Can Extra Dimensions and Plank Lengths Explain Quantum Orbital Shifts?

[SimonA]

There seem to be a huge range of levels of understanding here but I'm hoping someone with a better grasp of the maths can assist me.

Humour me and imagine that extra dimensions do exist. Now consider that orbitals and angular momentum are set in non space-time dimensions. Then take it that plank lengths are significant in the interface between these extra dimensions and space-time.

Now consider that either a large force applied in the lower dimensions, or a small force applied in the higher dimensions, results in "orbital shifts" at the space-time level. I hope you can see that orbital shifts become very natural. However I need maths to support this and it goes beyond my mathematical abilities.

I'm looking for either harsh (but considered) criticism, or support with the maths involved here.

Thanks

Simon

 

[SimonA]

And please - no more of Feynmans "shut up and calculate". I can understand why people get like that having spent some time here now. But are none of the seemingly few good solid posters prepared to accept we can't understand this better ? I realize I'm a bit of a flim flam man and only ever got to complex number, quadratic equations and differentiation at school. In fact I wouldn't even be confident with differentiation nowdays. I'd just appreciate a little help as it takes quite a lot of effort relearning this stuff by yourself.

 

[Kane O'Donnell]

And please - no more of Feynmans "shut up and calculate".

We can't shut up and calculate, you haven't given us enough details to calculate with.

Are you asking whether some kind of disturbance in higher dimensions can cause an electron, say, to go from one orbital to another?

Cheerio,

Kane O'Donnell

 

[SimonA]

Kind of - if you're talking about the strong force.

Its difficult to explain it in QM in terms of "other" dimensions because QM reaches across the border of space-time. This is the main reason for the disconnect between QM and relativity IMO.

Thats why QM has a better idea of the real energy of the "vacuum". But also why cosmolology et al should also take the QM 'value' more seriously, and the QM interpretations (especially CI) less seriously.

Why does modern science love to make a new theory for every major new discovery ? Is it any surprise they don't all fit together when the focus is acceptance in peer review ? It leaves all these crazy people like me out there wondering why smart people accept plainly crazy things (I'm not being as humble as I should be considering my ignorance - einstein is among those crazies left behind in the loss of a "broad horizon")

Anyway I wish you all a good new year.

 

[Kea]

Happy New Year, Simon

I quite like the way you think, but you must try to explain the mechanism that you have in mind more carefully. And be aware that without the mathematical background your idea of how 'dimensions' interact is going to be rather unsophisticated.

Regards
Kea

 

[Niffgiffler]

Simon, as an engineer I cannot address your postulate directly. However, from experience I can say that systems in running in parallel are rarely entirely independant of each other. In that, at the most basic levels, It would be efficient and logical that the forces and components of the indivdual dimensions would be connected and effected by each other somehow, even if it does smack of "ethos physics" a bit. I like the cut of your jib sailor, I will be waiting to see where you are going when you elaborate on the mechanism you are picturing.

 

[SimonA]

Hi Kea

I like the way you think as well and I am going to learn the maths. But in the meantime I'll try to make a more "careful" description of the "mechanism" in the hope that you may be willing to assist me on the maths which seems like jumping up a waterfall right now. Still - if a salmon can do it then I can :)

To be specific in my description I need to set a different framework for thinking than that which QM, M, or SR and GR rely on. Its perhaps closest to GR but the difference between velocity and degree of matter versus energy should be thought of in the same way as the way an electron changes its orbit. In macro physics we see things becoming "energy" at c, in QM we are looking at "energy". This is the border between macro and micro that is ignored far too much IMO.

Let me go back to basics because I think people will probably now be thinking I'm talking rubbish like some of the posters here do who don't even know why einstein was right about entanglement even though he didn't expect he would be :) I may well be talking rubish myself - but if I can get someone with a deeper mathematical understanding of the formalism to at least criticize my ideas in a vigorous sounding board kind of way, I will be happy.

So we have EM and we have atoms that form matter. What exactly is the difference between these ? Einstein says one becomes the other purely due to their velocity. Think about that. Then think about the extra dimensions that some mathematicians have been aware of for a century. Is there any reason why einsteins changing of matter into energy is not related to a shift of dimension ? Time must be left as an axis rather than a dimension. And string theory's dimensions must not be thought of as "rolled up". They must be dimensional shifts in energy levels. Consider the rainbow. There is a border between each level. If you lived on an atom in the red part of a rainbow, somethings would seem strange when trying to understand the redness of it all. But even more strange, would be trying to understand what white light is. We've known for a long time that red light does not contain all the elements of white light - no lens can turn it back into white light.

As cosmologists consider that everything we know only makes up 4% of the whole, is it not worth considering that we are detecting in macro physics a small corner of reality in terms of what makes this sensory and material experience ? Is it maybe worth thinking about the possibility that QM is that anomoly that should so excite people rather than them getting stuck in the sums without thinking about the reality ? If dimensions are energy based, and space with its apparent 3 dimensions is in fact the biggest illusion, then maybe we need a new name for "dimension" ? Its like the icelanders being able to describe types of snow in many different ways, but we just have this one word for dimension and so get this crazy idea that things are "wrapped up" at each point. If only M theorists could realize how rediculous this idea of point based dimensions is.

I've gone off into language that probably seems crazy to you people. But there is a way to make sense of this division in theories. Its will not be a "theory of everything" and won't ever be. Physics doesn't deal with meaning. But it shouldn't allow this division of understanding that has developed.

 

[SimonA]

If you care for "many worlds" theories then you should think about the fact that all the laws of nature are present at any particular spatial point in the universe.

And a question. Is there any evidence that mass itself does not change in high gravity regions ? If so what is this evidence ? I'm convinced that gravity is nothing to do with any Higgs Bosun rubbish, but I need to know if there is evidence against mass itself changing in warped space. If there is solid evidence then I need to rethink gravity.

 

[Kea]

Simon

Glad to hear you are studying the maths.

I think the closest thing to what you're thinking is something known as Brane World Cosmology. It has extra dimensions like Strings but they're not curled up.

By the way, mathematics is full of many, many subtle ideas of what a dimension is, depending on the geometry that one is considering...and these days the geometry is far more complex than the real smooth manifolds that you appear to have in mind. For this reason, BWC is not a great idea. After all, gravity is about geometry, right?

...I'm convinced that gravity is nothing to do with any Higgs
boson rubbish, but I need to know if there is evidence against
mass itself changing in warped space. If there is solid evidence
then I need to rethink gravity.

Warped space? So are you fixing some classical spacetime in your
mind? Such a thing does not really exist... and there's plenty of
evidence.

Shouldn't you be at a New Year's party about now, if you're in
Europe?

Kea

 

[SimonA]

Kea

By the way, mathematics is full of many, many subtle ideas of what a dimension is, depending on the geometry that one is considering...and these days the geometry is far more complex than the real smooth manifolds that you appear to have in mind. For this reason, BWC is not a great idea. After all, gravity is about geometry, right?

Gravity is about the lifting of the curtain that separates matter from the "vacuum". IMO anyway :)

Warped space? So are you fixing some classical spacetime in your
mind? Such a thing does not really exist... and there's plenty of
evidence.

Yes ... but ... consider that maybe space-time is a result of what's happening in non local dimensions.

Shouldn't you be at a New Year's party about now, if you're in
Europe?

Not this year.