What Would a 5TH Dimension Even Be like?

[Shadowprophet]

I think about these things a lot, About Space and Time and the expansion of space and even weirder things like if space is expanding, What is it expanding into? More space? Space that didn't exist before?

We know the basic dimensions, Height, width, depth, and sometimes, Time.
While there is no real proof of a 5th dimension, I wonder sometimes what a 5th Dimension would be.

Some sources tell me that when you get past time, Other dimensions aren't so many Spacial dimensions, but parallels of us. To me, A parallel wouldn't really Qualify as a separate dimension because it's a parallel. Somehow related. So Not entirely it's own. But that's just me.


Some sources say once you hit the 5th dimension, Which they are all arbitrarily numbered anyway, But, These other dimensions, could be things like Causality, or even some Shared consciousness. I speculate What Truly a 5th-dimensional being would be, What is the 5th dimension? Is it Thought? Is it some sort of hypothetical plane? Like thought?, could Consciousness itself be the 5th dimension?

does anyone have any thoughts on what the 5th dimension could be?

 

[coubob]

interesting..The 7 Signs That You're Entering The 5th Dimension - How To Exit The Matrix

 

[Kchoo]

How I see it...
3D is all directional and spatial, or Space.
4D is Time and Space, or Travel, Bodies in motion.. so we already live in it.
5D is where nothing really exists, except purest forms of energy, it is really tiny, and really huge at the same time... it is the glue that holds all the lower dimensions together. we can study it... by splitting atoms. If we invent anti gravity, or light speed travel capability. It is in this dimension.
6D is cosmic expanding foam where energy is born by existence of expansion. We live in its effects, but we can’t do anything with it... so we just go along for the ride on our planet in our system in the universe in the multiverse, in the master set of motion.
7D is everything else... unobtanium, but without this, what explains D6.?

 

[pigfarmer]

Not my cup of tea but I think it would sound like this

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

We know the basic dimensions, Height, width, depth, and sometimes, Time.
While there is no real proof of a 5th dimension, I wonder sometimes what a 5th Dimension would be.

Some sources tell me that when you get past time, Other dimensions aren't so many Spacial dimensions, but parallels of us. To me, A parallel wouldn't really Qualify as a separate dimension because it's a parallel. Somehow related. So Not entirely it's own. But that's just me.

Some sources say once you hit the 5th dimension, Which they are all arbitrarily numbered anyway, But, These other dimensions, could be things like Causality, or even some Shared consciousness. I speculate What Truly a 5th-dimensional being would be, What is the 5th dimension? Is it Thought? Is it some sort of hypothetical plane? Like thought?, could Consciousness itself be the 5th dimension?

does anyone have any thoughts on what the 5th dimension could be?

I find myself talking about this a lot lately, because people are all mixed up about it, and it's creating a lot of confusion and erroneous thinking.

The word "dimension" can be read as "direction." In our universe, there are 3 dimensions/directions of space, and 1 dimension/direction of time. We call these "large dimensions" because they appear to be infinite, in contrast to the additional dimensions discussed with superstring theory, which are hypothetically tied up into extremely tiny knots (Planck-scale knots actually). We can ignore those kinds of dimensions because they're far, far too small to access physically, and there's zero evidence that they actually exist.

Additional large-scale dimensions are easy to model mathematically, and physicists and mathematicians have described higher-dimensional realities at least since Einstein's relativity theory, and even earlier, iirc.

Our reality doesn't have any higher dimensions than the four we know. If it did, physics would be completely different - radically different in fact. With one or more extra dimensions of space, the hydrogen atom couldn't exist, because there are no stable bound dynamic states possible, including planetary orbits. So clearly there are no more than 3 spatial dimensions. If there were one or more additional dimensions of time, nothing would be predictable. You could run the exact same experiment over and over again, and get completely different results, because matter would be free to move in additional directions in time, in addition to space. So there wouldn't be any of the physics equations that we have in our universe - it would be impossible to make sense of reality.

I recently discussed this in more detail here, and there's a link to a physics paper on this subject in this post:
The Extradimensional Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis: Superstition Masquerading as Science

We don't really have a good understanding of consciousness, but it doesn't have anything to do with any higher physical dimensions. I tend to think of it as a field of some kind, which exists within the context of our 4D reality. But nobody really understands it, imo. Whoever figures out the nature of consciousness will almost certainly win a Nobel Prize - it's that big of a question, and obviously an extremely important one.

interesting..The 7 Signs That You're Entering The 5th Dimension - How To Exit The Matrix

I don't know what that guy is talking about, but it's not physics. In fact I find that kind of article symptomatic of the public ignorance surrounding the idea of higher physical dimensions. People seem to like to use the word "dimension" because it sounds scientific, but they have no idea what the word actually means, so they dream up all kinds of nonsense about it.

There are clearly some very deep and unresolved enigmas in this life. But people who are looking for explanations in "extradimensional entities" and whatnot, are barking up the wrong tree. We inhabit a 4D universe. If there are any large higher dimensions, then they're not coupled to our 4D spacetime; otherwise, physics as we know it would break. So the answers to the unresolved anomalies in the human experience are not attributable to higher dimensions. There must be other explanations.

I think the best way to model any proposed explanation is to begin with things that we know are real, and consider the possibility that they have phenomenological features that we haven't fully understood yet. Ball lighting is a good example - that's a phenomenon of plasma dynamics. We knew about plasma, but it took a very long time to figure out that it could form bound states that could exist for significant periods of time before dissipating or discharging. And for a long time most mainstream academics rejected it as a real phenomenon for that reason. Only in the last 20 years or so did sufficient evidence arise to prove that ball lighting is real. I'm sure that many other, even more rare, phenomena exist in this world. Their greater rarity will require even more time to understand properly. But we'll get there - such is the march of scientific progress.

And I think it's interesting to note that modern science has barely scratched the surface of intrinsically subjective phenomena. God only knows what we'll learn about consciousness - and ourselves - once we start seriously investigating that frontier.

 

[Shadowprophet]

I find myself talking about this a lot lately, because people are all mixed up about it, and it's creating a lot of confusion and erroneous thinking.

The word "dimension" can be read as "direction." In our universe, there are 3 dimensions/directions of space, and 1 dimension/direction of time. We call these "large dimensions" because they appear to be infinite, in contrast to the additional dimensions discussed with superstring theory, which are hypothetically tied up into extremely tiny knots (Planck-scale knots actually). We can ignore those kinds of dimensions because they're far, far too small to access physically, and there's zero evidence that they actually exist.

Additional large-scale dimensions are easy to model mathematically, and physicists and mathematicians have described higher-dimensional realities at least since Einstein's relativity theory, and even earlier, iirc.

Our reality doesn't have any higher dimensions than the four we know. If it did, physics would be completely different - radically different in fact. With one or more extra dimensions of space, the hydrogen atom couldn't exist, because there are no stable bound dynamic states possible, including planetary orbits. So clearly there are no more than 3 spatial dimensions. If there were one or more additional dimensions of time, nothing would be predictable. You could run the exact same experiment over and over again, and get completely different results, because matter would be free to move in additional directions in time, in addition to space. So there wouldn't be any of the physics equations that we have in our universe - it would be impossible to make sense of reality.

I recently discussed this in more detail here, and there's a link to a physics paper on this subject in this post:
The Extradimensional Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis: Superstition Masquerading as Science

We don't really have a good understanding of consciousness, but it doesn't have anything to do with any higher physical dimensions. I tend to think of it as a field of some kind, which exists within the context of our 4D reality. But nobody really understands it, imo. Whoever figures out the nature of consciousness will almost certainly win a Nobel Prize - it's that big of a question, and obviously an extremely important one.


I don't know what that guy is talking about, but it's not physics. In fact I find that kind of article symptomatic of the public ignorance surrounding the idea of higher physical dimensions. People seem to like to use the word "dimension" because it sounds scientific, but they have no idea what the word actually means, so they dream up all kinds of nonsense about it.

There are clearly some very deep and unresolved enigmas in this life. But people who are looking for explanations in "extradimensional entities" and whatnot, are barking up the wrong tree. We inhabit a 4D universe. If there are any large higher dimensions, then they're not coupled to our 4D spacetime; otherwise, physics as we know it would break. So the answers to the unresolved anomalies in the human experience are not attributable to higher dimensions. There must be other explanations.

I think the best way to model any proposed explanation is to begin with things that we know are real, and consider the possibility that they have phenomenological features that we haven't fully understood yet. Ball lighting is a good example - that's a phenomenon of plasma dynamics. We knew about plasma, but it took a very long time to figure out that it could form bound states that could exist for significant periods of time before dissipating or discharging. And for a long time most mainstream academics rejected it as a real phenomenon for that reason. Only in the last 20 years or so did sufficient evidence arise to prove that ball lighting is real. I'm sure that many other, even more rare, phenomena exist in this world. Their greater rarity will require even more time to understand properly. But we'll get there - such is the march of scientific progress.

And I think it's interesting to note that modern science has barely scratched the surface of intrinsically subjective phenomena. God only knows what we'll learn about consciousness - and ourselves - once we start seriously investigating that frontier.

Thanks, Thomas, I was really hoping for your input on this, I know that the Data doesn't really support extra dimensions factually. As I study the theoretical dimensions in string theory, A lot of the ideas beyond the third dimension are repeated, And even theoretically it makes so little sense.

I will say that I still wonder about certain things though, When we don't fully understand the full nature of physical matter, How can we be certain that we understand space to such a degree that we truly have conceived all physical dimensions? That's not a contradiction, I'm just legitimately curious about your Speculatory thoughts on this?

Fully knowing, You don't fully get on the theoretical dimensional way of thinking, My curiosity is deeper than what's proven true, I want to know what a mind like yours, Fully versed in factual Data thinks about these abstract ideas.

Basically, I'm asking, If in some Fantasy setting, you had to conceive what a 5th dimension would be, Could be, In your mind, What would the fifth dimension of space be like? Would it could it be Quantum? Would it be Subatomic?

I know it's impossible, But, I'm asking you to ride the imagination train. If you had to with your mind, conceive a 5th dimension of space, What would this magical unicorn be?

 

[Shadowprophet]

I want to start this New post, First by Saying I Respect you Thomas, And I fully Respect what you think especially on any physics topic. It's Important for me to get your thoughts on What Theoretically from your point of View a Fifth Dimension would be, I know you are set in your ways, And Empirically, There is no Data to back up String theory.

I Take Empirical Data As a Fact I do, But, I love to theorize, Take this page from Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html This is from 2014, It's based entirely on String theory, And I can't comment on how credible Phys.org truly is. I tend to take them more seriously than some sources. But here is their Rundown, Of speculated Higher dimensions,

These quips are ripped directly from the page itself so the emboldened letters are not me making some point, it came off the page that way.

The first dimension, as already noted, is that which gives it length (aka. the x-axis). A good description of a one-dimensional object is a straight line, which exists only in terms of length and has no other discernible qualities. Add to it a second dimension, the y-axis (or height), and you get an object that becomes a 2-dimensional shape (like a square).

The third dimension involves depth (the z-axis) and gives all objects a sense of the area and a cross-section. The perfect example of this is a cube, which exists in three dimensions and has a length, width, depth, and hence volume. Beyond these three lies the seven dimensions which are not immediately apparent to us, but which can be still be perceived as having a direct effect on the universe and reality as we know it.

Scientists believe that the fourth dimension is time, which governs the properties of all known matter at any given point. Along with the three other dimensions, knowing an object's position in time is essential to plotting its position in the universe. The other dimensions are where the deeper possibilities come into play, and explaining their interaction with the others is where things get particularly tricky for physicists.

According to Superstring Theory, the fifth and sixth dimensions are where the notion of possible worlds arises. If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time. The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).

In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

I post these things, Not as some sort of contradictory challenge, I Respect what you believe Fully. I know String theory isn't a Subject you Fancy.

To me, These things are just Fun ideas to play with. I would really like your personal thoughts on the concepts of these higher dimensions, Even though, I know you lean opposed in some respects to String theory, What I'm looking for is your thoughts on the properties of these theoretical extra dimensions?

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Thanks, Thomas, I was really hoping for your input on this, I know that the Data doesn't really support extra dimensions factually. As I study the theoretical dimensions in string theory, A lot of the ideas beyond the third dimension are repeated, And even theoretically it makes so little sense.

Don’t get me wrong – I hate superstring theory because it’s unfalsifiable, and therefore in my opinion, unscientific. If you invent enough degrees of freedom in the form of a whole bunch of extra undetectable dimensions, you can model anything. So to me it’s very similar to the medieval notion of the celestial spheres. They couldn’t work out the orbital dynamics of the planets with nice simple spheres, so they had to add secondary spheres to the first set. That didn’t quite work out either, so they had to add a third set of spheres to the second set of spheres. That got them closer, but it still wasn’t enough. If you add on enough spheres, you can model just about any orbital trajectory, but that doesn’t make the underlying physics legitimate. That’s pretty much how I see superstring theory – it can make some interesting correlations to physical reality, but it doesn’t offer any meaningful insight into physics, because I think it’s the wrong idea. But smarter people than me absolutely love it, and nobody’s been able to disprove it so it could turn out to be legit, in the end. I just think those physicists have outsmarted themselves, like a form of cognitive pareidolia for brainiacs.

I will say that I still wonder about certain things though, When we don't fully understand the full nature of physical matter, How can we be certain that we understand space to such a degree that we truly have conceived all physical dimensions? That's not a contradiction, I'm just legitimately curious about your Speculatory thoughts on this?

Those are two totally unrelated issues. We have a pretty good grasp of physical matter – the Standard Model may not provide an integrated solution to gravitation, and the number of free parameters is an issue, but it does a great job of predicting the behavior of matter to extremely high precision, and in all kinds of scenarios like pair production and such.

The dimensionality of spacetime is a whole other story. We can model the dynamics of higher-dimensional spacetimes with profound mathematical precision. So we know for a fact that there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time here in our sector of the universe – the entire observable sector.

Here’s an animation of a four-dimensional cube – called a tesseract – rotating on one axis, where the rotation gives us the time dimension so this is a 5-dimensional physics scenario:

Basically, I'm asking, If in some Fantasy setting, you had to conceive what a 5th dimension would be, Could be, In your mind, What would the fifth dimension of space be like? Would it could it be Quantum? Would it be Subatomic?

No, a fifth dimension of space is just an additional direction, which is perpendicular to the other three directions (dimensions) defined by the x and y and z axes. There’s nothing special about it; it would be just another direction that you could point in, which is perpendicular to the other three.

Take this page from Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html This is from 2014, It's based entirely on String theory, And I can't comment on how credible Phys.org truly is. I tend to take them more seriously than some sources. But here is their Rundown, Of speculated Higher dimensions,

These quips are ripped directly from the page itself so the emboldened letters are not me making some point, it came off the page that way.

The first dimension, as already noted, is that which gives it length (aka. the x-axis). A good description of a one-dimensional object is a straight line, which exists only in terms of length and has no other discernible qualities. Add to it a second dimension, the y-axis (or height), and you get an object that becomes a 2-dimensional shape (like a square).

The third dimension involves depth (the z-axis) and gives all objects a sense of the area and a cross-section. The perfect example of this is a cube, which exists in three dimensions and has a length, width, depth, and hence volume. Beyond these three lies the seven dimensions which are not immediately apparent to us, but which can be still be perceived as having a direct effect on the universe and reality as we know it.

Scientists believe that the fourth dimension is time, which governs the properties of all known matter at any given point. Along with the three other dimensions, knowing an object's position in time is essential to plotting its position in the universe. The other dimensions are where the deeper possibilities come into play, and explaining their interaction with the others is where things get particularly tricky for physicists.

According to Superstring Theory, the fifth and sixth dimensions are where the notion of possible worlds arises. If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time. The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).

In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

Physorg.com is usually okay, but that article was about a pop science article from the Universe Today website – not an academic physics paper. And it’s a mess. He doesn’t even specify whether he’s talking about space dimensions or time dimensions - a massively important distinction. Some of it is right if he’s talking about space dimensions, some of it is right if he’s talking about time dimensions. But he totally overlooks the fact that none of these higher dimensions can exist in a macroscopic way in our reality, without destroying the entire edifice of known physics. He’s just talking about what these dimensions could be like if they existed. But they have no bearing on our actual universe, which is 4D. Our 4D universe could be on a brane, we wouldn’t notice that because we can’t leave the brane – so that kind of higher dimension has to relevance to the observed physics of our reality, unless the Big Bang was produced by a collision between branes. All of that stuff is wildly speculative though..

To me, These things are just Fun ideas to play with. I would really like your personal thoughts on the concepts of these higher dimensions, Even though, I know you lean opposed in some respects to String theory, What I'm looking for is your thoughts on the properties of these theoretical extra dimensions?

They’re just extra dimensions so they don’t have any special properties. Physics would be radically different if they did exist though. And that’s why we know that they don’t. Unless they’re wrapped up into loops at the Planck scale as superstring theory posits. But even superstring theory is talking about –our universe-. Those extra dimensions in superstring theory don’t break our laws of physics because no matter or energy can move through those extra dimensions.

So additional large space and time dimensions are ruled out, unless you start screwing around with the operative laws of physics in really artificial and ad hoc ways. Some people are willing to do that, but I think that’s silly - trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

It gets more fun if you loosen up the definition of “dimensions” though. There could be other forms of dimensions that aren’t directions that you can physically move in like space and time. For example, when you add color to a graph, you’re adding in a new form of information – an additional degree of freedom in the informational sense. People call that an extra dimension sometimes. But what they mean is there’s an additional feature to the information, not an additional direction in spacetime.

An eccentric physicist named Burkhardt Heim played with those kinds of dimensions. He invented a weird new kind of physics where organizational systems existed in spacetime, and he called them dimensions. You can encode all kinds of information into imaginary alternative kinds of dimensions mathematically, if you want. And who knows? Maybe there are different types of dimensions other than space and time – dimensions that you can’t travel in, or hide an object in, but nevertheless shape the laws of physics in some way so you could maybe derive various properties of matter like the principle quantum numbers. If you’re willing to completely rewrite the laws of physics in a new mathematical formalism, you could define all kinds of quantities as dimensions if you want.

Maybe in that sense, you could look at extra dimensions which aren’t directions that you could move in. For example, the quantum vacuum might be defined by an intrinsic architecture of energy, like the stochastic background of stochastic electrodynamics. I guess you could think of that as a kind of informational dimension. It really wouldn’t surprise me if we discovered an altogether new type of dimension that we’ve never thought of before, and completely different than space or time. We humans have a rotten tendency to try to repeat our “greatest hits” rather than looking at things in an original way, and I think that seriously impedes our progress at times.

So I think we need to stop trying to find new spatial or temporal dimensions that don’t exist (not at the macro scale anyway), and instead try to find new kinds of relationships in physics – new ways of thinking about it all. Physicists study the symmetry of physical laws to glean new insights of an abstract yet structurally significant nature. That’s generally been how we’ve made leaps forward in the past. And that’s probably how we’ll make new leaps of understanding in the future too.

 

[coubob]

5th dimension i think is more of a physic consciousness

 

[spacecase0]

I am convinced that the math showing all the dimensions are things we already know about,
they have just failed to see what they are in physical reality
the first 3 dimensions of space everyone pretty much gets.
next is the 4th dimension, and that is time. ok, most people get that as well.
I am convinced that the 5th is electricity (also could be stated as divergent time)
and the 6th that the physicists see as "wrapped around itself" is magnetism, and that is because it is literally the electric field wrapped around itself, just like in an electromagnetic coil...
the physics people are good at math and predictions, just not so good at figuring out how it shows up in the real world.

 

[Kchoo]

It is all fun to think about, and read about, and imagine about....
To test and experiment with it.
To exist in it is to try to understand it.

My step dad like to say, “If you can’t eat it, drink it, or visit it, then what good is it?”
The largest dimension he cared about was the crack of dawn. “If that doesn’t happen, watch out!”

 

[Shadowprophet]

That's the thing about these higher spatial dimensions, For them to exist, We need to prove things like

Superposition= Unicorn
The Graviton = Vampire Ninja Zombie "complete in Batmobile"

We would need to find a way to connect the fundamental forces Strong interaction, Weak interaction, Gravity and Electromagnetism, The problem is, So many people have tried for the last 100 years, And no one, has anything to connect these forces together. If we could prove Superposition Or the Graviton, This would open up all kinds of theoretical physics to empirical science. But, We may have better luck finding A Hello Kitty Voltron than Proving String theory.

I have to be Fair, If legitimate Physics, Had A Bob Lazar, It's String Theory.


Still. It's hard to not like Voltron lol.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

I am convinced that the math showing all the dimensions are things we already know about,
they have just failed to see what they are in physical reality
the first 3 dimensions of space everyone pretty much gets.
next is the 4th dimension, and that is time. ok, most people get that as well.
I am convinced that the 5th is electricity (also could be stated as divergent time)
and the 6th that the physicists see as "wrapped around itself" is magnetism, and that is because it is literally the electric field wrapped around itself, just like in an electromagnetic coil...
the physics people are good at math and predictions, just not so good at figuring out how it shows up in the real world.

I have to disagree with all of that. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) describes the physics of electromagnetic fields perfectly down to the quantum level, and it does so strictly in the context of our 4-dimensional reality: both the static electric field and the magnetic field are fully described with 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. No extra dimensions needed.

And physicists use that comprehensive and explicit high-precision physics model to engineer astonishing machines like the Large Hadron Collider that work exactly as expected.

So I don't see any room to dis physicists at either the theoretical or the application level - the proof of the power and the precision of our physical understanding of electromagnetism is literally in the palm of our hands every time we use our smartphones to place calls or to take videos with a device that fits in our pockets.

Before anyone could claim to have a better understanding of electromagnetism, they'd have to predict a new effect that the current model can't predict, describe it mathematically so it can be checked numerically, and then prove that it's real and not an experimental error. Not a single living soul on this planet has managed to do that.

That's the thing about these higher spatial dimensions, For them to exist, We need to prove things like

Superposition= Unicorn
The Graviton = Vampire Ninja Zombie "complete in Batmobile"

The jury's still out on the graviton, but I don't see how you can argue against quantum superposition - it's how quantum computers work, so it's been physically proven in the lab. But there are lots of other experimental proofs as well:

Quantum superposition: Experiments and applications - Wikipedia

We would need to find a way to connect the fundamental forces Strong interaction, Weak interaction, Gravity and Electromagnetism, The problem is, So many people have tried for the last 100 years, And no one, has anything to connect these forces together.

Actually Steven Weinberg unified electromagnetism and the weak force decades ago; it's now called the electroweak force. He got a Nobel Prize for it, with two other physicists. The strong interaction is described with quantum chromodynamics (QCD) using the color charge, the electric charge, and the principle of asymptotic freedom, and that all works well within the Standard Model along with the other forces, so really only gravity remains an outlier. And that's not surprising because it's so much weaker than the other forces - it's virtually impossible to detect at the quantum level. It's hard to model something that you can't experiment with at the fundamental level. But general relativity (GR) does an excellent job at all of the levels that we can test.

I have to be Fair, If legitimate Physics, Had A Bob Lazar, It's String Theory.

I don't like superstring theory, but it's a whole lot more credible than Bob Lazar =D

 

[coubob]

Dimensional Analysis :: Maxwell's Units
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.5697.pdf

 

[spacecase0]

I have to disagree with all of that.

I would expect you to.
we already talked about all this in another thread.
you say you don't have time for alternate ideas for how physics works.

Before anyone could claim to have a better understanding of electromagnetism, they'd have to predict a new effect that the current model can't predict, describe it mathematically so it can be checked numerically, and then prove that it's real and not an experimental error. Not a single living soul on this planet has managed to do that.

that is a bit of a harsh standard.
if I remember correct even your physics resorts to measured numbers from nature where theory has no numerical values.
see this list for physical constants
Physical constant - Wikipedia

 

[humanoidlord]

I don't know what that guy is talking about, but it's not physics. In fact I find that kind of article symptomatic of the public ignorance surrounding the idea of higher physical dimensions. People seem to like to use the word "dimension" because it sounds scientific, but they have no idea what the word actually means, so they dream up all kinds of nonsense about it.

you don't really know what a dimension is, a dimension is a alternate reality that exists beyond yours
its one of the possible places of origin of the cosmic trickster

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Oh boy - they'll let anyone post a video on YouTube =D

This is exactly the kind of new age claptrap that's causing so much confusion regarding extra dimensions. States of consciousness and the dimensionality of spacetime are totally different subjects - it's bad to conflate them like this.

Keep the metaphysics out of physics, please. Metaphysics is an important subject, but stealing terms from physics to make this kind of stuff sound more scientific is disingenuous at best, and a con game at worst (and it's usually "worst").

Dimensional Analysis :: Maxwell's Units

Sure, like I said above, you can come up with all kinds of ways to define the various factors of nature in terms of “dimensions,” as long as they’re not dimensions that you can physically move in. Your link conforms to that because the dimensions being described are imaginary in the mathematical sense:

“Three of the spatial dimensions are the real x,y,z dimensions of Euclidean space: length, breadth and height. However, the other three dimensions must be mathematically imaginary, i.e. the result of a Wick-rotation (by π/2) into an orthogonal imaginary dimension having units of length. They exist, like time, in another dimension, but we can't directly see them, nor move around in them.”
Dimensional Analysis :: Maxwell's Units

I was intrigued with Maxwell's quaternion theory until I realized that it didn't resolve any problems that the current model hadn't already resolved.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.5697.pdf

He doesn’t seem to realize that his basic postulate is just re-hashing the Kaluza-Klein theory from the 1920’s, where a fifth spatial dimension that’s curled up to a Planck scale radius provided a method for deriving Maxwell’s equations and GR from a single theoretical edifice. Einstein was so excited about it that he spent the rest of his life trying to make it work out as a unified field theory, but failed. It was a tantalizing idea - that electromagnetic fields could be described by geometry just like gravity. But it appears to be the wrong approach because classical field theory is just an approximation of quantum physics, and geometric approaches haven’t proven to be compatible with the physics of quantum mechanics.

Anyway, the 5D Kaluza-Klein model, where the fifth spatial dimension is far too microscopic to detect, was the seed that sprouted superstring theory. As physicists chased that idea to try to unify GR with quantum mechanics, they found that they needed at least 11 dimensions in total, where the extra seven are wound up in Planck-scale knots. Unfortunately in the process they came up with 10^500 different kinds of possible universes, all with different physics. And the bloom seems to have faded from that rose in recent years to some extent, since the LHC hasn’t detected any new effects such as microsingularities, beyond the Standard Model predictions.

I would expect you to.
we already talked about all this in another thread.
you say you don't have time for alternate ideas for how physics works.

Actually I spend the majority of my free time looking into new theoretical models in the literature. Our Physics Frontiers podcast is all about that stuff.

that is a bit of a harsh standard.

I prefer to call it "the scientific standard," because that’s what it is. It’s demanding by design, so the progress of science doesn’t get derailed by errors – which are far more common than new insights.

if I remember correct even your physics resorts to measured numbers from nature where theory has no numerical values.
see this list for physical constants
Physical constant - Wikipedia

I prefer to think of it as “our physics” because it belongs to all of humanity (whether they want it or not).

I don’t know what you’re getting at by taking swipes at numbers and/or physical constants. Without numbers and quantified measurements, there would be no science, and no technology. All we’d have left are abstract and untestable stories about how the universe works, i.e., religions.

Most theorists would be satisfied to see a new physical theory expressed in a clear mathematical framework which predicts the known physics within its domain of applicability, and one or more things that the current theory doesn't predict so we can see that it's not just a different formulation of the existing models. That's a minimum standard. Whenever that minimum standard is met, then it's okay to leave it up to others to run the experiments to test it. But most people who criticize the current models don't have a sufficient grasp of mathematics to offer an alternative physics model, and those who do understand the mathematics of the current models support them because they can see how clear and effective they are at describing all known laboratory phenomena.

I'm particularly interested in "dark energy" and "dark matter," and the startling range of proposed explanations for them, because those are legitimate new effects and our current explanations are terrible. But, sadly, I have yet to see an explanation that's any better than the variety of alternative explanations in the academic literature. Though that's also exciting, because it means that we definitely have some new physics to learn, and one day, we will.

 

[spacecase0]

Thomas R. Morrison,
you just wrote something that said none of the physical constant discoveries are valid science,
I was not taking a jab at anything. trying to get you to allow that a new discovery might not be verified with numbers that could be theoretically predicted beforehand.
if I took to heart what you wrote, something like altering gravity with hardware would not qualify as valid research because it would be stumbling upon a new physical constant, and so it could not be verified with numbers that could be theoretically predicted beforehand.
This is the reason it was rejected by others in the past.
did you want links to the theory and the test ?
or is the entire idea that it would be good science still not valid to you ?

 

[coubob]

All i hear is blah blah blah but thanks for your articulated input.I wish i was more into math, but i did score in the top 5% of the nation in who`s who back in high school algebra in 84 so i`m not totally lost to it.

 

[nivek]

All i hear is blah blah blah but thanks for your articulated input.I wish i was more into math, but i did score in the top 5% of the nation in who`s who back in high school algebra in 84 so i`m not totally lost to it.

You do realize this sentence contradicts itself...I'm not one to use yoututbe for any true source of information, youtube is entertainment, nothing more in my eyes, so posting a video from youtube for any kind of serious support for a discussion is folly to me...

...