Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Geometry of space-time


Recommended Posts

Einsteins theory of General Relativity is often described using a latex sheet and bending it when a mass is applied. How do we know that space and time curve in the same direction?

When I sit here in a stationary position I 'feel' time flowing through me at its maximum rate,yet around me across the universe I see 3D space is very flat. When I accelerate or lie within a gravitation field 3D space is curved but time slows. At a singularity Time has stopped.

When Time stops it seems obvious to me that its property Flat. when Space is flat Time is accelerated to its maximum and is highly curved. To me Time is an inverted opposite to Space. Like Yin and Yang.

Perhaps only when both the Time and Space domains share equal curvature that both can interact with each other and produce a Higgs field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading that back I'm not sure if I made my thoughts clear.

Basically I'm thinking the slowing of time can be imagined as the Time component of Space-time flattening while the Space component curves, and in stationary or non inertial frames the Time component is highly curved while the Space component is flat.

Each component of space-time can only interact when each are curved close to the same degree ie the production of particles.

The Time domain and the Space domain are identical but the view from each sees the other as opposite and inverted. The 3D space like dimensions are rolled up in the Time domain but Charge in the space domain can be viewed as magnetism in the Time Domain and Light propergates by oscillating back and forth from each domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right there are 11 dimensions. I can imagine them all. I just mentioned the common 3d flat space most people talk about. There are 3 dimensions within the Time domain that are rolled up so tightly that we have no chance of viewing directly. They're kind of over an horizon, out of sight like Australia is to England. But they're are people there who feel our part of the universe only as the passing of their Time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe isn't 3D, think there are 11 dimensions involved.

A different thought process is required.

We are handicapped by being aware of 4.

This is probably absolutely true, in fact there may be more dimension than 11, but they really only apply on a theoretical level, and some are so esoteric that they are barely understandable. However, regardless of how many dimensions there are, we can only ever see and respond to the 4 we can appreciate and so it is difficult to make any argument that involves dimensions of which we are unaware. In other words, we are like blind men in a world of light, and we can only make our arguments from what we can comprehend and, unfortunately, that may not the whole picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably absolutely true, in fact there may be more dimension than 11, but they really only apply on a theoretical level, and some are so esoteric that they are barely understandable. However, regardless of how many dimensions there are, we can only ever see and respond to the 4 we can appreciate and so it is difficult to make any argument that involves dimensions of which we are unaware. In other words, we are like blind men in a world of light, and we can only make our arguments from what we can comprehend and, unfortunately, that may not the whole picture.

Heh heh, I don't doubt that you are right and there is no reason to imagine that our grasp of dimensions is not grossly inadequate! However, the moment you can say 'eleven dimensions' you have made a start, no? No more than a start, mind!

I always like to say that we have local brains for local problems. However, we should blend modesty with patience and ambition. We may yet learn a little more.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Super)String theory is only mathematically consistent in 10 spacetime dimensions. Some physicists take this as a minus for string theory, because we have zero observational evidence for 6 extra dimensions of space. Some physicists take this as a positive for string theory, and say that string theory is the only theory that makes an actual prediction for the number of spacetime dimensions.

Maybe in a few years, when the LHC is running near full design energy*, we will find evidence for extra dimensions; maybe we never will find evidence for extra spacetime dimensions. This is the nature of research at the frontiers of physics.

* If they exist, the extra dimensions are thought to be curled up like circles, and the smaller the circle, the higher the energy that is needed to find evidence for the circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

It's the maths thats requires it. If you take just the regular 3 or 4 dimensions, you come out with some odd things happening. Things like particles having negative probabilities of existing. What does that mean? A probability of 0 means it won't happen, a probabiliy of 1 means it will, and all points in between give you chances. Negative probability means ??? Less than no chance?

It's a bit like getting infinity as the answer - if you get that, it looks like there is a mistake somewhere.

Anyway - when you get to 10 or 11 dimensions, apparently you can solve the maths without these negative probabilities appearing and you get back an answer that is sensible.

So that - I believe (its not my field!) is why these dimensions are in string theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nicely put Juliano, still cant quite get my head around what string theory actually implies but at least i now know why it was originally devised ;)

Just out of interest doesnt 0 also imply infinity? If Einsteins equations are applied to the problem of gravity in a black hole doesnt the answer when resolved turn out to be 0? i.e inifinite gravity, infinite mass, infinitely small? And eveb more disastrously when quantum equations applied doesnt the answer become 0 reoccurring? an infinity of infinities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.