/sci/ - Science & Math

While Albert can’t fully comprehend where his universe’s space is being bent, he can show this bend in 2 dimensional space by creating a 1 dimensional line that represents his 2 dimensional plane of existence. This line is how his 2 dimensional universe would look from a 3 dimensional point of view and is essentially a cross section of 2D space, like looking at a piece of paper from the side. This thought experiment has been performed many times before by a man you may have heard of named Albert Einstein. Einstein imagined our 3D universe as a 2D fabric that was bent by objects with mass. This bend in the fabric of space (not space-time, but we will get to that later) is what gives rise to gravitational pull. Where and in what direction is 3D space being bent? We can’t directly observe this bend so it must be in a direction that we cannot travel, nor truly comprehend, through the 4th dimension. This means that gravity comes from the 4th dimension, and may explain the elusiveness of the Higgs boson and why the force of gravity is so weak. If gravity is caused by this bend through the 4th dimension then the Higgs boson could be a particle that exists in the 4th dimension, and therefore, impossible to directly observe from our 3D universe. Now think back to our little thought experiment, but more specifically, the 1D cross section representation of 2D space.

It doesn't work like that.

There are an infinite number of 1D cross sections for any 2D space, just as there are an infinite number of 2D cross sections for any 3D space, so it can be assumed that there are also an infinite number of 3D cross sections for any 4D space and this is where my theory ties in with Membrane theory or “m” theory (google it if you are not familiar). There are an infinite number 3D cross sections through the 4th dimension of space (aka gravity) and each one of these 3D cross sections could contain a separate parallel universe complete with planets, stars, and maybe even life. I believe that black holes are like a bridge between these 3D cross sections through the 4th dimension, and on the other side of a black hole is the birth of a parallel universe. This birthing is a parallel big bang created from the matter that has been pulled into the black hole from the other universe. Destruction giving rise to creation, an elegant solution to the age old question “How did our universe come into existence?”. This means that black holes are like wormholes to a parallel universe.

One way that a wormhole might be created to reach different parts of our own universe would be go through a black hole to a parallel universe and come back through a black hole in that universe to a different location in our own universe, I am not sure if this is even physically possible but interesting nonetheless. Or perhaps a wormhole could be created through quantum entanglement (again if you are not familiar with quantum entanglement I suggest you google it, some very interesting information in there) of the particles that make up a black hole. The latter explanation is more likely and can be further explained with another thought experiment. Imagine a 1D universe, only two directions exist in this universe left and right. If you bend this one dimensional line through the next highest dimension so the ends of the line are touching to create a 2D circle, a creature living in the 1D universe could travel from one end point of the line to the opposite end point instantaneously by walking across where the two ends meet. To the other creatures living in this universe it would appear that he had just teleported to the opposite end of the universe. Now again, imagine the same scenario but now it’s the 2D universe inhabited by flatlanders. Imagine this universe gets bent through the next highest dimension, the 3rd dimension, to create a 3D cylinder. If our flatlander Albert were to cross where the two ends of this 2D plane meet, he would instantly be on the opposite side of his 2D universe. So to create a wormhole in 3D space we must bend our 3D universe through the 4th dimension so that our starting point and desired destination are just a short distance away in 3D space.

How does one accomplish such an amazing feat? If you’ve been paying attention it’s actually easier than it sounds, although it really doesn’t sound all that easy to begin with. My theory says that mass bends 3D space through the 4th dimension, so if we could link a black hole with another point in space through quantum entanglement it might be possible to go into a black hole and appear somewhere else in our universe almost instantly. The key word in that last sentence is MIGHT, we still have a long way to go before understanding if one could even survive a trip into a black hole. The only thing I have left to discuss is the force of time. I am a huge fan of Einstein’s work, the man was clearly an extremely gifted physicist and I almost feel like I must be wrong (and I probably am but oh well) by going against his work but in the words of the man himself, “There are only two things that are infinite. The universe and human folly, and I’m not entirely sure about the universe.” So perhaps Einstein had erred when he said that space and time are joined, that’s the only part of his theory that I disagree with so if he had made a mistake at least he got the majority of it right.

The reason I refuse to accept space-time is because if the two were joined why can’t we travel through time by simply traveling through space? You may be thinking of time dilatation formulas as you read this but why can we only travel forward in time through time dilation(a result of near speed of light travel, again google is your friend here) and not backwards? It’s time for another thought experiment. Remember how we had to represent 3D space with a 2D plane to understand the 4th dimension? Well now we will take it one step further and represent 3D space with a 1D line, that’s right, it’s a 1D cross section of the 2D cross section of our 3D universe. This 1D line is still bent by mass but now imagine this line is constantly being pulled through the next highest dimension of space after the gravitational dimension, also known as time. We do not notice this movement through time, aside from noticing time pass by, because it is in a direction that we can’t experience in our 3D universe. If this is correct, backwards travel through time may be possible through the use of 4th dimensional wormholes which I can’t explain or comprehend.

>theory

You keep using that word

If you’ve read this far you might be saying to yourself “This makes some sense but we can calculate some of the things discussed in this essay using complex formulas derived from our current understanding of the universe. Why should I believe this without mathematical proof?” To that I say, we were able to calculate the complex movements of the planets in our night sky before discovering the much more simple truth that the sun was the center of the solar system and we are not, so perhaps this is another case of misunderstanding a much more simple truth.

good, show the math behind it and others may listen.

>>3350370
im 18(there goes any credibility i may have had) and not nearly skilled enough to create the mathematical formulas required to explain extra dimensions. So maybe later

>>3350366
sorry does "idea with no base in anything but thought experiments" suit it better? Because im not typing that out over and over, theory will have to do for now

No math, no work.
What you're talking about, OP, is called fiction.
Go write a book, you're not suited for the field of men.

if our 3D space bends for gravity in a (im assuming static) 4D space, and more than 1 3D space is next to each other, wont they crash into each other?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

watch part 2 also

>>3350406
actually he just described a rough outline of string theory which is well accepted in the field of physics. GTFO and take your fail with you sir

Sorry Op, but gravity doesn't work like that
The 2D to 3D
and 3D to 4D
is just a way of visualizing the metric, not an actual concept.

In other words, use the overused trampoline analogy with a ball in the center.

draw a small square near the center without the ball in place.
put the ball in place
notice that the square is distorted and not the same size it use to be.
similarly, space near massive objects is distorted.
However, since space is space, not an object in space, it simply contracts or expands as it pleases without requiring another dimension.

>>3350411
black holes do this according to my theory that you obviously have not read

On a scale to 1-100, the crackpot level of this is deemed to be.... 78.

>One way that a wormhole might be created to reach different parts of our own universe would be go through a black hole to a parallel universe and come back through a black hole in that universe to a different location in our own universe, I am not sure if this is even physically possible but interesting nonetheless.
>not sure this is even physically possible

[citation needed]

Theories are praised because they're formulated after going through a lot of data/evidence from physical experiments. If the data is not there, math is used. Thought experiments may make sense in one's head but there are an infinite number of ones that actually *do* may sense yet do not fit with the physical explanation. Theories are not praised because they're really creative and beautiful; even math, centered around beauty and creativity, must have a rigorous foundation to achieve that state.

>My theory says that mass bends 3D space through the 4th dimension, so if we could link a black hole with another point in space through quantum entanglement it might be possible to go into a black hole and appear somewhere else in our universe almost instantly.

I don't think that's your theory, I think it's been stated somewhere before, but in a more precise and accurate manner... but even that is largely just speculation.

>>3350439
>actually he just described a rough outline of string theory
no he didn't, he added 1 massive dimension to explain gravity, string theory adds a bunch of curled up dimensions to explain everything

>which is well accepted in the field of physics
no its not, no physicist would tell you string theory is correct, just that it is a possibility.

>GTFO and take your fail with you sir
GTFO and take your fail with you sir

>>3350456
i did read it, which is why i asked the question
but you can have more curvature than near a black hole spread out over a large area, meaning that points outside a black hole would intersect other parallel universes too.

About 3d space as enclosure in plain 4d(or more-dimensional) space.

This is not absolutely new idea. if u express the theory in mathematical form, u get just general relativity theory in geometrical(or field) version that is mathematically equivalent to Einstein`s one. So any new conclusions as fantasies about Higgs boson and so on dont follow.

>>3350461

>>GTFO and take your fail with you sir
>GTFO and take your fail with you sir

Touché my kind sir

>>3350441
For example, you could have the surface of the earth which is 2D plane in a 3D space or you could have a 2D circle with a different metric

>>3350471
this pic is a rough explanation of what i mean

>>3350458
>[citation needed]
you can't cite sources for new work tard. Even though this can hardly be considered "new"

4D large spatial not needed

General relativity is already 4 dimensional. And you don't seem to understand quantum entanglement, wormholes or black holes.

Overall, though, I commend your good effort and will openly admit that I had thought somewhat similar things before getting into real physics at university. I then found out I didn't [and still don't as a graduate student] know anything about anything.

>>3350501
"new work" needs evidence, dumb fuck. einstein's paper had tons of citations. a statement needs to be backed up by more true statements. obviously OP is a dumbass who doesn't even know the first rule of creating a theory.

you cant fold space, you can only squish it

>>3350357

One word. Spaghettification.

The pull of gravity is so strong that not even radiation can escape from a black hole. How are you going to make something that can withstand the pressure because anything passing through would only be the size of an atom or maybe even a part of an atom. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

Do we have any clue what happens to the matter after it was sucked into a black hole?

In theory, all matter is broken down to the very basics (pure energy I guess? only compacted) so it would need to "explode" again and create another "big bang" in order to expand. On the other hand, I think it's highly unlikely that a black hole will be able to acquire enough mass to achieve this.

Interesting stuff OP

My Theory: our universe is not expanding, it actually is bending in a 4th dimension (not including time dimensions). Our planet seems to be flat, but it is a sphere. So if one were to walk around the world without knowing it were a sphere they would eventually end up where they started. This thought can be applied to the universe as a whole. Our universe could bend in a way that if one were to travel in one direction for years and years they would eventually end up where they started. I'm not too sure how many dimensions have been confirmed by science (i think it's like 22?) but this theory helps me to understand how all these dimensions could exist.

>>3350994
11 dimensions is what string theory claims. However we cant confirm more than 3... ever, because we cant experience or build anything that can travel to the 4th dimension or higher.

>>3350994
>our universe is not expanding, it actually is bending in a 4th dimension (not including time dimensions)

The first does not follow from or lead to the second. And besides, expansion of the universe is observed fact by the distance dependence of the velocity.

>This thought can be applied to the universe as a whole

The universe is flat on large scales. The universe, on the largest scales we can measure, follow Euclidean geometry. Therefore, it can't really be like the earth. It can still be multiply connected, but saying that the spatial dimensions are the surface of a 4-sphere would break Euclidean geometry. And again, what does the universe being multiply connected have to do with the observed expansion of space itself?

>>3350649
OP here, Ive heard of spaghettification on a show about stephen hawking's work with black holes. HOWEVER i think there may be more to it than that. If a black hole is bending and compressing space and we occupy space, travelling through a black hole may not hurt or destroy you at all. To you, maybe it just seems normal because it wasn't just you that got squeezed through a singularity, it was you AND the space you were occupying. If both were compressed at the same rate you wouldn't even notice it.

>>3351013
gravity can travel through the curled up dimensions, it was one of the things they looked for with the LHC to confirm string theory (who says it makes no prediction). but they couldn't find any evidence for extra dimensions.

>>3350994
continued, this could also be aplied to wormholes/blackholes in the universe. In my humble opinion, if blackholes exist then whiteholes must exist as well, otherwise energy and mass is destroyed. But if, as the picture shows, blackholes have quasars or pulsars or whatever emits out the top and bottom, which means blackholes are actually whiteholes & blackholes, and for the sake of laziness will be called a wormhole from now on. The wormhole is in connection with another wormhole somewhere else in the universe yet they are conected because the universe bends in the 4th dimension. This does not explain the immense ammount of gravity that wormholes have, so could someone try develope that idea?

>>3351040
>if blackholes exist then whiteholes must exist as well, otherwise energy and mass is destroyed.
wat, why? the energy and mass is right there [points at black hole]

>>3351031
Spagettification occurs because the gravitational force begins to increase dramatically, thus the force on your head differs from the force on your feet by such a degree that the tensile strength of your body is no longer strong enough to hold itself together and you shred. Space dilation will not effect this.

>>3351040
this is a mirror image of OPs theory with less explanation behind it. Not only did you not read this thread, you came up with the same idea but did not have the motivation to explain it fully.

tl;dr you suck

>>3351040
...What? Black holes conserve energy, mass, information and entropy without white holes. Why are they necessary again?

>>3351066
your right i didn't read the thread. i just thought i would respond to OP before reading the rest of the thread. Then i started to read the thread and saw the conversation head toward discussion of blackholes. I then added a second coment to try to make my first one more revelent. But you found me out. so now im going to pretend to be a troll even though im not one.

>>3351063
Why doesn't space/time dilation near a black hole effect what would happen to someone who traveled into that black hole? The difference in gravity would cause a difference in the flow of time as well so your head (assuming head first entry) would experience a slower flow of time than your feet, letting them "catch up"(for lack of a better term) to your head. All I'm saying is we don't know a lot about black holes so maybe it doesn't work like we thought

well your first paragraph was stolen from the elegant universe, a book I can't remember the author of next time change the whole flatlander part.
also, read the rest of the book. It explains why what you just said made anybody who read it dumber

>>3351107
Brian Greene. Also I think Sagan came up with the flatlander thing.

>>3351100
The time dilation and space dilation have cancelling effects [time goes slower, but smaller distances are traveled from your heads perspective, compensating for slower flow].

>>3351136
Have you ever tested it?

Well, the main problem with taking a joy ride into a black hole is that you will get ripped apart due to G-force differences at your head and feet.

>>3350392

>sorry does "idea with no base in anything but thought experiments" suit it better? Because im not typing that out over and over, theory will have to do for now

No but 'hypothesis' does.

That or wild guess demonstrating a profound lack of understanding.

>>3351100
>>3351263

>>3351283
OK then when ever you see the word "theory" in the block of text i wrote, feel free to replace it with the phrase of your choice.

>>3351315

Yet the fact that you didn't use it yourself, and instead opted to say 'theory' shows that you can't science.

You can't even science a little.

>That or wild guess demonstrating a profound lack of understanding.

> doesn't realize that string theory falls under this category as well

>>3351220
It is what the working math of the theory of general relativity predicts. Given that it has been able to describe all other gravitational phenomena above the microscopic scale and the effects describe occur on none microscopic scales, it should still work. Or, at the very least, there is little reason to conclude that it is wholly incorrect and that we do not understand gravity on macroscopic scales at all.

>>3351322
OP here, loled hard. +1 internets for you sir

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
~Aristotle
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)

According to Aristotle OP is the only educated nigger ITT

>>3351351
You can entertain the idea, but parts of it are incoherent if you know what terms like quantum entanglement means or how/what black holes and wormholes actually are.

>>3350354
oh wow, you p[retty much said word for word on my personal theory of black holes.

>>3351426
Except that they conserve information/entropy.

>>3351397
OP again

Quantum entanglement (einstein called it spooky action at a distance) is the ability of one particle to affect another particle over any distance in space instantly

wormholes are a 3 dimensional "short cut" created by bending space so that your departure and destination are separated by a much smaller amount of 3D space than normal

Anything else you think you know more than me about?

>>3351470
almost forgot, a black hole is a star that has used all of its hydro gen and helium fuel and fused it into more dense elements. If this density reaches a certain point an event horizon is created and a black hole is formed

>>3351489
hydrogen*

i should probably add that the more dense elements are fused through nuclear fusion. I can continue to explain nuclear fusion if you like but i think Ive made my point.

Now everyone ITT understands that i know what im talking about

Aren't there any doctors here? I've been told that they can science rather well.

The people trying to science here need help with their sciencing.

>>3351538
>tryingtoohard.jpg

>>3351470
different poster,
Wormholes would require negative energy to stay open

>>3351562
>antimatter

>>3351581
antimatter is matter that is moving through time backwards.

fun fact

>>3351589
cool story bro,
I mean negative energy

>>3351589
we should make a ship out of it, encase it in a suspended vaccum and ride it back to einstein.

>>3351581
^He doesn't know that antimatter != negative energy

>>3351600
When antimatter comes into contact with matter the result is a violent explosion shown by the equation E=mc^2. Its being looked into as a fuel source(contained with magnetic fields) but building a ship out of one would be impossible because all of our tools would explode while building it.

And who said OP didnt know anything about physics? Well who's laughing now biatch?

>>3351623
He doesn't (not much)

>>3351636
Unless you have a PhD in physics theres a very good chance you know less than i do, so unless you have something of value to contribute to the discussion i would appreciate it if you stopped haggling me about my knowledge of physics while demonstrating no knowledge of your own.

>>3351667
Not yours, OP's
I actually have no idea what you have posted

>>3351589
>>3351623
>>3351667
All me (aka OP)

>>3351470
>>3351489
>>3351499
also me (still OP)

>>3351685
>>3351689
whatever, enough with the bitch fighting.

My point is that keeping open a wormhole would require negative energy, which isn't known to exist

uhh... isnt the fabric of space 3 dimensional?

>>3351709
If i wasn't so lazy and had made the illustrations that i originally intended to post with my theory, you would see that my theory predicts the possibility of "negative gravity" (maybe created by negative energy?) but I dont KNOW if it has anything to do with negative energy. And my theory is probably wrong anyway but this is 4chan so why the fuck should i care about the quality of my work lol

>>3350339
Equations or it didn't happen

>>3351732
negative energy would mean negative mass, so yeah, that would be negative gravity.

Not sure how your theory implies that.

>>3351747
Basically, OP is talking about how to visualize metrics. However, it is hard to visualize in four dimensions, so the 2D analogy is used

>>3351751
illustrations are coming just wait

Alright i made the pic. It doesn't really "predict" negative gravity but it looks to be possible.

>>3351805
Your squiggles are not especially meaningful if they turn out to be forbidden by the premises of GR.

>>3351805
Uh, your vertical axis is not labeled.

WTF are you doing?

>>3351810
Tell me again where General relativity says negative gravity isnt possible. Also maybe general relativity is wrong, the man who claimed the sun was the center of the solar sytem was thought to be crazy at first just because people all accepted a terracentric view of the solar system until then. They could calculate the movements of the planets across the sky with precision, even while thinking they were at the center.

>>3351827
There is no "axis" because its not a numerical graph.
Read this to understand
>>3350364

>>3351805
Is the vertical axis the 4D?
Because its not really needed.
Its a visualization of a metric.
The "hole" is all well and good, but the idea of negative gravity being "above" the plane would not work, it warps space the same way.

>>3351827
I guess if you want a label it would be gravity. Look at the left side of the pic.

>>3351864
good point

because this could be represented with a curved line above and below to represent the planets gravitational field

>>3351877
Different poster from both of you...
Which point?

>>3351351
You are now my favorite person. Thank you for this 5 star post.

>>3351889
the point that>>3351864 made

He pointed out that i contradicted my own theory because it says that the warping of space through the 4th dimension is what causes gravity, it shouldn't matter what direction it warps it in. I remember wanting to draw this pic for good reason though. Maybe i had an explanation and forgot it or something. Either way the pic i drew is a representation of the 5th dimension so stuff gets kinda hard to think through at this point

>>3350364
>The reason I refuse to accept space-time is because if the two were joined why can’t we travel through time by simply traveling through space?
You do, genius. But the time dimension does not have the same symmetry of the spatial dimensions.

Way to reject a theory you don't understand and replace it with your own bullshit.

>>3351869
For antigravity you need negative energy density.

Have fun with that.

>>3351805
space and time lie on the same plane in this drawing

idk if this means anything but it agrees with the idea of space time

>>3350392
Idea or thought will do nicely.

Its obvious gravity is a construction of some super-intelligent god or something... and when i say god.. i mean aliens. YUP thats right, aliens.

The reason is so obvious that even Aristotle once wrote a book about how he believed that the universe was not created by the gods of the Greek, but by aliens who were looking to build better homes in the 4th dimension... we are merely the by-product of their creation... nothing more.

TL;DR:
The universe is part of a house built by other dimensional beings.

>>3351925
>idk if this means anything but it agrees with the idea of space time
Not really. The time dimension is different from the spatial ones.

>>3351916
>>3351925
No, my theory says time is its own dimension that space travels through. Yes they lie on the same plane(maybe why space-time looks to be plausible) but they are not the same thing. Its like saying a 2D plane travelling through a 3D universe along the x axis is the same thing as the x axis in the 3D universe, it isn't, they are just on the same plane.

>>3351938
Im sticking with theory because it sounds better, learn to like it or leave

>>3351949
Your theory has no testable predictions, and is thus not a scientific theory.

>>3351916
Ive proven my knowledge of physics several times ITT in response to trolls claiming im retarded, and yes i do understand space-time and general relativity(i wrote a paper on Einstein and his work). But i will not bother to continue to explain myself because someone will always claim i dont know what im saying. Read through the ENTIRE thread if you want proof of my knowledge.

>>3351959
Same problem with string theory. Yet its a scientific theory is it not?

ITT: people can't visualize spheres

>100 posts

>>3352011
When i made this theory i planned on using spheres for certain explanations but i wanted to add pics and spheres are harder to draw than squares and lines lol. You could think of it in spheres by moving everything up or down 1 theoretical dimension

>>3351470
Please stop claiming to know more than you do. Googling around and finding the basics of the concepts while openly admitting that you have very little mathematical ability is not a substitute for a university education. You realise how insulting that is to graduate students, Ph.Ds, Ph.D candidates, etc...?

OP here, well this was fun guys, hope to do it again sometime. Im out of here

>>3352056

Please never post this pop-sci shit here again. You want to theorize about superficial shit you saw in a docu once, post it on /x/.

>>3352055
I can assure you i didnt use google but if you dont want to believe me then whatever i guess i cant convince you, i really dont care. Yes i have very limited mathematical skill, although i can calculate most elementary phisics equations(with or without friction) and into time and space dialtion formulas including E=mc^2 (energy=mass*the speed of light^2 used to desribe the amount of energy in a given amount of mass gave rise to the atom bomb yada yada) but i hope to develop that over time as I am only 18. Lastly why does someone need a PhD to be right? Sure it helps but its not required. now THIS is my last post, later

>>3352094
The first sentence says he thought this up himself so he didnt SEE it anywhere. did you read at all?

>>3352101
Its not that you need a Ph.D to be right, you said something along the lines of 'stop pretending you have more physics knowledge than me'. If you can't solve PDEs and don't have a good working knowledge of transform theories then 90% of the people in this thread have significantly more knowledge of physics than you.

>>3352094
gravity, wormholes, and the general understanding of our universe are superficial to you? GTFO /sci/ you dont belong here

>>3352125
why bother to say anything to him? he said hes leaving and if he left he never gonna see it

>>3352140
He said that earlier too.

>>3352101

>Ph.D. and credibility

A person who acquires a Ph.D. in any field of physics has spent laborious hours putting together a theorem with data supporting. The dissertation is usually scrutinized by many high ranking scientists in that or other related fields.

Let's just say this... if you were ever... to try to propose any idea to a dissertation board without any quantifiable or tangible data, you would be looking at a quick-fire way to remove any credibility any scientist would ever of you.

Your going to learn in college that high school was another form of daycare. Your, most likely (if you continue with physics (astro)), going to realize how constricting math is on your field and you'll most likely think back to this 404'd thread and how foolish you were to ever consider providing anything without a deep understanding of that field.

I'm sorry, knowing basic physics and a simplified view of Einstein's ideas aren't going to warrant anything noteworthy coming from your noggin. Keep studying and don't speak up 'till you have something quantifiable.

did /sci just get trolled hard? i cant even tell but i saw this same thread on /b/ so maybe this was just a very elaborate troll.

>>3352178

Nah, it's a /phil/fag trying his hand at science and failing at the most basic points.

OP is a faggot

the same fagging in this thread is pathetic
youre dumb get out

i love how op says again and again in this thread and in his own "theory" that he knows this is all wrong yet all of you insist on telling him that he is wrong

>>3352240

OP just go to bed and stop samefaggin'

Not ITT: science.

>>3352365
Not ITT: enough saging

>>3350339
Cool theory op, would make a great premise for a sci movie someday