Any potential?

[ponderer]

Totally new here.

 

I don't expect to hang around.

 

I am not a physicist. I am more philosophical, so I am bringing a philosophical question, given that physics is really the philosophy of physics.

 

Here is the simple logical train of thought that I followed. I just want to know if there would be any value in it.

 

Perhaps, this line of reasoning is old hat, and has been rejected.

 

I came to these conclusions using proactive Occam`s Razor. Rather that using Occam`s Razor to assess the value of competing theory, or conjecture, It occurred to me to start with a problem and look for the simplest possible explanation.

 

There are many views on cosmology. However, in general the universe is believed by cosmologists to have begun at a single point from which it expanded perhaps as a sort of 4D spherical hollow shell with a 3D skin. This skin is called the manifold, and it is generally believed that nothing exists outside the manifold. However, somehow we also have something called hyperspace, through which we may be able to tunnel, that is outside the universe.

 

Theodore Kaluza proposed that 5D metric tensors could be used to include Electro-Magnetic force into a unified description of Gravity and Electro-Magnetism. Although not proven to be particularly useful, this has also not proven wrong. The problem was that 5 physical dimensions would be required to use 5D metric tensors.

 

The fundamental problem with any 5D or even 4D universe proposals is containment.

 

We are certain of only 3 physical dimensions. All observable behaviour occurs in 3 dimensions and we cannot even at the highest energies or deepest gravitational wells, perceive anything occurring outside the familiar 3 dimensions.

 

Any conjecture about higher dimensional universes must offer an explanation for this containment.

 

The manifold concept does this by simply denying existence to anything outside the manifold, without accounting for the 4D spherical gross shape of the universe. A 4D construct can exist, but no account is given for containment of the skin of that construct, except to deny existence to all else.

 

I would like to propose that alternately we might consider the simplest way to model a contained 3D environment, as the expanding shell of a 4 dimensional sphere, in a 5D universe.

 

The simplest representation would be the intersection of two hollow 5 dimensional spheres (5-spheres).

 

The intersection of two hollow 5-spheres is a hollow 4 dimensional sphere (4-sphere).

 

In order to model an expanding hollow 4-sphere, representing the expanding universe, the two 5-spheres must collide or expand, perhaps some of both.

 

The simplest explanation is that the two 5-spheres are expanding uniform wave fronts, whose sources are displaced from each other. The universe as we know it is the product of the intersection of the two 5D waves fronts.

 

Wave length then accounts for why the 5-spheres are hollow and so create a hollow 4-sphere at the intersection.

 

Consider that at some point in 5-space we generate a highly energetic 5-spherical pulse wave.

 

At some distance X from this initial wave we generate a second similar wave pulse at time T after the first wave, where T is small enough that the two waves will collide head on, at a point between their sources. The intersection then expands as a hollow 4-sphere wave intersection.

 

Considering that both waves fronts are travelling at the same rate, their progressive paths describe a parabolic intersection over time, indicating the growth rate of the 3D universe over time.

 

Is there a simpler explanation that could provide a contained 3D environment that still allows for the unmitigated existence of a full 5 dimensions.

 

-----

 

So do you think there is any value in this line of reasoning.

Edited January 25, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

Theodore Kaluza proposed that 5D metric tensors could be used to include Electro-Magnetic force into a unified description of Gravity and Electro-Magnetism. Although not proven to be particularly useful, this has also not proven wrong. The problem was that 5 physical dimensions would be required to use 5D metric tensors.

 

There are well documented problems with classical and quantum Kaluza-Klien theories as originally proposed. Probably the most serious is that the theory is not renormalisable and that including the correct fermions is impossible.

 

 

Any conjecture about higher dimensional universes must offer an explanation for this containment.

 

As you know, in Kaluza-Klein theory the fifth dimension is compactified. This is required for the theory to work. However a natural question is why should it compactify?

 

 

The manifold concept does this by simply denying existence to anything outside the manifold, without accounting for the 4D spherical gross shape of the universe. A 4D construct can exist, but no account is given for containment of the skin of that construct, except to deny existence to all else.

 

If we take space-time to be a manifold, then we can discuss manifolds without embedding them inside a higher dimensional manifold, higher dimensional Euclidean space for example.

 

Classical general relativity does not say anything about our space-time being part of a larger space. It is possible that our universe is part of something larger.

 

 

So do you think there is any value in this line of reasoning.

 

I am a little confused about the idea you propose.

 

You assume we have a 5-d "bulk"? (4+1?)

 

The universe is then thought of as a "3-brane" inside this. That is it has a 4-d world sheet.

 

Now I get confused. Is your "bulk" [math]S^{5}[/math] with some suitiable metric? Or is it (4+1) dimensional Minkowski space or similar?

 

I think you then want to think about the 3-brane as the intersection of 4-spheres? These 4-spheres have some dynamics (something like a Polyakov action + some interaction).

 

I think the world sheet of the 3-brane will resemble de Sitter space , I mean locally it will be something like [math]R \times S^{3}[/math].

[ponderer]

There are well documented problems with classical and quantum Kaluza-Klien theories as originally proposed. Probably the most serious is that the theory is not renormalisable and that including the correct fermions is impossible.

 

 

 

 

As you know, in Kaluza-Klein theory the fifth dimension is compactified. This is required for the theory to work. However a natural question is why should it compactify?

 

 

 

 

If we take space-time to be a manifold, then we can discuss manifolds without embedding them inside a higher dimensional manifold, higher dimensional Euclidean space for example.

 

Classical general relativity does not say anything about our space-time being part of a larger space. It is possible that our universe is part of something larger.

 

 

 

 

I am a little confused about the idea you propose.

 

You assume we have a 5-d "bulk"? (4+1?)

 

The universe is then thought of as a "3-brane" inside this. That is it has a 4-d world sheet.

 

Now I get confused. Is your "bulk" [math]S^{5}[/math] with some suitiable metric? Or is it (4+1) dimensional Minkowski space or similar?

 

I think you then want to think about the 3-brane as the intersection of 4-spheres? These 4-spheres have some dynamics (something like a Polyakov action + some interaction).

 

I think the world sheet of the 3-brane will resemble de Sitter space , I mean locally it will be something like [math]R \times S^{3}[/math].

 

Thankyou for responding.

 

I could have explained things a bit better I guess.

 

I am considering Kaluza before Klien came along.

 

I mentioned Kaluza only, but perhaps I should have made it more clear.

 

It would be natural for most to automatically tie the two together.

 

The intersection of two solid 4-spheres would produce a universe with an edge.

Go fast enough and far enough in any direction and you eventually "fall off the edge" of the universe.

 

How do you create two solid 4-spheres? How do you get them to intersect, they're solid?

 

The intersection of two hollow 4-spheres would produce a hollow 3-sphere like a soccer ball.

 

This could model a 2D universe like Flatland.

 

With respect to manifolds. The residents of such a 2D on a soccer ball Flatland universe I am sure could also have endless discussion about their manifold without considering that anything exists outside.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

 

I am just saying that many theories require higher dimensions, containment is an issue.

 

I am looking at what kind of containment mechanisms might be at play in higher dimensional embedding space.

 

The universe as the active intersection of two 5-spherical waves does not just account for containment.

 

For one thing, it would account for the expansion rate of the universe without concern for dark matter or dark energy.

 

The expansion rate would not depend on mass or energy. It would be determined by the propagation of the intersection of the 5-spherical waves. The mass and energy of our manifold are just along for the ride.

Edited January 26, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

The "solid sphere" is call a ball, the boundary of a ball is a sphere. (You need a metric here to do all this, if we are thinking of higher dimensional Euclidean space we are ok.)

 

I also would not worry about the intersection of balls. Balls are subspaces and intersections of subspaces is ok.

 

As you are no doubt aware, there is two ideas about how we can live in 3+1 dimensions.

 

1) Compactification.

2) Brane scenarios.

[3) a combination of the above]

[ponderer]

The "solid sphere" is call a ball, the boundary of a ball is a sphere. (You need a metric here to do all this, if we are thinking of higher dimensional Euclidean space we are ok.)

 

I also would not worry about the intersection of balls. Balls are subspaces and intersections of subspaces is ok.

 

As you are no doubt aware, there is two ideas about how we can live in 3+1 dimensions.

 

1) Compactification.

2) Brane scenarios.

[3) a combination of the above]

 

Not concerned with balls, thanks, more concerned with spherical waves in a higher dimension Euclidean space. Spherical waves fit the bill since they form an expanding spherical shell, which can easily be intersected with another such wave shell. They also form from a point source.

 

The resulting intersection is an expanding 4D shell with a 3D surface, that starts at a single point like the big bang, and then grows in a fashion similar to most models of universe expansion, if the second wave initiates after the first wave, and before the first wave arrives at the source of the second wave.

 

It is only a geometric construct. The properties of such a construct have in no way been proven to be analogous to actual space-time.

 

My question is, would further investigation be warranted along these lines.

[ajb]

... more concerned with spherical waves in a higher dimension Euclidean space.

 

Waves in what?

[ponderer]

Waves in what?

 

What indeed?

 

I don't pretend to have all the answers to anything.

 

For all I know there is a regular 5D ripple tank running, making many universes at once.

 

All I have is what appears to be the simplest model that allows for a contained 3D environment, in a 5D Euclidean space, which mimimics in some ways our universe.

 

I had never seen one before I created it. Have you?

 

I do not know to what extent the model can be examined to find further parallels.

I figure that the wave is likely to dissipate energy as a function of r^4. The first wave should have less energy at the intersection than the second wave, since the intersection will always be closer to second wave source. This might account for the difference in the mass of the electron and the proton for example. No explanation, just speculation.

 

I am not a physicist. I am also retired.

 

I simply ponder, what might lay beneath and give rise to the equations.

Edited January 27, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

What indeed?

 

You could think about gravitational waves, so ripples in the local geometry. The 5-d Euclidean metric could have "fluctuations".

 

This is a great thing about general relativity, you can have objects that are purely "space-time".

 

Or you could be thinking more along the lines of string theory. You can specify the spheres via a set of embedding functions. These you can then treat as fields on the manifold.

 

All I have is what appears to be the simplest model that allows for a 3D environment, in a 5D Euclidean space, which mimimics in some ways our universe. I have never seen one before I created it. Have you?

 

It reminds me of brane world scenarios and ekpyrotic cosmology.

 

Something else you maybe interested in is 5-d general relativity. It turns out that solutions to 4-d general relativity can be embedded in 5-d Ricci flat manifolds. This is a consequence of the Campbell embedding theorem (there are now both local and global embedding theorems) .

 

This led to Wesson and collaborators to suggest that 5-d vacuum solutions automatically give 4-d solutions with sources. (I am not really up to scope with the status of all this).

[ponderer]

You could think about gravitational waves, so ripples in the local geometry. The 5-d Euclidean metric could have "fluctuations".

 

This is a great thing about general relativity, you can have objects that are purely "space-time".

 

Or you could be thinking more along the lines of string theory. You can specify the spheres via a set of embedding functions. These you can then treat as fields on the manifold.

 

 

 

It reminds me of brane world scenarios and ekpyrotic cosmology.

 

Something else you maybe interested in is 5-d general relativity. It turns out that solutions to 4-d general relativity can be embedded in 5-d Ricci flat manifolds. This is a consequence of the Campbell embedding theorem (there are now both local and global embedding theorems) .

 

This led to Wesson and collaborators to suggest that 5-d vacuum solutions automatically give 4-d solutions with sources. (I am not really up to scope with the status of all this).

 

I have taken a totally philosophical path. I chose Occam's Razor as a philosopical tool.

 

I started with trying to understand the structure of particles. Philosophically, Occam's Razor required that there are no particles, only space-time. Particles must be stable geometric convolutions of space-time.

 

Einstein developed the concept of non-Euclidean space-time, and curved space in gravity wells, implicating a 4th dimension. Kaluza suggested that E-M could be included in a unified model with gravity, but it would require a 5th dimension.

 

Plotting electro-static potential wells in 5D puts electrons and protons facing in opposite directions.

 

Of interest relativistically, and WRT E-M is some of the fallout of this model. Magnetic lines of force which are opposite for electrons and protons in motion, may relate to a same direction spin about a higher dimensional access. Funny thing about spin, it is the same in all higher dimensions. You have two variant dimensions and X number of invariant dimensions. A spin axis perpendicular to 3-space can only have two variant dimensions at most in 3-space. I am still pondering this.

 

Philosophically, the only thing required to get rid of the particle is to replace it with a hole in space-time. You can have a hole at the bottom of a potential well facing down or up, extra-dimensionally. The holes provide long term stablitiy, to massive "particles".

 

A proton and an electron can be combined into a neutron, using a peculiar topology.

 

At the time I felt that a 3D universe needed to be contained in 5D Euclidean space, for any of this to be viable. I postulated a concept of bi-space, where two things were colliding in higher dimensional space, and holes were being punched in either one by energy spikes that exceed the coheasive threshold.

 

Non-massive particles just osclliate between the two sides of the bi-space interface.

 

This is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor.

 

In 1971 I brought this idea to a Relativity Specialist who was a professor at the University of Toronto.

 

He said that it was interesting but said I needed to provide some sort of causality. So, I pondered for many years. This is what I came up with.

 

Two colliding 5D spherical waves, with one occuring after the other, but before the first wave reaches the source of the second wave.

 

Philosophically, this is a very satisfying model in some ways. It provides a uniformly expanding universe, with uniform laws of physics defined by the properties of the greater medium and the grossly symmetrical wave collision interface.

 

The model provides a manifold containment solution, in a 5D Euclidean space. I thought it might warrant some consideration.

 

I would suspect that determining the wave propogation rate, the delta t and delta x between the two proposed spherical waves which most align with the most compatible existing theory, might be a good starting place.

 

Wave length and frequency of the two waves would likely be factors, in the properties of the universe generated.

 

If the growth rate curve can be exactly matched to an existing theory, things get interesting.

 

I sent an e-mail to Sean Carroll, asking him to see if he might do such a caluclation. He did not reply to my emails.

 

I guess if you don't have a PhD in physics and some leading edge publications, your voice falls on deaf ears.

Edited January 27, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

I sent an e-mail to Sean Carroll, asking him to see if he might do such a caluclation. He did not reply to my emails.

 

I have said this before in other threads. People are unlikely to do the work for you. People will only really think about a proposed model if it is stated in a way they can work with and some initial calculations have been done.

 

I guess if you don't have a PhD in physics and some leading edge publications, your voice falls on deaf ears.

 

You and others have said this before. However, before I got my PhD people were willing to converse with me. Some I knew before, others I emailed "out of the blue". That said, I did not ask them to do a calculation for me. Asking sensible questions about someone's work usually gets a sensible response.

 

Thrusting a "theory" on someone and then asking them to do the work is unlikely to get a nice reply.

[ponderer]

I have said this before in other threads. People are unlikely to do the work for you. People will only really think about a proposed model if it is stated in a way they can work with and some initial calculations have been done.

 

 

 

You and others have said this before. However, before I got my PhD people were willing to converse with me. Some I knew before, others I emailed "out of the blue". That said, I did not ask them to do a calculation for me. Asking sensible questions about someone's work usually gets a sensible response.

 

Thrusting a "theory" on someone and then asking them to do the work is unlikely to get a nice reply.

 

Yes, Yes.

 

I am aware of this.

 

I might eventually go down to the local university and talk to the resident cosmologist.

 

In any case, it is not a theoy, in that I have not developed any mathematics to go with it. I was looking for the concept that underlies the math already in use. Clearly, there is some additional work to be done to turn the concept into a match with theory.

 

I have no intention of thrusting this on anyone. I would be happy to share the credit with any physicist willing to doing the calculations, if the calculations prove fruitful. This is not inconvenient work without reward.

 

It is an opportunity for someone, to publish a paper, just tack my name on as the collaborative source of the concept.

 

As I have mentioned, I am retired and it took most of my life to come up with this conceptual model.

 

I am working on some experiments, on my own dime, making every part myself. It would be nice to get some support. A mentoring professional, if the concept proves viable, might bring some funding, and some professional assistance.

 

Oh Well, I will likely just go back to working on my experiments. At least if I do everything on my own dime, I don't have to share what I discover with anyone. This thread will disappear into obscurity, and the basic concept will be forgotten by any and all, dismissed as more crackpottery. The patent system stinks, and is a dissincentive to small inventors. I am quite comfortably retired. I had a full and rewarding career. I can just take it all to the grave with me, I don't need to make a name for myself.

 

I thought I would report the outcome of a lifetime of pondering. I asked if it was of any value to anyone who might be in the field. I really don't know. If there are already good embedding theories, perhaps this has already been considered, or there are better more developed concepts. Perhaps, this model is of no use to anyone, which is fine too. It wont stop me from pondering and experimenting.

 

The Little Red Hen

Edited January 28, 2010 by ponderer

[ajb]

I might eventually go down to the local university and talk to the resident cosmologist.

 

My advice would be to first see if you can sit in on undergraduate lectures on cosmology and related things. As you say your are retired I suppose you can find time. It shows you are truly interested and may be able to give you some knowledge to answer your own questions.

 

About the patents, you can patent an invention, but patenting a mathematical model or mathematical technique is impossible and I feel would be detrimental to science anyway.

 

 

Good luck with it all.

[ponderer]

I have no thoughts of patenting theory. Seems a odd thing to say.

 

WRT to classes. I can't see myself commuting.

 

If no one is interested, I await the private outcome of my experiments, completed in my own good time.

 

At that point, I will decide what to do, if anything, either way.

 

Such is life.

[ajb]

I have no thoughts of patenting theory. Seems a odd thing to say.

 

I misunderstood what you meant. You mentioned the patent system.

[ponderer]

Yes, well the patent system seems designed to discourage you.

 

Compare the patent system to the copyright system.

 

I just designed a XC ski bike "ski track". I thought I would learn mechanical CAD with the apparent coming of the 3D printing revolution. All in all, adult Lego, I would say.

 

It was fun and I considered patenting it, but I don't see myself un-retiring to get stressed out to make XC ski bikes.

 

The patent system put me off. If you don't have a business plan, a patent is an unsupported high inital and ongoing recurring expense. Unless you intend to actually manufacture a product, right away, taking out a patent is just a game for the big guys. Your average home owner, or retiree for that matter, would find the expenses disrruptive to their lifestyle.

 

It seems to me that a better way to do it would be to pay people to patent their ideas, and have a patent market for patents that might be useful. People only get paid if their patent sells on the market. Any patent that makes money on the open market pays an administration fee.

 

If you intend to develop your own product and not sell the patent, then you pay the fees.

 

Create an ideas market where the patent office is a broker.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Waves in what?

 

I gave it some thought. It would have to be an ideal medium for compression waves. Since the intersection of the two waves presents the intersection of two compression waves at different distances from their sources, with wave density diminishing as a function of r^4, one wave would present a uniform less densely compressed wave front, meeting a uniformly higher compressed wave front. The effect may simulate an apparent interface between two different substances, when they are just the meeting of lower and higher density compression waves.

 

This is like a warm front meeting a cold front, or an inversion layer.

 

The depth of each wave is determined by its wavelength. Any oscillation in the intersection between the two wavefronts which exceeds the amplitude energy needed to punch through the wave front on either side, will create a whole. A hole through the less dense wavefront makes an electron. A hole through the more dense wavefront, makes a proton.

 

There is something about the wave front interface, perhaps sheer, that seems to manifest magnetism. I am still trying to get my head around that.

 

An electron and a proton would be represented as stable holes at the bottom of potential wells. That stability maybe due to some sort of higher dimensional spin. That spin may determine that only one size whole is going to be stable, thus leading to only two predomanent stable particles. Neutrons can be assembled from electrons and protons with a bit of topology.

 

You see when you plot the electrostatic field potential for an electron and say that is an electron, and do the same for a proton, they orient in opposite directions. In that higher dimension the resulting magnetic fields from relative motion are an obvious same direction spin about an axis in that dimension. In 3D they manifest as opposite chiralty because their potential wells orient in opposite directions into that extra dimension. This is where wave front sheer might explain magnetic force.

 

Like I said, I am still trying to get my head around it.

 

I was schooled in higher dimensional spin by a very helpful and friendly Australian chap, that I met on usenet before the internet became a GUI.

 

Spin is the same in all dimensions. You have 2 varient dimensions and x number of invariant dimensions. Spin about an Axis perpendicular to 3D can have any circular spin orientation in 3D without changing the extra-dimensional spin axis in any way. It might explain how a consistent extra-dimensional axis orientation can produce unlimited 2D spin orientation in 3D, to produce magnetism.

 

When a charged particle moves, the spin orients to the direction of motion.

 

When you add plots for particle electrostatic fields, the potential wells tip over off perpendicular. The

direction of motion is directly related to the direction a potential well tips, and the force, how much it tips. Interestingly, the magnetic field is directly related to the direction of motion and the speed of the motion.

Edited January 30, 2010 by ponderer
Consecutive posts merged.

[ponderer]

I am going the route of trying to publish in a philosophy periodical.

 

Of interest in writing the article, it occured to me that science has been trying to bridge the gap between classical physics and quantum mechanics.

 

I have discovered a natural model that seems to explain many things, but it falls short at the divide between classical physics and quantum physics.

 

Ultimately, this model is lacking in an explanation for magnetism and quantization at the same time. I put it to you that the explanation for magnetism eventually mined from this construct will likely be that bridge between classical physics and quantum physics, with the introduction of chiral behaviour, and rotational behaviour.

 

I have already illucidated my thoughts on the geometry of magnetism, and how it might relate to this particular manifold.

 

I expect that stable holes cannot form without some sort of spin caused by interface sheer. The thickness of the compression wave (wavelength), the sheer velocity, and the energy density of the compression wave, probably combine in some way to determine that only one size hole will be stable.

 

Very speculative.

Edited February 4, 2010 by ponderer
Consecutive posts merged.