The 5th dimension is gravity

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I have a theory which I have realised only recently. Take it for what its worth. When we consider the regular dimensions. We have three dimensions of space: Length, Width and Height and one dimension of time, but there is one dimension we overlook: Downwards or heaviness. You could say that this is included in height(up and down) but actually the height dimension(y axis) that we observe ends at the zero horizon, it does not go beyond zero. In mathematics we can conceive of negative entities like a negative y axis, but there is no such correspondence in the real world.

But there is a negative y axis, in the core of every bit of matter there is something which causes a downwards pull, which we call gravity. This is the dimension of gravity.

Now imagine the universe is like a cube, with 6 sides and each side is a separate plane. If you wanted to get from plane to the opposite plane you would have to go vertifically through the cube through the negative y axis to get there, like an imaginary vertical line going through one plane to the other. If our universe was just like a 6 sided cube(which I don't believe it is, but for the purpose of illustration lets accept it) and we existed on one plane, to get to the opposite plane one would have to to travel along the dimension of gravity to get there.

If space is not solid, but simply assumes the shape of the objects in it, it means that every object with mass will cause a depression or as Einstein calls it a gravity well in the fabric of space. Now revisit the cube universe with 6 sides, it follows that it is possible for a gravity well to be so deep that it touches the opposite side. Hence an object on one side can travel to the other side by creating a gravity well deep enough to reach the other side.

Now I really have no idea what the real geometry of the universe is, but the same principles will apply, to travel to another plane one would have to travel through the dimension of gravity. If suppose the geometry of the universe is like hyperspace, then no matter which plane you begin from, you can travel to any other plane, but again to leave ones plane one needs to go through the dimension of gravity.

I have an experiment, a really crude, trite and simple one, but I predict if my theory is right that gravity is the 5 dimension this experiment will work.
If it follows that a gravity well deep enough to reach another plane is how one can travel along the dimension of gravity and a gravity well depends upon the gravitational field of a mass. Then, if a significant gravitational field is generated around the mass it should theoretically disappear from its plane. It would literally warp the space around it causing it to sink below the zero horizon and thereby making it disappear(we cannot see the negative y axis of gravity) I really want to try this but have no idea how it could be done as I am not a physicist, and thus own no equipment to even experiment in creating intense gravitational fields.

I wonder if there have been experiments done similar to what I propose, and if not, how we could set something up to test it.




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

I have an experiment, a really crude, trite and simple one, but I predict if my theory is right that gravity is the 5 dimension this experiment will work.
If it follows that a gravity well deep enough to reach another plane is how one can travel along the dimension of gravity and a gravity well depends upon the gravitational field of a mass. Then, if a significant gravitational field is generated around the mass it should theoretically disappear from its plane. It would literally warp the space around it causing it to sink below the zero horizon and thereby making it disappear(we cannot see the negative y axis of gravity) I really want to try this but have no idea how it could be done as I am not a physicist, and thus own no equipment to even experiment in creating intense gravitational fields.



I like this train of thought. I always thought a black hole was a gateway into another dimension. I think this matches up with your experimental theory. A lot of what you said made sense on an intuitive level, but I'm gonna have to reread this tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Interesting theory. Very visual!

You call gravity 'down' but I think of it more as 'inward'. The method of travel you talk about is similar to what many have suggested could be possible with black holes (if they exist). Some think they may be gateways to other universes, dimensions or parts of this universe. If black holes were a form of quantum entanglement it could be possible.

BTW... I think that this universe is just a big donut because matter no longer streams from the center (ala big bang). Therefore the center of the universe is probably just a big empty space.

IRM

[edit on 23/3/09 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
INteresting. You're basic goal is to teleport?
There have been sucessful particle beam teleportation experiments done, They're created the Quatum entangler device.
there have been a few threads on it in ATS.
Have a read of the one of the more advance devices (ie most successful teleportatoin experiment repeated), its a article from a great research show.

www.abc.net.au...

the crux here:

"Narration: To teleport something you first have to measure it before you can reproduce it somewhere else. But the problem is something called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that you can’t measure subatomic particles without destroying their original state. And if you can’t measure something accurately, how can you recreate it?

Tim Ralph: Well obviously the Star Trek writers were well aware of this problem. You know, I think physicists had come up to them and said oh by the way, there is a bit of a problem with your teleporter, and so they invented this machine they called the Heisenberg compensator, which somehow was supposed to get around this problem.

Narration: But in the real world of quantum physics they came up with their own Heisenberg compensator. It’s a device called a quantum entangler, which sidesteps the uncertainty principle without violating it. It’s so complex that even the physicists themselves have trouble explaining how it works, and so do we"


Its brilliant stuff, even though Quatum is so unknown, they have managed to reproduce the teleportation more than once.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Good hypothesis, starred and flagged. We have been living with gravity since the beginning of time and we still have no idea what it is. We know what it does but not how it works. This particular hypothesis would explain a few things, for the most part black holes. Email Stephen Hawking right away!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Gravity is somewhat of a mystery.


Modern physics admits that gravity is very different from other forces (strong, electromagnetic and weak) and perhaps less understood. Newton first described and formalized effects of gravity. Einstein made a significant step in understanding its nature and improved the way we can estimate it. Still, we cannot really tell what causes gravity and why it is so special among other forces. Calling it a “field”, a “universal force” does not help explaining it.

Mysterious Gravity

Gravity and electricity are two "natural" forces which have perplexed people for quite some time. Electricity can be produced and utilized, yet there is not a consensus on exactly what it is. Gravity is much in the same vein.


Newton's theory of gravity is one of the most significant triumphs of scientific effort. Its predictions are vindicated by observations with extraordinary accuracy. When Adams in England and Le Verrier in France used the motion of Uranus to predict the existence of Neptune they were expressing the trust people have come to place on Newtonian gravitation as a very good approximation to reality.

However as with any theory there are regimes where it is no longer applicable. For example the perihelion of Mercury is observed to precess at the rate of 43 arc-seconds every century. This ``fast'' precession cannot be explained by Newtonian gravitation. Another issue that came back to haunt Newton's theory of gravity was its ``action at a distance'' nature. Following the success of Maxwell's field theory of electromagnetic forces it was becoming increasingly necessary to find a similar field theory for gravitation. It was to meet this challenge that Einstein's theory of gravitation rose. It is an even better approximation to physical reality than Newton's theory, and reduces to Newton's theory when applied to the regime where Newton's theory is expected to work. Perhaps even more importantly it provides a geometric understanding of gravitation, which makes it more satisfying than the action at a distance nature of Newtonian gravitation.

Another Newtonian Fault



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Yes, that sounds more correct to me. It's not really a downwardness, it's an inwardness and is originating at the core of matter itself. I think the term "downwards" is based on the prejudice of a 3D universe. I realised the problem with a 6-planed cube universe, it would mean that the gravity well would have to reach as far as the furthest possible distance to the next plane. That would be a very deep gravity well! If we created such a gravity well it would suck our entire universe into it. Yeah it does sound like a black hole, maybe a black hole is just a very deep gravity well.

However, as gravity is not really downwards but inwards, it follows that the universe is not actually cube-like, but more point-like and the dimension that goes from outwards to inwards to converge at the point is gravity. Therefore, all possible universes(assuming multiple world theory) actually converge on one point. I am reminded of a Mandala design:



Incidentally, this mandala design is based on a cosmological model of the universe. The point in the middle(bindu) represents the infinite converging point(and is the concentration point in meditation exercises) in which all possible universes converge. The interlocking triangles represent levels or planes or universes, the upwards triangle represents energy and the downwards triangle represents matter. Note how the further you go from the converging point, the bigger the intersecting triangles becomes. To go from outwards to inwards means travelling one level or one plane of the universe.

So perhaps what gravity enables us to do by assuming a universe similar to this Mandala is to travel from one level/plane to the other. When an object sinks from the zero horizon on one plane, it travels to the next, and when it zinks from the zero horizon on that plane it travels to the next and so forth, but with every level we go inwards the more we converge towards the converging point.

Hence a blackhole would act like a doorway to another plane/level of the universe, but not in a random and arbitrary way. The depth of the gravity well would be proportional to the level or plane. A very high gravitational field could be so powerful as to take you towards the converging point, which lies beyond all the levels.

It is interesting how this "inwardsness" is mirrored in the act of consciousness concentration exercises and meditation. The more you concentrate on an object, the more you converge onto it, and the more you converge onto it the more deeper the states of consciousness. There seems to be a direct correlation thus between the physical dimension of gravity and the mental dimension of concentration, where each state of consciousness mirrors a level of the physical universe.

Just a few inspired thoughts on the matter. Sorry to take matters from physics to metaphysics, I have a tedency to do that. In my mind physics and metaphysics are always in relation to one another.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry about it. Most modern physics is touching the realm of metaphysics anyway.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This is extremely interesting for several reasons.

1. There's a theory called Randall-Sundrum by Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall Raman Sundrum from John Hopkins University. They say that our brane which they call Tev Brane is 3+1 dimensions while the Planck Brane is a gravity brane. On our brane particles are localized and the standard model applies but the hypothetical gravition or gravity is not stuck on our brane but can travel from brane to brane. This is why physicist couldn't unify gravity with the other forces of nature because gravity is not localized. She also wrote an interesting book called Warped Passages.

Randall-Sundrum
en.wikipedia.org...

2. I think what you said about gravity or heaviness being a dimension might be correct. This would be very interesting because if we can control the geometry of space-time we might be able to form tunnels and travel through warped passeges to other points in space faster than light. This is because you wouldn't be actually moving but space would be moving. You could even leave your brane world and travel to another brane if you form a tunnel from your brane to the next brane. So you wouldn't be traveling off of your brane, you would just be stretching space to the next brane or another point in space.

3. This is my main objection to the LHC. If we exist in just 3+1 dimension than Hawking Radiation applies and if we were to create any black holes they would evaporate. Randall-Sundrum says somethind different. It says that we would create these black holes and they would embed themselves in this extra-dimension and there's no telling at this point what would occur.

What's interesting about this is that both Hawking Radiation and Randall-Sundrum could be true but one of them will be false. Hawking Radiation will be true if we live in 3+1 dimensions and Randall-Sundrum will be true if we live in 4+1 dimensions. I think this shows that reality is virtual and depends on the local reality that you are interacting with at the moment.

Very interesting.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
My understanding is that Gravity is a force that originates in another dimension and spills over into this one via REALLY small holes. I heard about this theory on a show on one of the science channels, give me a while and i'll hunt down some links if anyone is interested.


TheAssociate



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
How about a quantum dimension where gravity is irrelevant. Which can open countless dimensions where time isn't relevant, etc....

[edit on 24-3-2009 by The Real Antichrist]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Sounds like you talking about Loop Quantum Gravity I still think string theory is probably the closest to reality, It explains why gravity is such a weak force.There are 3 theories for explaining quantum gravity.

First, there is a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, where space-time is only 4 dimensional.

Secondly, there is approach to gravity based on non-commutative geometry, where space-time is no continuum any more but rather something like a foam. There the dimensionality might be 4 or higher, with higher dimensions compacted to very small distances such that they cannot be "seen".

The third approach is string theory. Space-time is ten dimensional. The universe we live in is a four dimensional subspace - called D-brane - of that ten dimensional space. So matter particles are restricted to the brane. Gravitons, however they can propagate through all ten dimensions of the space. What we see of gravity is some effective interaction and some projection onto our brane.

Just so you know if string theory is right there is no limit to how we could manipulate the universe!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Could it be that mass is a conduit for gravity in the same way a wire is a conduit for electricity? In saying that, I mean that gravity does not derive from the mass itself but appears to us wherever there is mass... so more mass equals a larger amount of conduits in a localized area, or they form together to create 1 larger conduit; or stronger force.

Perhaps gravity needs 'something' to be present to travel through the dimensions or branes and that's why it only appears where there is mass. Perhaps mass is just an inverse hole between branes?

I'll stop before my brain fries.

IRM



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
) I really want to try this but have no idea how it could be done as I am not a physicist, and thus own no equipment to even experiment in creating intense gravitational fields.

I wonder if there have been experiments done similar to what I propose, and if not, how we could set something up to test it.


It's not much about having an equipment; it's a matter of knowledge that is lacking in order to create gravitational fields that would be stronger than the one generated by the earth itself. The quantum model of matter holds a particle called "graviton" responsible for the effect of gravity, but that particle hasn't been detected. Gravity is an extremely weak force; the whole mass of the earth is no match for a little alnico magnet that can easily defeat it and lift a needle off the surface.

Note that "time," as the fourth dimension, doesn't figure in quantum mechanics as a particle, so don't x. y, and z dimensions of the cube. Time is not really a spacial dimension, it's just a factor in the relativistic theory that was given arbitrarily the descriptive name "dimension" to be in sync with the three existing spacial dimensions. That may create confusion. But you are free to speculate on the nature of gravity without being restrained by the quantum mechanics model of the matter.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I think more on the lines of gravity being a wave rather than a particle. Gravitons are only theoretical and there is little to no evidence to support their existence. I put my money on gravity waves.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I think more on the lines of gravity being a wave rather than a particle. Gravitons are only theoretical and there is little to no evidence to support their existence. I put my money on gravity waves.



Id agree i think thats a pretty afe bet. We have broken apart atoms and i do believe at this point they are not the source of gravity. Gravity doesnt behave the same closest thing to it is magnetism which is waves.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
11

log in

join