Why Gravitational Waves Fail to Confirm Extra Dimensions

According to the holographic principle, our four-dimensional universe, consisting of three space dimensions and one time dimension, is a surface area of a five-dimensional spacetime called "the bulk." The remaining dimensions of string theory or M-theory are allegedly compacted and rendered insignificant.

Gravity, compared to the other fundamental interactions, is weak due to the graviton's unique ability to move between the surface area (our spacetime) and the bulk. Other particles remain fully in our spacetime and thus have more intensity. At least that's how the story goes. Unfortunately, the gravitational-wave test described in the above video failed to confirm the existence of "the bulk" or any extra dimensions beyond our four-dimensional spacetime. This does not surprise me, given the problems extra dimensions can cause (click here to read all about it).

So why did the gravitational-wave test fail? Do we really need "the bulk" to explain the nature of gravity? We will explore these questions. First, let's define the variables we will use:

According to general relativity, gravity is a function of energy density, so let's begin with the energy density of an atom. An atom is mostly space, so let's only consider the volume of space taken up my the average nucleus and the electrons. That approximate volume can be found in the denominator of equation 1 below:

Of course if we put that volume in the numerator, we get the energy (E):

If we put a larger volume (V) in the denominator (equation 3), we get a reduced energy (E'). Reduced energy is consistent with weak gravity, so we are on the right track.

We don't want Energy units, so at 5 and 6 we use meters and Newtons to adjust the units:

Now, coincidentally, 10^-45/N is approximately equal to G/c^4, so we make the substitution:

We use distance D and the alpha scale factor to make more substitutions at equation 9. From there we derive equation 12.

Equation 12 is Newton's equation. We were able to derive this equation because we started with the premise that the intensity of gravity is determined by the actual amount of space a particle interacts with. For baryonic matter, that actual amount of space corresponds with the gravitational constant G. Note that no extra dimensions are needed to get equation 12. Our 4D spacetime is sufficient. So why should we be surprised that the gravitational-wave test failed to confirm "the bulk"?

Caveat: the above mathematics may work just fine for ordinary matter such as atoms and molecules, but what about singularities such as black holes? Theoretically, a singularity takes up no space, so there shouldn't be any interaction between the matter and space, but there is! To resolve this conundrum, we first need to establish that light speed is truly the top speed in our universe. Consider the familiar Lorentz equation:

The main problem with this equation is time (t) is arbitrary. Let's make it precise. Let's make time (t) equal to the age of the universe. When I say universe I mean everything including the megaverse if such a thing exists. What we want is the longest time ever lapsed--so we set t accordingly and define the other variables we need:

Now we derive 21 below:

Line 21 shows that no velocity (v) can exceed light speed (c). So what does this have to do with gravity and black holes? Given the fact that light speed is the top speed, we can derive the following:

Take a look at 25 and 26 above. At 25, G stays constant as long as the change in time (delta-t) is equal to or less than the age of the universe. Note that delta-t increases as radius r decreases, so G remains constant. But delta-t has an upper limit of t. If r continues to shrink, G must also shrink. Thus it appears the intensity of gravity is determined by how much space interacts with matter. The smaller the radius r, the smaller the space the matter occupies. Equation 27 shows that the intensity of gravity never exceeds the speed of light squared no matter how much radius r shrinks.

In conclusion, "the bulk" and extra dimensions are completely unnecessary to describe gravity.

The Essence of Time

What exactly is time? Is it just an abstract idea? Or does it exist independently of human imagination and perception? Atomic clocks reveal that the rate of time appears to run slower on the earth's surface than way out in space. Assuming time is a real entity, what is it made of? What is its essence? We start our investigation by defining some variables:

We know that nothing goes faster than light in a vacuum. If we add velocity (v) to velocity (c) we still get the speed of light (c).

Equation 1) above seems absurd. When we combine velocities, we should get a higher velocity than c ... unless ... the rate of time (t') shrinks. Equation 2) below works:

And from equation 2) we can derive the famous Lorentz equation:

When velocity (v) increases, time (t') shrinks, but something else happens that's also strange: mass (m') increases. We can verify this if we start with Einstein's energy equation below.

From equation 6) we can derive the relative mass equation:

Equation 13) confirms that when velocity (v) is increased, mass (m') increases. Now, let's take equation 10) and derive equation 14) below:

Equation 14) shows why increased velocity increases mass. When the velocity of a system increases, velocity (u) decreases. To conserve momentum, mass (m') must increase. We start with momentum (mc) and end up with (m'u). Of course m'u must always equal mc. But what exactly is this velocity u? I call it the velocity of time.

The rate of time is the relative speed (u) of a photon or (c^2-v^2)^.5. If a system is moving at velocity (v) and we assume that system is at rest, then the photons in that system may still appear to be moving at c, but relative to v they have slowed to velocity u. Since photons are bosons, their relative speed (how fast they carry force) will determine how fast or how slow the system evolves. If the system is your watch, your watch will noticeably slow down if it moves at a significant fraction of light speed. This suggests that time is real and not just a concept. After all, the original concept of time was that the rate of time is fixed.

Below is a Feynman diagram where velocity v is zero, so velocity u equals velocity c. At the beginning of time (t), two electrons colide. Next, a photon is emitted, then the electrons fly apart.

In the next diagram imagine that the entire diagram is moving through space at velocity v. If we assume the diagram is at rest, the emitted photon will be relatively slower and the measure of time will also be slower:

The electrons in the above diagram are moving faster, but photons can't increase their speed, so, relative to the electrons, the photon is slower. This seemingly slow moving photon is the time we measure or proportionate to the time we measure. Now, just for fun, what happens if the electrons go faster than light?

Time reverses! Your watch is now running backwards. In the diagram above, the particles fly apart, then comes the photon, and finally, the particles collide.

Before we conclude that time is (or is proportionate to) the speed of photons relative to the other particles in a system, let's look at how gravity impacts time, and take a closer look at light, i.e., electromagnetic waves. Once again we define some variables:

We include the variables for permittivity and permeability. Taken together, they determine the speed of an electromagnetic wave. A photon's relative speed (u) has its own corresponding permittivity and permeability. Free space is a vacuum. That is where light has a velocity of c. If the permittivity of free space, for example, had a lower value, light would go faster. Increasing velocity v causes permittivity and permeability to increase (so does additional mass/energy). As a result, EM waves (light) slow down or are relatively slower. The mathematical proof below provides further insight into the essence of time:

Equations 23) and 24) show that time is the reciprocal of frequency. Equations 24) and 26) define the rate of time (with variable t[sub o] set to 1) in one of two ways: The ratio of the relative speed (u) of a photon to light speed (c); or, the ratio of permittivities and permeabilities. Both ways are equivalent. To put it more simply, time (at the quantum level) is the measure of the rate bosons can carry force between particles. If that process is disrupted by high speeds or increased mass/energy, that process will slow down. Anything that is a function of that process will also slow down--including your watch.

Update: Quantum particle-waves are transverse waves: their oscillations are perpendicular to their propagation direction. The following is a mathematical proof that shows that the Lorentz equations above work for transverse waves.

Equation 37) is the formula used to calculate the velocity of a transverse wave. We were able to derive it from the Lorentz equation for relative mass. This shows that the two are intrinsically connected. Equation 39) predicts what we expect: increased mass (m') reduces the time rate (t').

The Origin of Time, Space, Etc.

Is time eternal? Or is it finite? If time is eternal, then an infinite amount of time has passed. Thus, there will be no future. If there is a future, then there is more time left. Thus, an infinite amount of time has not passed. Time is then finite; it had a beginning.

So how did time begin? For that matter, how did the universe begin? Where did energy, matter and space come from? Did something come from nothing? If we decide that nothing caused something, what does that mean? It could mean that time, space, etc. arose from the great void and black abyss of nothingness, or it could mean that these things always existed--and were, therefore, caused by nothing; i.e., had no cause.

Is your head spinning yet?

Let's assume, for starters, that time had a beginning, where time (t) equaled zero. The equation below reveals something interesting. To have zero time requires infinite energy:

Unfortunately our universe does not have infinite energy. Furthermore, it's a non-sequitur that there would be any energy if there was no time. Energy can't exist for any period of time without time.

There's also Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to consider.

As you can see, if time was ever zero, the Uncertainty Principle was violated. Without time, there was clearly no momentum or motion. Today we have momentum, so momentum was not always conserved. If nothing existed (if and when there was no time) then the current energy and mass were not always conserved either. Then again, why would any laws of physics exist in the "great nothing abyss"?

If time was at zero the challenge before us is to figure out how everything emerged out of nothing. If we start with nothing, the concept of "cause and effect" is useless. We're back to the nothing-caused-something paradox discussed above.

If we start with something, "cause and effect" remains intact, but if we regress far enough into the past, we find nothing again--or we have the infinite-time paradox (also discussed above).

We must also consider relativity. Photons, for example, experience zero time, so zero time is possible if there is another reference frame where time progresses. The equations below show that time (t') can be zero as long as time (t) is greater than zero. The syntax t'/t means time (t') per time (t)--e.g. zero time (t') lasted for a period of time (t) seconds.

In the beginning there was no time for a period of zero seconds. In other words, a state of no time can't exist without time. Yet there was a beginning? A big bang? What caused it? Well, nothing. If something caused it, then we are not at the beginning. We need to move back in time another step or more.

There are several theorists who have proposed various models that allegedly explain how time, space and everything else emerged. But their models consist of shapes, objects, dimensions and other devices that are all functions of time and space. Their reasoning is circular. A geometric object can't cause time or space, since the geometric object requires time and space (and the imagination of the physicist who created it) to exist.

What if time is both eternal and finite? Relativity suggests this could be the case. We know that as the universe expands, its energy density decreases and its time rate increases. If we reverse the process, go back in time, the rate of time would decrease. It would slow to a crawl as we get closer and closer to the beginning.

Imagine you're wearing a watch that gives the time (t') illustrated above. If you start at the beginning and wait approximately 13.8 billion years, you experience the entire span of time. For you, the total time is finite.

Now imagine you're wearing a watch that gives the time (t). Recall the concept of the limit you find in elementary calculus texts. Imagine taking a string and cutting it in half, then cutting one of the halves in half. Repeat this process an infinite number of times. You find you get closer and closer to a zero length, but you never reach it.

Time (t) is an eternity, since a full 6.9 billion years passes for every fraction of that time (t')--and there are an infinite number of those fractions of (t').

So here's the scoop: Whether time is finite or eternal depends on which time you are looking at. Historical time (t') gives us a finite amount of time. But if we use current time (t), the universe's beginning was an infinite number of years ago. We can say that momentum and energy have always been conserved. We can say Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is eternal. We can say these things because the beginning of time is a limit that can never be reached. Yet, we have a future because time (t') is finite. So go ahead and eat the cake because we can have it too.

So what about space? Why did space expand? Well, I think it had no choice:

You see, space (x) is light speed (c) times time (t). If time grows, so must space. The first equation above shows what would happen if this were not the case. If time (t) grew and space (x) did not, energy would not be conserved and light speed would be less than c.

Proving Anti-time Mathematically?

The CPT theorem consists of three symmetries: charge conjugation (C), parity reversal (P), and time reversal (T). Taken together they provide the symmetries needed to make the laws of physics invariant. However, time reversal causes paradoxes that mess up the laws of physics. To find out more details, click here.

When we think of reverse time, we think of going back in time or time travel and the paradoxes that come with it. That's why I prefer the term anti-time. Anti-time is symmetrical with time, but it's not about going back in time to the past. It makes the past, so it doesn't create the paradoxes as reverse time does. (To learn more about anti-time, click here.)

Let's see if we can at least mathematically prove that anti-time exists. We begin our proof with a very famous equation (E=energy; p=momentum; c=light speed; m=mass):

Notice the plus and minus signs in front of the radical. Einstein's equation predicts both matter and anti-matter, since the square root of a positive number can be negative or positive. Anti-particles allegedly have negative mass and energy--so the negative root corresponds with anti-matter.

With a little algebra we can derive the following:

We can take the square roots of the last equation and fit them in a Lorentz right triangle (t and t' = time; v = velocity). Such a triangle is used to derive the Lorentz Factor. (Click here for more details.)

By matching the Einstein equation terms with the Lorentz terms we can derive something equivalent to the Lorentz Factor.

It looks like we ended up with a Lorentz-type equation with an extra v^2 added to the c^2. We can fix that when we realize c is the top speed limit and that added velocity (v) has no effect. Just to be sure, we do the math below (where 0 <= epsilon <= 1):

In the steps above we take the square root of v^2 + c^2 to be equal to c + (epsilon)c. We then plug it into the velocity-addition formula. We get c. Good! Let's square it and put it back into our Lorentz equation:

Since we were able to derive the Lorentz time equation from an equation that predicts matter and anti-matter, does it then follow that the time equation predicts time and anti-time? Note the plus and minus sign in front of the radical. A negative square root is just as mathematically valid as a positive one.

One could assume that matter corresponds with time and anti-matter corresponds with anti-time, but let's look at this issue from another angle. We go back a few steps and derive the following:

The last equation shows we can only get anti-time if we either have a positive numerator divided by a negative denominator or vice versa. If we divide negative energy by negative energy or positive energy by positive energy, we get positive time!

Imagine two universes: one made entirely of matter and the other entirely of anti-matter. They both would have positive time and no anti-time to put the present moment into the past. Now imagine a universe with both matter and anti-matter. There we can have both time and anti-time. To get anti-time, we need to be able to divide matter by anti-matter (or vice versa) in the last equation above. All this implies that positive time is caused by matter or anti-matter, and anti-time is caused by a combination of matter and anti-matter.