If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Georgina Parry: on 1/30/10 at 23:48pm UTC, wrote Perhaps there should be some other term for variables that mathematicians...
Georgina Parry: on 4/3/09 at 4:26am UTC, wrote A completely flat and static space time in 10 dimensions sounds like a...
corrado morozzo: on 8/26/07 at 10:18am UTC, wrote The quest to simplify Is there a reason to limit our reality to only a few...
Reason McLucus: on 8/15/07 at 5:31am UTC, wrote The problem in understanding the concept of "extra" dimensions is that we...
paul valletta: on 8/14/07 at 2:21am UTC, wrote "String theory predicts there are more than the familiar four dimensions of...
Georgina Parry: on 1/30/10 at 23:48pm UTC, wrote Perhaps there should be some other term for variables that mathematicians...
Georgina Parry: on 4/3/09 at 4:26am UTC, wrote A completely flat and static space time in 10 dimensions sounds like a...
corrado morozzo: on 8/26/07 at 10:18am UTC, wrote The quest to simplify Is there a reason to limit our reality to only a few...
Reason McLucus: on 8/15/07 at 5:31am UTC, wrote The problem in understanding the concept of "extra" dimensions is that we...
paul valletta: on 8/14/07 at 2:21am UTC, wrote "String theory predicts there are more than the familiar four dimensions of...
FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2022
"String theory predicts there are more than the familiar four dimensions of space-time. But where do those extra dimensions come from? "
Here and now?..Past..Present.. Future?
If string theory "predicts" this, then theorists should surely "know"?..the dimensions must have a history?..a world-line history.
Why can't extra dimensions, be detected in the physics of "now" ?..does the Universe's current spacetime accomodate extra dimensions, or will the theory have to wait for "extra dimensional transitions"?
report post as inappropriate
Here and now?..Past..Present.. Future?
If string theory "predicts" this, then theorists should surely "know"?..the dimensions must have a history?..a world-line history.
Why can't extra dimensions, be detected in the physics of "now" ?..does the Universe's current spacetime accomodate extra dimensions, or will the theory have to wait for "extra dimensional transitions"?
The problem in understanding the concept of "extra" dimensions is that we are conditioned early in our education to think that dimensions refers to physical characteristics like length, width and height and maybe time. Our brains are programmed to process the concept of physical dimensions in terms of these particular characteristics. When the term "physical dimensions" enters the brain, the output says what concepts are supposed to qualify as physical dimensions.
Mathematically a dimension is a variable characteristic of physical reality. Mathematicians and physicists need to start thinking of dimensions as any variables that describe physical reality rather than only something like length, width and heigth.
For example, gravity should be considered a dimension as should motion. Temperature/heat is another possible dimension or possibily how another dimension is perceived.
report post as inappropriate
Mathematically a dimension is a variable characteristic of physical reality. Mathematicians and physicists need to start thinking of dimensions as any variables that describe physical reality rather than only something like length, width and heigth.
For example, gravity should be considered a dimension as should motion. Temperature/heat is another possible dimension or possibily how another dimension is perceived.
The quest to simplify
Is there a reason to limit our reality to only a few dimensions?
The reason of sticking to few dimension, I gather, is due to the fact that the our knowledge and experience of natural phenomenon is based on confrontation with a set of logical or analogical models common to our senses and to our measurement practice and tools.
And it is a well-known fact that those models, being essentially linear and continuous, have a specific characteristic: they can “relate” together only a limited amount of variables i.e. our known dimensions.
But the variables in our reality are not just few and limited, the capacity of an individual, (not just man) to make free and creative choices, for instance, can also be considered a variable.
Which generate a natural question: is there anything that prevents the variable related to a “creative individual” be considered a specific dimension?
My answer is that every individual in our reality represent a specific variable and consequently a specific dimension.
A variable/dimension that we recognise as present in our reality and capable of altering it, but if it wasn’t for those aspects specifically tied to the physical aspect of the individual, their freedom and creativity would be impossible to be linked or related to the traditional variables/dimensions.
From a scientific point o view, of course, with the prerogative and the limits of the present paradigms, those, utmost infinite variables/dimensions, can only be perceived and registered as an universal random or noise, (quantum reality?)
The key to the problem therefore lays on whether we can adopt and operate with less logic or rigid paradigms, until than, I believe, it is just a matter of choice, and my preference goes, of course, to the multi-dimension one, more complex but with definitely more potential.
report post as inappropriate
Is there a reason to limit our reality to only a few dimensions?
The reason of sticking to few dimension, I gather, is due to the fact that the our knowledge and experience of natural phenomenon is based on confrontation with a set of logical or analogical models common to our senses and to our measurement practice and tools.
And it is a well-known fact that those models, being essentially linear and continuous, have a specific characteristic: they can “relate” together only a limited amount of variables i.e. our known dimensions.
But the variables in our reality are not just few and limited, the capacity of an individual, (not just man) to make free and creative choices, for instance, can also be considered a variable.
Which generate a natural question: is there anything that prevents the variable related to a “creative individual” be considered a specific dimension?
My answer is that every individual in our reality represent a specific variable and consequently a specific dimension.
A variable/dimension that we recognise as present in our reality and capable of altering it, but if it wasn’t for those aspects specifically tied to the physical aspect of the individual, their freedom and creativity would be impossible to be linked or related to the traditional variables/dimensions.
From a scientific point o view, of course, with the prerogative and the limits of the present paradigms, those, utmost infinite variables/dimensions, can only be perceived and registered as an universal random or noise, (quantum reality?)
The key to the problem therefore lays on whether we can adopt and operate with less logic or rigid paradigms, until than, I believe, it is just a matter of choice, and my preference goes, of course, to the multi-dimension one, more complex but with definitely more potential.
A completely flat and static space time in 10 dimensions sounds like a problem being created rather than a solution, in my opinion.
A series of curved, (but measurably flat, due to the scale) 3D slices of 4D space encountered sequentially could be used to describe the motion of the matter of the 3D universe along the 4th dimension, through 4D space.
Rather than needing 10 new dimensions to describe the movement of the sub atomic particles, the 4th dimension needs to be recognised as another spatio-energetic dimension, giving 4 dimensional space in which the particle can move rather than 3, as well as the macroscopic material of the universe moving continuously afore along that dimension. There are then 2 kinds of motion to compare relative to each other. Movement of the macroscopic matter of the universe including the apparatus of the experiment afore along the 4th dimension, and movement of the sub atomic particles jumping about in 4D space due to local forces. The additional freedom coming from being able to move into afore space.From our 3D perspective that space is within the particle itself, however beyond the centre of the particle is access to more 3D space beyond the visible universe, in which the particle can move before reappearing in visible 3D space.4th dimensional position also affecting 3D spatial position.The particle can be thought of as its own tiny gravity well moving back and forth along the 4th dimension.So sub atomic particles are also oscillating along the 4th dimension as well as moving around in 4 dimensional space.
I can see how this could be likened to a vibrating string, since the particle will not ever have a definite position as it is constantly in motion and oscillating constantly.
This is only a matter of how the particle is visualised in my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
A series of curved, (but measurably flat, due to the scale) 3D slices of 4D space encountered sequentially could be used to describe the motion of the matter of the 3D universe along the 4th dimension, through 4D space.
Rather than needing 10 new dimensions to describe the movement of the sub atomic particles, the 4th dimension needs to be recognised as another spatio-energetic dimension, giving 4 dimensional space in which the particle can move rather than 3, as well as the macroscopic material of the universe moving continuously afore along that dimension. There are then 2 kinds of motion to compare relative to each other. Movement of the macroscopic matter of the universe including the apparatus of the experiment afore along the 4th dimension, and movement of the sub atomic particles jumping about in 4D space due to local forces. The additional freedom coming from being able to move into afore space.From our 3D perspective that space is within the particle itself, however beyond the centre of the particle is access to more 3D space beyond the visible universe, in which the particle can move before reappearing in visible 3D space.4th dimensional position also affecting 3D spatial position.The particle can be thought of as its own tiny gravity well moving back and forth along the 4th dimension.So sub atomic particles are also oscillating along the 4th dimension as well as moving around in 4 dimensional space.
I can see how this could be likened to a vibrating string, since the particle will not ever have a definite position as it is constantly in motion and oscillating constantly.
This is only a matter of how the particle is visualised in my opinion.
Perhaps there should be some other term for variables that mathematicians describe as dimensions but others might not. It is a confusion of definition.
I do not think more than 4 dimensions (orientations) in quaternion arrangement are necessary to describe the fundamental forces, gravity and electromagnetism.
The scalar dimension is IMO best considered as spatio energetic, the same...
view entire post
I do not think more than 4 dimensions (orientations) in quaternion arrangement are necessary to describe the fundamental forces, gravity and electromagnetism.
The scalar dimension is IMO best considered as spatio energetic, the same...
view entire post
Login or create account to post reply or comment.