/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump

Sure. Basic Kaluza-Klein theory exists in a 4+1 dimensional spacetime and reproduces the Einstein Field Equations + Maxwell's Equations + the Lorentz Force Law. I'm not at all familiar with String Theory, but I know KK-theory is built into it, and ST exists in a 10-11+1 dimensional spacetime.

>>5708679
>euclidian space
Wait, now I'm confused. Do you mean a spin-2 field on top of a flat background metric, or that the spacetime itself is dependent on a rank-2 tensor>

It seems to make sense, but I haven't looked at any theoretical physics in a while.

>>5708702
KK and String Theory.
Gotta love it.

>>5708706
I mean an underlying tensor field that exists outside of these 3+1 dimensions and yet effects this dimension.

>>5708714
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. In ST you can view gravity as either a spin-2 graviton field on top of a flat spacetime, or you can "absorb" the field into the background metric.

>>5708679
>The faster you move the heavier you get
Goddammit <span class="math">r~e~d~d~i~t[/spoiler]

>>5708733
Basically a spin-2 graviton field on top of a flat spacetime

>>5708679
What you are proposing does sound much like one of the many solutions or equivalences of the field equations.
The problem is that recent developments regarding the measurements of higgs-decay mechanism are limiting the boundaries which most of these theories are supposedly allowed to fall into.
As with all the solutions to the EFE so far none have managed to unify all fields. The 4+1 split of the five dimension metric managed to unify only electromagnetism and gravity.
I can't really comment on how i feel about these theories as each one has it's positive aspects, but also severe flaws.
It's just a matter of waiting for more empirical evidence to be generated regarding the standard model so we can start to eliminate the plausibility of certain solutions and then formulate new hypothesis.

>>5709439
I feel the same. I find my empirical, logical mind both a blessing and a curse sometimes.

is there a textbook that handles KK theory? i dont know what it will fall under. ife checked out some advance GR textbooks, but only one had anything about it, and it wasnt very detailed.

>>5710039
Google is your friend

>>5708746
But thats not what that equation says.

>>5710039
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56256/a-treatment-of-basic-kaluza-klein-theory/56258#56258

After you've had a look through that paper, you might consider reading Space-Time-Matter by Wesson. It's not the traditional "curled-up dimension" formulation of KKT though.

>>5708700
>but that's not true...

>>5710138
This pics were either made by 1) a troll (given the rage I feel every time I look at them, it seems likely), or 2) an idiot with popsci knowledge of physics who googled some basic equations.

>>5708746
>pic
0/10 troll

>>5708679
>Does /sci/ think gravity could be a tensor field that exists outside of 3+1 dimensional euclidian space?
no, it would mean that objects would feel gravity depending on where they were the gravity source was in time and this is just not the case

The problem with gravity really comes down to our lack of knowledge on the fundamental basis of mass. You don't need to define gravity as a separate dimension to look at it as a tensor field that exists at all points in three space, or to know that gravitational attraction is proportional to the ratio of mass over separation. But what is mass, and whence it came? You can't derive and explicit form of gravitation without thoroughly understanding its defining component.

Here's what we know: SM predicts a mass carrier boson, which has been proven experimentally, and thus necessarily has an observable impact in 4-space. While theories can derive or predict any number of dimensions, they only really matter insofar as they map into 4-space, which is the basis in which we interact with reality. I find the concept of large amounts of dimensions kinda hokey, because if they map to 4-space, then they can be defined in 4-space through change of basis, and if they don't map to 4-space, then they don't really have any physical meaning

>>5710147
GAAAAAAAAAAHHH IT HURTS MY BRAIN

Obviously. Randall-Sundrum and similar models which "trap" gravity on the brane have been thoroughly disproved. They are equivalent to ordinary 4D GR with massless matter by AdS/CFT.

>>5708679
>>5708700
>>5708710
>>5708714
>>5708746
>>5710017
>these images

>>5710128
>Space-Time-Matter by Wesson
thanks

>>5710147
It was the latter. They came from tumblr actually. Surprised?
Tumblr has many science fans. No actual scientists.
Here's where they came from (bottom)
http://karaniwangbinatilyo.tumblr.com/
Warning, there is background music.

>>5712223
>78 thousand likes and reblogs

>>5712223
>http://karaniwangbinatilyo.tumblr.com/
This is a really good. Lots of the stuff on there is interesting for people who think science is boring. It generates interest from non-intellectuals.
I don't see anything wrong with that. The same as Michio Kaku.

>>5708679
...I thought a euclid was a fish...

>>5712272
>generates interest
Good for that, but the guy's apparently writing his thesis in physics. At least get it right - false knowledge is worse than no knowledge if you push it.

>>5712293
Thesis proposed title:
Influence of Stimulated Altered Gravity (∆g) on Reproduction Rate, Longevity and Aging of selected genera of Prokaryotic, Eukaryotic and Multicellular Organisms
Sounds biology to me.

>>5712305
So it is. Just skimmed the page while gaming. Nonetheless, the point stands.