A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test

a reply to: Blue Shift


The fact that we are having this discussion implies no.

Abstract
Within the framework of a five-dimensional brane world with a stabilized radion, we compute the cosmological perturbations generated during inflation and show that the perturbations are a powerful tool to probe the physics of extra dimensions. While we find that the power spectrum of scalar perturbations is unchanged, we show that the existence of the fifth dimension is imprinted on the spectrum of gravitational waves generated during inflation. In particular, we find that the tensor perturbations receive a correction proportional to (HR)2, where H is the Hubble expansion rate during inflation and R is the size of the extra dimension. We also generalize our findings to the case of several extra dimensions as well as to warped geometries.

www.researchgate.net...

a reply to: Blue Shift


A point would be that information or otherwise the matter form transcends standard observation as we relate to it today.


At point would be that information is actually indestructible and even in relation to a matter/anti mater interaction.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spectranometron


Given information cannot be destroyed the resultant effect of a matter/anti-matter interaction is another state of matter.

That the mass still exists would then be evident and expressed as a gravitational event to us. Despite, that due to the effect of the event in question. The information "seemingly", in the modern consideration of the results appears annihilated. The information is not destroyed and in my humble opinion the mass that still is relevant, as a result has an observable gravitational effect.


Any thoughts?

yeah it's just like opening the valve on a propane tank the propane that is pressurized into liquid expands when released making the air get cold. The liquid propane is forced into a suspended state of matter replacing the low temperature level required. Matter anti matter reaction would be an entirely new state of matter, considering anti matter the one measure of all matter.

originally posted by: Godthief

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spectranometron


Given information cannot be destroyed the resultant effect of a matter/anti-matter interaction is another state of matter.

That the mass still exists would then be evident and expressed as a gravitational event to us. Despite, that due to the effect of the event in question. The information "seemingly", in the modern consideration of the results appears annihilated. The information is not destroyed and in my humble opinion the mass that still is relevant, as a result has an observable gravitational effect.


Any thoughts?

yeah it's just like opening the valve on a propane tank the propane that is pressurized into liquid expands when released making the air get cold. The liquid propane is forced into a suspended state of matter replacing the low temperature level required. Matter anti matter reaction would be an entirely new state of matter, considering anti matter the one measure of all matter.

that would automatically render any information that had been added beyond "all inclusive" to be given an entirely new state of matter and physics would have something new to work with huh.

originally posted by: Maverick7

I'm not sure, but we seem to have stumbled into the Hogwort's School of Magical Thinking, Physiks Division.

Ha, ha, now you're getting closer to the truth!

None of the stuff said here is actually any stranger than what the (god)fathers of Quantum Mechanics have been saying themselves. Check it out yourselves and tell me if any of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics doesn't invoke something magical:
en.wikipedia.org...

Every single one of them invokes some magical thing or another. Starting with "collapse of the wavefunction" (a magical act by all accounts), through "non-locality"/"quantum entanglement" (a magical space where every single point of space is connected to every other point of space and you can just snap your fingers and move from here to there without moving at all), all the way to "many-worlds" (a magical super-space where anything possible happens, however improbable it may be, including apples suddenly starting to fall upwards).

Don't you see at least something wrong there?

Of course you do. And to avoid the problem, you will probably do what every single theoretical physicist has done so far - say that the goal of Physics is not to explain why something happens, but to describe how it happens. A clear distinction along the lines of "Philosophy Begins Where Physics Ends, and Vice Versa", perhaps?
blogs.scientificamerican.com...

And you'd be right, in a way. The best description of how that Physics has managed to come up with is Mathematics.

In other words, Physics is nothing but Mathematics, or rather mathematical (rule-based) description of how things happen. Not a good description, mind you, being just an approximation of the real thing, but certainly a much better description than any that's been presented here. My own included.

Do you know why? Because Mathematics is a self-consistent, rule-based language that can (with relative ease and most of the time, but not always), detect inconsistencies and self-correct... and one that takes much less effort to write down than any spoken language.

If a mathematical description of a physical process is not self-consistent, then it's not correct either. The opposite, however, does not apply. And therein lies the root of all the problems of modern Physics. Futile attempts to create as many as possible self-consistent mathematical descriptions of previously observed physical processes, that unerringly fall apart as soon as somebody tries to add just one more previously unobserved physical process to them. Physics has become not much better than throwing dice and collecting statistical data. But saying that would be crossing over the borders of philosophy of physics, a land that's highly disliked by physicists everywhere. So I'm not going to say it (noticed that self-inconsistency there?).

To sum it up, Physics is nothing more than self-consistent description of things that happen in this world. In any other world, Physics is Magic. And Magic is Physics there. A self-consistent description of things that happen in that other world.

But, in order to compare the two, Physics and Magic, one has to have some common ground. Which brings me to my question. Have you tried to normalize that N-dimensional space? You can't see how gravity works if you don't normalize the space size at the moment T(n+1) to the space size at the moment T(n). You also have to normalize the distance of observed point P (standing between masses M1 and M2) as the ratio of M1/M2. The actual distance is of less importance, since what we're modeling here is not gravitational "force" (that follows the inverse square distance law in this 2-dimensional world), but the actual effect of gravity (in any N-dimensional world).

Do it on a line first, it helps to keep things simple:
a) Draw the line-space with points M1-P-M2 and with normalized distances M1-P and P-M2. This will be the time point T(n).
b) Expand the line-space using the law of x^N (spatial expansion in N-dimensional space). We're now at time point of T(n+1).
c) Normalize the line space at time point T(n+1) to the line-space at point T(n).
d) Notice that point P has (miraculously(!), I might say) "moved" toward the greater of masses M1 and M2 (without actually moving at all(!!!); never enough exclamation marks for that one)
e) Repeat the process from step b) and notice the law that point P follows in its "movement" (depending on the value of N).

Once you're sufficiently familiar with the process, try this exercise:
- Create a circular model of space with uniform distribution of mass over the whole surface, select a few points Pn along the radius, and then apply the process described above to this model using the value of N=2.

What results are you getting for points Pn? Constant linear velocities along the whole radius? Variable velocities? Something else? Constant angular velocities, maybe? No? Well, crap... I'm too lazy to do it myself, so I'll just have to believe your word. If you can believe that, that is.

If you don't believe that, and you're into some more exercises, you can also try this:
- Create a spherical model of space with uniform distribution of mass over the whole volume, select a few points Pn along the radius, and apply the process described above to this model using the value of N=2 (the same(!) spatial dimensionality of 2).

What results are you getting now? Certainly something confusing, right? How about trying to take that rotating black hole at the center of the model into consideration by, for example, normalizing distances along the Z axis (because, I don't know... you already "know" that gravitational effect of a black hole rotating around the Z axis is more pronounced along the X-Y plane than along the Z axis? something like that?)?

What results are you getting now? Something along the lines of resulting mass distribution along the galactic disk? Don't ask me! I have no idea! I'm just too lazy to do it myself.

DISCLAIMER:
"You" toward the end was used in general sense and was not directed at OP.

PS, directed at OP:
"The Magicians" by Lev Grossman is a much better example than "Harry Potter". The former has a much better depiction of Magic as a rule-based language/description of how things happen... in a fictional world, of course. Just so I'm not misunderstood as saying that Magic is real or something.

PPS, directed at general "you" again:
You have to work your way backwards if you want to create the actual model of this multiverse. Start with the description at the highest dimension N and then derive projection of the force you're trying to model at dimension N-1. Then repeat deriving the model projections down the dimensions until you finally reach description that fits (observational experience of) this world.

You can't do it the other way around (those futile attempts, remember?) because, obviously, duh, you can't project something into lower dimensionality without losing some information along the way. That (mathematical) process is unidirectional.

First, let's restate what dark energy is. There is not much we know about dark energy except its equation of state. Its equation of state is such that its pressure is negative and equal in magnitude to its (positive) energy density:

Negative pressure gives dark energy two curious properties. First... normally, when you compress a gas you do work, and when the gas expands, it does work. With negative pressure it's the other way around. You do work by making this stuff expand, and it does work when it contracts. Gravity, in other words, makes dark energy expand, not contract like other stuff. So dark energy behaves as though gravity was repulsive. Which means that its self-gravity actually pushes the universe apart... and if dark energy dominates, it causes the expansion to accelerate.

www.quora.com... ncrease-in-the-number-of-virtual-particles

Had a problem with the link....
on the link that
www.quora.com... ncrease-in-the-number-of-virtual-particles


www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-dark-energy-and-virtual-particle-production-Can-the-expansion-of-the-universe-be-attributed-to-an-increase- in-the-number-of-virtual-particles

Run a search on, "Dark Energy and Virtual Particles and click on the link that states.

"What is the relation between dark energy and virtual ..."