General discussion

Locked

Does Computer Technology Exist in the Afterlife??? or other Dimensions?

By Black Panther ·
For those who believe in the Afterlife....

NDE Experiences

Albert Einstein seen operating a heavenly computer:

Next we materialized in a computer room ... Some of [the people there] I knew by name, others by reputation; and all had time for me, to teach me if ever I need help understanding. One of them was Albert Einstein, whom I had always admired greatly but distantly, and this great man took time away from his duties to encourage me. He asked me if I would care to operate the computer, which was very complex and beautiful and designed to guide the path of destinies. I was flattered, but felt incompetent and unsure of myself in the presence of such greatness. I told him I would like to try, but I was afraid of making a mistake. He laughed greatly, and reassured me, saying that error was not possible in this place.

Encouraged, I seemed instinctively to know how to operate this unusual machine, and waved my hand in a pattern over the large keyboard, rather like playing a piano without touching the keys. I knew instantly the task had been performed perfectly, and it had somehow been of great benefit to someone. I was suffused with the joy of a job well done. I would gladly spend eternity here at this rewarding work if only for the tremendous feeling of well-being I had experienced as a result. (Dr. Allen Kellehear)

Through open doors I glimpsed enormous rooms filled with complex equipment. In several of the rooms hooded figures bent over intricate charts and diagrams, or sat at the controls of elaborate consoles flickering with lights ... Years later, when I picked up the December 1952 issue of Life magazine and saw some of the instruments in the second U.S. atomic submarine engine, I had the strange feeling of deja vu until I recalled seeing the very same instrument in one of these labs. (Dr. George Ritchie)

Betty saw a large machine, similar to a computer, but much more elaborate and powerful. Betty realized that all important things on earth are first created in spirit. (Betty Eadie)

In a sacred room, we see our lives flash before us on a "scanning machine." This device is a domed screen where our lives are placed out in three-dimensional holographic form. (Sylvia Browne)

The box opened to reveal what appeared to be a tiny television picture of a world event that was yet to happen. (Dannion Brinkley)

Lisa Randall, one of the world's most influential physicists, explains why we need more than three dimensions to understand the cosmos

Why I believe in higher dimensions
(Filed: 01/06/2005)

Lisa Randall, one of the world's most influential physicists, explains why we need more than three dimensions to understand the cosmos



Scientific progress always entails an almost contradictory set of beliefs. You need to make assumptions to build a mathematical picture of reality. But while you want to be sufficiently excited about your assumptions to think they merit investigation, you need to remain sceptical enough to subject the consequences of those premises to rigorous analysis.

Although I've always combined these attitudes in my research, my recent studies of extra dimensions of space, beyond the familiar "up-down", "left-right" and "forward-backward", have made me more than usually convinced that they must really exist.

Perhaps the best way to understand what these extra dimensions would be is the way Edwin Abbott described them in his book Flatland, written in the late 19th century. Suppose there was a society that, unlike ours, could detect and experience a world with only two dimensions: the Flatland of the title. Its inhabitants wouldn't perceive a third dimension, even though the dimension really did exist.

If an object like a sphere were to pass through their universe, Flatlanders would never perceive it in its entirety; instead, they would see a succession of disks that grew in size and then became smaller. Because they register only two dimensions, Flatlanders could only mathematically piece together the fact that the object they had seen was the analogue of their disk, but in one higher dimension.

Similarly, the fact that we see only three dimensions doesn't mean there might not be more. Einstein's theory of general relativity doesn't stipulate any particular number of dimensions. And from the perspective of his theory of gravity, there's nothing special about three dimensions of space. People have often made the mistake of believing only in what they could see. Extra dimensions might turn out to be one among many aspects of the cosmos about which we were initially mistaken.

String theory is another reason to believe extra dimensions might exist. It consistently incorporates our theories of the very small and the very big in the universe - quantum mechanics and general relativity - which no earlier theory had accomplished. This doesn't prove string theory is right, and it's critical that we do further research. Because it promises to be a more comprehensive theory than any other we know of, a so-called theory of quantum gravity, string theory is well worth studying.

However, it doesn't naturally describe a world with three dimensions of space. It more naturally suggests a world with many more, perhaps nine or 10. A string theorist doesn't ask whether extra dimensions exist; instead, two critical questions that a string theorist asks are: where are they and why haven't we seen them?

Even if you're sceptical about string theory, recent research has provided perhaps the most compelling argument for extra dimensions: a universe with these dimensions might contain answers to physics puzzles that have no convincing solutions without them. That alone makes extra dimensions worthy of investigation.

The history of physics is the story of discovering different, more basic elements of matter as we've developed the tools to explore different length and energy scales. Once scientists could observe matter on smaller scales, they discovered atoms and quarks, and after they could study further distances in the universe, physicists and astronomers discovered galaxies and dark matter.

Extra dimensions might be hidden (for now) but none the less be part of reality. More detailed observations at higher energies and shorter distances might eventually reveal their existence.

These as-yet-unseen dimensions could be flat, like the dimensions we are accustomed to. Or they could be warped, like reflections in a fun-house mirror. They might be tiny, far smaller than an atom, or they might be big, or even infinite in size, yet still be hard to see.

Our senses register only three large dimensions, so an infinite extra dimension might sound incredible. But an infinite unseen dimension and parallel universes within it are some of the bizarre possibilities for what might exist in our cosmos.

To see why extra dimensions are not ruled out by our apparently three-dimensional observations, we need to understand how dimensions can exist, but be invisible. In 1920, almost immediately after Einstein completed his theory of general relativity, Theodor Kaluza suggested an extra dimension of space, and in 1926, Oskar Klein proposed a reason why we wouldn't see it.

An extra dimension could be rolled up into such a tiny size that it would have no visible effects. If you think of extra dimensions rolled up like a garden hose, the width of the "hose" could be so tiny that we'd never notice it. Any variations over this tiny distance would be washed out, much as the atomic structure of this piece of paper is imperceptible.

But although physicists have known for years that extra dimensions could be rolled up, it wasn't until 1999 that Raman Sundrum (who was then a post-doctoral fellow at Boston University) and I (then a professor at MIT) discovered another reason that extra dimensions might be hidden. Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that energy and matter curve space and time. We found that spacetime with extra dimensions could be so extremely warped that even an infinite extra dimension could exist but escape detection.

The success with which our theory mimics three dimensions suggests that all evidence that apparently points to three dimensions of space supports the idea of such "warped" extra-dimensional universes equally strongly. None the less, our idea was so different from older notions that it took a while for some physicists to accept. Fortunately for us, however, Stephen Hawking and a few others immediately appreciated its radical implications.

The following year another physicist, Andreas Karch, and I found that space can be even more spectacular: the universe can appear to have three spatial dimensions in some regions but appear to have, or in fact have, more (or fewer) in others. Our notion of three-dimensional "sinkholes" extended the Copernican revolution beyond anything we had imagined.

Not only is the Earth not the centre of the universe, but our domain might be a tiny isolated pocket with three spatial dimensions inside a universe that harbours many more. This was a huge revelation, one that convinced me we have a lot more to understand about extra dimensions of space, and one that also made the idea of extra dimensions more credible; isn't it presumptuous to rule out something whose implications we don't even fully comprehend?

But perhaps the most convincing reason to believe in extra dimensions is that they permit new connections among properties of the observed universe and have a real possibility for explaining some of its more mysterious features. Extra dimensions can have implications for the world we see and explain phenomena that seem incomprehensible when viewed from the perspective of a three-spatial-dimensional observer (or theorist).

We wouldn't understand the shapes of the continents unless we add the dimension of time and recognise how they were once connected together in a supercontinent. Similarly, some problems in physics are more readily understood with extra dimensions of space.

Chief among these questions is why the gravitational force is so weak. Gravity might not appear to be all that weak when you're hiking up a mountain, but bear in mind that the gravitational force of the entire Earth is acting on you. Think how feeble gravity must be for you to counter the force of the much larger Earth when you pick up a ball.

In fact, if the Earth were your size, gravity wouldn't be noticeable at all. For more than 30 years, physicists (including myself) have explored this conundrum, and they've found no completely compelling solution.

But with an additional warped dimension, it's natural for gravity to be weak in our vacinity. In our warped spacetime geometry, gravity is very strong in one region of a fourth dimension of space (a fifth dimension of spacetime) but very weak everywhere else.

For me, the explanation for the weakness of gravity is sufficient reason in itself to take the possibility of extra dimensions seriously. The mystery is the biggest gaping hole in our understanding of the physics of elementary particles, and an extra dimension provides an answer.

As a scientist, even if I believe that extra dimensions exist in nature, I don't have blind faith and I'm willing to be proved wrong. We don't yet know how to experimentally test all extra-dimensional theories. But the fabulous thing is that if the theory I just told you about - the one that explains the weakness of gravity - is correct, we will see experimental evidence within the next five years. These tests that high-energy experimenters will perform are critical to confirming (or ruling out) our ideas.

The evidence will take the form of Kaluza-Klein particles, which are 1,000 times smaller than the proton and travel in extra dimensions, but would register in experiments as extra-heavy particles in what appears to be a three-spatial-dimensional world.

If warped extra dimensions explain the weakness of gravity, the Large Hadron Collider that will begin operation at CERN in Geneva in two years will have enough energy to make such particles (you need lots of energy to make heavy particles, as we know from Einstein's most famous equation, E=mc2). If experimenters discover them, my belief in extra dimensions will be proved justified.

Those of us who no longer straitjacket ourselves to theories with only three dimensions of space have found amazing consequences of Einstein's equations that had escaped physicists for years. The range of possibilities for what might lie in the cosmos are remarkable, and we're still only beginning to understand them all. I'm fairly confident new dimensions are out there and it's more a question of if and when we'll find them.

Given how much extra dimensions - or whatever we discover - will tell us about the fundamental nature of our universe, do we have any choice but to explore?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/06/01/ecfdime01.xml&sSheet=/connected/2005/06/01/ixconnrite.html

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

6 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Probalistic (fuzzy) thinking

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Does Computer Technology ...

There is no proof for extra dimensions other than the three of space, what there is, is a large body of mathematics where if you manipulate the equations of physics and introduce extra dimensions, you get some very elegant potential mathematical descriptions of the real world as we measure and perceive it.
One of the first times this was shown was when someone expressed relativity with one extra space dimension and ended up with Maxwell's equations for the electro-magnetic field. Now that's an interesting piece of maths, but you have to remember it's based on a model of the universe not the real thing. There are more than a few theories e.g. many worlds where the analogy has been taken too far in my opinion, extrapolation from imprecise data leads to larger and larger errors as most theories in physics do not simplify they reduce, a very different thing.
Damned interesting though.

Collapse -

Maxwell & Einstein

by Absolutely In reply to Probalistic (fuzzy) think ...

Don't you mean time was introduced as the fourth dimenstion? I'm not familiar with this story, but I do remember that Maxwell's equations have the three regular spatial dimensions, and time is treated as the fourth. I also know that considering relativity, it is possible to understand magnetism as a side-effect of the speed of an electric field's speed of propagation. A professor led me through the derivation once, allowing me the feeling of comprehension for a brief moment. Then I blinked, and forgot how it all fit. Still, I remember that there is a valid reason that electricity and magnetism are not treated as different forces, beyond there phenomenological interaction, and that helps.

I don't see any such benefit resulting from experiments into gravity because of that force's relative weakness. We certainly can't expect any technology to result from "knowing" what BP wants to know about the real dimensionality of space (I'd like to know it, too, but mostly for the sake of more believable time-travel novels!) because getting close enough to a strong gravity well (region of dense gravitational field) means crossing an event horizon and leaving this universe as you know it. A bad trade!

And Panther, you mention String Theory, giving the impression that you know that theorists do generally agree that the conditions of the early universe required 10 (or 11?) dimensions, or which our familiar three are a projection. The rest, I believe, are somehow incompatible with our lower energy/mass density? Or don't interact with the physical universe in its present condition, anyway. If that were to be proven in a collision, by demonstrating interaction with at least one of those "hidden" dimensions, what could we then do that we can't now? Besides record that data, and repeat as many times as we want, of course. I mean, is any new technology even imaginable?

I propose that 5+ dimensional theories be exclusively the pastime of theoretical physicists, and that they check their theories against whatever experiments are done to develop more practical theories, because these experiments will never pay for themselves economically.

Collapse -

I just gotta say...

by jck In reply to Does Computer Technology ...

it must have take a LOT of marijuana and/or acid to write that much crap.

I'm going back to reading comics and watching Green Wing. (BTW...you Brits make the best comedy in the whole f***ing world...you know that?)

Collapse -

I'm Glad you enjoyed it!!!

by Black Panther In reply to I just gotta say...
Collapse -

Scien... something or other

by rstals In reply to Does Computer Technology ...

I know a group of people who would love to hear from you. Tom, John and the crew are waiting for your call.

:)

Collapse -

Got their number???

by Black Panther In reply to Scien... something or oth ...

I've lost it! :)

Back to Community Forum
6 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums