Posted on May 12, 2021.
The current established orthodoxy states we live in a universe with length, width, height and time. Therefore we occupy a 4-D or 4 dimensional universe.
The problem with the 4-D universe is it requires currently undiscovered particles and phenomena, such as:
- the Graviton (funny enough my spellcheck does not recognize this word. Ironic.)
- dark energy
- dark matter
You see, we have to have “faith” in science that these things exist in order for calculations used to explain the universe to be correct. I don’t know about you, but as soon as I’m asked to have faith in anything, I’m instantly skeptical.
If we were to believe that Space-Time can bend based on mass we would have to construct it’s influence in the following way:
- Length = x
- Width = y
- Height = z
Each dimension depicted by x, y and z is represented by a single point. Now lets add a massive object interacting with space-time but construct its influence within each dimension. At each point its relative mass would have a value. How does one represent a value of magnitude at a single point?
You can’t. You need all 3 dimensions to depict the affect mass has on the curvature of space-time.
But let’s say you could. (Even though you can’t)
We would visualize each point as a vector, like the following diagram:
The magnitudes of mass are characterized by a, b, and c.
Therefore, at any point in space-time we would expect a value to represent the amount of curvature the massive object bends space-time. In this example, space-time would not appear to bend, rather, it would appear as a sharp point, terminating at the red arrow (a,b,c). If viewed in a larger scope there may appear to be a “bending of space-time” but that is entirely dependent upon the scope chosen to represent the results mass has on space-time.
As one shrinks time (t) into smaller and smaller chunks space-time would appear to change in highly angular formats, almost pixelated and not the graceful curves we are accustomed to seeing.
Let me ask you a question.
How often does the universe appear angular or pixelated?
Almost never. Right?
If the fundamental building blocks of everything is built in this way, why don’t we observe an angular universe?
Because it isn’t.
Mathematicians are quick to accept the wonderful ways math can explain things but choose to gloss over those aspects in which it fails. You might think that is not surprising but it should be. Incongruences in the results are clear signs of misunderstanding in our logic and must be further scrutinized. If not, we risk building a foundation of principles that are in effect, fundamentally flawed.
I want to propose an alternative. This alternative doesn’t result in a pixelated universe and it doesn’t depend on dark matter or dark energy. Furthermore, it explains why we have yet to identify the graviton.
The universe is not made of 4 dimensions but 5 dimensions. These dimensions are:
- vector of time
That’s right. The 5th dimension is gravity.
If gravity was its own dimension, layered on top of the other dimensions, we would observe the effects of mass from the first 3 dimensions in a “smoothed” way. In this case, mass from the x, y and z dimensions interact indirectly with gravity.
This would also provide alternative explanations for the resulting curvature of space-time (as we observe it).
No longer would we be bound entirely by Einstein’s equation of E = mc2 (squared). This is also the reason why constants are required to explain gravity from a mathematical perspective. Einstein never liked the need for constants in his equations, and neither do I, but the absence of a better solution required them.
Depicting gravity as its own dimension is a better solution.
String theory is perfectly happy with the existence of other dimensions. In many ways String theory, although difficult to understand and prove, is the most elegant explanation for what we observe.
We haven’t located, found or seen the graviton particle, although its existence is absolutely necessary for our understanding of everything. Having gravity depicted as its own dimension is a good explanation for the absence of the graviton.
We don’t see it because we aren’t “looking” in the right place.
As I eluded earlier, a separate dimension of gravity introduces the possibility for other factors affecting gravity. This would help rule out the need for dark energy and dark matter. There may be circumstances within our universe where matter is not “in-phase” with our observations and thus whose effects are incalculable.
When I say incalculable, I mean using our current understanding of physics and mathematics. I don’t mean incalculable forever. But I am sure this sentence will be overlooked nonetheless.
What does this mean for the future?
- we will find the graviton but it won’t be found hanging around elementary particles
- it may be possible to influence gravity independent of mass and energy equations
- solving outer galactic rotation once and for all. Bye bye dark matter
- most notably, we may be able to irradicate mathematical constants in physics. Yeehaa!
- Grand Unified Theory (GUT) anyone?
If you are someone interested in faster-than-light travel you have probably heard of the Alcubierre drive. The problem with that concept is the amount of negative energy required for it to work. This problem arrises because we connect the warping of space-time with mass and therefore energy. If the warping of space-time can be manipulated in other ways, previously impossible concepts may become possible.