Yeah this extra dimension(s) is not new information. Theoretically speaking there are different models that support a few or a dozen more dimensions, we’ll never know if it’s partially or totally right/wrong until more data and experiments can paint a better picture. Either way it seems like an exciting time to be doing theoretical physics
4 Likes
That’s an old one…but I love the way you tell it.
1 Like
6 Likes
I’m listening to them RIGHT NOW !
5 Likes
The actual paper:
Not really sure what distinguishes this paper from all of the other papers in the ‘extend the standard model’ genre.
2 Likes
This is the dawning of the age of Asparagus
12 Likes
But I thought another study suggested dark matter doesn’t actually exist at all?
Well, one things for sure. One team is going to be more right than the other, and that’s what makes science fun. They’ll spend years observing, testing, and reaching new conclusions and then start all over again. Eventually they end up with this:
5 Likes
7 Likes
No. it is not.
Seeing beyond the observable universe is a paradox. If you can observe it, then it’s part of the observable universe. If a theory states that something cannot be observed because reasons, as is often the case with the variations of String Theory, then the theory is untestable.
For a theory about the physical world. We need that theory not just to state the potential mechanism, but attempt to predict how it might be inferred, observed, or predicted. Failure to shore up a theory about new particles is is bordering on pseudo-science and reporting on it is trash journalism.
10 Likes
Thank you!
2 Likes
This explains the smell.
3 Likes
No, only falsifiable statements are testable. The trouble with a lot of theoretical physics (especially string theory) is that it’s so deeply derived from its own math (rather than empirical observation of physical phenomena) that it gets pretty hard to say if it’s falsifiable or not.
The real problem here is that the lay media reports on these mathematical derivations as though some astronomer saw it through a telescope, which gives average folks a very flawed idea of what is really being said in papers like this.
But I guess “physicist did some math that has interesting implications for this other math” is not a good headline.
13 Likes
I thought it might be one of those AI generated papers.
2 Likes
I’m not a physicist, but I wear my philosophical metaphysician’s hat proudly. If something like 95% of all the mass and energy in our universe can’t be directly observed, it always struck me that additional dimensions we don’t have at least direct observational access to (at this point) might be a mechanism for explaining it. It doesn’t strike me as much of a leap, frankly – given, as others have said, theoretical physics’ general embrace of extra-dimensionality. Plus, I’d submit that it’s possible to experience directly through more esoteric means – but that’s my mystic speaking. 
There’s also a sixth dimension.
5 Likes
if it gets us warp drive and transporters then I’m all in.
5 Likes
8 Likes
I could build my own gravity drive but then again, seeing what happened to my namesake, I might opt to stay on Earth.
