Slashdot Mirror
Dark Energy May Lurk In Hidden Dimensions
Magdalene writes in to let us know about a sketch of an idea, that might one day become a theory, to explain the dark energy that is making the universe flee faster and faster apart. It posits that dark energy may be the result of a new kind of neutrino wandering in tiny extra dimensions above our familiar three. She adds, "There is no word yet on whether Sphere or Square are available for comment." From the article: "The mysterious cosmic presence called dark energy, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, might be lurking in hidden dimensions of space. This idea would explain how the dimensions of space remain stable — one of the biggest problems for the unified scheme of physics called 'string theory'... To get the same amount of acceleration seen by astronomers, Greene and Levin calculate that the extra dimensions should have a scale of about 0.01 millimeter."
In case you haven't read it, Flatland (The first non-wiki link in google) is the tale of a square named (conveniently) A. Square living in his comfortable home in a two dimensional world, who is eventually visited by a sphere from a *third* dimension and is both vexed and eventually exhilarated (and then vexed again) by what he learns in terms of geometric and social implications.
It's a wonderful bit of British satire and more written by Edwin A. Abbott around 1884. Check it out - it's a wonderful short story, and a very nice example of the treasures that lie within the public domain.
Ryan Fenton
Length would only make sense in the other dimension by comparison to lengths we know already, so scale cannot be an issue. Try thinking of it this way: the new dimension is not given by a line like your x- and y-axes, but by a circle. Each time you travel a certain distance in the z-direction, you come back to where you started. Disclaimer: IANAST (I am not a string theorist) but IAAT (I am a topologist).
It's the Great Old Ones in their extradimensional prison; they are trying to push out and warping the universe in the process.
Seriously: without some experimental evidence to back up these theories, they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Hm... That's a really very tough one. First of all, take dark matter... I can count 7 (much-publicized) theories off the top of my head. Which one are you going to fix?
Second. Well, there has been a few theories about dark energy but none of them have been greatly publicized. The truth is they are more whackier than dark matter theories. Now, you are suggesting that we go and fix the errors in them?! Huh? We dont even know which one is the one that matches reality most closely.
Third. Yes, astrophysicists did try to put dark energy under the rug for a few years. But they failed as the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) precision measurements require a dark energy component. There is no way that you could get the same observables otherwise. So, really, you can not blame them for fixing their observations to meet their theory. There was no theory about dark energy until after it was observed.
The key word here is unbounded.
The extra dimensions are "compactified". That mean they are bounded.
Example of spaces with bounded dimension are the circle or sphera. They both have maximum diameter - that mean the distance between the points of them can not be bigged than some fixed length. That is the "scale" of dimension. In the string theory where are only three space dimensions which are unbounded - "our" space dimensions. The rest are bounded and have scale.
To visualise how could be both bounded and unbounded dimensions imagine cylinder of infinite length. It have one unbounded dimension - length and one bounded - circumference. So in the string theory extra dimensions are "curled" around our three dimensions.
Hi, I'm a first year graduate student in Physics, so I probably understand string theory at just about the right level to explain the basics. If I knew any more about it, I would be smart enough to not try to explain it. If I knew any less, I couldn't explain it at all. This will all make a lot more sense if you've ever studied complex numbers. If you haven't, here's your chance to start!
First, you need to understand the geometry of regular spacetime in Einstein's Special Relativity, which isn't the Euclidean geometry with several real coordinates that you learned about in high school school. The time coordinate is a regular real variable, just like in Euclidean geometry. But the space coordinates are three different imaginary units whose square is 1, call them i, j and k. A point in spacetime is characterized by 4 coordinates, like (1t, ix, jy, kz). This system is called the hyperbolic quaternions, or Minkowski space. Why hyperbolic? Read on!
Next, how do you calculate distance in spaces with imaginary coordinates? Recall from high school geometry that in a plane with 2 real coordinates, the distance between the origin (0,0) and a point P=(1x,1y) is d^2 = x^2 + y^2 = P dot P. In imaginary coordinates you do it a little differently, you take the dot product of P with P*, P* being the complex conjugate of P, and the dot product being multiplication of only the corresponding coordinates. Complex conjugation leaves the real coordinate unchanged but flips the sign on the imaginary coordinates, so 1 goes to 1, i to -i, j to -j, k to -k. Now the distance between the origin (0,0,0,0) and a point P=(1t, ix, 0, 0) is d^2 = (1t,ix,0,0) dot (1t,-ix,-0,-0) = 1^2 t^2 + (-i)(i)x^2 = t^2 - i^2 x^2, but i^2 = 1, so we have just d^2 = t^2 - x^2. In general we have d^2 = t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2. Note that different points can be distance zero from each other. These points lie on each other's "light cones" because photons travel along these zero distance trajectories. Points with positive distance from each other are called timelike with each other and can have a cause and effect relationship. Points with negative distance are called spacelike with each other and are totally disconnected.
Now we're ready to see why this geometry is called hyperbolic! What are the points which are distance 1 from the origin? Let's use the distance equation with 1 for the distance, ignoring y and z to keep the math simpler . Then 1 = t^2 - x^2, that's just a hyperbola with two branches, one in the past and one in the future! These hyperbolae go on forever and therefore so does this kind of space. This hyperbolic spacetime stuff is why objects become distorted at high relative velocities. The two spherical gold nuclei that they smash together at the relativistic heavy ion collider see each other as flat hyperboloidal pancakes.
Ok, now we're finally ready to look at these small circular dimensions. Now we use a real coordinate for time and imaginary coordinates for space, just like before. However, this time we use the normal imaginary unit whose square is -1, not 1. It's usually called i, but I've already used i, so let's just call it u. Now the distance from the origin (0,0) to a point P (1t,ux) is P dot P* = 1^2 t^2 + (u)(-u) x^2 = t^2 - u^2 x^2, but u^2 = -1, so d^2 = t^2 + x^2. The minus has become a plus! What are the points which are distance 1 from the origin? 1 = t^2 + x^2, the equation of a circle! The circumference of this unit circle gives a characteristic length to this space, usually taken to be something like the Planck Length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
In string theory, spacetime becomes the product of our familiar and beloved big, hyperbolic spacetime with a bunch of these small, circular spacetimes. Particles with electric charge go around in a circle, particles with weak nuclear charge fly around on a sphere, and particles with color like quarks and gluons move around on a hypersphere. Mass is related to the size of the particle in these circular spaces, with bigger particles being lighter. When he tal
We don't actually need 2-dimensional euclidean space to describe the topological structure of the circle.
There are several different concepts of dimension in mathematics. The one you are probably thinking of is the dimension of a vector space. What we seem to need here is the dimension of a manifold. Intuitively, a n-dimensional manifold is something that locally "looks like" our familiar n-dimensional euclidean space (R^n). You already got that right with the ant example.
Manifolds can be described in different ways. One way is as a certain kind of subset of some higher-dimensional vector space R^m, this is the way you are probably imagining. But it is also possible to describe a manifold without any reference to a surrounding space.
For this we need the concept of a topological space. Informally, a topological space is a set in which we can talk about connectedness, continuity and which sets of points are "a neighborhood" of a given point.
As a topological space, the circle can be seen as the usual interval [0,1] (of real numbers), but with the points 0 and 1 identified (that is, they are considered to be the same point) (usually one would use the analogy "0 and 1 glued together", but this would evoke the intuition of a surrounding space again, which we are trying to avoid
Likewise, topologically a sphere is equivalent to a square (or a disk) with the whole boundary[1] considered to be a single point. A torus is a square with every point on the left edge identified with the corresponding point on the right edge, and every point on the top edge identified with the corresponding point on the bottom edge.
Generally, a n-dimensional topological manifold is defined as a topological space with the following property (+ some technical conditions):
For every point on the manifold, you can find a small region U around the point (a "neighborhood"), such that U is topologically the same ("homeomorphic") as a disk/ball or a box[2] in n-dimensional euclidean space. A homeomorphism is essentially a map f which puts the points of one space into one-to-one-correspondence with the points of another space, and respects convergence in the sense that some sequence[3] x_n converges to x if and only if f(x_n) converges to f(x). It can't tear regions apart which are connected, or vice versa.
For example, if we have some point of the sphere, we can take a small neighborhood U of it and map U to a disk in the obvious way. This mapping respects convergence. Thus, the sphere is a 2-dimensional topological manifold.
Now I only described the topological structure; topology is "qualitative" and doesn't talk about concrete distances, angles etc.. If you want to have these, you need a structure called a Riemannian manifold. But I haven't taken a course on differential geometry yet, so I won't talk about that
I hope I didn't tell you things you already know and that I didn't sound condescending. You are asking good questions and I think you would like topology courses
Whether the surrounding spaces are "real" is a matter of philosophy, but as you can see they are not absolutely necessary...
[1]: For the topologists: I'm using "boundary" in the informal sense here; of course the boundary (in the formal sense) of the whole space is always empty.
[2]: Actually it doesn't matter whether you require it to be homeomorphic to a ball in R^n or to the whole R^n.
[3]: In general it's a net, not a sequence