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."
First of all, it seems to me that...wait, is that a NewScientist link?
Sorry, nevermind.
"I'd really like to know how to properly conceptualize or model the notion of a dimension having scale."
A telephone wire looks one dimentional from a distance, but up close there are ants walking on it's 2D surface.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can you please enlighten me how exactly this is anything like "a scientist who fixes the observation to meet their theory". Two things are wrong with your reasoning:
1. They are trying to fix the theory. Note that this does not automatically implie their results/ideas are right nor that I am defending them. I always found the whole "large extra dimesions that are just small enough so we haven't observed them but will at the LHC,..." thing total nonsense.
2. As clearly explained in TFA these should be observable in the near future. On the other hand, a theory of everything (if it does exist) is bound to at least have some features that are unobservable. Reproducing the big-bang, or some equivalent singular event near the origin of the universe is probably impossible.
(I am a former string theorist, which does not imply I am a believer)
#1) Respect the privacy of others. #2) Think before you type.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Slashdotters don't seem to understand how theoretical physics or science for that matter, works.
Theory is just a word. Successes in physics have always been foreshadowed by thought experiments, wild conjectures, whatever. Empiricism on its own can't do it, and never could.
We often imagine technology before we have it. This calls for radical imagining outside our normal experience. Experiment can come before or later.
Quantum physics and General Relativity still sound incredible and fantastic to lay people and physicists alike, and describe behavior quite outside our conceivable experience, but it works. With the attitude displayed in some of these threads, these never would have been developed.
String theory is at an impasse, and so is cosmology re the expansion.
Time for new and lateral thinking, which is exactly what they are doing.
Even if it turns out to be wrong, it's at least one possibility discounted, which is progress either way.
It is called science.
Unfortunately there is often just enough truth in some crackpot ideas to keep people pursuing them. We do have biological cycles which are influenced by the Moon (astrology), there probably are some numerological bits of weirdness in the Bible -it would be amazing if there weren't given the range of authors and their interests - and Freud had some genuine insights. It's this that can help to draw in intelligent and curious people.
Pining for the fjords
Blasting physicists (or any scientist) for speculating on unsolved, scientific mysteries is just an astounding step backwards intellectually and I'm afraid that as a society we've taken that huge leap backwards.
If the mob stopped spouting their own specious dogma, showing their own Newtonian-based cognitive dissonance and actually RTFA:
That folks, is science in action. Don't make me go through the checks and balances between experiment and theory.
It stops being science when critical thinking and the scientific process are overruled by non-scientific reasons.
The corollary is that it stops being scientific criticism when the basis of the contrary views also fall prey to non-scientific reasonings. Reasonings such as "I don't see any _______" - fill in the blank with "atoms", "neutrinos", "monkeys giving birth to human babies" - all of which were used as arguments against theories about things we did not yet know and were considered unprovable at the time.
Well, I for one DO NOT welcome the creationist tagging overlords.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with inventing something new to preserve some theory. The neutrino was "invented" to preserve conservation of energy. Antimatter was "invented" to keep quantum theory consistent with relativity.
Despite common memes about the history of science, the vast majority of new ideas don't require tossing out the old ideas. IE: dark matter, dark energy, string theory, etc. I think that's why we've seen theories like MOND become more popular. MOND is not by any means more popular than dark matter; indeed, the observational evidence implies that even if MOND were true, you would still need additional dark matter to fully explain the observations, with which MOND alone is inconsistent.
You're being hypocritical to boot. MOND is also an invention of something new to try to save a theory. Dark matter introduces new kinds of matter to try to save our theory of gravity. MOND introduces a whole new theory of gravity to try to save the existing particles we know about. Arguably, the former is a more conservative choice than the latter! Of course, both modifications may be necessary, but right now it looks like you can do it all with dark matter, and there are already reasons coming from particle physics, independent of any astrophysical evidence, for why those kinds of dark matter particles should exist.
There is also nothing wrong with inventing a theory of quantum gravity, such as string theory, in order to save existing theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, since both of them have enormous amounts of evidence in their favor.
Continuing on string theory, the theory has not "failed", nor do people "add more strings" to fix it; indeed, the string content of the theory is determined by the overarching M-theory and cannot be adjusted at will. My point is we need to stop pushing stories that aggrandize theories until some serious research has been done on the issue. Serious research has been done on the issue. This story is merely reporting one of the latest proposals. This proposal is not necessarily more plausible than any of the others currently floating around, but that's why the story said it was "a sketch of an idea, that might one day become a theory". It is nevertheless interesting, and is consistent with some things we know about dark energy.
erp...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.