Recent Observations
I have been interested in Superstring
Theory and GUTs
(and other alternatives), but there are two drawbacks on this approach:

there
are millions of manifolds (higherdimensional object:
a sixdimensional "CalabiYau Manifold." ) found
by these theories and cannot determine the possible right manifold
for describing our world. To put in simple terms, in theory there
are many possible solutions to the describe our world in mathematical
terms, but we don't know which is the "actual (or exact)"
solution for the equation which describe our world.

Plus,
the extra small magnitude of the other 6 (or 7  8) dimensions are
beyond modern instruments' detection (they are less
than 10^{33} centimeters across, much smaller than our most
powerful microscopes can detect).
Thus
I gradually think they are just "imagination" from abstract
algebrae, rather than reality. I would better work from the phenomenal
aspects and work upward to the general theory of everything.
One
thing must be noted: the socalled standard model for the particles is
in no way complete, for it does not have any predictability in the size
of the quarks and the Higgs particles which are proposed to explain the
"mass" of the particles are NEVER found (not new report shows
their existence). It has forced some scholars to believe that they don't
really exist: The standard model is WRONG!
(I think it is not totally correct, but how to modify it ?)
So
I think it would be better to work in other directions. Starting from
phenomenology and uniting two forces first and then adding the other
forces. For example, the gravity and electromagnetism (like Modern
KaluzaKlein Theory.)
But this theory faces a problem which predicts
an unseen and undetected force; so some scholars have suggested that
this theory is just adding one more transformation into the 4D gravity.
I
have suggested other options. One of them is the 4D
as an unit, and 3 units of these dimensions are the "total reality".
The treholds of this dimensional reference system are "speed of
light". Detailed theory and workout will be provided later.
Point
of Departure:

We
can observe ONLY four dimension [Spacetime, Space (3D)+ Time (1D)];
why is it so?
 From
the abstract algebrae (plural), we learn that higher dimensions can
unify more forces together.
 Would
be possible that our observations are limited by 4D because the Ultimate
Unifying force can only be observed by its 4D components in different
spacetime conditions?
 Let's
take a simple illustration: If we use "x" to denote a 4D dimension
coordinate system, then we can use a simple operation ""
to change it to x. Just like 4 * 1 = 4. It works like a linear system.
It has two "directions": + and . If we add two more "dimensions"
to this system. Then we have a simple 3 dimensional system with x, y,
z as their coordinate frame. Then a 3D line is seen from x, y, or z
as a simple line only. To illustrate it in a simple way, we can think
of a line which is drawn from the origin (0,0) to (1,1) on a 2D plane.
It is like the diagonal of a square. We know that the actual length
of it is "root 2" =:= 1.414213562. But from the perspective
of xaxis, its length is 1. It is same for the yaxis.
 What
I propose is that we are observing the 4D components of the Ultimate
force. We are limited by the tranformation limit, and it is the speed
of light.
 But
we can observe some objects in the Universe which may show speed higher
than light (ultraluminal speed.) They may act as some guide to other
components of the Ultimate force.
I
hope further mathematical workout with some predictions and explanations
on the existing unsolved puzzles can be done.
When constants are not Constants!?
Easy digest for general public on the following topic: varying
speed of light

 The
Enterprise Mission: NASA Reports on A Major New Solar Gravity Anomaly:
Another Confirmation of Hyperdimensional Physics via a Changing "Speed
of Light?"  Technical
paper on that event; Radio metric data from the Pioneer 10/11, Galileo,
and Ulysses spacecraft indicate an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration
acting on the spacecraft with a magnitude $\sim 8.5\times 10^{8}$ cm/s$^2$,
directed towards the Sun. Two independent codes and physical strategies
have been used to analyze the data. A number of potential causes have
been ruled out. We discuss future kinematic tests and possible origins
of the signal. [PDF]
 A
Changing Speed of Light? : Proposal by creationists.
 This
page presents the available measurements of c and several statistical
studies which suggest that c has decreased in the past 300 years.
[This analysis is not accepted by many scientists before, but now gaining
more reflections due to the findings in NASA..]
 Upheaval in Physics:
History of the LightSpeed Debate by Helen D. Setterfield; creationist
suggesting changing light speed.
We explore the possibility that the reported time variation of
the fine structure constant $\alpha$ is due to a coupling between
electromagnetism and gravitation. We consider the coupling predicted
by a very simple {\sl effective} theory of physical interactions,
under the form of an improved version of the KaluzaKlein theory.
We show that it is precisely expressed by a variation of the effective
fine structure constant with cosmic conditions, and thus with cosmic
time. We compare the predicted variation with the recent data from
distant quasars absorption line spectra: we find a good agreement,
which moreover reconcile the claimed results on $\alpha$ with the
upper limit from the Oklo naturel Uranium fission reactor.
I don't have time to read the detailed
thesis yet, I will give my response later. Paul Davis, fo Sydney's Macquarie
University has cliamed that they have strong evidences that the
speed of light has slowed over billions of years (August 2002
in Nature).
Cosmology Black holes constrain varying constants There is evidence
to suggest that the fine structure constant, a measure of the strength
of the electromagnetic interaction between photons and electrons —
is slowly increasing over cosmological timescales. As a=e
^{2}/(h)c (where e is the electronic charge,(h) is Planck's
constant and c is the speed of light), this would call into question
which of these fundamental quantities are truly constant. Here we
consider blackhole thermodynamics as a test of which constants might
actually be variable, discounting those that could lead to a violation
of the generalized second law of thermodynamics.
Observational evidence suggests that there has been a variation of
Da/ a =  0.72 + / 0.18 x 10^{5}
over the past 6 10 billion years. This result
could be interpreted as supporting some nonstandard cosmological theories
that invoke varying the speed of light or the electronic charge.
Our arguments, although only suggestive, indicate that theories in
which e increases with time are at risk of violating both the second
law of thermodynamics and the cosmiccensorship hypothesis. Thus,
blackhole thermodynamics may provide a stringent criterion against
which contending theories for varying 'constants' should be tested.
Thus, they suggest a change in
c, the velocity of light! This is the essential part of the relativity.
If it is true, then the Relativity Theories (General and Special) must
be rewritten.
This idea is actually originally proposed
by J.K. Webb, M.T. Murphy, V.V. Flambaum, V.A. Dzuba, J.D. Barrow, C.W.
Churchill, J.X. Prochaska, A.M. Wolfe
Further
Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant
Comments: 5 pages, 1 figure. Published in Phys. Rev. Lett. Small changes
to discussion, added an acknowledgement and a reference Subjclass:
Astrophysics; Atomic Physics Journalref: Phys.Rev.Lett. 87 (2001)
091301
Abstract: We describe the results of a search for time variability
of the fine structure constant, alpha, using absorption systems in
the spectra of distant quasars. Three large optical datasets and two
21cm/mm absorption systems provide four independent samples, spanning
23% to 87% of the age of the universe. Each sample yields a smaller
alpha in the past and the optical sample shows a 4sigma deviation:
Da/a = 0.72 +/ 0.18 x 10^^{{5}}
over the redshift range 0.5 < z < 3.5. We find no systematic
effects which can explain our results. The only potentially significant
systematic effects push da/a towards positive values, i.e. our results
would become more significant were we to correct for them.
[Webmaster note: sigma deviation = standard deviation; Generally,
when a normal distribution is used, most of the data lie insides 3sigma
range.]
Paper: PostScript,
PDF,
or Other formats.
This new development has been advocated and attacked
by others (you can find many details in xxx.lanl.gov
search "fine structure constant"), but the acceptance of the
Paul Davis' claim in Nature may signals a change of atmosphere
towards this proposal. If the change of the speed of light is accepted,
then the Theories of Relativity (Special & General) may need to be
modified and the implications are great. [One minor discovery: one scholar
has claimed that the Speical Theory of Relativity has a WRONG proposal
on the reference system. More details will be supplied later.]
But it must be warned: From Speed
of light slowing down after all? (Christians strive for answer to
Genesis: Creation).
But, intriguingly, it now turns out that the finestructure constant
is in fact slightly different in light from distant stars compared
to nearby ones. In fact, this is the very reason that physicists of
the stature of Davies are now prepared to
challenge the assumption that light speed has always been constant.
And in addition to being different from the prediction of the Setterfield
theory, this research by itself does not support
cdecay theory of the magnitude that Setterfield proposed. The change
is billions of times too small.
In fact, the newspaper hype surrounding Davies' theory, and the quotes
attributed to him, hardly seem to be justified by the Nature article
itself, which is rather speculative. NB, although Setterfield predicted
constant £\, given the small change and tentative nature of
this new discovery, by itself it is not conclusive evidence against
the Setterfield theory either. See an earlier AiG response to reports
of a change in a, Have fundamental constants changed, and what would
it prove?
