1. there are millions of manifolds (higher-dimensional object: a six-dimensional "Calabi-Yau 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.
2. 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 so-called 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 ?)

1. We can observe ONLY four dimension [Space-time, Space (3D)+ Time (1D)]; why is it so?
2. From the abstract algebrae (plural), we learn that higher dimensions can unify more forces together.
3. 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 space-time conditions?
4. Let's take a simple illustration: If we use "x" to denote a 4D dimension co-ordinate 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 co-ordinate 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 x-axis, its length is 1. It is same for the y-axis.
5. 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.
6. But we can observe some objects in the Universe which may show speed higher than light (ultra-luminal speed.) They may act as some guide to other components of the Ultimate force.

I hope further mathematical work-out with some predictions and explanations on the existing unsolved puzzles can be done.

1. Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change.
2. 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]
   
3. A Changing Speed of Light? : Proposal by creationists.
4. 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..]
5. Upheaval in Physics: History of the Light-Speed 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 Kaluza-Klein 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 black-hole 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 cosmic-censorship hypothesis. Thus, black-hole 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 re-written.

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 Subj-class: Astrophysics; Atomic Physics Journal-ref: 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 4-sigma 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 3-sigma 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 fine-structure 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 c-decay 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?