as DS and 'gang' have been doing to themselves for years now, while I have been relevant and correct all along on many fronts. Your denial and tactics mark you out as yet another 'social media troll' more interested in ego-tripping than objective science/discourse. Too bad. Just shows how corrosive that 'gang' has been. Wise up soon, Mimath. :)
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2017
Time is three dimensional as well! That is why causality violations are rare. The only rule is you can not go backward in time on a congruent path. You have to slide in a new path backward to a different reality. Like Einstein said: " The universe is not only stranger than we think, but also stranger than we can imagine.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2017
@Osiris1 Why do say Time is 3D also? I have a reason for asking, as others here will remember that I have mentioned my own ideas about Time being multidimensional.

@Da Schneib, What I've just indicated has some relevance to the article because although I don't claim to be a proponent of SST the extra dimensions required by SST are indeed a bit of a temptation for me. Could it be that at least some those extra dimensions be dimensions of Time? This is one reason, for me that is, to think that SST might still have something to offer researchers.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2017
Why do say Time is 3D also?

It makes no sense of talking about time as 3D 'also'. Because space isn't 3D. If you take relativity at all serious then talking about time and space as fully separate dismensions makes no sense.

https://en.wikipe...pacetime

If you start postulating such stuff in your 'private theories' then you're 100% wasting your time (because the reality of spacetime has been shown to hold over any separate 'space and time dimensions' notion by a gazillion experiment since the 1910's)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2017
statement that space isn't 3D is the same as saying the sun is not our primary source of radiation.


The point is: It's spacetime. Every experiment corroborates this. It's not space and time. There is no way to separate space from time and say "if we take time away and then have 3D space left over". People here talk as if you could pull dimensions apart and treat them separately. That's just not the case.

You can act as if space has 3D in some models where time isn't important (e.g. when you're not moving at appreciable percentages of the speed of light you can omit the time dilation aspects for most intents and purposes) - but juts because the model is accurate for your application doesn't mean reality somehow separates time out of the equation, too.

the variable of time is a separate one in any equation right?

No. If it were separate then the off-diagonal components of the spacetime tensor would be zero. They aren't.
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2017
once events in our reality have occurred they cannot "unoccur".

Technically, physics doesn't really distinguish between 'once they have occurred.' It is very reasonable to follow the consequences of relativity and realize that the future is just as "real" as the past is. ie, where you may not change the past, you may not change the future either.

With the huge caveat that what I'm saying is NOT science. It is simply a philosophical idea of reality that you can derive from the apparent consequences of what we know from science.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2017
once events in our reality have occurred they cannot "unoccur".

Technically, physics doesn't really distinguish between 'once they have occurred.' It is very reasonable to follow the consequences of relativity and realize that the future is just as "real" as the past is. ie, where you may not change the past, you may not change the future either. ...

We change the "future" all the time by making different choices...
Dingbone
Jun 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2017
The first clue that it is not actually a "dimension" is that unlike the other dimensions it does only have one direction.

Since you can't separate time out of the spacetime concept that's a nonsensical statement. (Or what yould you imagine time is without space? See how that idea makes no sense?)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2017
@antialias.
Since you can't separate time out of the spacetime concept that's a nonsensical statement. (Or what yould you imagine time is without space? See how that idea makes no sense?)
How many times have you been reminded that "The map is not the territory", antialias? The "spaceTIME" construct is an ANALYTICAL ABSTRACTION from spaceMOTION in real physical 3D space. The whole need for the proportional-relative "spaceTIME" analytical correlation/comparisons between DIFFERENT observed motions across space arose because of DIFFERING SPEEDS of those motions (changes in bodies/features across/in space-locations/states) made it CONVENIENT to treat the whole observational construct via a MATH ABSTRACTION 'entity' we now call Einsteinian Relativity Theory.

The space traversed is what it is; the speeds applicable are what they are; and 'times' are merely correlationary/comparative maths abstraction for analytical construct called "SpaceTIME", but is NOT a PHYSICAL 'thing'.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2017
...
The space traversed is what it is; the speeds applicable are what they are; and 'times' are merely correlationary/comparative maths abstraction for analytical construct called "SpaceTIME", but is NOT a PHYSICAL 'thing'.

When taken in toto, it is...
It's an apt descriptor of the medium within which everything ELSE resides....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2017
@Whyde.
The space traversed is what it is; the speeds applicable are what they are; and 'times' are merely correlationary/comparative maths abstraction for analytical construct called "SpaceTIME", but is NOT a PHYSICAL 'thing'.

When taken in toto, it is...It's an apt descriptor of the medium within which everything ELSE resides...
The "spaceTIME" is a 'convenient' INVENTION; a 'composite object' abstract maths technique/entity/term useful for analysis. That's it.

It is merely the VARIABLE RATIO 'constant' value in equations/algorithms for calculating/predicting the inter-relational correspondence of the physical effects when converting the particular dynamical energy/outcomes in varying 'frames' being compared. It is therefore not a 'thing' with inherent physical dimensions per se; it has only ANALYTICAL 'dimensions' in ABSTRACT MATHS/GEOMETRY graphs/models where 'scales/axes' depict values/correlations that 'maps' the REAL spaceMOTION 'territory'.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2017
The "spaceTIME" is a 'convenient' INVENTION; a 'composite object' abstract maths technique/entity/term useful for analysis. That's it.
Sounds like you are mad because somebody else invented him.

It is therefore not a 'thing' with inherent physical dimensions per se; it has only ANALYTICAL 'dimensions' in ABSTRACT MATHS/GEOMETRY graphs/models where 'scales/axes' depict values/correlations that 'maps' the REAL spaceMOTION 'territory'.


So if the spacetime is not really real, how can the spaceMOTION be REAL. They both have some space, and they both have some time. Cher, I hate to break it to you, but you can't have MOTION without you also have some space and have some time.

No wonder everybody making the fun with you all the time. This is about as sciency as your "infinities are not real" because you are working with the infinite/eternal universes. You try to peddle your gobbledygook at some advanced alien EU crystal doctor interweb place.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
The "spaceTIME" is a 'convenient' INVENTION; a 'composite object' abstract maths technique/entity/term useful for analysis. That's it.
Sounds like you are mad because somebody else invented him.
Why should I be? It's not REAL; has misled reality physics discussion/comprehension by mainstream theorists for decades; just as the Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion 'inventions' have. No way would I want to claim such UNREAL/BOGUS 'things' as my inventions!
It is therefore not a 'thing' with inherent physical dimensions per se; it has only ANALYTICAL 'dimensions' in ABSTRACT MATHS/GEOMETRY graphs/models where 'scales/axes' depict values/correlations that 'maps' the REAL spaceMOTION 'territory'.
So if the spacetime is not really real, how can the spaceMOTION be REAL. ....you can't have MOTION without you also have some space and have some time.
Space, Motion already/always there, physically effective. A 'comparison' (TIMING) is abstraction. :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2017
@antialias_physorg
Why do say Time is 3D also?

It makes no sense of talking about time as 3D 'also'. Because space isn't 3D. If you take relativity at all serious then talking about time and space as fully separate dismensions makes no sense. If you start postulating such stuff in your 'private theories' then you're 100% wasting your time (because the reality of spacetime has been shown to hold over any separate 'space and time dimensions' notion by a gazillion experiment since the 1910's)

Why have you misquoted me? I did not and never have, called any of the things I work on as 'private theories' or 'theories'. I have always called them 'ideas' (in other threads) as, again, others here might remember. They are only ideas because, as yet, I haven't come up with anything that makes a prediction or is testable. I make no claims or postulates. Nor did I make any representation against space-time. How I choose to 'waste' my time is up to me.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2017
I have always called them 'ideas'

Doesn't matter what you call them. I'm just mentioning that you're wasting your time with that particular approach (and yes: we hav ALL wasted our time at one point in our lives with such approaches...it's nothing to be ashamed of). It's just a friendly reminder that if you go and have a bit of a look into relativity you can pretty quickly put these notions aside as 'naive'. Again, there's nothing to be ashamed of in going through wrong ideas to get to deeper understanding. That's how science works. It's basically what every scientist goes through on a daily basis. You throw a lot of ideas at the wall and see which ones will stick.

The difference between a scientists and a crank is, however, that a scientist will check which ones will stick and a crank will just decide beforehand that his idea is 'good' (because it's his - ultimate 'argument fom authority', that, BTW) and keep running with it...and never notice how wrong he is.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2017
@antialias_physorg you have no idea what I'm doing...it might even be something that is even another of those '... 'space and time dimensions' notion by a gazillion experiment since the 1910's' as you put it. And who said I was ashamed? Since I mentioned above that I am a layman that means I'm not a 'scientist' so you could be 'implying' that I'm a crank ('The difference between a scientists and a crank is...). I do, however, like your choice of the fictitious number 'gazillion'...I bet there 's more where that came from. Pity you weren't around to tell Prof. A. Einstein to abandon his search for a UFT...or EPR or.....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2017
@Mimath, a "time dimension" as we know it has a unique geometric relation to the "space dimensions" as we know them. The space dimensions, among themselves, have a circular geometric relation to one another; this is why Euclidean geometry and trigonometry mostly works (gravity fields aside). However, the relation of the time dimension we see to the space dimensions is not circular; it is hyperbolic. This has numerous implications with respect to how we see it manifest in physical reality.

When two dimensions have a circular relation, one can freely interconvert them by rotation to any desired angle. For example, imagine two spatial dimensions, X and Y. Beginning with a ray entirely in X, one can rotate it to a position where it is in both X and Y, and, after a right angle rotation, it will be entirely in Y. This is not the case with two dimensions when the relation is hyperbolic.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2017
[contd]
When the relation is hyperbolic, there is a maximum rotation beyond which the mixture of dimensions becomes unphysical. To understand this, consider two dimensions X and T which have a hyperbolic geometric relation.

As one rotates from the entirely X orientation in the X-T plane, initially things look like they do in the X-Y plane; T becomes greater, and X becomes lesser. However, the hyperbolic geometry becomes more and more important as the rotation continues, and instead of a smooth linear progression from X to Y, one has an exponential increase in T. This increase dictates that entirely T occurs at a considerably lesser angle of rotation than the right angle that turns all of X into Y. Beyond this maximal rotation, the rate of progression in T becomes an imaginary number.

We have no idea what imaginary numbers mean in terms of the rate of the passage of time. We think they're not physical.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2017
[contd]
When one actually reaches the equivalent of a right angle in a hyperbolic relation, the value of the rate of passage of time becomes infinite, and this is even less physical than an imaginary number.

You can easily confirm this with any recently produced calculator (IOW from this century). My TI-89 shows it correctly; I can assist you with this if you like (and have a sufficiently capable calculator).

Now, a hyperbola is different from other conic sections; circular, elliptical, and parabolic sections have only one lobe; hyperbolic sections have two. This indicates that for a dimension with hyperbolic relation to other dimensions, there are not merely one but two "directions." However, to rotate from one to the other is impossible; it would require traversing a regime where rates become first imaginary, then infinite. Thus the forward and reverse directions in a time dimension are separated by an uncrossable barrier.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2017
[contd]
There is no good evidence that proposes that any of the extra, small spatial dimensions involved in string physics have a hyperbolic relation to the existing 3 large spatial dimensions. To make your conjecture of extra time dimensions work, there would have to be such evidence, and thus, this conjecture appears to be unphysical.

I'm not saying your conjecture is impossible but it's very unlikely. As far as we can tell there is one and only one hyperbolic time dimension.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2017
I'm not saying your conjecture is impossible but it's very unlikely
...........Schneibo, nobody, and I mean nobody which includes yourself has any idea what you wrote in your previous 4 posts immediately above this one of mine.

Is this what having a Retirement Career is all about? Find something else to do. Cut down a tree & cut it up into firewood or something, but you simply have too much time on your hands.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2017
@Lenni, google "rapidity." You will find that the math used is hyperbolic trigonometry. It's fairly standard relativity math, though a bit more advanced than anything you've apparently been exposed to.

You know that "hyp" button on calculators that you've never been able to figure out what it's for? That's what it's for.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2017
What's amazing is that someone who can't figure out all the buttons on a calculator claims to be a nuclear engineer. Just sayin'. I'm going with nuclear technician. At best.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2017
And who said I was ashamed?

I just said you needn't be when someon calls your ideas wrong, is all. I am not implying that you are a crank, because I fully expect you to be able to have a look into relativity (fascinating stuff) and see where your ideas don't mesh with reality

(The guy who I was mostly responding to with these posts and who IS a crank and who SHOULD be ashamed is bschott, BTW.)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2017
@Da Schneib, Yes 'right on' as they. Basically I agree with you about hyperbolic relationships and again with the extra dimensions of SST. You were kind enough to call ideas 'conjecture' and I guess in some ways it may be seen as such. But I don't think my ideas rank up to that for reasons previously stated. But I have been doing some maths along the lines of Complex numbers, Quaternions etc. and one or two results don't 'go by the book' as it were. I am not the type to claim something that might be premature and I need to check & re-check etc. before even thinking of giving them to someone else for verification (or not). That's going to take time.
However, to keep on topic; this why I don't rule out such articles as the current post, which mentions SST, and why I look at articles here and other places. I am only too pleased That there are such as Pys.Org and a chance to 'chat' with others. In the final part of the article it mentions the two different effects of extra (cont.)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2017
@Mimath, "conjecture" is standard scientific terminology for what you are doing! If you use it instead of "theory" or "hypothesis" no one will justifiably have any quarrel with you. Your conjecture may not lead to a hypothesis or theory, but many don't. Quaternions etc. are a valid area of research. Just never let yourself call them hypotheses unless or until you have a method for testing them and you'll be fine.

Your humble approach does you credit.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2017
(cont.) dimensions on grav waves which has made me wonder about those odd results I mentioned.
The other point worth mentioning is that I wouldn't be the first by a long way to consider extra time dimension and have read papers by others. None of them undermine SR or GR (that is, no claim as alternatives) and I believe the same is true of my own (@antialias_physorg, please note). I think it's more like or analogous to, 'matter is made up atoms' then asking 'what is an atom made up of?' and so on. Knowing the answers to these doesn't change what we view in Nature, chemical reactions etc, but extends our understanding and how we might exploit it to understand other things. Is gravity just ripples in space-time? So that which has the ability to affect space & time is made up of? Is gravity analogous to the electron, or to the proton?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2017
@Da Schneib
@Mimath, "conjecture" is standard scientific terminology for what you are doing! If you use it instead of "theory" or "hypothesis" no one will justifiably have any quarrel with you. Your conjecture may not lead to a hypothesis or theory, but many don't. Quaternions etc. are a valid area of research. Just never let yourself call them hypotheses unless or until you have a method for testing them and you'll be fine.

Your humble approach does you credit.

Thanks for advice...I do see my myself as a layman on these issues...Keeps an old mind active. Yes Quaternions never became what was hoped of them. However, there some recent researches using quaternions in SR & GR. The four vector notation fits quite well.
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2017
There is no way to separate space from time and say "if we take time away and then have 3D space left over".

...space is 3 dimensional, time is the variable that represents how we separate cause and effect...Time is required for measurement, that is all.
the variable of time is a separate one in any equation right?

No... off-diagonal components of the spacetime tensor would be zero. They aren't.

... it is not actually a "dimension" ... unlike the other dimensions it does only have one direction.


I wonder if you are all talking past each other with different oversimplifications. Can you really move both directions in space? You don't end up in the same place because your coordinates were in spacetime, not space at an earlier time.

Maybe every dimension is a spacetime dimension, and physics should have 3 spacetime axes (6 coordinates in pairs), not 3 space axes and a 4th time axis. Formulas with only 4 would be wrongly conflating all of time into 1.
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2017
Maybe every dimension is a spacetime dimension, and physics should have 3 spacetime axes (6 coordinates in pairs), not 3 space axes and a 4th time axis. Formulas with only 4 would be wrongly conflating all of time into 1.


Bad form to quote myself, but continuing that thought:

Three spacetime dimensions is still a vast oversimplification, in my view. If the shape of spacetime is defined by the objects within it, and your experience of time depends on your frame of reference, then you need a spacetime dimension for every object you can observe. Our time relative to the sun is different from that relative to the center of the galaxy is different from that relative to every other star in the galaxy is different from that relative to every other galaxy, etc.

Many of them could be averaged, especially when solving for closer objects. Three gets you a good approximation in most situations, but that doesn't make it correct.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2017
@dnat, it comes down to your definition of "dimension." A dimension in physics is the minimum number of coordinates needed to define an event. In our spacetime no one has been able to do it with less than 4. These are commonly called "distance," "altitude," "azimuth," and "time." When physicists (and astronomers!) use mathematical analysis, these are often denoted by X, Y, Z, and T.

When one begins talking about relativity, one is talking about converting the observations of one observer into those of another. In this case, if the observers are not in relative motion and are inertial, one can use the Galilean Transform. In this case, the X, Y, and Z equations simply (algebraically) add the distance between the observers to either datum to get the other one. But what about time?
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2017
[contd]
Time must be added too, because the datum can only be detected if it is seen, and the fastest it can be seen is at the speed of light delay between the occurrence of the event measured locally to the event, and the propagation delay between the event and the observer. Thus, the closest observer sees the event "earlier" than the furthest one.

If you work out all the math, it turns out that the time has to be *subtracted* instead of added. This is the Minkowsky metric:
d² = x² + y² + z² - (tc)²
Why is c² required? Because time flows at the speed of light: 1 second per second. The other dimensions do not flow, so they do not require this factor to normalize them to a common coordinate system.

So now we have a "pseudo-Galilean" transform that accounts for the speed-of-light delay between the observers, as well as their distance vector from one another.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2017
[contd]
What it does not account for is a velocity difference between them.

Naively, one need only account for the velocity difference in space; but ultimately, one must also account for a difference in time of detection as well, so all four dimensions are affected. This leads us to the Lorentz Transform. And this transform is the transform of SRT.

Remember that T is defined not by some absolute time of occurrence of the event, but by the detection of the event by an observer. One cannot state that an event has occurred unless one actually observes it. So there has to be a complicated way of dealing with the speed-of-light delays as well as the known differences in position between the observers; and the speed-of-light delay is always different for differences in only one coordinate, the distance of an observer from the event.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2017
[contd]
Now depending on the observer's chosen coordinate system, the distance may be all in one dimension, or it may be in two, or even all three; so mathematical analysis must account for this. But since the coordinate system can always be chosen a priori, the transform must always work for any chosen coordinate system. And this must work not only for space, but for time as well, and must take into account speed-of-light delays.

But for two observers, the "natural" X coordinate-- the direct ray to the event-- is in a different direction!

So when you think about this, make sure you remember all the variables.
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2017
[contd]
... So when you think about this, make sure you remember all the variables.


Thank you for the detailed explanation. I was thinking about the fact that if you have X, Y, and Z, then you also necessarily have different time delays along each of those axes. Using just one time coordinate for all three spatial axes must introduce errors because the time would almost never be exactly the same in every direction. Which means you should have three different (tc)² coordinates, one for each spatial axis. Therefore, don't you really have three pairs of coordinates: X - (tsubX c)², Y - (tsubY c)², Z - (tsubZ c)²? Would that be a 3-vector spacetime, rather than 4D spacetime?

That's why I question the claim that space does not flow like time. They are not separable.

And it's only three if you assume there are only three possible observers, and they are always located orthogonally to one another. Neither of those conditions is true, even if it's close enough.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2017
Just because you can set the minimum set of coordinates required doesn't mean you've limited the maximum that can be used. It's certainly possible to define "dimension" in the way you want, but it's not minimal, and it can be converted to minimal. It's the minimal part that matters, because that's globally (or if you prefer universally) applicable.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2017
Always amuses me on here, how many people think that they are capable of doing this sort of science. Hello? Why weren't you invited? Probably due to never being heard of, eh? If you have got something to say, here is a thought; PUBLISH THE S**T. Yes? Instead of polluting this place with it. Get writing. Can't be that difficult, can it? I have yet to see any criticism of the GW detection. In the scientific literature. Maybe you could be the first. Get on it! Come on......naahh, never going to happen, is it? They are too unqualified. And on we go. Bunch of bloody amateurs, 'learning' crap from other amateurs. Sad.
Mimath224
not rated yet Jul 03, 2017
@jonesdave What's your problem? Scientists working in there field don't need forums like this because they can converse with one another across the table etc. Others NOT working in the field can nonetheless be interested and forums like this one allow such people to discuss certain points. Wasn't one of the aims of creating the Web to allow people far apart to communicate? You would deny us that?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2017
@jonesdave.
Always amuses me on here, how many people think that they are capable of doing this sort of science.
Which prompts the obvious question: Are YOU, @jonesdave, in the science profession?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2017
@jonesdave.
Always amuses me on here, how many people think that they are capable of doing this sort of science.
Which prompts the obvious question: Are YOU, @jonesdave, in the science profession?


Was mate. No longer. Just here to laugh at the wannabes! Done my bit. Got my degrees. Used them. And then discovered that there are people without degrees who evidently know more than me!. And a whole bunch of other people who seemingly haven't even been to school that know a whole lot more!! Strange, that sh*t, eh? When one mentions the scientific principle to them, they haven't got a clue what one is talking about. Evidently, a GCSE in maths (51%) plus reading some shite like Dunderdoldts, qualifies one to have an opinion these days.
Opinions are ten a penny; actual science is not quite so easy. Ask the idiots Reeve or Cantthink about their scientific qualifications. Hell, ask the loons Thornhill & Talbott!! Why do you think these nutters are on here?
vacuumforce
not rated yet Jul 04, 2017
I can not go left and right at the same time. Nor can I go up and down, or back and forth simultaneously.

It stands to reason that an object cannot expand and contract simultaneously.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2017
.......cont
If I have left anybody in any doubt: science is bloody hard. You need to know some high level maths, for a kick off. Then you need to know your subject. And that is where the wannabes fall down. They can't do maths, and they don't know their subject.
As I've pointed out before; take the idiot Thornhill; what was his method of creating H2O at a comet? Solar wind H+ hitting non-existent O- ions? Brilliant. What a dick. SW H+ far too energetic to combine with anything, eh? Not enough of it, eh? I could go on; but that should show that the people who come up with crap like this, and the idiots that follow them, are not worth the time of day. Eh? Posers, yes?
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2017
However, I have a feeling photons don't follow such biblical rules.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2017
However, I have a feeling photons don't follow such biblical rules.


Perhaps, instead of making cryptic comments on here, you could actually point us to a paper that sets out your hypothesis. Yes? Otherwise, give up.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2017
@jonesdave What's your problem? Scientists working in there field don't need forums like this because they can converse with one another across the table etc. Others NOT working in the field can nonetheless be interested and forums like this one allow such people to discuss certain points. Wasn't one of the aims of creating the Web to allow people far apart to communicate? You would deny us that?


No offence, but if you had anything to say on this matter, it WOULD NOT be on here. Correct? You'd be writing it up now. Not on a bloody comments section of a sci-news sodding website. N'est-ce pas?
I don't deny you anything; just think as to why they are writing papers, and you are commenting on here. Eh?
jonesdave
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2017
I'll add to the above; yes, scientists (as in the buggers that are actually qualified to understand this stuff) are able to talk to each other. I'm sure they do it all the time. They know the subject area. There may, or may not, be people who comment on here, who know the subject area. Or it may be slightly tangential to their subject area. Or, in most cases, it is way beyond the ability of the burkes who are commenting here to understand. However, that doesn't stop the eejits. Eh?
tl;dr? we do not need uneducated eejits, particularly of the 'electric universe' type, to comment on sh*t that they quite obviously do not understand. Eh?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017
@jones, some folks come here after searching on some science story they just heard about. And some of them have questions. The questions are usually easy enough to answer, and those of us who understand how it works can explain it to them; we don't have to be scientists, we just have to have enough knowledge to describe it as best it can be described in common language so they can understand it.

We get a lot of trolls; it's natural on a relatively unmoderated site like this. But most people are fairly smart and can spot the trolls from the honest answers.

I think that's enough endeavor for me; I have a day job and it makes plenty more money than most scientists will ever see. And scientists don't do it for the money; there's not enough there. They do it for the love of exploration. Some of us here (and I'm one) do what we do for the love of explanation.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2017
[contd]
So tuck your horns in and try not putting everyone posting on this site in the same basket, K?

'Cause otherwise you just look like another troll. And I don't think you are, or wannabe.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2017
And scientists don't do it for the money; there's not enough there.

Oh boy, ain't that the truth.
(I was one. I can attest to this first hand).
There's no 'career' path once you are a scientists. There's no pay jumps or higher positions you can aspire to (they are filled - you can only get them if someone retires). There's no paid overtime. You work weekends (I remember walking into the lab on a Sunday night at 3am(!) to continue writing on my thesis and *everyone* was there, working)
But...it's oh so fulfilling to basically 'pit yourself against the universe'. It's hard, but it's also fun.

At some point reality catches up to you and you have to start worrying about what kind of pension you'll get if you continue earning next to nothing. That's when I quit. To this day I'm looking at ads to see if there is any position that would pay slightly better (heck, I'll take a research position that pays just 50% of my current salary in a jiffy). No sauce.
yep
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2017
If I have left anybody in any doubt: science is bloody hard. You need to know some high level maths, for a kick off. Then you need to know your subject. And that is where the wannabes fall down. They can't do maths, and they don't know their subject.

Left no doubt your an ass and a fool for thinking math is empirical evidence. Garbage in garbage out wanker.

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.