Jump to content

Can singularity's be said to be "in" another dimension?


Sorcerer

Recommended Posts

Considering 4 dimensional space time or even 1 dimensional space can be said to be composed of an infinite amount of 0 dimensional points. This means a singularity takes up 0 space in our universe, having 0 space it should therefore also not have any time, so doesn't exist. Yet it can be observed via it's gravitational effects.

 

Does it make any sense to view the collapse of a star, to a singularity, as the formation of a 0 dimensional bridge in space time. Mass in a seperate unobservable 5th dimension via gravity can then effect the lower 4 dimensions across this bridge.

 

I mean if mass exists in 5d and we observe that mass that intersects with our 4d directly, black holes are points where the curvature of space time pulls that intersection away from where we can observe it. Gravity however can move through the 0 dimensional point intersection and effect us still.

Edited by Sorcerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A singularity is a point of a region where we loose the smooth structure on space-time. We have ring-like singularities in 4-dimensional general relativity.

 

People do study 5 dimensional general relativity...

 

I am not sure what else to say here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the matter/energy of a star collapses into the 5th dimension effectively disappearing, but the gravitational effects of the star's mass/energy are still evident in our 4d space-time ?

 

And how would you account for charge and momentum which are also conserved and still evident after collapse ?

Do they also 'leak through' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the matter/energy of a star collapses into the 5th dimension effectively disappearing, but the gravitational effects of the star's mass/energy are still evident in our 4d space-time ?

 

And how would you account for charge and momentum which are also conserved and still evident after collapse ?

Do they also 'leak through' ?

They should conserved, it needs to be experimentally verified. The momentum would be trapped outside 4d, but conserved in 5d. The charge could leak through, it depends on it range relative to distance from the intersection.

 

Imagine a line intersecting with a circle, forming a chord, the line segment of the chord is our observable universe. At a singularity the line is pinched at one point where it intersects the circles circumference.

 

Thinking about this I need to add 1 more dimension. Surrounding this line and circle is a sphere, in this sphere would be an envagination where a loop of the line outside the circle holds the contents of the singularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if both long range forces and properties like energy and momentum are free to migrate between our space-time and this '5th' dimension, why exactly is it needed ?

Now chocolate sauce ?

That's needed !

( Christmas baking, what, you thought I ate it with a spoon ? )

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering 4 dimensional space time or even 1 dimensional space can be said to be composed of an infinite amount of 0 dimensional points.

This means a singularity takes up 0 space in our universe, having 0 space it should therefore also not have any time, so doesn't exist. Yet it can be observed via it's gravitational effects.

 

Point like object has still coordinates x,y,z, at least in 3d.

Point like object at rest looked from other point like object which is moving (or reverse), can look like line.

Imagine you see point at x,y,z at time t+0,

then 1 ns (nanosecond) later, it's at

x+vx*10^-9,y+vy*10^-9,z+vz*10^-9

then after yet another 1ns it's at

x+2*vx*10^-9,y+2*vy*10^-9,z+2*vz*10^-9

and so on.

Where is it? If it's changing constantly its coordinates (or we (observer) are changing our, does not matter)..

 

What does mean that object is point like? That our (observer) vx,vy,vz is equal to vx,vy,vz of that object (for instance two cars parallel on highway).

That we and that point like object are in the same frame of reference.

 

Can you give some black hole coordinate x,y,z? Yes.

Can you calculate distance to some black hole from f.e. Earth? Yes.

Can you calculate distance from some black hole to stars in it's neighborhood, or to galaxy center? Yes..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Point like object has still coordinates x,y,z, at least in 3d.

Point like object at rest looked from other point like object which is moving (or reverse), can look like line.

Imagine you see point at x,y,z at time t+0,

then 1 ns (nanosecond) later, it's at

x+vx*10^-9,y+vy*10^-9,z+vz*10^-9

then after yet another 1ns it's at

x+2*vx*10^-9,y+2*vy*10^-9,z+2*vz*10^-9

and so on.

Where is it? If it's changing constantly its coordinates (or we (observer) are changing our, does not matter)..

 

What does mean that object is point like? That our (observer) vx,vy,vz is equal to vx,vy,vz of that object (for instance two cars parallel on highway).

That we and that point like object are in the same frame of reference.

 

Can you give some black hole coordinate x,y,z? Yes.

Can you calculate distance to some black hole from f.e. Earth? Yes.

Can you calculate distance from some black hole to stars in it's neighborhood, or to galaxy center? Yes..

Very true, you can calculate the distance to the point. But there is no distance at the point.

 

True with time as +1 dimensions the point is a line. But so is the line a plane and the plane a solid and the solid 4d. But imagine if time was an ultimate dimension, when we add a geometrical 4th dimension, it then encompasses 4d and is described as 5d.

 

Like we can sample a 2d circular slice of a sphere, we can too take a slice of our 3D without time. If we are confined to only 3D observation, points could have size resolving conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

 

If there were instead 4 dimensions and time, our observation of time would be only 3/4 of reality.

 

And it is precisely this paradox I am using to solve the black hole singularity paradox. Quantum mechanics denies a singularity due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle, it also prevents 2 fermionic occupying the same space.

 

Since gravity bends time and space to such an extent where these things should happen, but cannot, perhaps it bends them so they are external to our 3D, the point is apparent from our perspective, but (like the line/circle/chord analogy) is actually just the intersection where a loop of 3D space time is outside the circle but still in a greater sphere.

Edited by Sorcerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.