Here is a response (pretty incoherent as it is) that I sent to someone while we were discussing physics and the “Axis of Evil” discovery about the Universe, and it’s implications.
I can understand some of the points you make. Here are some counter ideas to consider.
1) we perceive 3 dimensions spatially, these of course being the 1,2,3 dimensions aka Euclidean space.
Looking at various forms of String Theory, and M-Theory (Stay with me, I know we aren’t talking multiverse…yet) It is entirely possible that there are fundamental dimensions that exist below our observable ones. Why this is important is it can cause physical properties that influence and affect how our dimensions actually behave.
For instance, if you create a mass along the “X” dimension you are required to specify the “Y” position it moves to. We can then specify the “Z” dimension to create a fully 3d object.
I’m not entirely sold on the prospect of Gravity in the sense of spacetime, but at the same time since I haven’t seen a “Better” Model it’s the best starting point I have to work from.
I can appreciate the use of EM as a means to describe the effects of gravity, but I don’t necessarily accept EM as the cause of it as 1, it’s already recognized as the electric force, and 2, it could not accommodate several of the properties and masses that it would need to for instance why do metals attract but not other materials like plastic or wood.
The biggest reason that I do believe in the wave/particle duality model is some of the experiments that I have seen done on it. One of the most important being the original Christian Huygens, and then the later advancement of that test.
In this experiment, done with light diffraction we have observed that light much like the understanding of an electron behaves like a wave in practice. But at the quantum level can be identified as a particle. I think what is happening here is a supposition of two events.
1) The photon is moving through open space, and has a zero predictive position. This means that as it moves through space it simultaneously occupies all, and NONE of the spaces in its path. There are equations that specify the predictability along this path, but we cannot actually determine that location until we act upon said equation and physically determine the photons position.
2) Once the photon reaches a point of detection, it interacts with that specific space in the single position it happens to exist at that time. This then means that we can determine the location at that instant, but with some “spooky” behavior of electrons I think that this interaction is not entirely understood.
This would lead to the effect of seeing light diffuse and expand out from the Christian Huygens “Double Slit” experiment. However, it would also accept and predict the Newtonian expectation that light was a particle. This is further borne out by how modern detection methods with computers can actually reproduce the Double slit experiment and locate individual points of impact for the photons on the detectors.
This leaves us a problem however because we need to be able to then determine how that photon is traveling to that location? Does it follow a straight path? Well, no. We can tell because the light become diffuse and spread out resembling a wave. When it is received and detected as a single point of impact, implying a particle.
My personal perspective of this behavior is that it these wave/particle events are occurring in a separate dimensional space, below our own. This would then remove the 3d nature of our existence from the equation. The wave/particle simply exists on some vector and that is it. It is only once this dimensional space interacts with our 3d space that the wave/particle become observable to us. At which point the particle nature can be observed, but the wave state still exists simultaneously.
One reason that I think this state of a lower dimension is necessary is that it also would relate into a multiverse which I believe will help define and explain several other observations. If we work from a model that there are dimensions above our own, then it goes to say that there should be dimensions below ours as well.
I believe that it’s the interaction and existence of these dimensions that actually define our understanding of physics. What this means however is that some of these dimensions which remain below our ability to perceive also predetermine how others within our observation behave. Take for instance the determination of mass or volume. We need all three of the euclidean dimensions to determine what the volume of an object is. If I were to remove the “X” dimension, you would not be able to determine what the “Y, Z” would permit.
Likewise, if we were to say that every subatomic particle is enveloped in a more base dimension, that they are capable of interaction on a level that we cannot observe. Yet where these dimensions collide, we can observe them At that moment.
I am on board to some degree with the notion of existence being an overlay of fields that are interacting with each other. For instance one of the notions of the Higgs Bozon as being actually a field that we can only detect in experiments where we can impart enough energy to cause that field to ripple or break for a momentary detection. This is again where I think that it’s not a “Field” so much as a layer of dimensions that overlay one another. Each one of these elemental dimensions effectively confines all of what we consider space-time locally within it’s space. This is similar to how string theory contends that all particles are connected across all of spacetime.
I personally have never heard of a Proton changing to a Neutron, if you could give me a source for that I would love to read it! What I do know that a proton can do, is change its spin. This is like how in H it is able to spin on its own since there is really only one electron in there with it. If you apply a force to a proton it can change its spin from that force. This could cause it to appear to go from a positive charge to a neutral, but it’s actually just altering its spin state and will continue to exert a positive electric charge. I could be wrong on this, so I would love to see any articles or science on this.
I understand the spinning barrels is a simplification, but one of the problems with it, is that it uses a predictive and reliable force of a 3rd party to explain an inexplicable action. Yes, if we were to look at all of spacetime as a field that objects could interact within, then we could indeed say that streams and jetty’s could cause this kind of interaction. Then other factors would have to exist as well. For instance if this field were true, then the attraction felt by two objects would have to be the same in a vacuum as in open air. Experimentally you can observe that when an object falls in open air, it’s rate of descent is equal. Take for instance to balls that are the same shape and size, but one is much heavier. They will fall at basically the same speed. However, take the ball, and then a large feather. When you drop those the surface area and weight of the feather causes it to fall more slowly. This is expected as it is experiencing more resistance to the open air. When you repeat the experiment in a vacuum, the objects again behave predictably. With no air resistance the feather falls at the same speed as the ball.
If this interaction of attraction is based on a field, then this should not be the case. The items should behave identically in the presence and absence of an atmosphere. I will admit this is also flawed as what we are experimenting here is the effect of the atmosphere, not necessarily the field of attraction. One of the biggest problems with science at this level is that there really is no good means to experiment or observe what we are talking about.
As for the idea that the Axis of evil could be a plane in the separation of north and south poles of a magnetic field, that is a very interesting idea. The one issue I would have with it though is that we should then see a constant between objects moving towards and away from that line. Galaxies and clusters that are moving from the north to the South Pole should be traveling at a predictable curve, but they are not. This unpredictability is what they try to explain with “Dark Mater” or “Dark Energy”. Since things are not behaving like they are expected to, there must be some other force that we cannot observe…
Now consider this.
Within the “Multiverse” every single point in “Spacetime” will be occupied by a piece of mass. This would lead to an even distribution of mass and energy across the entire observable universe. However, if each of these Universes were constrained into a dimensional space of their own, each containing all the subsequent dimensions within. This would then mean that the closer some parent dimensions were, the closer these masses would be. So again this cannot be verified at this time, but if these dimensions were to be in proximity to say where a black hole were, the energy of that black hole could cause an interference on the dimension next to it. Perhaps this could be what we perceive as dark energy or dark mass?