If I understood right, the other dimensions are too small (according to strings theory) for us to experience.

I'm afraid the question as to "why three spatial dimensions" doesn't have a satisfying answer in the present framework of physics...

Yes, in string theory(/theories) the additional dimensions are "wrapped" on very small length scales, so small that our senses cannot experience them. I do not share the enthusiasm about these theories, because apparently they cannot be proved nor disproved: in this case they remain a mere mathematical exercise.

But the general idea of additional dimensions is not, in my opinion, to be rejected. Just like our senses cannot register great part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, maybe they are not able to "see" many other things (without entering in the realm of spirituality).

Let me suggest the papers ftp://ftp.mct.gov.br/Biblioteca/10933%20-%20The%20three-dimensionality%20of%20the%20Universe%20a%20reason%20for%20the%20existence%20of%20chemists%20and%20beyond.pdf and http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/694/1/151

Thanks for the references, Francisco.

With regard to the so-called Anthropic argument, let me see if I ge the point: some features of our universe are explained saying that "they couldn't be otherwise beacause, if they were different, then we wouldn't be here".

Or: "the features that we observe in the universe must allow us (the observer) to exist".

Is this formulation right?

I've been always baffled by this kind of approach, because it appears to me like an explanation a posteriori.

Caro Giovanni,

I think the first is the current idea. I agree with you concerning the epistemological limits of sucha kind of argument. The problem here is in a certain sense, similar to the Cosmological Problem. As you cannot go out and make some experience with the Universe, you cannot go to further dimensions to "see what happens". In my opinion, this is the strongest limitation so far the problem os space dimensionality is concerned. Ciao, Francisco.

Maybe there's sentient beings in higher dimensions asking... "Why do we only experience 7 space dimensions?"

Personally, I think the answer is just 'because we do' (Anthropic principle). If one thinks about our universe (read that: 'our perception of our universe...') as one amongst an infinite spectrum of possible universes with different laws of physics that make up the 'multiverse', then there is no real reason or cause for us experiencing 3 space dimensions, it's merely the universe we happen to live in. It's the dimensionality that allows our type of life-form to exist.

So then I guess the question becomes, why am I a 3D life-form and not a 7D life-form..... : D

...which then leads to the question of the self... which is the realm of spirituality.

Just my 2 cents!

Aaron

Wow!! really lot of thanks for all the replies by u great thinkers...actually I m not a perfect man for physics but as be a geologist I just think all the 3D models of geology and than I just think about problems I face for other dimensions. Yes its very helpful that what problem physics still facing. Thanks to Francisco for the provided link and a clear talk by Acquaviva.

But I have one more confusion if u peoples don't mind that is there any type of ratio or relation between those negligible dimensions with the prominent ones ....or nothing happens in this case...

According to the string theory every thing of our universe is made by very tiny open or close loop of energy called string.and these string move in a universe of 12 dimension.actually we live in a 4 dimensional membrane inside a higer dimensional encloser,so there are several universes parreral to us called the parallel universe.other than four traditional universe the other dimensios are overlapping to each other and there are no experimental evidence about these dimension and also multi membranal universe.so we can do our job about space tine continuam by the help of general theory of relativity.but string theory mathematically absolutely correct and i personally belive in this theory and i hope in recent future it also prove experimentally.

Dear Imtiyaz,

what do you mean by "more than infinite"?

Warning: we can refer to dimensions in a very broad range of situations. For instance, to describe mechanically a gas of N particles we can consider its phase space, which is 6N-dimensional: (3-dim for position) x (3-dim for velocities) x (N particles).

But this is an abstract space, mathematically useful. The gas itself lives in 3-dimensional space evolving in 1-dimensional time.

Or the free wave function in quantum mechanics: it is described as living usually in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. But the physical particle described by that wave function propagates in 3-dim space and evolves in 1-dim time.

So, care has to be used in specifying what kind of "dimensions" we are referring to.

Contrary to the case of the gas or the wave function, in the case of string theory the extra dimensions are actually "physical spatial dimensions", they are physical directions orthogonal to the 3 usual ones.

(I'm not an expert in string theory, so correct me if I'm wrong)

I would like to stress the what is usually called "spontaneous compactification" in higher dimensional theories are not as spontaneous as claimed. D=3 (or 3+1 if time is included) follow from our prejudices or from our sensorial experience. In my opinion, the idea that one could establish a general field theory in an arbitrary spacetime dimension and then find one or more arguments (like selfconsistence, for example) able to constrain spacetime dimensionality is a dream that should be consider more seriously.

Norbert Waage, I would say what you said in a different way. The other dimensions are constrained (by hand or by force)to be small in agreement with our phenomenological experience.

Correct me If I am wrong: But theories arguing for more than three Dimensions (excluding time) are based on the assumption that two dimensions exist. However, there is nothing 2D. Anything we assume to be 2D basically has a very minute third dimension. If that third dimension is not there the 2D object would seize to exist. So there are only 3Ds.

Zahid Usman is right.

Spatial dimensions are back grounds, where departures between two real bodies or between two points on real body(s) in space are measured in terms of distance between them. Rational beings determine number of spatial dimensions that can intelligibly describe these relative positions with respect to a reference point. Most widely used system, at present, is three (spatial) dimensional system. In this system, the space is divided into eight sections by three mutually perpendicular planes to create 3D system. If it is essential and rational beings can divide space about a reference point into more number of even sections by symmetrically placed boundaries about a reference point, they can create higher dimensional spatial systems.

A spatial dimensional system concerns only the space about a reference point. Hence, it is not right to include other parameters (like time) as part of spatial dimensional system. Once, certain spatial dimensional system is adopted, all physical entities have objective realities in all individual dimensions used in that spatial dimensional system. Therefore, in our current three dimensional spatial system, entities described as lower (spatial) dimensional objects also will have their presence in all available spatial dimensions. All 1D, 2D and 3D entities will have real presence in all three spatial dimensions. A 3D object will have measurable and understandable length, breadth and thickness. However, thickness of a 2D object will be too small to be intelligibly measured or understood by 3D beings. Similarly, breadth and thickness of a 1D object will be too small to be intelligibly measured or understood by 3D beings. But to exist in space they all have to have objective reality in first, second and third spatial dimensions, simultaneously.

Well theorectically, dimension's are 'Infinite' as for 'Time' ill go with einstein's theory, that time does not really exist, and is merely a man made 'Construct' to inpliment some form of order within this existance.....!!!

To explain Dark Energy there are some quite useful 5-dimensional models.

Gravitation acts there in the full 5D space-time, whereas all other interactions as well as ourselves are confined to a 4D brane in that space-time.

Andrej,

At least it was always presumed that angels had a specific location but did not occupy any dimensional space. In the case of dark matter, especially, its properties are determined solely from the discrepancy between the predictions of Kepler's laws of planetary motion applied to spiral galaxies (requiring that each galactic object independently orbits a galactic center) and applied gravitational evaluations.

Andrej,

Yes - please see my brief, informal essay/profile thesis...

I have lost track of who claimed that dark matter was only manifested by the rotation velocities of stars in spiral galaxies. In fact, dark matter is also manifested by the velocity dispersion of stars in non-rotational galaxies (dwarf spheroidals and ellipticals) and the velocity dispersion of galaxies in galaxy clusters, and by lensing, and by the mass-to-luminosity ratios in all galaxies. Important evidence for dark matter comes from the analysis of cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropies all over the sky, and likewise from the baryonic acoustic oscillations.

A neat proof is offered by groups formed by galaxies which are enveloped in a large cloud of hot gas, visible by its X-ray emission. The baryonic gas mass can be determined from the X-ray intensity, add to this the observed luminosity of baryonic matter. This gives the total baryonic mass M_b. The temperature of the gas depends on the strength of the gravitational field, from which the total amount of gravitating matter, M_grav, in the system can be deduced. In many such groups one concludes that M_grav exceeds 3 M_b, thus a lot of mass is missing, not seen in visible star light nor in X-rays nor in the infrared emission of hot dust. On the scale of large clusters of galaxies like the Coma, it is generally observed that DM represents about 85% of the total mass.

Let me finally point out that our Universe could not have formed if all matter were baryonic. The galaxies we see could only have been formed in the presence of gravitating dark matter which started to fluctuate early, unhindered by radiation pressure.

Enough now, I could easily have continued this account with more examples.

I for one have _never_ "claimed that dark matter was only manifested by the rotation velocities of stars in spiral galaxies." I also resent the seemingly clever non-attribution - as if we haven't had many previous extended discussions!

I do assert that it was the improper gravitational evaluation of spiral galaxy rotation that established the perceived requirement for dark matter within the physics community. I also assert that, without its prior establishment, 'evidence' for its existence would not be so readily accepted for instances solely based on very tenuous, exceedingly complex evaluations.

For a brief example of the potential for systematic error in gravitational evaluations of galaxy clusters containing hundreds of galaxies and gravitational lensing evaluations involving statistical evaluations of to up to thousands of background galaxies, please see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/ou-cm112912.php# which reports on the recent radical reevaluation of the dark matter attributed to the 'Train Wreck Cluster'.

James Dwyer,

The first remarkable observation of dark matter was not "the improper gravitational evaluation of spiral galaxy rotation" in spiral galaxies. It was Zwicky's observation that the radial velocity dispersions of member galaxies in the Coma cluster (that contains some 1000 galaxies) were almost a factor of ten larger than expected (by the virial theorem) from the summed mass of all visually observed galaxies in the Coma.

There are lots of explanations of the dynamics of spiral galaxies (also "improper" or caused by systematic errors) which do not invoke dark matter (e.g. MOND) , but they fail to explain manifestations of dark matter elsewhere.

The problem is not whether dark matter exists, but what properties it has other than gravitational interactions.

Matts Roos,

For more than 40 years, not many physicist remarked or even noticed Zwicky's conclusion from virial evaluation of the Coma cluster that there was some missing mass in the cluster. In fact, there was a great deal of missing mass in the form of the then undetected x-ray emitting intracluster medium. Of course, the virial analysis estimates only the mass of the average galaxy within the cluster...

No, nobody mentioned dark matter until perhaps the early 1960's, and no one paid much attention until the seemingly clear evidence set out by the discrepancies between observed spiral galaxy rotation curves and those represented by Keplerian equations in the 1970's.

There are many highly qualified physicists that retain some questions as to whether dark matter actually exists. You seem unable to consider any possibility that dark matter does not exist. There are many like you who are committed to that belief.

There's no need to, once again, argue this question in this inappropriate forum.

Superstring theory has certainly been the leading proposal for a unification framework of all the known interactions. However, the number of dimensions in string theory is simply fixed for consistency of a theory which cannot even be proved of discarded. In the other hand there are other great theories which explain many observed phenomena without needing to consider any extra dimensions.

I think that the idea of a 3+1 dimensional universe must be encompassed from a philosophical point of view (anthropic principle for example)

Hola Jorge,

Since your "main goal is to contribute to the development of a final theory of quantum gravity.", don't refer to philosophical arguments! Philosophers don't know physics well enough to contribute anything useful.

Hi Matts

I never said that doing good Physics must be a task for philosophers. I just commented on the possibility to encompass the problem without an "a priori" framework such as string theory, but better considering philosophical aspects which physicists cannot ignore and which have also contributed to a better understanding of the Universe.

Three

Or pi.

Nah! it's pi^2

Theoretical physicists regularly disagree regarding how many dimensions exist in the universe. Some put it at 10 or 11 or 13 dimensions but no one really knows how many dimensions exist in the universe. Some theoretical physicists can be quite passionate about their particular belief in the total number dimensions in the universe even though they know that they don't know what the truth is regarding the true number of dimensions.

Theoretical physicists are partial towards one particular number of dimensions because the multidimensional mathematics that they develop to represent a framework for the nature of the universe becomes much more simple (or elegant) when a certain number of dimensions is assumed. We of course don't know which conclusions are true.

String theory is another field of theoretical physics which involves expressing the mutlidimensional universe in terms of little strings. Many of our string theorists support the theory that our universe has 10 or 11 dimensions (11 dimensional universes are sometimes described as involving 10 normal dimensions coupled with a time dimension).

In mathematics, there is no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with n-dimensional spaces, where n can be whatever you'd like. These can be dimensions in the sense of directions in some non-visual hyperspace model, or they can be (more properly) "degrees of freedom." For instance, if you were trying to model weather patterns, you might find it convenient to identify a point not only by its location in space and at a point of time, but by its barometric pressure, wind velocity, temperature, etc. That would give you a seven dimensional-model. Similarly, physicists dealing with electrons have quantum numbers like spin, isospin, charge, twist, baryon number, etc. For mathematical purposes, these can be used in multi-dimensional formulae, for a convenient model.

Concluding, there's nothing magical or mysterious about dimensions and the number of dimensions. They're just notions scientists dreamed up to help them describe the world.

There's nothing wrong with fractional dimensions either, so I like \pi^2. It's just a bit hard to imagine - but that's a limitation of our limited perceptual ability.

Being imaginable is not really a part of physics: Niels Bohr tried to come to some kind of perceptual terms with his quantum mechanics, went into the forest for a few weeks and came back with the so-called Correspondence Principle. Why?

We are merely model builders - we seek to understand reality, no more than that. We may be able to model our Universe with 26 dimensions, it may even be a good model, but I see no sense in trying to argue that it corresponds to some element of reality (whatever that means).

I confess - I am a representative realist.

What Ernesto and Mohammad state above is not wrong, but there is no assurance that it is right either. It is just unproven theory.

Please correct me if I wrong understand the relationship between the Universe and the theories that attempt to describe it.

In my opinion, a clearly posed the question, how many dimensions "really" present in the Universe, at most we can answer that there are four dimensions (three dimensions the location and dimension of time). Other - no matter how well describe reality - can only be taken as a good mathematical approximation of the reality.

Dear Colleagues,

Please, stop in you calculations of the number of the Universe dimensions.

Today, no other dimensions but 3+1 (time) exists. All others are no more than fantasies resulted from voluntary and unconditioned initial Eddington's assumptions of 90-year age about fusion reactions that allegedly proceed within stars and possibility of likening of the stars to the spheres of ideal gases and no less voluntary assumptions about the constancy of the gravitation coefficient over the entire Universe and its consequence about the constancy of the electromagnetic radiation in the gravitational field over the space. Just these assumptions led to the fantastic dark energy and matter, black holes, and other phantoms and, practically, showed that these assumptions are no class. They were used by perforce until no new hypothesis was available. I call you to pay your attention to the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, which is available at ResearchGate and other sources. Historically, the astronomic notions changed not once or twice, but many times, and this is an ordinary process. Scientific views develop by trial-and-error method, as was stated by K. Popper. Now it's time to come down to earth and get at the root of the widely distributed notions on the celestial phenomena and objects. Today, we have giant number of direct measurements and Einstein's theory, and we should use all this thriftily. People search miracles, but Nature is simple and develops on the basis of simple laws.

Indeed, I am sorry if my issue is capable of bringing disappointment to anybody in his calculations of the dimensions of the Universe.

Dear All,

On the impossibility of Big Bang as the Universe onset and on the necessity of the notion of infinity and eternity of the Universe.

For the explosion to happen, some substance, which could explode and could imply the energy/mass that evolved as a result of this explosion, should preliminary originate. But, in order that such a substance could originate, a process that led to concentration of this mass/energy should formerly occur. Thus, two processes should occur, one had led to the mass/energy concentration, and the other had led to the mass/energy evolution. However, the mass/energy concentration process couldn’t occur without external forces. This means that an external space, from which these forces acted, had existed and because the forces cannot be initiated by nothing, this space should be filled and it should be filled by nothing but energy/mass. In other words, the external space should exist and no conditions for its limitation exist; thus, we return to the notion of the infinite space. In addition, there is no ground to say that it could appear and, therefore, we should take that it is eternal. We see that, even if Big Bang were possible, we should take that the space is eternal and infinite. Thus, we see that the notion of Big Bang is a crazy notion.

I use, may be, too undisguised expressions, because I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, constancy of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe, stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease, which have led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease.

The calculations of the stellar speeds and masses on the basis of Eddington’s fiction are grounded as well as the calculations of the time of Moscow-Beijing run by using the seven-league boots from Wilhelm Hauff’s story of Little Muck.

It is necessary to take F. Engels’s notion (Fr, Engels, Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction) of the Universe eternity and infinity and to reject the notion of fusion reactions within stars as the cause of their occurrence and transformations. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of their discovery to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of chemical-element formation, and because of many other causes.

Evidently, just radiochemical decays represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions and the notion of stars as the knots in the energy/mass space of a low concentration is the unique alternative to today notions of stars. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is based just on these notions.

I think that, in a few years, all today fantasies on the construction and history of the Universe will look like an anachronism and will stimulate condescending smiles of young people addressed to their old professors.

Dear colleagues,

In my first issue, there is a misprint: it is written "...the constancy of the electromagnetic radiation in the gravitational field over the space" and should be written: "...the constancy of the electromagnetic radiation deviation in the gravitational field over the space" (10th line from the top).

I am sorry.

It depends on the definition that you give for the term 'dimension':

1)Dimension=any linear independent set of measurable distances. Then how many directly observables dimensions are there? 4? No, 3, since time is not linear independent with spatial distances!

2)Dimension=any linear independent set of descriptive variables for a system. Then this number can increase as you like, if you study complex dynamical systems.

To be continued...

Dear Martin, Dear Demetris, Dear other Colleagues,

I write not about terms, but about the initial assumptions which are put on the ground of the calculations. The calculations are senseless if their primitive conjectures are wrong. The primary assumptions are unconditioned and arbitrary and, therefore, all secondary and tertiary results are wrong.

The fusion reaction which proceeds with no common explosion for billions years over giant volumes, can it really be obvious true?

The compliance of the concentrate plasma, where fusion reactions proceed, with the ideal gas laws, can it really be obvious true?

The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obvious true?

But if the gravitation coefficient is different over the space and time, the deviation of the electromagnetic radiation (light) (from any celectial object) from its linear direction is different and unknown over the space and time.

In truth, the application of the first two these assumptions to the Sun and formulation of the so-called standatd solar model raised a number of difficult questions.

It would seem, the "discovery' of the so-called dark matter should forse the community to return back to the initial assumptions. But this not to have happened.

Now the plot thickens.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and each vacuum zone is dangerous.

OK, Martin, thank you.

But "...the increasing speed of the expansion of the universe by dark matter and energy." is also under question because the assumptions that are put on the ground of the calculations that led to this ''phenomenon" are, at least, under question.

I am sorry but this is a fact.

Regards.

Consider a companion question in pondering the number of dimensions of the Universe. Start with the idea of an absolute void and ask the parallel question: Would a void possess dimensions? I so, how many? Now imagine within the void two separated points in motion. How many dimensions are needed to describe their relative motion? The contrast to be drawn is between a Universe without dimensions as components and a Universe with as many dimensions as the minds of mathematicians can create. Mathematics is a science created by man that is applicable because it is based on a uniform set of units. There can be as many dimensions as the mathematical system will accommodate. Although dimensions can be associated with the physical distributions of matter, do they have an existence outside man’s mind?

I state that there are no scientific ground for the calculations which lead either to the notion on dark matter or to the conclusion on the expansion of the Universe. The fact is that both these conclusions are obtained as results of definite calculations and these calculations are groundless. I wrote about this in one of my previous issues.

If the gravitational constant is different in the rest of the universe, all our calculations and models and theories etc, are wrong, including the DM?

Dear Heleri,

If the gravitation coefficient is not constant, it has, apparently, come to stay.

But there are solid grounds to state that it is neither constant nor different for different stellar systems or, may be, for different Galactics.

It is an open question.

Dear Sagar, your way is probably absolute, dogmatic and axiomatic. You feel so sure about your opinion, actually it is like listening a 'guru' of a religion where the Religious believers take everything as absolute right. Sorry, but this is the 'effect' of your posts...

Dear Sagar, please do not take my opinion as an attack. You are presenting new thoughts, the way you are doing this task is the topic of my criticism. Again I apologize if I was misunderstood.

Dear All,

Any calculations are senseless if their primitive conjectures are wrong. The primary assumptions that are used for calculations resulted in the Standard Solar Model, masses and speeds of the celestial objects out of the Solar System, dark matter and energy, black holes, and other phantoms are unconditioned and arbitrary and, therefore, are wrong.

The fusion reaction which proceeds with no common explosion for billions years over giant volumes, can it really be obvious true?

The compliance of the concentrate plasma, where fusion reactions proceed, with the ideal gas laws, can it really be obvious true?

The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obvious true?

But if the gravitation coefficient is different over the space and time, the deviation of the electromagnetic radiation (light) (from any celestial object) from its linear direction is different and unknown over the space and time.

In truth, the application of the first two these assumptions to the Sun and formulation of the so-called standard solar model raised a number of difficult questions.

It would seem, the "discovery' of the so-called dark matter should force the community to return back to the initial assumptions. But this has not happened.

Now the plot thickens.

When discussing Origins, scientists have no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics, and Origin should be absolute, i.e., the question about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all. Otherwise, this is not Origin. Therefore and taking into account Einstein’s statement about the equality of the notions of energy and mass, we should take that the unique World state capable of fulfilling these conditions is the eternal and infinite space filled with the low-concentration energy/mass. This our conclusion satisfies completely to Friedrich Engels’s concept (Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction).

When considering the transformations of the eternal and infinite energy/mass space, we should take into account the inadequacy of the notions of matter and of mass that is the consequence of the just-mentioned Einstein’s statement and the energy/mass conservation law and should supplement this notion with the notion of the infinite (!) rotational moment because energy is impossible without motion, three-dimensional energy being impossible without rotational motion.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and because each vacuum zone is dangerous.

The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, and its ignoring is senseless. I call each of you to read our works of 2013 about the PFO-CFO Hypothesis and the paper of 2011 in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics. In 2013, we somewhat developed the hypothesis, however, these improvements did not decrease, in our opinion, the importance of the paper of 2011.

Sincerely.

Dear Martin,

Thank you. I have just answered to you there.

Best wishes and kind regards.

Victor

PS. Thank you for the reference.

Sorry for this intrusion. Recently I have read about an interesting speculation concerning the DM. There exists other parallel universe (or extra dimensions) with which our world can comminicate uniqely via gravitation (so explaining also its weakness) . This universe should contain about 5 times more matter than our universe in order to match the observed gravitational anomalies. Maybe it is a little naive but I do not know if this conjecture has some more solid grounds.

@Adam, that' s the point: We always speak about our local universe like it was the Universe(:=the Set of all local universes, existents or potentials). It is like to believe that our small planet Earth is the centre of Everything, but in a modern universal view. So, if we do not 'escape out from our locality' we shall not be able to answer such difficult questions, I think.

If gravitational effects originated from outside our universe, why/how would the location of mass in our universe be coincident with the occurrence of gravitational effects? If we were receiving gravitational effects from masses outside our own dimensional spacetime wouldn't gravitational effects occur even in the absence of local masses?

Dark matter is thought to increase the mass of large scale massive objects - as though the relationship between mass and gravitation increased with larger scale masses. Alternatively, most clearly in the case of perceived galactic dark matter, our application of gravitational evaluation methods intended for discrete bodies of mass to large scale compound structures - comprised of billions of discrete, interacting masses (especially those in non-spherical configurations) - may introduce significant errors. Very simply, evaluating the gravitation imparted to objects at the periphery of a vast planar disk as though it only interacted with a single massive object (represented by the center-point of mass) might introduce an error that increased with radial distance from the central mass abstraction.

In that case there's no need to imagine mass-energy that is for some reason undetected, due either to its material properties or dimensional inaccessibility. In my view, Occam's razor has a sharp edge for metaphysical causations of conditions that may be simply misconceived.

Dear All,

I see three factors that force me to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (I think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe.

(1) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of the earlier Einstein’s theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.

(2) Even through the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (I have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates, in preference, along the between-galaxy boundaries (between-galaxy space) where no gravitation exists and, thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, chooses the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.

(3) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property, in each atomic nucleus. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period, and, today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles. It must not be ruled out (although I do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.

I wrote earlier about different other criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances of the celestial bodies.

The PFO-CFO Hypothesis represents the answer to these doubts and criticism. It is available at my paper of the ResearchGate.

Sincerely.

Victor.

Dear All,

I advise very much to each astrophysicist to read attentively our works of 2013, which relate to the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, and to concentrate your opinion on their figures instead of empty and grounded on nothing reasoning on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe expansion, Big Bang, and other phantoms. Therewith, I call to refer to our results as to the hypothetical ones, as to very important (may be) and non-optimistic but hypothetical ones. I think that all we and our governments should concentrate on the Sun, in the first place, and on the objects of the Solar System, where all we live and on the state of which the life of the entire humanity depends. We should term hypotheses as hypotheses and mustn't pull people's legs by the conclusions made on their grounds.

Cordially.

Dear colleagues,

This number depends on the universe model. For example:

Greek philosopher Archytas cited the following model. If you throw a spear in a straight line, then go to the place where it embedded itself again throw a spear and repeat this operation, farther away from the site of the first throw, then we have not stumble on the border, which would not allow us to once again throw a spear.

New models can explain new physical facts however this number is not more that

an abstract one. Our 3D-TV is the human-wise universe model. One can add a time as

the 4 coordinate...

Open letter.

Dear Prof. Matts Roos,

I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”.

This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention.

The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows.

(i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington);

(ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington);

(iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity);

(iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR).

None of these assumptions was proved.

The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc.

Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them?

As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it.

The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation.

We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons:

(x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.

(y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.

(z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.

We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies.

The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes.

Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation.

This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space.

We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them.

(1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements?

(2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma?

(3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe?

(4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe?

We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless.

The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism.

The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question:

(5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang?

Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question:

(6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections?

I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive.

I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there.

The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars.

The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows.

The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications.

I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers.

The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored.

Sincerely,

Victor Ostrovskii

Dear Victor, I think letters like yours are my knowledge compensation for participating in ResearchGate discussions. First of all I want to express my impression for the clarity and variety of your arguments. I remembered what I have studied in Astrophysics and yes I agree with you that 90 years are too much time for accepting the same four initial hypothesis. Although I am not an expert on the fields mentioned by you I shall present my 'scientific smell' based on the observations presented by you and from my intuition.

(1)At the 50's many hydrogen-bombs were released and the duration of the explosion was always a small time period. So, your objection about the non eternal fusion reaction at the center of every star seems to me reasonable.

(2)Since we have no observations for the inside of a star, why should we accept the ideal gas hypothesis? It is rather one more convenient hypothesis of our 'hard science'...

(3)We have no one, I repeat no one, theory at all that can explain the exact value of G and other 'constants', so how are we so arrogant to insist about its spatial conservation around our universe?

(4)Here is the big issue: We have observed velocities greater than c, but we say 'they are phase velocities, the information propagates with v

It depends on how a "Dimension" is defined and used for. I suppose the idea that a dimension means a coordinate that allows spatial movement is wrong - because the definition lacks and misinterprets anything in the universe but spatial motion.

An unstable nucleus, for example, that looses its mass is moving in a mass dimension from one point to another even though it may or may not have changes in dimensions of spatial position, charge, (total) spin.. etc.

Let's take a contrary example and suppose that there are, say, 5 or 6 spatial dimensions. I, just like anyone else, can describe the spatial position of any object in the universe using 3 dimensions only and a reference point. So there is no need for the extra 1 or 2 dimensions- unless I was a dimensions seeker which I'm not, fortunately.

So, dimensions of the universe extend far beyond the meaning of spatial dimension only. Three spatial dimensions suffice for space description and there is no need to invent more.

To be brief, dimension may refer to any measurable that varies - or can be varied- in a certain projection. Then there are as many dimensions in the universe as we can think of. Wise choice would select only necessary dimensions required to solve or describe a certain problem or situation of nature.

Dear Ahmed,

existence of extra (spatial!) dimensions has well defined consequences which can be tested experimentally. More on that you can read at http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

Till now ther are no indications of existence of these extra dimensions but the question is not yet closed and new searches will be done at the LHC ones it restarts at its (almost) doubled energy.

Extra dimension is a requirement to understand the language of sub atomic particles, quarks occupies very limited spatial dimension of 0.0000000000000000001m, the time duration also half of the order, interactions cannot be understandable in our space time scale. Also the vastness of nature and the missing of detectable matter to fill the gravity field is making us to think other dimension. Also to add one more thing that formation of universe from the universal singularity in our time scale is possible only when we consider of extra dimension

We have to define if we are talking about spatial dimensions or not. Sometime a dimension can be related to any variable that is changing with time, then we gave infinite dimensions that we can think off.

Many believe that time is perhaps the fourth dimension. Although time does play a dimension-like role, we do not enjoy the freedom of motion through time that we have in the other dimensions; for example, it is difficult for us to move backward in time. The fourth dimension lies beyond our daily experience. So, visualizing, exploring, and understanding it seems at first impossible. Such understanding would require us to develop an intuition about a world that we will never see.

Qefsere,

Good point, but while there is freedom of direction within spatial dimensions, there is no concept of negative velocity or momentum, correct? Any motion is always forward. As I understand, time dilation is an aspect of length contraction...

While we're not able to manipulate our relation to time, it is fundamental to our daily experience, as is the distance we must traverse between home and office (for example), on a nearly daily basis.

The interesting point with time is that, altough it is not well defined, when we solve differential equations with respect to time we can achieve extra-ordinary accuracy! I had always a question about this fact...

James, velocity is a vector so negative velocity is just motion in the opposite direction.

Quefsere, it is difficult for us to move backward in time in our four-dimensional space-time, but if space-time actually is 5-dimensional we can do it. Many models trying to explain the cosmic acceleration (dark energy) assume that the Universe is 5-

or more-dimensional.

Matts, that's why I said there is freedom of direction, but motion is always directed 'forward'. Perhaps I should say that there is no 'reverse motion'? Sorry if the term 'reverse velocity' is improper.

As I understand, quantum theories also specify that particle interactions can proceed backwards in time, but only at quantum scales of distance.

However, I was attempting to respond primarily to Qefsere's point that time may not be a proper dimension - because "we do not enjoy the freedom of motion through time that we have in the other dimensions" in our daily experiences. I was attempting to express the demonstrated real-world relation between the progression of time and motion within the three spatial dimensions. This has been demonstrated by a number of tests - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation - but in no case can any reversal of direction cause clocks to proceed backwards. This indicates to me that the progression of time is directly related to the velocity of motion in any direction...

In a 2-dimensional world, say on the surface of a sphere, the shortest distance to the opposite point of the sphere is \pi r, so it takes the time \pi r/ /c to travel to that point with velocity c. But on a 3-dimensional traversable sphere the shortest distance is only 2r.

Similarly if you go from 4-dimensional space-time to 5-dimensional space-time, you can make shortcuts through the fifthe dimension.

I think the word 'dimensions' is one of those that is so overused that it has reached the point of almost being meaningless unless one goes to great lengths to define which meaning it's supposed to have...

The word "dimension" is indeed overused in the literature. The most familiar and maybe basic definition is what we first see in linear algebra (dimension of a vector space over an algebraic field). Beyond that are: (a) Dimensions of (curved) manifolds such as "small (rolled-back) dimensions" in string theories beyond the 3 large spatial ones and (b) the more dynamical notion of "fractional" dimension that is used in studying fractal structures such as Cantor sets. The concept of time as an extra "dimension" is, I think, distinct and meaningful only within the space-time context of relativity and its extensions (relativistic versions of other theories) in the same sense that constant frequency oscillations on a straight line look like a sine curve in the (flat) 2 dimensional space-time. Does anyone know of other interpretations?

As I understand, in relativity time is not considered an 'extra' dimension but rather a physical aspect of the spatial dimensions. Experiments confirm that both time dialation and length contraction are inevitable consequences of high energy-momentum conditions. The success of experimental tests of space:time relations seem to confirm that 4 dimensional spacetime is not merely a concept in the context of relativistic theory.

There are some efforts trying to explain time as an emergent quantity, so just a practical concept to describe synchronizatin of elements position changes.:Recently quantum entaglement is claimed to support this conjecture -

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/23/129220/first-experimental-evidence-that-time-is-an-emergent-quantum-phenomenon

In relativity (special) if we add time to the 3 spatial dimensions and assume that the speed of light is constant then Lorentz transformations yield length contraction and time dilation. So I agree that relativity does lend a new physical meaning to time to make it more than a mathematical convenience for analyzing motion in space. This also makes the quantum notion of time intriguing even if not easy to absorb at first glance.

In addressing the original question, I want to say that the other dimensions higher than the 4th are all compactified, which is why we don't experience them. That was one of the purposes of building the LHC at Cern, to conduct high energy physics research on a scale that would allow for the production of the levels of energy to attempt to probe these higher dimensions...

So, after so many years of operating LHC at CERN, did we finally find the extra dimensions?

No extra dimensions have been found at LHC..yet. Not looking for them directly but searching for possible production of micro black holes. Probability of producing them at currently accessible energies depends strongly on the number of existing extra dimensions. There was a lot of excitment before .startup of LHC due to a potential danger of creating such a black hole , unjustified even in case it would be possible. Next try will be done after restart of the LHC at almost doubled energy.

The LHC is not sensitive to Dark Energy, an observation only seen at cosmological distances and over cosmological time spans. Dark Energy is not understood, but some theories to explain it operate in more than 4 dimensions. No theory is yet favored, so one cannot say that higher dimensions have been observed.

Adam:

I appreciate your answering Demetris question. I might also add that I did some research on that stable mini black hole controversy and discovered that Cern itself was to blame for it because of a document that they released bragging that they could turn the LHC into a "black hole factory", when in reality, the black holes that they would be generating would only last the slightest fractions of a second, so short that one physicist that I know, who prompted my little investigation, stated that the life spans would be so brief that he didn't even consider the black holes that would be generated as real.

So if Cern hadn't tried to hype what they were doing, then the controversy never would have happened...

@Marshall

LIfetime of such potentially produced black holes was estimated to be of the order of 10^-27 s due to the Hawking radiation. Still their effect could be seen as high multiplicity events of special topology and composition. Unluckily (or luckily?) nothing of that type was found. Few words on it here http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

@Marshall, did you notice the downvote to my question? It is not a coincidence. Every time somebody asks or argues something not compatible with our Holy Grail of Special, General Relativity and Standard Model and their ultimate implementation, Its Excellence, The CERN, feels the anonymous downvoting process. I would appreciate if somebody strongly disagrees with me publicly, without downvoting my opinion. Am I asking too much? Probably...