[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you expand on the quoted?
[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly.
[/ QUOTE ]
So as it stands:
A) More spatial dimensions have predicted things we can’t find in the CMB.
B) Current data on the CMB, precludes the possibility of more spatial dimensions.
A is correct and B is not correct?
Sorry, but sometimes scientists don’t make it clear that denying something isn’t the same as affirming its opposite, especially when trying to explain things in layman’s terms.
By the way, what’s your background?
[/ QUOTE ]
(A) is true, but only for the very simplest possible cases - for example one extra spatial dimension that is not 'compactified' (theres a nice description of what a compactified dimension is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact..._(mathematics)
However, (B), as you say, is not true. There are many classes of braneworld model that make predictions that are entirely consistent with current CMB data. Many of these models have only one extra spatial dimension, but do very odd things to it. Examples include the Randall-Sundrum models, and a class of model called DGP gravity. Wikipedia has a succinct little writeup of the randall-sundrum models here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall-Sundrum
And youre entirely right when you say that denying something is not the same as affirming its opposite. A good rule of thumb in astronomy is that, unless someone EXPLICITLY affirms the opposite of something, then theyre simply saying that we have no evidence for that something.
as for background - astronomy is my job [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]