Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
paul valletta wrote on Aug. 14, 2007 @ 02:21 GMT
"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
Reason McLucus wrote on Aug. 15, 2007 @ 05:31 GMT
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
corrado morozzo wrote on Aug. 26, 2007 @ 10:18 GMT
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
Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 04:26 GMT
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
Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 30, 2010 @ 23:48 GMT
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
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 as the other 3 rather than time and 3 dimensions of space.
Ekhard Blumschein mentioned some time ago about chirality. This may be the best evidence for a spatial scalar dimension. The scalar dimension is perpendicular to the 3 vector spatial dimensions. Using quaternion mathematics any movement along the scalar dimension gives a rotation in 3D space. So because of the arrangement of the scalar dimension to the 3 vector spatial dimensions there are two possible orientations of rotation relative to the scalar dimension. Those being clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. Now the effect of this will depend upon symmetry.
If the object is symmetrical then rotation of the object or movement of the observer around the object can cause the observed chirality to alter. I am thinking for analogy that I can wind a ball of wool clockwise or anticlockwise. If I turn the ball of wool around in my hands the handedness of winding is altered. So many structures do not have different enantiomers but may appear to have handedness because of the way in which it is being observed. Some other structures because of their asymmetry have a fixed handedness. Such as a cone shaped sea shell or DNA or amino acids or certain crystals. These structures formed with rotation in relation ship to the scalar dimension that is fixed and visible in the final form.
It is not possible to give the orientation of the 4th (scalar)dimension from the 3D space perspective but the best approximation is that it runs from the exterior of the object at every point to the centre of gravity at the interior of the object. Change in position along this dimension means that the exterior of the object is taking up the position that was occupied by the interior when the interior has moved further along. Not contracting within 3D space but moving along another spatial dimension not defined by the 3 vector spatial dimensions. This change in position gives the force of gravity. Growth of structure within 3D space is from the interior to the exterior of the completed structure. Thus it is expanding within the plane of 3D space. However the structure is also moving along the scalar spatial dimension, observed as gravity. This is the coming together of matter by change in position along the scalar spatial dimension. Although it always appears to be the same 3D space in the present time, all of the matter within that space is continuously changing 4th (scalar)dimensional position and its configuration within 3D space is also altered, observed as the passage of time.
If the changing configuration gives rise to asymmetric structure within 3D space, the rotation of the structure in relation to the scalar dimension during formation can be ascertained. Why certain structures always show a particular handedness or a preference for a particular handedness is another question. I assume it might be due to the forces on the structure during formation perhaps the distribution of the charges of the ions initially and then balance due to the shape of the structure. Which will effect how it "falls" along the scalar dimension, with clockwise or anticlockwise rotation in relationship to that dimension.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.