Neutron Stars Hint at Another Dimension

It could be a compact[0] dimension, i. e. of finite length. In the simplest case you might imagine it as a circle attached to every point in our 3-dimensional Euclidean space. The aforementioned length scale would be the circumference of that circle.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space

Imagine if Flatland were a very long string in a big circle. In one direction you go around the big circle and it's a long distance. At a right angle to that, you go around a tiny little circle.

Because gravity will be observed to decay with distance cubed for distances on the scale of the extra dimension, and distance squared beyond that; and we have not found a scale where we see gravity decay faster than distance squared (but it gets harder and harder to measure at small scale, so the error bars grow).

If it was big, you could see it.

IIRC experimental gravity data rules out any compactified dimension bigger than 50μm, but a question I keep coming back to is "surely the pictures of atomic bonds taken by electron microscopes rules compactified dimensions larger than 1Å?"

> The weird thing about it though is that whatever the dark matter is it has to be spread out.

In fact, they'd have to be so spread out that rotation curves remain flat past a million light years [1]. There seems to be no plausible particle dark matter distribution that can satisfy all of the necessary constraints at this point.

[1] https://tritonstation.com/2024/06/18/rotation-curves-still-f...

After digging a bit into astromy, computationally myself... There are some heavy assumptions used in the functions that maps pixels to mass densities. Outsider's 2c, but I assess a misalignment between CDM confidence in papers, and this mapping.

From recent discussion though it seems as though the time dilation effects or that time itself moves differently in different patches of spacetime- that could remove the need altogether for dark energy/dark matter:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversia...

Movement doesn't make sense when we can't predict or explain it. Based on our understanding of gravity as confirmed by observations of our solar system we expect to see galaxies do X but instead they do Y, and then we collectively fail to identify a simple explanation like bad math or a bad assumption.

In one sense this is a vindication of our application of the scientific method and the way we make theories: a bad theory wouldn't be able to be checked, whereas a good theory can make precise enough claims that when a limitation is found (such as when our predictions about reality do not match our observations) that the results of the check are clear.

Being able to precisely calculate movement of planets in Solar system and also calculate their mass was a huge triumph of physics. The problem is the same math doesn't work with visible stars orbiting in galaxies nor galaxy clusters. Simplest explanation is there's much invisible mass - dark matter. Or the laws are different at these scales.

It’s a bunch of nonsense really.

They greatly simplify models, otherwise they’re too complicated to calculate.

So they simplify the data points, assume point particles, assume no interactions due to electromagnetism, no tidal locks, and Newtonian gravity instead of relativity.

And then it turns out galaxies sometimes rotate too quickly.

Yeah, no shit. If your data is known to be wrong and your model uses the wrong theory of gravity and makes known false simplifications it would be quite strange if it somehow did predict without some discrepancies

We know that in a vacuum everything falls that ~9.8m/s acceleration on earth.

We get a ball made up of something, and for some reason only it accelerates at 10m/s for no discernible reason.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that you aren’t saying anything to agree or disagree with from the standpoint of physics. Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. From the standpoint of physics it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make it wrong or right nor does it make anyone replying you wrong or right about any of it. You simply have not crossed the threshold for physics to have a say. You are free to believe all of this. If you want physics to care you need to demonstrate how your beliefs predict system dynamics. How can your beliefs explain observations and do those explanations make sense in the context of everything else we know? All of the people you cite who were “free thinkers” expressed their ideas in the context of the current understanding of physics whether they were special relativity or information theory. They did this by offering predictions such as how general relativity predicts you can see a star that is currently behind the sun during an eclipse if you draw a line from the earth observer to the star or how quantum mechanics predicted the existence of semiconductors or how chaos theory explains why two systems with similar initial conditions could exponentially grow apart from each other. If you could offer such predictions from your ideas than they would “stimulate” physicists to think about them. But without such predictions your ideas simply are just your thoughts about how things work. They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.

>I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be.

You think physicists don't smoke weed and dream up random ideas? Or formally study eastern religions?

The fact that they are trained physicist is why they don't conceive of the universe (and dark energy specifically) the way you do, and probably never will.

>And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose.

This is an example of your condescension. There are so many assumptions implicit in your statements that it's offensive to the audience. Its like the difference between a person raving in the street that everyone is free to ignore. Versus that same person deliberately entering a physics conference shouting the same things, then claiming they're only there to help.

Holy shit, wow so untrue.

Special Relativity was accepted almost immediately (within 10 years) by the scientific community since it was so powerful and useful and correct when the community tested it.

General relativity took a longer time to be generally accepted since the sensitivity of the tests were mediocre for the time, but strong evidence of its correctness was already coming about within 25 years. The problem being it was hard to figure out which model was correct due to lack of accurate tests

Saying that the community rejected these theories is just ignorance.

"A fool is a person who hears the truth and calls it a lie." Sure, let's keep that sentiment going... a charlatan is a person who invents what they insist is a truth and then labels all who do not believe as fools.

Hmm without evidence this is just another fanciful fiction and we know the human mind can create an endless series of speculative fictions -