A fourth spatial dimension for the Universe

F Salmon

To cite this version:

F Salmon. A fourth spatial dimension for the Universe. 2020. �hal-02433140v1�

HAL Id: hal-02433140

https://hal.science/hal-02433140v1
Preprint submitted on 8 Jan 2020 (v1), last revised 6 Apr 2021 (v6)

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
 A fourth spatial dimension for the Universe
F. Salmon1,*

1
Institut Pprime, CNRS - University of Poitiers, ISAE-ENSMA, France
*[email protected]

Abstract
The contemporary physical theories are based on several fundamental physical constants. No
theoretical framework provides their experimental values. Here, we might have found two
formulas yielding the value of the Planck constant and the speed of gravitational waves
according to the vacuum properties. In particular, they highly suggest that gravitational waves
actually travel in matter. Because there is no dense matter between high-mass bodies in the
Universe, the relations would mean that the structure of the Universe is at least pentadimensional
(four spatial and one temporal dimensions). We then discuss the implications of this feature on
contemporary physics.

Introduction
In the mid-17th century, Isaac Newton published his law of gravitation in Philosophiae naturalis
principia mathematica. Classical mechanics remained the mainstay of science until the end of
the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, many scientists contributed to
the special and general theory of relativity: A. Einstein, M. Grossmann, D. Hilbert, H. Lorentz
and H. Poincaré (for the most famous ones). These theories made possible the observation of
new physical phenomena. The discovery of the expansion of the Universe is one example (1, 2).
Based on redshift, Lemaître (3) and then Hubble (4) independently formulated a law which states
that galaxies move away from each other at a speed proportional to their distance. At the same
time, the development of quantum mechanics turned the perception of particles upside down.
Many experimenters carried out tests to challenge these theories. For now, special relativity and
quantum mechanics passed these tests. General relativity could also be in accordance with
observations. The perihelion precession of Mercury (5), the bending of light by the Sun (6-8),
gravitational redshift (9) and gravitational waves (10, 11) are successes of general relativity.
However, this theory needs dark matter (12) to agree with the galaxy rotation curves for instance
(13). Up to now, this hypothetical matter has never been observed. The expansion of the
Universe is another issue which is explained by dark energy (14). This can be embedded in the
equations of general relativity but its origin remains unknown. Linking all the physical
processes, from the infinitely small (quantum mechanics) to the infinitely large (general
relativity), remains an unsolved problem as well. Finally, the value of the fundamental physical
constants on which contemporary physics is based, are not explained yet.
Some efforts are being conducted to understand these “last” physical problems. Scientists are
trying to detect dark matter where it is supposed to be. Others are focusing on Modified
Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (15) which corresponds to a theory where Newton's laws are
modified to fit with the properties of galaxies. Theoretical physicists are also developing ideas to

1
couple gravitation and the three other fundamental interactions (electromagnetic, weak and
strong interactions). Such theories are named "theories of everything". The two most famous
ones correspond to string theory and loop quantum gravity. Like in string theory, extra
dimensions are thoroughly considered in many other theories. The first attempt consisted in the
Kaluza-Klein theory which adds a fifth dimension to spacetime (16, 17). Similarly, a fifth
dimension is considered in the Randall-Sundrum models (18, 19).
In this paper, we first present an intriguing relation which links some fundamental physical
constants with the vacuum properties of the Universe. This formula, which derives from a
dimensional analysis, highly suggests that gravitational waves travel in matter, out of our field of
view. This is in contradiction with general relativity in which gravitational waves propagate in
vacuum. The deformation of spacetime would thus correspond to deformation of matter. Then,
we detail the consequences of the relation on the structure of the Universe. In particular, a fourth
spatial dimension is necessary to explain the existence of this matter. Finally, we discuss about
how contemporary physics could be interpreted in the framework of the developed theory.

Results
The purpose of this section is to find a relation giving the speed of gravitational waves. General
relativity asserts that these waves propagate in vacuum. However, common sense could make us
think that waves need a material to propagate. In this paper, we will trust in this common sense
and assume that gravitational waves do not travel in vacuum but in some hypothetical continuous
matter. We will see that this hypothesis is not necessarily in contradiction with the consequences
of general relativity.
One can observe that the speed of material waves is often related to the pressure and density of
P
the medium by c waves ∝
√ ρ
. Perfect gases, polytropes, incompressible liquids or elastic solids
obey this relation (the pressure term is replaced by Young's modulus for a solid). If the
continuum hypothesis holds for the Universe, the velocity of gravitational waves could be given
by a similar relation. For the calculation, we can use the critical density (vacuum density)
3 H2 − 27 −3
ρc = ∼9.2 ×10 kg . m (with H the Hubble constant and G the gravitational constant).
8 πGG
Considering that many measurements do not agree on the value of the Hubble constant, we
assumed that H ∼ 70 km. s −1 . MPc −1 because this corresponds to an average of the observations
(20-23). No known parameter can directly be selected for the pressure term P. We will thus try
to find a parameter with the dimension of a pressure from the properties of the Universe and
physical fundamental constants.
Tab. 1 itemizes some fundamental constants and properties of the Universe that could, a priori,
be involved in the calculation.

Temperature T ∼ 2.73 K
Density ρc ∼ 9.2× 10−27 kg . m−3
Boltzmann constant k B ∼1.381 ×10 −23 kg .m2 . s− 2 . K −1

2
Planck constant h ∼ 6.626 ×10− 34 kg .m 2 . s− 1
Vacuum permittivity ε 0 ∼ 8.854 × 10−12 m− 3 . kg −1 . s4 . A 2
Elementary charge e ∼1.602 ×10− 19 A . s
Gravitational constant G ∼ 6.674 ×10− 11 m3 . kg− 1 . s −2
Speed of light c ∼ 2.998× 108 m. s −1
Tab. 1. Fundamental physical constants and properties of the Universe (24).
The temperature and the density should be selected since the calculation of a pressure often
depends on both variables (perfect gas, liquid, ...). The vacuum permittivity is, by definition, a
vacuum property, so it should participate. In the dimensional analysis, the electric charge of the
vacuum permittivity can only be balanced by the elementary charge. Necessarily, both
parameters will be associated such as ε 0 e −2 . The same argument is applied to the temperature so,
with the Boltzmann constant, they must be embedded in one variable k B T . The Planck constant
takes part to the study because pressure depends on microscopic effects.
We can now manage the dimensional analysis with the following parameters: P, ρc , ε 0 e −2 , k B T
and h. There are five physical quantities and three physical dimensions (length, time and mass).
According to the Buckingham πG theorem, two dimensionless numbers can be constructed. The
method consists in the arbitrary separation of the quantities into two groups. We consider both
β ζ
dimensionless numbers Π 1=ρ αc ( ε 0 e− 2 ) ( k B T )γ P and Π 2=ρ δc ( ε 0 e −2 ) ( k B T ) η h. The resolution of
the linear systems yields
P (1)
Π 1= −2 3 4
( ε0 e ) ( kB T )

5 /2
( ε 0 e− 2 ) ( k B T ) 2 h (2)
Π 2=
√ρc
P
Relation (1) allows us to calculate
Π 1=10 ,
√ ρc
and compare with the speed of gravitational waves. With

−2 3 4 (3)
c grav=
P
√
ρ
= 10
√
( ε0 e ) ( k B T )
ρc
∼3 ×108 m. s− 1

Note that the inaccuracy on the Hubble constant prevents certifying that Π 1 is exactly equal to 10
which corresponds to H ∼ 70.1km . s −1 . MPc −1. The calculation of the second dimensionless
number yields Π 2 ∼ 21.7 . Again, the uncertainties on the Hubble constant only allow us to know
the order of magnitude of this number.

3
One can wonder whether pure chance could lead to the good order of magnitude for both
relations, especially for the first one which derives from a well-known continuum mechanics
relation. Considering the great discrepancy between all the involved constants and properties
(Tab. 1), it is rather probable that both relations really describe physical phenomena. One can
check that any other dimensionless combination of these variables (Tab. 1) always leads to huge
or tiny orders of magnitude. In the following, we discuss the implications of these relations.

A fourth spatial dimension

P
The relation c waves ∝
ρ √derives from continuum mechanics. However, the critical density is too
low to assume that the medium is continuous so this relation should not provide the good result.
This argument is correct in three spatial dimensions but not in a four-dimensional space. Indeed,
if we assume that a fourth spatial dimension exists, then the pressure P should be given in
N . m− 3 and the density in kg . m− 4. This would mean that our world, which seems to be in three
ρ
dimensions, presents a fourth dimension. The density in kg . m− 4 would then be given by c with
L
L the thickness of our “three-dimensional” home (in the direction of the fourth dimension). A
very weak value of L could lead to a great four-dimensional density (same argument for the
pressure) and make continuum mechanics applicable. This would not change the proportional
relation giving the speed of waves since only the ratio of both variables intervene in this relation.
Therefore, relation (3) would prove that the spatial dimension of the Universe is at least four.
Let’s see that general relativity already predicts the existence of an intangible fourth dimension.
General relativity is based on the curvature of space due to the presence of matter. Since human
beings cannot depict the deformation of a three-dimensional space, literature often describes it
through an analogy with the deformation of a two-dimensional space into a three-dimensional
one (Figure 1). But this only corresponds to an illustration of the three-dimensional space warp
in a four-dimensional one.

4
Fig. 1. Schematic representations of the space deformation. Left: With a two-dimensional
analogy (general relativity). Right: Without analogy.
Besides, the Universe expansion shows that our three-dimensional Universe does not contain any
point which could be considered as the big-bang origin. Indeed, the Hubble-Lemaître law states
that all the points move away from Earth and there is no reason for our planet to be the center of
the Universe. To understand this process, scientists again use an analogy with two-dimensional
spaces. For instance, if the curvature of the Universe is positive, the world can be understood as
the surface of an inflating ball. All the points of the surface of an inflating ball move away from
each other while the center does not belong to this surface. By extending this analogy to three
dimensions, our living space would be a 3-sphere (sphere in three dimensions) embedded into a
four-dimensional space. The existence of a fourth spatial dimension could involve the reality of
this analogy. Note that the surface would actually be a very thin volume so that we underestimate
the number of dimensions.

The nature of gravitation

According to general relativity, gravitation corresponds to the deformation of spacetime induced
by masses. Einsteins’s theory does not explain the physical process of this deformation. But the
presence of matter in the fourth dimension would require the deformation to result from a
physical phenomenon. According to the strong equivalence principle, gravitation would
correspond to acceleration. In adhering to this principle, the force applied on the high-mass
bodies, which produces the deformation of the surface, must derive from an acceleration. The

5
observations show that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Thus, we propose a new
definition of gravitation: due to the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, the high-mass
bodies in the 3-sphere would be maintained against some matter which is located in the fourth
dimension, out of our field of view. Then, the bodies would locally deform the three-dimensional
surface because of the acceleration. The space deformation would thus stem from the same
process as the deformation of a material supporting a mass on Earth (or in an accelerated frame
of reference). The motion of a body in a gravitational field would be equivalent to the motion of
a body, which experiences a vertical acceleration, on a deformed surface. Note that gravitation
would only exist in the 3-sphere. Figure 2 displays this vision of the Universe.

Fig. 2. Pentadimensional structure of the Universe (4 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions). It

is assumed that the space curvature is positive. On the left: The Universe would be a four-
dimensional ball so its expansion would correspond to a radial acceleration g. On the right:
Physical deformation of the surface due to the radial acceleration. A light body would only
GM
experience a part of it, approximately a= 2 according to Newton’s law of universal
r
gravitation.

Interpretation of some physical phenomena

This way of understanding the Universe could explain several contemporary physical matters.
First, the Universe expansion would be the result of some processes inside the four-dimensional
ball. For instance, the interaction between particles could generate this expansion. This energy
could correspond to the so-called dark energy. Its location, out of our three-dimensional world,
could explain its mysterious origin.
Second, a physical explanation of gravitation is provided. With this definition, gravitation would
not be a fundamental interaction. It would result from the acceleration of the universe’s
expansion and the other interactions. In particular, the bodies at the surface would interact with
the particles in the fourth dimension. At macroscopic scale, this process would correspond to a

6
support reaction. Gravitation would thus intimately link with electromagnetism. Could this
explain the mathematical similarities between both processes? In addition, this definition
removes the singularities from Newton’s law of universal gravitation and general relativity. The
1
gravitation law in 2 would not be reliable until the center of the bodies since continuum
r
mechanics does not present such a uniform deformation profile. An inflection point would exist
at a particular radius and another law would take place.
Third, the effects predicted by general relativity could also be explained in the framework of this
theory. The loss of energy due to gravitational waves could be the consequence of friction with
the matter in the fourth dimension. It is worth noting that friction, to a certain extent, also exists
in general relativity. The observations show that spacetime (in Einstein’s theory) is expanded
because all the bodies are moving away from each other. Without friction between bodies and
spacetime, the former would slide on the latter and would not follow its expansion. The Lense-
Thirring effect could stem from the dragging of four-dimensional matter due to the rotation of
high-mass bodies and friction. However, light bending requires photons to get a tiny mass to be
compatible with this theory.
Last, a fourth dimension full of matter could explain some aspects of quantum mechanics. The
theory, which is based on pure chance, does not respect Bell’s theorem. This result is only true
from a three-dimensional point of view but could be wrong in four dimensions. For instance, the
apparent chance could correspond to interactions with particles in the fourth dimension which we
cannot observe. Moreover, the quantum fluctuations could correspond to the travel of particles
from the three-dimensional surface to the fourth dimension and vice versa. In this sense, energy
would be conserved in the four-dimensional space and not necessarily in our world. This travel
could be possible for particles, but not for too big bodies that dense four-dimensional matter
would block at the surface. Thus, from the three-dimensional surface point of view, two different
theories would be needed to describe bodies according to their size: quantum and classical
mechanics. Relation (2) could substantiate this point of view because it might be understood as
Π 2 √ ρc
h= 5 /2 . In this case, the Planck constant (and quantum mechanics) would depend on
( ε 0 e −2 ) ( k B T )2
the vacuum properties. Note that the “variable” fundamental constant in this relation could also
be the elementary charge or the Boltzmann constant.

Raised questions
The previous interpretations raise the question of the variation of some fundamental constants.
We have seen that the speed of gravitational waves and the Planck constant could vary against
time if relations (1) and (2) really describe physical phenomena. In this case, the definition of
gravitation (Figure 2) would also involve the variation of the gravitational constant. The latter
would indeed depend on both the acceleration of the expansion and the pressure term P. For
instance, the deformation of a solid depends on the applied forces and Young's modulus. Since
both quantities vary according to time, the gravitational constant should also vary.
Moreover, measurements show that the expansion of spacetime exceeded the speed of light in
the early Universe (cosmic inflation). Claiming that this great speed only concerns spacetime
saves the relativity theories. But if relation (3) is correct, spacetime is actually matter so particles

7
could have moved at speeds greater than the actual speed of light. This holds only if the speed
limit does not vary with time.
Finally, one can wonder why the fourth dimension of the Universe would not be visible since its
size would be comparable to the three others. "Our thickness" in the fourth direction, which
would be extremely small, could be the cause. However, this question remains open.

A minimization of the size of the Universe

It is possible to minimize the size of the assumed structure of the Universe (Figure 2). The
Hubble-Lemaître law states that the recessional velocity v is proportional to the proper distance
D: v=HD with H the Hubble constant. Therefore, the recessional acceleration is given by
a=H 2 D . We note R the radius of the Universe and g the radial acceleration (Figure 2). The
same relation holds for both variables: g= H 2 R . The radius of the Universe can then be deduced
from an estimation of the radial acceleration. This acceleration must be greater than all the
gravitational accelerations of the bodies in the Universe. The Earth’s acceleration is about
10 m. s −2 . This value, which should be far lower than the greatest acceleration, yields R=2× 1020
light-years. This corresponds to 4.5 billion times more than the observable universe. This could
explain why the Universe appears flat from our point of view.

Conclusion
Both dimensionless numbers (1) and (2) deriving from the dimensional analysis link the Planck
constant and the speed of gravitational waves with the properties of vacuum. Relation (3) either
genuinely describes physical phenomena or is a doubtful coincidence. In the most likely case,
this relation would involve the existence of a fourth spatial dimension (at least). The observable
universe would actually correspond to a tiny part of the whole Universe and we would live on a
huge amount of particles (so energy) out of our field of view. While agreeing with predictions of
general relativity, the developed theory could explain the so-called propagation of waves in
vacuum, some aspects of quantum mechanics, dark energy and the nature of gravitation. It could
also account for the potential variation of some fundamental physical constants. In this study, the
mathematical part of this theory is left to be constructed and a thorough comparison with general
relativity could bring answers to some cosmological matters.

References
1. V. M. Slipher, The Radial Velocity of the Andromeda Nebula, Lowell Observatory Bulletin,
1, 56-57 (1913).
2. A. Friedman, Über die Krümmung des Raumes, Zeitschrift für Physik, 10 (1), 377-386
(1922).
3. G. Lemaître, Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte
de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques, Annales de la Société Scientifique de
Bruxelles, A47, 49-59 (1927).

8
4. E. Hubble, A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 15, 168-
173 (1929).
5. A. Einstein, The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Annalen der Physik, 49 (7),
769-822 (1916).
6. E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi, J. Benson, Progress in measurements of the
gravitational bending of radio waves using the vlba, The Astrophysical Journal, 699 (2),
1395-1402 (2009).
7. D. E. Lebach, B. E. Corey, I. I. Shapiro, M. I. Ratner, J. C. Webber, A. E. E. Rogers, J. L.
Davisand, T. A. Herring, Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves
using very-long-baseline interferometry, Physical Review Letters, 75 (8), 1439-1442 (1995).
8. S. S. Shapiro, J. L. Davis, D. E. Lebach, J. S. Gregory, Measurement of the solar
gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data,
1979-1999, Physical Review Letters, 92 (12), 121101 (2004).
9. J. B. Holberg, Sirius B and the Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift, Journal for the
History of Astronomy, 41 (1), 41-64 (2010).
10. J. M. Weisberg, J. H. Taylor, L. A. Fowler, Gravitational waves from an orbiting pulsar,
Scientific American, 245 (4), 74-82 (1981).
11. J. H. Taylor, J. M. Weisberg, A new test of general relativity – Gravitational radiation and
the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, Astrophysical Journal, 253, 908-920 (1982).
12. V. Trimble, Existence and nature of dark matter in the Universe, Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 425-472 (1987).
13. E. Corbelli, P. Salucci, The extended rotation curve and the dark matter halo of M33,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311 (2), 441-447 (2000).
14. P. J. E. Peebles, Bharat Ratra, The cosmological constant and dark energy, Reviews of
Modern Physics, 75 (2), 559-606 (2003).
15. M. Milgrom, A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the
hidden mass hypothesis, Astrophysical Journal, 270, 365-370 (1983).
16. T. Kaluza, Zum Unitätsproblem in der Physik, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin.
(Math. Phys.), 966-972 (1921).
17. O. Klein, Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale Relativitätstheorie, Zeitschrift für Physik A.,
37 (12), 895-906 (1926).
18. L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension, Physical
Review Letters, 83 (17), 3370-3373 (1999).
19. L. Randall, R. Sundrum, An Alternative to Compactification, Physical Review Letters, 83
(23), 4690-4693 (1999).
20. A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, Large Magellanic Cloud
Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant
and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM, The Astrophysical Journal, 876
(1):85 (2019).

9
21. Planck collaboration et al., Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific
results, Astronomy and Astrphysics, 571, A1 (2014).
22. K. Hotokezaka, E. Nakar, O. Gottlieb, S. Nissanke, K. Masuda, G. Hallinan, K. P. Mooley,
A. T. Deller, A Hubble constant measurement from superluminal motion of the jet in
GW170817, Nature Astronomy, 3, 940-944 (2019).
23. W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, D. Hatt, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. L. Beaton, C. R. Burns, M.
G. Lee, A. J. Monson, J. R. Neeley, M. M. Phillips, J. A. Rich, M. Seibert, The Carnegie-
Chicago Hubble Program. {VIII}. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant
Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch, The Astrophysical Journal, 882 (1):34 (2019).
24. J. P. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental
Physical Constants: 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 88 (3), 035009 (2016).

10