Theoretical question on extra dimensions

[satoshi]

TL;DR

How to model a 3D spacetime anomaly where an object briefly drops out of our timeline and returns with low entropy? Can localized EM fields trigger quantum tunneling or metric fluctuations off our brane?

Hi everyone,

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately diving into higher-dimensional physics and quantum information theory, and I wanted to get your thoughts on a specific conceptual intersection.

According to string theory (and M-theory), the universe requires 10 or 11 dimensions to remain mathematically consistent. If we treat our 3D space as a brane embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk, how much could these higher dimensions theoretically interact with our macroscopic reality?

More specifically, I’ve been thinking about the concept of informational entropy (Shannon entropy) and its relationship to the thermodynamic arrow of time. If a conscious observer experiences a localized anomaly—where a macroscopic object briefly drops out of the standard 3D timeline (becoming completely unobservable in any 3D coordinate) and later materializes in a highly localized state of low entropy—how would you mathematically model that transition?

Could a spike in localized electromagnetic/electrostatic tension combined with specific observer dynamics trigger a micro-scale quantum tunneling event or a metric fluctuation capable of briefly detaching an object from our brane?

I’m really interested in the math and theories behind localized spacetime anomalies, quantum entanglement of information, and the Block Universe perspective where time is a fixed landscape.

Would love to hear your thoughts, reading recommendations, or insights on how modern theoretical physics handles these kinds of multi-dimensional interactions.

Thanks!

 

[Dale]

Is this an AI assisted idea? It sounds like the sort of stuff an AI would either produce or encourage.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

TL;DR: How to model a 3D spacetime anomaly where an object briefly drops out of our timeline and returns with low entropy? Can localized EM fields trigger quantum tunneling or metric fluctuations off our brane?

how much could these higher dimensions theoretically interact with our macroscopic reality?

They don't, not to any degree that we can test.

TL;DR: How to model a 3D spacetime anomaly where an object briefly drops out of our timeline and returns with low entropy? Can localized EM fields trigger quantum tunneling or metric fluctuations off our brane?

If a conscious observer experiences a localized anomaly—where a macroscopic object briefly drops out of the standard 3D timeline (becoming completely unobservable in any 3D coordinate) and later materializes in a highly localized state of low entropy—how would you mathematically model that transition?

I don't know where you're getting this. I do QI related research and I've never heard of this or seen any papers on it.

TL;DR: How to model a 3D spacetime anomaly where an object briefly drops out of our timeline and returns with low entropy? Can localized EM fields trigger quantum tunneling or metric fluctuations off our brane?

Could a spike in localized electromagnetic/electrostatic tension combined with specific observer dynamics trigger a micro-scale quantum tunneling event or a metric fluctuation capable of briefly detaching an object from our brane?

You're just stringing jargon together here.

TL;DR: How to model a 3D spacetime anomaly where an object briefly drops out of our timeline and returns with low entropy? Can localized EM fields trigger quantum tunneling or metric fluctuations off our brane?

I’m really interested in the math and theories behind localized spacetime anomalies, quantum entanglement of information, and the Block Universe perspective where time is a fixed landscape.

I don't know what anomalies you're referring to. Entanglement is generally well understood in QI. Block universe is at best redwine physics and more appropriately characterized as philosophy rather than physics.

Do you have any references for any of this?

 

[Dale]

Do you have any references for any of this?

Professional scientific references, not “an AI told me it was a brilliant idea”.

 

[satoshi]

Is this an AI assisted idea? It sounds like the sort of stuff an AI would either produce or encourage.

No, this is not AI assisted idea

 

[satoshi]

Professional scientific references, not “an AI told me it was a brilliant idea”.

Even if they're proffesional, I'd be happy to hear them

 

[Dale]

No, this is not AI assisted idea

Even if they're proffesional, I'd be happy to hear them

We are asking you for the references. If not some AI hallucination, then where are you getting any of this?

Specifically this part:

If a conscious observer experiences a localized anomaly—where a macroscopic object briefly drops out of the standard 3D timeline (becoming completely unobservable in any 3D coordinate) and later materializes in a highly localized state of low entropy—how would you mathematically model that transition?

Could a spike in localized electromagnetic/electrostatic tension combined with specific observer dynamics trigger a micro-scale quantum tunneling event or a metric fluctuation capable of briefly detaching an object from our brane?

 

[jefferywinkler3]

The block universe assumes that the future is already fixed but this contradicts quantum mechanics where probability can not be avoided. The following article explains that probability really can't be avoided.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/133

This alone basically disproves the block universe. In addition to that, it fails to explain why entropy only increases in direction, and why you remember the past and not the future.

When physicists say there are 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions in string theory or M-theory, they mean that the dimensions we do not see are compactified on a really small scale. That's why we don't see them. Think of a garden hose. From far away, it looks like a line, but when you get close, you can see it's cylindrical. String theory assumes that the extra dimensions are compactified on a manifold such as a Calabi-Yau manifold at the Planch scale, where the Planck length is about 10⁻³⁵ m. Obviously a macroscopic object can not fit into such a tiny space so it is impossible for a macroscopic object to go into the extra dimensions.

There is a version of string theory called brane world cosmology which assumes that the extra dimensions are extended. In that case, only gravitons are travel freely through the bulk. This explains why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. All other particles are confined to the brane. It is impossible for them to "detach".

 

[Dale]

This alone basically disproves the block universe.

The block universe uses the Lorentz transform to make all its predictions. So which prediction of QM do you believe disproves the Lorentz transform?

The block universe assumes that the future is already fixed but this contradicts quantum mechanics where probability can not be avoided.

The block universe uses the Lorentz transforms for all of its predictions. So what part of probability is incompatible with the Lorentz transforms?

The following article explains that probability really can't be avoided.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/133

That reference is philosophical rather than scientific, but more importantly it does not support the claim that the block universe is incompatible with probability or QM. It merely supports the point that probability is important to QM, which is not in dispute here.

 

[Roberto Pavani]

They don't, not to any degree that we can test.

Do you mean that those extra dimensions do not interact, or that the interaction is infinitesimal?
Both assertions are ok, but the first one denies string theory, the other not.

 

[jefferywinkler3]

The OP was claiming that macroscopic objects enter the extra dimensions. This is what he wrote.

"where a macroscopic object briefly drops out of the standard 3D timeline (becoming completely unobservable in any 3D coordinate) and later materializes in a highly localized state of low entropy"

" metric fluctuation capable of briefly detaching an object from our brane?"

Clearly, he is imagining a macroscopic object suddenly disappearing because it entered the extra dimensions and then reappearing. Obviously, a macroscopic object can not fit inside the compactified dimensions which are compactified on a scale of 10⁻³⁵ m.

The idea of extended extra dimensions goes back to the papers published by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum in 1999. According to this theory, only gravitons can propagate through the bulk and all other particles are confined to the brane.

1. "A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension" (Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370–3373, 1999) – Known as the RS1 model.
2. "An Alternative to Compactification" (Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690–4693, 1999) – Known as the RS2 model

Here is an example of a review paper on brane world cosmology that explains that only gravitons can propagate through the bulk and all other particles are confined to the brane.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3962

The OP was imagining a macroscopic object "detaching" from a brane. A Standard Model particle can not "detach" from a brane.

 

[Delta Kilo]

The following article explains that probability really can't be avoided.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/133

This alone basically disproves the block universe.

That reference is philosophical rather than scientific

It also seems to be plain wrong if one tries to read past the abstract.
The actual paper is here: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/mqy7-s2db

Additivity is a fundamental property of measures and probability measures in mathematics [19] and therefore
carries an intrinsic probabilistic property.

We need to do something, this is something therefore we need to do this.

A simple counterexample is the Equal rule. We assign μ(Ai ) = 1/N to every operator Ai in any set of operators,
where N is the number of operators in that set. Let the two sets of projective operators be {A1, A2, A3} and {B1, B2, B3, B4}, where A1 + A2 = B1 + B2 but Ai ≠ Bj for any i, j ∈ [2]. Then
μ(A1 + A2 ) = 2/3 = μ(A1 ) + μ(A2 )
μ(B1 + B2 ) = 1/2 = μ(B1 ) + μ(B2 )
μ(A1 + A2 ) ≠ μ(B1 + B2 ).
This μ satisfies additivity without ANC or ONC. The nonequivalence of additivity and noncontextuality is
therefore proved.

This sounds like utter rubbish to me.