/sci/ - Science & Math

no. its all bullshit

>>9658197
Yes, they occur by the uncertainty principal within access points of quantum vacuum space that be natural or man made

doesn't the curvature of space/time prove higher dimensions exist. I mean if space time is curved, what is it curving into? Higher dimensions.

>>9658210
If it is all bullshit then how can we explain that particles can disappear and reappear out of nowhere, to get entangled with each other, how could gravity even be a thing?

>>9658270
by actually studying physics

>>9658272
If you don't explain this to me I will continue to spread bullshit to the world genuinely believing I am 100% correct

>>9658276
Man this is the best motivation i've ever seen to force someone to explain something.

>>9658292
usually people just say they're stupid and tell them to shut up

>>9658276
>>9658300
Gauge bosons you retard.

>>9658197
String theory predicts there's a bunch of dimensions to explain qm and gravity.
String theory is also pretty much dead, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Besides that, there's a lot of physics that would be messed up if there were higher spatial dimensions. The main one being the equipartition theorem.

>>9658258
Probably just trolling but I'll bite.
Even though gr predicts spacetime bends, it's not required to bend in/around anything. The math is complete without assuming the universe is embedded in higher dimensions.

>>9658335
>String theory is also pretty much dead, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

>>9658276
>If you don't explain this to me I will continue to spread bullshit to the world genuinely believing I am 100% correct

>>9658335
Op here, is string theory actually dead? Michio Kaku has been lying to me all this time...

What is the correct explanation for quantum tunneling or entanglement? I really want to try getting my head around it

>>9658527
michio kaku helped come up with string theory so obviously he's not going to say it's dead
it went unproven for so long not as many people care and universities shifted away from looking for string theorists

>>9658527
The correct interpretation is that it has been proven by observation time and time again that particles have wave like particles at the qm scale.

The wave like properties along with heisenberg uncertainty requires that the wave properties be probablistic.

Why? For all we know, there is only a single electron in the universe being shared by everything. Some new models predict protons are made of tens of thousands of quarks or more. It's a wild frontier, but prohibitively expensive.

I think the idea of higher dimensions is interesting, but unlikely that low energy particles can move in more dimensions than higher energy ones. This would imply that the motion is angular. But that would require ensembles of particles to have symmetry about the axis. Possible but not likely.

>>9658549
This is the answer I was looking for! Thank you so much for clarifying these concepts. I'll try looking further into this, now I know where to look though, thanks.

>>9658576
The universe is way bigger than that.

>>9658578
I know, just the name of pic

>>9658581
Rename it to Lumengrid.

>>9658607
>Being pendentic about art
Let me tell you why you don’t get laid.

>>9658549
The "thousands of quarks" theory is a new one to me.
And I like to think I keep up on the field.
Citation, please?

Not all "extra dimensional" tests are prohibitively expensive. The ones checking if gravitation deviates from inverse-square at sub-millimeter scales.
All negative so far.

>>9658363
I attended a conference once with lectures by Brian ("String theory is the Holy Grail") Greene and Lee ("String theory is total BS") Smolin.
If ST really is dead, what's the current "hot idea"?

>>9658197
Either find a higher dimension operating within our universe or alternatively, operate ourselves in a lower universe.

Alternatively to that we can try force a higher dimensional rift by tearing this universe apart using grav waves...
However that will likely lead to another universe.

Multiverse means other universes. Not dimensions.
(except those universes that use higher dimensional links within the universe.)

(A) universe contains higher dimension being or grants power to A universes king that dominions over (A) + (B) + (C)
Etc etc

Read Flatland.

>>9658276
quantum mechanics is a joke especially given the fact theres no dark matter in space

>>9658549
God I hate one electron theory, I hope they prove Vacuum Decay to be real.

It would demonstrate the theory is wrong as you'd have a bunch of electrons whizzing around with wonky new physics in the universe which certainly havn't been observed.

>>9658258
la creatura...

>>9658966
Every single postulate predicted in quantum mechanics has proven correct, with experiments repeated thousands of times. Dark matter might be on shaky ground now that recent metadata indicates the expansion of the universe may not be speeding up as much as previously claimed.

Most physicists agree that without considering additional dimensions, we cannot explain the behavior of the known universe.

>>9659186
It was never meant to be taken seriously, so much as be a mathematical thought experiment.

But the math involved did lead to some useful breakthroughs - just none that require one electron universe actually be a thing.

>>9659224
Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe - you're thinking dark energy. Not that the folks making said claims weren't promptly BTFO anyways.

pop-sci version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UNLgPIiWAg

>>9658258
La luz extinguido....

I never understood why people think there is a fourth dimension.

All the retarded "woah man" pothead crazy theoretical talk aside.
The conrete real undeniable truth is that there is 3 dimension. Lenght height and width. We can theorize how a fourth dimension will look intersecting with our dimention. and nothing NOTHING like that has ever been observed, ergo we have no reasons to believe it exists.
I hate it when people take theoreticla things and make as if there is ar eason to believe they existed becaues "le ebin pothead college woah logic" literally stop talking about shit to which there is exactly 0.00000 evidence

>>9658197
not yet

>>9658210
I think you meant to say
Not yet it is still just an untestable hypothesis

>>9658258
El goblinó...

>>9659193
>>9659905
>>9660044
Holy shit, /pol/ go home.

>>9660026
Generally it's confusion behind the idea of what a dimension entails in physics vs. what it entails in geometry.

That and Flatland (or for the weeaboos, Kado) - just makes for some trippy concepts and parables, even if they've nothing to do with how reality works.

Space and time are irreparably entwined in physics, can't move in one without influencing the other. The x/y/z/t divisions are largely artificial, save as how one object is oriented towards another.

>>9658197
'higher dimensions' do not exist. you should not confuse the purely mathematical concept of dimensions with actual reality

>>9658966
They just proved dark matter exists. Found a small galaxy without any it it. Proving it is real.

>>9660026
>he hasn't worked with hyperspace

You fucking brainlet, you are a massive retard. The world is laughing at you

>>9658966
>o dark matter
the whole concept of dark matter dark energy and dark anything is a joke.
It's like "we found universal laws as to how the universe works... well except in all these places that these laws don't apply.... but that surely means we are right and whatever is causing those disruptions is something that fits perfectly with our theories but its invisible

top fucking kek

>>9660121
>>9660121
show me a picture of anything in the universe that is consisten with fourth dimension geomtery, im fucking waiting

>>9658549
The "one-electron universe" really gets my goat. To use the missing positron problem as evidence against it you'd need to prove proton decay isn't real and that's a tall order. It's like an annoying little itch you want to scratch but can't.

>>9660026
What's time, buddywink?

>>9660125
Bleh, sick of this meme. Research that shit. They call it "dark" specifically because they don't fucking know the exact cause, just the observed effects. Non-baryonic matter and scalar field interaction, both concepts that predate any of these observations, are just the two ideas that match the new observations the best that they've come up with. And while you might be able to nix dark energy by finding another constant (or a working quantum gravitational theory), you can't do so for dark matter as the effect is not uniform - something's there, it can't be simply mathed away, and non-baryonic matter is the currently the best fit.

>>9660175
not a dimention. itme is a thign that happens

dimensions are height, width lenght. thats it.

Time is not a dimension is what happens wehn time passes. Like A DIMENSION CAN VARY DURING TIME.
time passes, the lenght of my penis expands, also the width and height. But there is no" tinme dimension to be measured"

The lol idea that "woah man woah time is like a dimension like if it were meteres of time man woah" is such a retarded college marxist meme that it makes me smile.

I love it when people want to make it seem that something exissts other that cna be observed.
I dare you to make a time cube, like when you add another dimension to something you can do the shape that has all figures the same. 1D LINE ->2D SQUARE->3D CUBE->4F CUBE WITH A CLOCK ATTACHED TO IT.
it literally makes no fucking sense and i just proved it but it wouldnt be the first time that society accepts something obviously wrong but pretty becaues they have been fooled
>>9660189
>They call it "dark" specifically because they don't fucking know the exact caus
IF THEY DONT KNOW THE FUCKING CAUSE IT MEANS THAT GRAVITY MAY NOT WORK
obviously obvious. the idea of gravity is that it moves things right? -See something moving... no gravity affecting it. SURELY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS INVISIBLE, NO WAY WE WERE WRONG ABOUT HOW GRAVITY WORKS

Its super counterintuitive to learn the objective fact that scientists are often the least scientific minded that exist

>>9660175
Time is interwoven with space, they are not separable. The height/width/length dimensions don't actually exist - there is no physical demarcation of any of those three dimensions - it's just how we reference vectors. They are geometric concepts, not dimensions with physicality nor physical consequences. Flatland is a parable, not a reality.

Time is a little screwier due to the inherent arrow, but moving in any direction affects time relative to everything else accordingly, so there's no separation under any physical model that allows operations in both directions (which all but a few WIP fringe ones do).

>>9660126
I'm just saying that the fourth dimension is real in so far as we can perceive it.

Just because you do not observe it does not mean it doesn't exist. If we can perceive it, it exists, and the more theoretical you can perceive it the better, because those kinds of concepts are eternal and unchanging, whereas the observable necessarily lacks that in varying degrees.

>>9660197
>IF THEY DONT KNOW THE FUCKING CAUSE IT MEANS THAT GRAVITY MAY NOT WORK
No, it means either this is the case, or you need a new quantum theory of gravity that simultaneously explains why every other gravitational theory works. No one's come up with one, though folks are still trying. It isn't some excuse to make shit work, it's a placeholder to say "well, this would explain this shit most easily, but we ain't proved it yet".

It's not like string theory where it's something forever out of reach of testability by its very nature, and on those rare occasions where it comes into reach, they move the goalposts to explain why it isn't found. There are established methods for detecting dark matter and proving the existence of dark energy - but until one of them scores a hit, it's still "dark". If we *knew* what it was for certain, we wouldn't label it "dark".

Not that a big part of the problem isn't that scientists seem to be shit at naming things in general.

>>9660233
>No one's come up with one, though folks are still trying

Why must everything be rational? like, is people looking for an explanation thats like a math formula?
Why couldnt we think that the universe works in such a way that for no reason in some areas of it particles get accelerated in one direction?

Why do scientists never propose wildly crazy hypothesis that are at least not falsiable?

Like somewhere in there theres the assumption that everything in the universe must work the same and that everything can be rationally explained with math

>>9660241
Cuz it's science. If you want to talk about an irrational universe, you need another discipline.

>>9660241
>Why do scientists never propose wildly crazy hypothesis that are at least not falsiable?
Sadly, they sometimes do. String theory and one electron universe would be examples. At that point it's technically not science, just math. Granted, even then, the math still has to be rational and consistent with itself and what you can observe, or you're off to philosophy land.

Not that such speculation isn't useful, as often the math involved in exploring those bottomless rabbit holes becomes critical to other, real world applications. (And in the case of one electron universe, it was intended to be a bottomless rabbit hole from the start, rather than an actual explanation, but lead to a nobel prize in a largely unrelated falsifiable puzzle.)

>>9660245
>Cuz it's science. If you want to talk about an irrational universe, you need another discipline.

I thought science was about understanding the universe objectively and believing what you see and not be an obtuse fucker.
Sure, if math is good to prove what we know so far ok... but if you dont consider that everything everywhere could be wrong and change youre not a true scientist

>>9660263
If you can't falsify it, you can't prove you're right or wrong. If the universe does things "just cuz" to such a degree you can't even predict probability, yer kinda boned. Science isn't just about "truth", it's about verifiable truth. Unverifiable truth belongs in the realm of religion or philosophy.

Not that unverifiable truths aren't fundamentally important. I mean science can't hardly touch some of the most fundamental human experiences - such consciousness, due to the near total inability to examine it empirically. Until someone finds some way to examine such things empirically, they fall outside its privy. The god of gaps keeps shrinking, but there are some gaps that may yet remain forever unfilled by this discipline alone. Nonetheless, for science to work, you must separate what you can know from what you cannot.

>>9660276thanks what a good answer.
While were on the topic of things that may be outside the grasp of science. Is there any barely scientific aproach as to what is conciousness? seems really hard but also seems like there should be a way

>>9660292
Nothing real good yet, though there's a lot of philosophers with some science background trying to find a scientific approach, sometimes laudibly, though more often con artistry. Also, perhaps sadly, a lot of scientists that want to push the whole thing off as an illusion (which it might be - but ya still need an explanation as to how exactly said illusion manifests and works).

There's also some of the "forever unsatisfied" factor involved with it. I mean, we have machines that can tell you what object you're thinking about from a selection based on electrical patterns in your brain, machines that can tell if you've been in a particular room or seen a particular person or object before, and even machines that can predict your intent to do something simple (like pressing a button), before you're aware of it... But still, we ain't satisfied, and I kinda suspect we'll have a working simulation of the human brain, and still not be satisfied that we know exactly how consciousness works.

>>9658210
Correct, it's just multivariable equations.

>>9660245
Hyperspace is not necessarily science, although it has led to theoretical concepts in physics/quantum mechanics.

The point of hyperspace is helps you conceptualize things. Pure economics utilizes hyperspace to determine dense utility combinations.

>>9660292
>>9660276's answer was spot on.
What is consciousness? Agatha Heterodyne surely knows. She can build complex robots with initiative & emotion out of an old toaster.
We can't. Even if we build machinery which can pass the Turing Test, that's not proof it's conscious. For that matter, we can't prove anyone (aside from ourselves) is conscious.
We just assume other humans are similar to ourselves.

The best hope seems to be studying the architecture of the brain. An awful lot of trial-and-error went into its design and if we can figure out the "algorithms" it runs -- and duplicate them in silicon (or whatever) so the device seems intelligent & self-aware -- that'd be pretty good evidence we'd cracked the problem.

Mind you, even after we do that (assuming we do), "understanding" the process may be too complex for any single human brain. Already, neural networks can do things which we don't have the faintest notion of how they work.

>>9660324
Yes, there's a lot of mathematical exploration that doesn't technically qualify as science but is nonetheless useful, or even eventually useful for something that does qualify. (>>9660261) Plus some that "well we can't test it now, but one day we'll theoretically be able to".

At least until some stupid script writer decides to use hyperspace to destroy the entire premise behind a 40 year old beloved sci-fi franchise.

>>9658197
http://www.infinity-theory.com/en/science/Main_pages