TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Could the perception of Gravity be explained as motion through higher dimensions.

Could the perception of gravity be caused by our 3 dimensional universe expanding (or even collapsing!) through a higher dimension at an accelerating rate?

So for example, if space time is moving at a constant rate of acceleration (creating an apparent expansion) though a higher dimension, but objects in this space time have to pass through the higgs field as the universe is moved along, these objects would then resist this expansion. If space time is then part of matter, then the local area of space time that the mass occupies would resist this acceleration at a predictable rate, and if space time is elastic as we believe...

This could create dents in the fabric of space time in the higher dimensions...

For example if a 2 dimensional plane were accelerated at a constant rate through a 3 dimensional space... more massive objects in that 2d plane would resist the acceleration and the 2 dimensional plane (if elastic) would be distorted. More massive objects would distort the 2d plane more deeply, and would create the apparent attraction of other objects.

If we take that 2d Plane and think of it as the surface of an elastic energy balloon that is rapidly expanding at a given rate of acceleration... It fits quite well to our perception of our 3d world... more massive objects would create deeper and bigger dents in the fabric of space time, creating a way for other masses to conserve energy by moving deeper into the dent.

The deeper the dent, the more rapidly it would fall into the middle of it.

So what if our reality rests on, or is the skin of a 4th dimensional balloon or bubble of some kind?

If this bubble/balloon is expanding the biggest question would remain however, and that would be WHY? But the answer might be impossible to discern until/unless we somehow become aware of higher dimensions and are able to experiment directly in them.

Thoughts?

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Mar 9 2013: Interesting. But I still like gravity as curvature in space-time continuum geometry - the Einstein description of general relativity.Only problem is that as physical laws quantum mechanics and general relativity seem to be fundamentally incompatible.
    We may visualize a fundamental interaction like gravity in different ways, problem is it needs to be consistent with other fundamental interactions, unless you claim it is fundamentally different from strong, electromagnetic or weak interactions.
    Like say, gravitation always attracts and never repels (except may be dark matter).
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: Einstein’s theory of relativity has laid the foundation for the construction of a multitude of theories without which most of these theories like for example time travel will come crashing down. There is a very important missing link to Einstein’s theory which can be thought of as the missing door to reality.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: I say this with the utmost respect as Einstein is certainly my favorite scientist having inspired me since a small boy always wanting to know more.
      • thumb
        Mar 10 2013: Same for me. However the respect and adoration in science encourages thinking out of the box with least intimidation from a celebrity. Authorities in Science are meant to be challenged. When I was young and was being tremendously impressed by Einstein's genius, I never for a minute felt that god did not play dice. My thought was, if at all there was a god, he is as clueless as us about the chancy nature of physical reality.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: I have my own theory of the perception of gravity that is implicit in the many worlds theory of reality. I don't relate to an entirely mechanistic universe.

    There are some things that science can never prove through direct experimentation. If our current gravitational theory is based on a mistake (and because it is only a theory, it might be), then our understanding of how reality works is faulty.

    I like how you phrased the term "perception of gravity". It's a great reminder that the theory of gravity is only a theory, and in my opinion, is partly correct but also incomplete.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: thankyou..i will have to reread this a few times,but you ideas has some tooth on first glance...thanks again
  • Mar 9 2013: "Interesting. But I still like gravity as curvature in space-time continuum geometry - the Einstein description of general relativity."

    Well this idea actually fits nicely within Einstein as part of what inspires it is the idea of space being curved. But it is curved through a higher dimension. We cannot see the curvature of space time, we can only see it's effects on objects.

    For example the lensing effect of massive objects.

    This idea/question doesn't preclude the curvature of space, it actually requires it :)
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: It's the idea of 'motion' that I do not feel comfortable with. There is one idea of motion that is corroborated by red shift of distant galaxies, giving the idea of an expanding universe. But if space itself is created out of a big bang, that cannot be only interstellar space - even the space between nucleus of an atom and electrons also must be expanding. If every bit of space is expanding relativistically, I find the idea of movement of objects in any classical way (acceleration etc.) to be not the correct description of physical reality.
      Relativistic motion can be result of gravity, not the other way round.
  • thumb
    Mar 9 2013: On a physical science question, please don't forget also to post it to a science site! TED Conversations is a social network rather than a gathering of experts. So explanations may be misunderstandings of the science.