Join Me For a Discussion of Dimensions and Dark Matter

[destrekor]

So we have this problem - we still have no fraking clue what the hell dark matter is, other than the fact that it is basically what we aren't seeing directly, some extra super strong gravitational pull from nowhere, that fills a rather large void currently in equations and simulations.

But what is it? We call it dark matter because it acts like a super heavy version of matter that is said to have been the only reason the universe looks the way it does.

I have a solution.
There are multiple dimensions, yes? 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D... at least, these are all what we refer to certain physical and logical concepts.

What if at every dimension, there is something that is represented as matter from the perspective of that dimension?

So we only see what we see, and maybe how we even see things the way we see them, or something along those lines - is defined by what dimension you actually live in? So we all live in what we perceive to be the third dimension, and in theory, my concept is still to place us either at 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.

Imagine it like an onion, of sorts.

1st Dimension - unmeasurable, undefinable, mass. It's like a cloud of gas, except less cloudy, more in every direction, simply undefinable with theories founded in other dimensions, such as ours.

2nd Dimension - something added to anything that can be represented in the 1st dimension.
Describable as an infinite grid laid down to represent location by means of two coordinates.

A potential conflict is the fact that Both of those dimensions could be rolled into the same dimension, as I can't figure out another way to explain that either, and currently all that sounds like is the superficial task of adding a graph, to a visual
Alternate 2nd Dimension - In the 1st dimension, potentially matter is simply boundary less, cannot be contained but exists.

Help me, using this theory, lay out what the other potential dimensions would be in this model.

I have a concept - the next dimension, starting anywhere in the model, is the addition of gravity, which might create the gravity wells, of which establishes the presence of matter in three dimensions - volume cubic, exactly how everything we know and see.

We can see everything in our dimension, and can experience or somehow classify/measure (to a degree) everything in the other dimensions.
Time is potentially added on the 4th dimension, and since is laid on top of gravity, we cannot do anything with time other than track it on a linear line - represented as a 2d dimension variable/measurement for us. Thus, it is potentially capable to define a 5th dimension as a "3D" representation of the real 4th dimension, thus able to define it, and through the 5th dimension, alter the coordinate configuration (we can alter the 3rd dimension coordinates of our matter, to a degree). Thus, altering the coordinates of the Time-matter in the 5th dimension alters how time behaves in the 4th dimension, thus altering its perceived effects in the 3rd dimension.

Black holes may serve as gates for these, and is a representation of a 2D coordinate universally across all dimensions, thus it can effect matter in ways nothing in any dimension can do independently of the other dimensions, or it might be something uniquely experienced in the 3rd dimension.

Regardless, all matter that is devoured by the singularity is suddenly incorporated, maybe... just maybe, into the 1st Dimension, aka without definitions. It is simply what was there before, during, and after the "big bang".
It may expand and collapse, through the course of what we measure as time, but it simple has always been and always will be there. The dimensions are simply different ways to perceive what is really there.
So living in the third dimension, feeling the effects of the 4th dimension, and everything we know made possible by what we can observe/measure from the 2nd dimension, we perceive everything as still potentially in the timeline of what is ultimately known as the big bang. Everything is compacted at the 2nd dimension, which as the 4th dimension existed, caused the effects of "detonation" and in the 3rd dimension we experience that through drift and the expansion of the universe as we measure it. This is because we are a manifestation of what occurs during the expansion of the universe following the ultimate contraction.

At the moment, there are quite a few dots I cannot connect here. Needs far more thought, maybe some input.

 

[silverpig]

Wat?

Dude, that hardly makes sense.

1st dimension = x = a line = you can go forward and backward
2nd dimension = y = a plane containing the line. You can go forward, backward, left and right.
3rd dimension = z = a volume. You can forward, backward, left, right, and up and down.

The 4th dimension can be described different ways depending on convention. Some people refer to the 4th dimension as time and this works well. General relativity treats time as a dimension just like space but with opposite sign. Of course you can treat time separately from space and talk about a 4th spatial dimension. There is absolutely no physical evidence as of yet of a 4th spatial dimension, but you can talk about mathematical representations of 4d objects quite easily. Of course they are just mathematical curiosities for now.

Dark matter has some fairly well defined properties as we know it. It's not some special stuff that has super gravity. In fact, it is most likely some very massive elementary particle(s) which VERY weakly interact electromagnetically, but interact gravitationally. Think of a neutron, but make it heavier, and make it pass through everything like a neutrino.

We don't live in "the third dimension" as you say. We live in 3 dimensions of space - up, down, left, right, back, forward - and 1 of time.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Wat?

Dude, that hardly makes sense.

1st dimension = x = a line = you can go forward and backward
2nd dimension = y = a plane containing the line. You can go forward, backward, left and right.
3rd dimension = z = a volume. You can forward, backward, left, right, and up and down.

The 4th dimension can be described different ways depending on convention. Some people refer to the 4th dimension as time and this works well. General relativity treats time as a dimension just like space but with opposite sign. Of course you can treat time separately from space and talk about a 4th spatial dimension. There is absolutely no physical evidence as of yet of a 4th spatial dimension, but you can talk about mathematical representations of 4d objects quite easily. Of course they are just mathematical curiosities for now.

Dark matter has some fairly well defined properties as we know it. It's not some special stuff that has super gravity. In fact, it is most likely some very massive elementary particle(s) which VERY weakly interact electromagnetically, but interact gravitationally. Think of a neutron, but make it heavier, and make it pass through everything like a neutrino.

We don't live in "the third dimension" as you say. We live in 3 dimensions of space - up, down, left, right, back, forward - and 1 of time.

I was merely creating theories. I thought it would be fun, and wanted to get on a technical discussion of these theories in the event such a theory could eventually be clearly and logically explained.

I mean, as much as science has discovered, everything discovered cannot always be treated as 100% accurate. There must be research into any remotely logical concept if it would provide a better explanation.

That, and I'd rather enjoy the concept I brought forward. Makes space a little more interesting, explains the gravity disruptions of regions thought to contain dark matter, and really makes time logic and black holes fun to think about.

But no way have I stated X is X, and you are wrong. I accept our current definition of the dimensions.

However, you only treated the dimensions as the mathematical concepts. Howabout spatial concepts... in terms of coordinates, how does one explain the 1st dimension? A line? I always remembered it as being an undefined point, like a dot on a graph without the graph. Even if its a line, how does one provide attributes since coordinates are impossible without two planes?

The way I look at it, a dimension may simply be another layer, especially since time, in regards to the space-time continuum, is rather much like an additional layer providing more fun for the first three dimensions.

Additionally, the main point is to provide an interesting idea to explain dark matter. Your approach just doesn't quite settle with me. If its anything remotely related to neutrons, or carries charges, or has mass, we should be able to detect/measure it. However, the last thing I recall, we can still only indirectly observe dark matter through the disruptions to the path light travels from anything directly behind what is thought to be a cloud of dark matter.

And one last thing, I don't refer to dark matter as some super gravity stuff. Rather, current estimates, and values used in equations to make sense of what we have observed, places total mass/gravitational ability of all dark matter as nearly twice that of all 'normal' matter in the galaxy. Observations/theories state that dark matter is always found in cloud-like regions, much like interstellar gas, yet these regions have entirely more profound gravitational attributes compared to similar gas regions.

I'm taking kind of a new school string theory approach, combined with personal ideas comprised of my take on various research journals and other various articles on the subject. Been awhile since I devoted a lot of time into trying to understand something like string theory, but one thing I was going with was providing an overlay of string theory's 10 dimensions (classic ST) on to my little theory.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: destrekor

However, you only treated the dimensions as the mathematical concepts. Howabout spatial concepts... in terms of coordinates, how does one explain the 1st dimension? A line? I always remembered it as being an undefined point, like a dot on a graph without the graph. Even if its a line, how does one provide attributes since coordinates are impossible without two planes?

A point is 0-d. A line is 1-d. Using coordinates you just have 1 number to describe how far along it you are. You are 15m along the line, or 2m along the line, or -8m along the line. No second number is needed.

Originally posted by: destrekor

Additionally, the main point is to provide an interesting idea to explain dark matter. Your approach just doesn't quite settle with me. If its anything remotely related to neutrons, or carries charges, or has mass, we should be able to detect/measure it. However, the last thing I recall, we can still only indirectly observe dark matter through the disruptions to the path light travels from anything directly behind what is thought to be a cloud of dark matter.

Well I said it was likely some kind of weakly interacting massive particle. Neutrons and neutrinos have no charge. Dark matter also has no charge. Dark matter does have mass and this is how we detect it because mass produces gravity.

We can detect neutrons fairly easily because even while they have no charge, they still react electromagnetically and strongly (ie, the strong nuclear force). You can generate a beam of neutrons using a radioactive source, and your detector can be something as thin as a credit card. Neutrinos on the other hand are extremely difficult to detect as they interact very weakly with normal matter. It would take a piece of lead about a billion miles thick to ensure you could stop one. Neutrino detectors are huge underground tanks of water with very sensitive electronics put all around it. Even though trillions of neutrinos pass through the tank every second, because they interact with normal matter so weakly, only 1 or 2 are detected each day.

Dark matter is supposed to interact even more weakly than neutrinos so it's no wonder we haven't detected it via anything other than gravity yet.

 

[destrekor]

Maybe this should have been in OT, because I'm not looking for a "bash this theory because its not the same as the current approach", I'm more looking for an interesting discussion of how to explain the other dimensions, and what the explanations of those dimensions may have on our understanding of what we currently know.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: destrekor
Maybe this should have been in OT, because I'm not looking for a "bash this theory because its not the same as the current approach", I'm more looking for an interesting discussion of how to explain the other dimensions, and what the explanations of those dimensions may have on our understanding of what we currently know.

It's your theory, so it's sort of up to you to explain it. I can't explain your new theory for you. Silverpig simply pointed out that your theory contradicts logic by defining dimensions in some strange way, which is generally a very bad way for a theory to start out. I can't say anything I want and then expect it to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, especially if I can't even understand it myself.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: destrekor
Maybe this should have been in OT, because I'm not looking for a "bash this theory because its not the same as the current approach", I'm more looking for an interesting discussion of how to explain the other dimensions, and what the explanations of those dimensions may have on our understanding of what we currently know.

It's your theory, so it's sort of up to you to explain it. I can't explain your new theory for you. Silverpig simply pointed out that your theory contradicts logic by defining dimensions in some strange way, which is generally a very bad way for a theory to start out. I can't say anything I want and then expect it to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, especially if I can't even understand it myself.

And completely understandable. I'm not making any claims that the way I explained my approaches to the other dimensions was the only way to explain them, or even anywhere near correct.

Simply, there is so much we don't know about science, and with current theories stating there are as much as 10 dimensions, all spatial, it kind of makes me rethink how we define the "dimensions" we know, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Hell, we currently claim that the 4th dimension isn't really a spatial dimension. But that would seemingly contradict the notion of string theory, which is all spatial dimensions.

I'll correct myself and say that the 1st Dimension really is a line of sorts.
This helps with the 4th dimension, as a spatial dimension, and still what drives what we call time.
It is a line, and all we can really do with this line and observe where we are on it, and from what we've learned, traced back a great distance on that line. We can plot it even.
Now, let's take the 5th dimension. This is claimed to exist in String Theory, of which this discussion is really based around - string theory and dark matter. I guess, now with a clear head, I should clear that up and not make claims that this is a new theory, but rather a different look and possibly providing headway toward theories that connect and add more depth to what we know.
So, the 5th dimension, if I've understood anything of which I've come across regarding String Theory (the original, which contains 10 dimensions. M-theory (?) is an extension of string theory and contains 11 or more dimensions. Cannot remember exactly the name of that theory, but let's just go with string theory here.
The 5th dimension is treated similarly to the 2nd dimension. It is a plane, and plots time from the 4th dimension. This would lead the 6th dimension to be a 3-dimensional representation of time.
If that is correct, and we can ever access the 5th and 6th dimension, we would be able to manipulate time just as we can manipulate the 3rd dimension.

The natural world already interacts with the 5th and 6th dimension, through the space-time continuum - large, extremely massive objects warp the "fabric" of space-time and alters how time is perceived.

However, we may not be able to ever understand how those processes truly work, to the point that we can alter the 4th,5th, or 6th dimensions, until we determine what exactly the 7th, 8th, and 9th dimensions are. The theory places those dimensions into the same "behavior" as the other sets. A 1-dimensional reference, a 2-dimensional plane, and a 3-dimensional physical presence.

I'd argue that the 10th dimension is related to the 0-dimension that silverpig mentioned, and may represent how all these dimensions interact and project onto each other. That also might represent the concept of holographic projection that some theorists have been studying lately. I won't even get into that one, I can't wrap any of my feeble little mind around that.

So, the discussion is focused on those topics and concepts, as well as... how might black holes interact with all of this? Can we learn more about the other dimensions through studying black holes? Are they closer to what Einstein would classify them as? Or closer to Hawking's classifications? For reference, Einstein basically stated they severely distorted space-time to a point that it was basically unimaginable. Hawking, however, states they are no different from any other space object, just unpossibly massive, and that they'll eventually shrink due to a specific type of radiation they emit (hawking radiation).

It should also be noted that I believe String Theory was essentially born out of Hawking, or at least through theories he proposed.

 

[fidelissemper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...ark_matter_composition

probably just forces or masses in other dimentions that conincidentally shows up on our world's detectable spectrums

we can get technical, but since we can't prove anything we are hypothesizing, there is little point in getting futher. maybe when the LHC starts working again we can get some data.

 

[iCyborg]

Originally posted by: destrekor
It should also be noted that I believe String Theory was essentially born out of Hawking, or at least through theories he proposed.

Ahem, what? Care to elaborate that?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: destrekor

However, you only treated the dimensions as the mathematical concepts. Howabout spatial concepts... in terms of coordinates, how does one explain the 1st dimension? A line? I always remembered it as being an undefined point, like a dot on a graph without the graph. Even if its a line, how does one provide attributes since coordinates are impossible without two planes?

A point is 0-d. A line is 1-d. Using coordinates you just have 1 number to describe how far along it you are. You are 15m along the line, or 2m along the line, or -8m along the line. No second number is needed.

Originally posted by: destrekor

Additionally, the main point is to provide an interesting idea to explain dark matter. Your approach just doesn't quite settle with me. If its anything remotely related to neutrons, or carries charges, or has mass, we should be able to detect/measure it. However, the last thing I recall, we can still only indirectly observe dark matter through the disruptions to the path light travels from anything directly behind what is thought to be a cloud of dark matter.

Well I said it was likely some kind of weakly interacting massive particle. Neutrons and neutrinos have no charge. Dark matter also has no charge. Dark matter does have mass and this is how we detect it because mass produces gravity.

We can detect neutrons fairly easily because even while they have no charge, they still react electromagnetically and strongly (ie, the strong nuclear force). You can generate a beam of neutrons using a radioactive source, and your detector can be something as thin as a credit card. Neutrinos on the other hand are extremely difficult to detect as they interact very weakly with normal matter. It would take a piece of lead about a billion miles thick to ensure you could stop one. Neutrino detectors are huge underground tanks of water with very sensitive electronics put all around it. Even though trillions of neutrinos pass through the tank every second, because they interact with normal matter so weakly, only 1 or 2 are detected each day.

Dark matter is supposed to interact even more weakly than neutrinos so it's no wonder we haven't detected it via anything other than gravity yet.

Assuming we could detect gravitons, might that be a way to then detect (indirectly) dark matter? Although IIRC it's probably impossible to detect gravitons anyway, so nevermind.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Assuming we could detect gravitons, might that be a way to then detect (indirectly) dark matter? Although IIRC it's probably impossible to detect gravitons anyway, so nevermind.

There are dark matter detection experiments running right now. They work similarly to how neutrino experiments work. There's a big tank of liquid stuff buried in the earth and surrounded by a lot of sensitive photomultiplier tubes. When a particle reacts with something in the tank, it produces a little flash of light.

If you stuck a chunk of uranium in this tank, the detectors would be lighting up constantly due to the radiation flying off of it. That's why these tanks are underground, to get away from cosmic radiation that is stopped by the surface of the earth. All that's left to make it through are neutrinos, and possibly dark matter.

We know how neutrinos interact and thus what signal they produce. We can also calculate how much of a signal we should get so we can subtract that out and look at what's left.

Dark matter is supposed to be this cloud we move through. The earth goes around the sun, and revolves around it's axis at the same time. As such, we move in a different direction through this cloud depending on the time of year, and any possible reactions hit a different part of the detector based on the time of day. A dark matter experiment essentially looks for an annual drift in the direction of a constant signal.

One has been detected by a group in Italy I believe, but their results aren't entirely convincing.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: silverpig
---snip---
We know how neutrinos interact and thus what signal they produce. We can also calculate how much of a signal we should get so we can subtract that out and look at what's left.

Let's see if I understood that correctly... Do they really know what sort of signal to expect from dark matter? Or is it just looking for a signal, whatever it may be, that can't be explained by anything else?

 

[gar3555]

If you would like a simple explanation on dimensions I recommend Edwin Abbot's Flatland. It gives an interesting and basic approach to the whole thing.

If you want a more in depth, but still understandable by most laypersons go with Ian Stewart's Flatterland.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: silverpig
---snip---
We know how neutrinos interact and thus what signal they produce. We can also calculate how much of a signal we should get so we can subtract that out and look at what's left.

Let's see if I understood that correctly... Do they really know what sort of signal to expect from dark matter? Or is it just looking for a signal, whatever it may be, that can't be explained by anything else?

If you detect some stuff, and subtract off all the stuff you know, then what remains is new stuff. If the signal from this new stuff shows a yearly periodicity in direction, then we can conclude that it is something that permeates everywhere and we are moving through it.

It's not proof of dark matter, but it's proof that something is there that behaves like dark matter does.

We can then figure out how it is likely to interact, do more tests etc. But yeah, the data isn't very convincing right now.