-3
$\begingroup$

I'm not familiar with the Physics Stacks Exchange question closing criteria, and I'd appreciate some clarification on the subject.

For example, if I ask a question about a potentially empty space surrounding a curved universe, a space with a higher dimension than the universe (also called an extrinsic space, I believe), am I off-topic?

$\endgroup$
14
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Have you read the help section on this topic? physics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 1:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This question is similar to: Questions about (barely) hypothetical scenarios: on topic or not?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 2:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If I ask a question about a potentially empty space surrounding a curved universe, a space with a higher dimension than the universe (also called an extrinsic space, I believe), am I off-topic? You asked such a question. Three users closed it as off-topic. After you edited it, three other users decided that it was still off-topic and kept it closed. So, empirically, the answer to your question is Yes. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Ghoster : If this reflection or an article written about it led, among other things, to an explanation of the reason for the matter-antimatter asymmetry, would it still be off-topic? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it would still be off-topic here until it became a part of mainstream physics. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So, if I understand you correctly, it would be impossible here to present new ideas that could open new avenues for physics? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 0:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Non-mainstream posts typically get closed, as you have seen. PSE is not a forum for new ideas, even if they are brilliant. We don’t discuss them, we don’t peer-review them, we don’t help you improve them, etc. We just answer questions about the type of mainstream physics found in textbooks and encyclopedias and reputable physics journals. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 4:21
  • $\begingroup$ See physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/… $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 4:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme : I think we should be should be open to new ideas that could open new avenues for physics. However, a string of meaningless gibberish does not count as a new idea, and yes, if your most basic terms are undefined, then your post is meaningless gibbberish. If (as in your comments on my post below) you attempt to deflect attention from the lack of a definition by changing some words (without changing any content) then you've descended to crackpottery. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ Before anyone shuts the door in my face again, I'd like to close this thread myself. I'd like to thank those who commented and answered my question. I still believe in what I'm proposing here, even if some might say that only crazy people never change their minds. I must be a little crazy, you might say, but not completely, I'd say! :) The article I wrote can be found here: vixra.org/pdf/2301.0050v2.pdf My email address is at the top of the document. Next on the following post. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ Following of the previous post : I've provided a simplified summary here: a3branestructurefortheuniversejplaflamme.quora.com I remain open to anyone looking for new ideas or who would like to delve deeper into this topic. Please note that this article requires revision. Some parts need to be revised, others possibly removed, but the fundamental principles remain valid in my opinion. I already have references to add and ideas for validation experiments. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 0:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Dave : Don't think I don't believe in your sincerity. I may have misinterpreted your thoughts based on the way you wrote your first message, and I apologize. Please don't hold it against me. I'm really not the type to put people down. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 0:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ He’s Dale, not Dave. This is the second time that you’ve called him by the wrong name. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 4:18
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry Dale. Don't worry too much about that, just yesterday someone called me "Jean-Paul" $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 12:14

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

I'm adding another answer to spell out the fundamental issue in case you are sincere and really haven't understood this:

  1. Suppose a poster comes along and posts the following: "Greeble grunstafax grondure". He then assures us in comments that in his private language, this constitutes a novel and interesting physics idea, and therefore it's on topic. Moreover, when one of us asks "what does greeble mean?", he says "it means the same thing as gronkle". I think that at that point we have more than sufficient reason to close the post.

  2. When your post (or, in this case, the paper that it is meant to summarize) uses words with (in this context) no standard English meaning (such as "unfold"), and does not explain what those words mean, you might as well be typing "Greeble grunstafax grondure". When I ask you what unfold means and you say "It means the same thing as occupy" (which also has no standard English meaning in this context, and which you also don't define), you might as well be saying "It means the same thing as gronkle".

  3. At that point, there are several good reasons to close. First, the post by itself is incomprehensible. Second, your choice to post it in an incomprehensible language constitutes a good reason to be suspicious that the post is meaningless. Third, the fact that you chose not to provide a meaningful translation when asked amplifies that suspicion.

  4. A number of people have told you that even if your post were meaningful, it would be off-topic because it is innovative (or "not mainstream"). I do not agree with those people. The post is not off-topic because of its content, it is off-topic because of its lack of content.

  5. Some of the same people have told you to submit your ideas to a journal. Maybe this is their way of saying "If you submit this to a journal, you will learn what's wrong with it". But we already know what's wrong with it. It will be rejected by a journal for the same reason it's being rejected here: Not because it's wrong, but because nobody can tell what it means, and most people will suspect (as I do) that it means nothing at all, especially when you don't respond usefully to requests for clarification. [In this case, the lack of meaning is more evident in your followup comments and in your paper than it is in your post, but at a deeper level it pervades all three.]

  6. On the other hand, even if there is a buried meaning, I bet it's still wrong. Partly that's because most things are wrong, and (because you're speaking in a private language) you've given us no reason to believe this one is right. But there's also this: You seem to be deeply ignorant of some basic (and relevant) mathematics, as exemplified by your denial that the two-sphere $S^2$ embeds into infinitely many other objects in infinitely many ways. The two-sphere embeds in ${\mathbb R}^n$ for any $n\ge 3$. It embeds in real projective $n$-space for any $n\ge 3$. It embeds in complex projective $n$-space for any $n\ge 1$. It embeds in a bouquet of $n$ spheres for any $n\ge 0$. It embeds in any $S^2\times M$, or in a connected sum of $S^2$ with $M$, for any manifold $M$. It is a complex projective line, so it embeds in a cubic surface in 27 distinct ways. If you're going to speculate about one of these embeddings having physical significance, you need to explain why you picked out that one particular embedding. If our universe were in fact a 2-sphere, you'd be asking why we see no evidence that it's embedded in ${\mathbb R}^3$. Would we next see 27 separate posts asking why we see no evidence that it's embedded as any of the 27 lines on a cubic?

A lot of us (including me) can lose patience pretty quickly with this kind of thing, because we've seen it before so many times, and very often the posters (either because they are deluded or because they are trolling) reject every attempt to tell them what the problem is. I think that in our impatience we sometimes resort to catchphrases like "not mainstream" or "submit it to a journal" that are themselves a little off-topic. The real problem is that postings should be meaningful. Yours (combined with your followups and your paper) was not. I don't believe you can fix it, but I'll be delighted if I'm wrong.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ First of all, thank you for taking the time to write me this long message. I'll take note. However, you have an advantage over me that I'm not given here! You can write as much as you like, with no character limit. If you'd like to discuss this further via email, I'd be honored to share my thoughts with you, and then we can always agree on semantics. Continued in a second post $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ Continued from the previous post. I still sincerely believe that what I'm talking about here can open up interesting new avenues for physics. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not seeking glory for myself. My profession as an engineer fulfills me completely. If someone were willing to collaborate with me on finishing the article, I would be more than happy to be cited as a simple collaborator. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme : You write "I'd be honored to share my thoughts with you", but after repeated requests, you still haven't revealed what "unfold" means. I trust you can see why I think any further attempt to get you to communicate would be futile. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, the term "Unfold" is not adequate for what I want to express. You see, although I speak English quite well, my mother tongue is French (French-Canadian). Also, to avoid syntax errors, I write my texts in French and have them translated by Google Translate. This tool makes excellent translations, but sometimes certain meanings can escape it. In French, I used the verb "Déployer" which should have been translated as "Deploy". A bit like if you want a balloon to deploy when you inflate it. I have the same problem with some technical terms in my job of engineer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme Every theory of physics is a mathematical description. Terms in mathematics and physics have precise defined mathematical meanings. Using random words from everyday language does not automatically give them such mathematical meanings. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme If the terms you use are not mainstream, it is on you to define what they mean mathematically. You have still not done so. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ I will reformulate the problem as mathematically as possible: suppose that the universe has the mathematical representation S³ (a 3-sphere). I formulate the hypothesis which seems likely to me that this universe S³ is included in an empty space R⁴. Such an object S³ has a zero thickness in the axis of its radius of curvature (the extension of its radius only crosses it on a point R⁰). We also know that the universe has no physical or mechanical consistency given its very low density. Following in the next post. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ Following of previous post. In the context of the 2 previous sentence and strictly in this context, I simply ask how this universe S³ manages not to dislocate itself in the space R⁴ which surrounds it. What characteristic does it possess to avoid this dislocation? By the way, should I rephrase my question like this on Physic Stack Exchange or do you have a better formulation for me? Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 12:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme I believe that the mathematical term that you are trying to describe is “embedding”. Before your paper will be valuable, you will need to spend, as I said, a minimum of 2000 hours studying differential geometry and embedding theorems. Until that point, you won’t know if your idea has known flaws, or if it has already been done by others. You need to worry about that prior to worrying about publication $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 4:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dale: Thank you very much for your positive and, above all, constructive comment. Indeed, that's exactly the word I was looking for. I may not be a physicist, but as an engineer, and proud of it, I know what scientific rigor is. I apply it every day to my work. I earned my dignity and I will take it with me to the ground, and for that reason, I would never let anyone trample it. And that's not directed at you, sir. I know what differential geometry, non-Euclidean geometry, and all those things are, even if I admit I don't master all the details. ... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ ... I don't believe my ideas contradict these principles. You see, my work as an engineer keeps me very busy, and with all the other things that daily life imposes on us, I don't necessarily have the leisure to put in those 2,000 hours you're talking about. However, if you've read my article versions 1 and 2, plus the summary on Quora, you'll probably be able to get an idea of ​​how much time I've spent thinking about this and researching it. I'm not claiming it's perfect, and that's why I'm asking for support, however humble, to help me move this forward. ... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ ... Furthermore, I'm well aware that these ideas deviate from so-called "conventional" or "mainstream" physics. I don't deny the enormous progress this physics has brought us, but you know as well as I do that there are currently some dead ends that need to be cleared. I know I'm coming here a bit like a dog at a bowling alley. My natural curiosity imposed these ideas on me, and I'm simply trying to make them count. And again, thank you Dale. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 14:00
5
$\begingroup$

if I ask a question about a potentially empty space surrounding a curved universe, a space with a higher dimension than the universe (also called an extrinsic space, I believe), am I off-topic?

It depends on the question you ask about it. If you have read a scientific paper or even a reputable popular science source discussing such a topic, and you have a clearly expressed question about what you read, that would probably be considered on topic. If you have an AI generated personal theory on the same subject and ask for peer review then that would probably be considered off topic.

This isn’t specific to embedding theorems, it applies to Newton’s laws as well. But the more niche the topic the more effort is likely needed to ask an acceptable question.

There simply is not a bright dividing line. This site is largely member-moderated. Actions are usually a collective judgement and there is often disagreement. Different members have different backgrounds and interpret the rules somewhat differently.

Take the time and effort to read similar questions and notice which are upvoted and which are downvoted. Read the comments and see what people say about the rules. Then write the best question you can, spending at least twice the time on your question that you hope people will spend on the answer. Especially spend time to make it complete and concise. That is a tough challenge and often requires as much deleting as writing.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I'll explain my dilemma better here. First, I'm not a physicist. However, I am an experienced engineer recognized by his peers. I am interested, like many others, in physical questions. By asking myself the simple question submitted here, it opened me up a whole path of physics that seems very promising. For the moment, and it's a shame, the article rests in the shadow of VixRa, because not being a physicist, many doors are closed to me. I'm not saying that this article is perfect, and I would like to have the collaboration of a physicist to bring it to fruition. How can I do this? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 14:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme first, you should read the existing literature on the topic. Spend a minimum of 2000 hours reading a minimum of 500 professional scientific papers and at least 2 textbooks on the topic. Be sure to do the exercises in the textbook and replicate the math in several of the most relevant papers. Then you should attend a scientific conference on the topic. Listen to talks by several authors on related topics and afterwards speak with them. Invite them to be a contributing coauthor on the paper. Select a journal, one from which you read about 100 papers. Submit to that journal $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ A number of comments removed. Be kind, friends. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ You know, there are ordinary people in the history of science who have come up with ideas that have proven revolutionary. In my field of engineering, I can mention Lester Allan Pelton, who was just a simple mechanic-carpenter and who invented the wonderful turbine that bears his name, which was quickly accepted by engineers. With a little digging, you can find plenty of people who started from nothing and made a huge contribution. I'm not claiming to be a genius. I'm just trying to put forward an idea I've thought and written about a lot and which I feel deserves more attention. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 0:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme If your paper is truly deserving of attention, then a reputable physics journal will publish it regardless of your lack of credentials as a physicist. Conversely, if you can’t get it published in any reputable physics journal, then you should conclude that it lacks merit. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 4:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme everything I described can be done by ordinary people. If you are an extraordinary person you might be able to do without a coauthor. But even an extraordinary person would require at least 2000 hours studying the relevant literature. It took me more like 3000 hours of studying just to finally come up with an idea that was actually novel. Without at least 2000 you would not know the literature well enough to even be able to judge if your idea is novel. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ What's unfortunate about what I'm hearing here is that: 1. No one has even attempted to answer the simple question I initially asked. If a void exists around a finite universe, how does that universe deal with that void? No one, absolutely no one, can confirm or deny that this void is possible, no matter how knowledgeable they are. I'm not saying that this void absolutely exists; what I'm saying is that if I consider it, it leads to the reflection I humbly present here. The second point is in another post. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ The first point is in the previous post. 2. No one asked me for the article I wrote on this subject. You judge before even reading the article. The guy arrives, he's new, not a physicist, so his article is obviously not good! $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 14:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme this isn’t a scientific journal. We don’t do peer review here. Do you also consider it unfortunate that when you go to the library they won’t sell you spaghetti? I personally am not qualified to review your article. The people who are qualified are the reviewers for professional scientific journals. Particularly the prestigious ones that should have formed the bulk of your >2000 hours of study in this field. Those journals, which you should know well by now, are where you should go. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ No one asked me for the article I wrote on this subject. That’s because we don’t review articles here, as you’ve been told multiple times. But it’s easy to find on viXra if anyone is curious. Our rules don’t prohibit reading users’ personal theories. You judge before even reading the article. I assessed your article after reading it. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, that's a start. My email address is on the article. I've made a simplified summary here: a3branestructurefortheuniversejplaflamme.quora.com $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 20:13
0
$\begingroup$

I think my comment on one of your questions will also serve as an answer here:

There are infinitely many ways to imbed the universe in a larger mathematical object. You are asking about why we don't see evidence for a specific one of those embeddings. If this is on topic, then so are infinitely many other questions, asking about those embeddings one by one. After all, you offer no reason to think this question is any more interesting than any of the others.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ @ WillO : if I take, for example, a 3-sphere, mathematics teaches us that, at a minimum, such an object requires 4 spatial dimensions to unfold. There is not an infinity. A 3-torus would mathematically require 6 dimensions to unfold, not an infinity. By pushing the reasoning I'm putting forward here, I can provide an explanation for the matter-antimatter asymmetry, among other things. It seems to me that this should be the subject of more attention! $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ "mathematics teaches us that, at a minimum, such an object requires 4 spatial dimensions to unfold. " I have no idea what that means but I will lay odds it's either meaningless or false. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't a conventional sphere, a 2-sphere whose 2-dimensional surface, require at least 3 dimensions to unfold? Then a 3-sphere, whose hyper-surface has 3 dimensions, requires, by extension, at least 4 dimensions to unfold. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I haven't the foggiest idea what "unfold" means here, and there's a great deal of evidence in your abstract that it doesn't mean anything at all. I cannot imagine any possible meaning that would make your claim about the 2-sphere true. Unless you're going to provide both a definition and a proof of your claim, I won't be wasting any more time on this. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ If the term "unfold" doesn't mean anything to you, I'll use the term "occupy" instead. Thus, a 2-sphere occupies a 3-dimensional space. Similarly, a 3-sphere occupies a 4-dimensional space $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 0:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You thought that changing the term and still not defining it was a substitute for a definition? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 2:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jean-PierreLaflamme A 2-sphere occupies a 3-dimensional space. You won’t find many mathematicians who would agree with that! A 2-sphere is a 2-dimensional object that requires no embedding in any higher-dimensional space. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say that the 2-sphere was a three-dimensional object, I only said that it occupied three-dimensional space. If I curve a sheet of paper, it's still a two-dimensional object, but it then occupies three-dimensional space. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 14:42

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.