Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 107 (538948)
12-11-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 1:11 PM


Re: another dimension
If we need time to specify a point in the universe, and if time never actually stands still, how can we ever identify a point.
What do you mean identify? We can't point to something and say 'that is a point in time'. But we can define a point in time quite easily. I can also say '1 hour after event x'. I can be as precise as it seems possible to be.
If we moved through space at a constant pace, we could identify a point in space in just the same way. That thing 5 metres ago.
A point is a mathematical concept so is somewhat abstract.
If we need time to specify a point in the universe, and if time never actually stands still, how can we ever identify a point.
Like any coordinate system we need to define an arbitrary point and measure from it. I could talk about the thing that is five metres north of my chair, 1 metre west and 1 metre above the floor 10 minutes before I typed the period at the end of this sentence. At that location might be my cat, jumping off something or other.
There is no point when time actually is, is there?
Nope. Nor is there a point where length actually is.
Time is either coming from somewhere, or leaving somewhere, time doesn't have an instant when it becomes a fixed point.
Time isn't 'coming and going'. It just is. We move through this universe along the time dimension. It is puzzling why it seems that although we can change the rate at which we travel through time, we can't change the direction. But time isn't doing anything anymore than space is 'coming and going' when we are walking down the road. We don't exclaim 'oh look, there goes some width'.
How does math ever come to grips with the fat that we can never define an exact moment in time...does it just throw away some decimal points?
Well - for the most part yes. Just like we are forced to abandon some decimal places when we are talking about length. We could use fifty decimal places when telling someone where the pen is, or we could just say 'it's about a foot into the bed, halfway along its length'.
Fortunately, it turns out (as someone has mentioned already) that there are a finite number of decimal places in nature. So we could, define as precisely as possible even the smallest 'event' (a 'point' in spacetime).
This isn't a mathematical point in the sense of something that has zero dimensions - but that's not a problem because the maths doesn't actually need these kinds of points to describe the universe - because they don't really exist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 1:11 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 8:35 PM Modulous has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 92 of 107 (538955)
12-11-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
12-11-2009 6:25 PM


Re: another dimension
What do you mean identify? We can't point to something and say 'that is a point in time'.
Well, you have suggested that you can't identify a point in space, without knowing the time-so what time are we talking about-whose time? If that requires a math calculation of the time, how do we do that time? Who is observing this time?
...you have to do the maths
That's sort of the thing, when it comes to string theory, you don't really have to do the maths, because if they don't work, you just throw in some more dimensions until they do. No need to define that dimension, no need to demonstrate the reality of that dimension-simply say it exists,
Are these other dimensions a separate place? Do they contain matter that is separate from what we call the universe? How does one justify theorizing the existence of these alternative universes through the use of math, when the maths can't even agree on the number of universes? And does this theory propose any way in which we could test the number of dimensions? What would that test be other than saying the math fits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2009 6:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2009 3:30 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 107 (538978)
12-12-2009 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 8:35 PM


extra dimensions - what they mean
Well, you have suggested that you can't identify a point in space, without knowing the time-so what time are we talking about-whose time? If that requires a math calculation of the time, how do we do that time? Who is observing this time?
This is an incredibally confused set of questions.
I will try to answer them as best I can: I have not suggested you can't identify a point in space without knowing the time. We can't define a 'place' in the universe without reference to time, for sure. Of course, it turns out that with time and length and width and height, different observers will have different understandings of the coordinate system. So we need to be clear on the frame of reference.
The person observing the time is the same person as who is measuring the length.
That's sort of the thing, when it comes to string theory, you don't really have to do the maths, because if they don't work, you just throw in some more dimensions until they do.
And if you want to have temperature be a new dimension (or any other name for any dimension), you'll need to show how it is mathematically consistent.
. No need to define that dimension, no need to demonstrate the reality of that dimension-simply say it exists,
The dimensions are 'defined'.
Are these other dimensions a separate place?
No - that's silly. They are just seperate directions. It turns out you can't go very far at all in those directions so their impact on our experience is nill.
How does one justify theorizing the existence of these alternative universes through the use of math, when the maths can't even agree on the number of universes?
Well multiple universes are an entirely different concept to extra dimensions. Extra dimensions just represent extra coordinates required to define points in this universe.
Don't get drunk on bad Sci-fi concepts of 'extra dimensions'.
We normally think of three points to define a place: Height, length, width. I can define a place in my room by using 3 Cartesian coordinates. If I wanted to describe the total existence of a fly through my room, I'll need an extra dimension - time.
String theory suggests that there are other dimensions that are needed to precisely define some point. These extra dimensions are small enough to not matter at large scales, but sudddenly seem to become required at subatomic scales.
Imagine looking at a telegraph wire at a distance. It is just a 'line' Your eyes can't discern any other dimension. If you wanted to describe where a bird has landed on that wire, you just need one dimension. You could say 1 metre from the telegraph pole alpha (or 14 metres from telegrap pole beta, or whatever).
Now imagine an insect walking along the wire. If we only use one dimension to describe its motion it seems to make no sense. Sometimes there is no insect (because its on the side of the wire that we can't 'see'). Sometimes it is different shapes and sizes (it seems to have variable length) (as it walks around the 'circle' of the wire). All of these 'mindbending' results of quantum insectronics make sense as the behaviour of an insect acting in three spatial dimensions, where two of the dimensions are not normally noticed (one of them is height and the other is depth - both are equally large (that is not very) components of the position of the insect).
No extra universes are postulated, just extra dimensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 8:35 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 4:36 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 107 (538979)
12-12-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Son Goku
11-24-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Yes, that's science
Sorry SG, I was just reviewing this thread and realised I'd missed these posts of yours from last month:
However I find these "battlegrounds" concerning theories which have never been tested (String, Loop Quantum Gravity(LQG), e.t.c.) to be a bit silly. Let's say somebody has strong opinions against LQG, what does it matter? If the theory is correct, they will eventually been shown to be wrong. There were people who thought GR and QFT were a load of arse and to be fair we needed those people, they're part of the scientific method.
I understand that these theories sometimes meet with unfair criticism, but it shouldn't really be a divisive issue like it has become in some people's minds.
I couldn't agree more. Lubos is just as blinkered on the string/M side as Woit is on the anti-string side. There should be a blanket ban on all theo phys blogs - except for JB of course We all like JB, the inventor of the blog itself!
Also sometimes the criticism can be helpful, I know a few string theorists who were actually surprised to hear that there was no proof that String Theories caculations were finite beyond second order...
Yep, that's the danger of jumping into the middle of the field, as many have had to in the past ten years if they had any hope of getting to the 'coalface' research during their PhDs. The arguments for finiteness were always based on inference and hopefulness - just like in Sugra, and look where that got us. That said, as low energy sectors to M-Theory, the string theories should not necessarily be expected to be finite...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Son Goku, posted 11-24-2009 8:23 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 107 (538981)
12-12-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Briterican
12-09-2009 2:51 PM


Re: CD's apotheosis is not yet complete...
Using quantum mechanics as an example, I think it is safe to say that there are some outlandish assumptions (or at least outlandish implications of some assumptions) inherent to quantum mechanics, and yet it (QM) is used as a tool to make extremely accurate predictions. This does not prove that it is an entirely complete and accurate model, but it seems fair to say that this demonstrates that it has to be right on some level.
Yes, I can gree with this - if by "outlandish" you simply mean "utterly contrary to common sense".
Assuming the above statement is an accurate assessment, can the same thing be said of string theory in any sense?
If not, what is it that makes string theory so worth pursuing?
Hmm, string/M-theory makes sense of several myserious aspects of theoretical physics, and provides a great framework for how everything hangs together - and on this basis, quite a few think that therefore it must be right on *some* level. But this is essentially the theoretical being used to make sense of the theoretical. QM is explaining some very real and very common observations, so is on a very different level.
Is it the potential to marry relativity and QM together?
Absolutely, though it goes much further in attempting to marry together everything: relaivity, QM, and all of particle physics. This is why it is a much greater ambition than LQG.
Edited by cavediver, : subtitle change

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Briterican, posted 12-09-2009 2:51 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 96 of 107 (538983)
12-12-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
12-12-2009 3:30 AM


Re: extra dimensions - what they mean
No extra universes are postulated, just extra dimensions.
True, and these are being seriously confused in the exchanges above, but don't forget that extra dimensions give a route to extra 'universes'. Imagine a flatland universe (2 space + 1 time) embedded in our space-time (3 space + 1 time). You can have a limitless number of flatlands foliating our space-time (foliating meaning filling the space but without intersection, such as pages in a book, tree-rings in a stump, etc.)
If we live in 5d, we can pick a point, pick a direction perpendicular to our 4d space-time, travel out a bit, then explore the 4d surface 'parallel' to our space-time. This doesn't imply extra universes, but it does give them somewhere for them to be.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2009 3:30 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 107 (538991)
12-12-2009 5:41 AM


Discussing string theory...
I think Mod has been doing a good job at defending the notion of what we mean by dimension when we speak of 'extra dimensions' - we are talking about the dimensionality of space-time. The problem is the utter vagueness that is introduced when talking in layman-ese. Bolder-dash is complaining about this, but failing to see that this is the fault of discussing cutting edge theoretical physics on an internet debate board with interested amateurs.
When we talk about this in the academic departments, in the science papers, at the conferences - we know exactly what we are talking about. Yes, temperature in some circumstances can and is considered a dimension. As can and are many other concepts. This does not mean that when we talk about the extra dimensions of string theory, we are being vague as to our meaning. If you can't follow, then go do some learning. Claiming that string theory is weak because it doesn't explain the nature of the dimensions is like claiming that skyscrapers are bound to fall over, because you can't see any sign of any foundations. The limitations are in your understanding, not in our science

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 6:45 AM cavediver has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 98 of 107 (538997)
12-12-2009 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by cavediver
12-12-2009 5:41 AM


Re: Discussing string theory...
I agree not to argue what I don't know. And as far as I know, I haven't made any declarations of incorrectness of the facts.
The "question" is more of what percentage of the concepts are known and what percentage are hoped for.
If you can't follow, then go do some learning.
This is a poor statement on your part. That is exactly the reason people come to this forum, and that is exactly what I along with others are here doing. You often weigh in on subjects which are not your major, and I don't think it is appropriate for others to simply tell you, that if you can't follow, go do some learning (like in philosophy for instance).
I have asked for these dimensions to be defined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 5:41 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 7:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(5)
Message 99 of 107 (539003)
12-12-2009 7:09 AM


Why extra dimensions are a good thing
The dimensionality of space-time has always been just an observable property of the Universe - it has no theoretical underpinning. In other words, we don't know why it is 3+1 (3 space + 1 time)
Nearly all theories constructed in the past 100 or so years can be constructed in d+1 dimensions, and still work. We have to set d=3 to get out the physics that is interesting and relevant to us. This shows that we are not yet that close to a deep understanding of why the Universe is the way it is. There has to be a reason it appears to be 3+1.
The first consideration of extra dimensions came soon after Einstein published the General Theory Relativity, by Kaluza and Klein, who independently looked at formulating General Relativity in 5 dimensions, as in 4+1. When the extra dimension was considered as circular and too small to see, the five dimensional theory became an effective four dimensional theory. The miraculous part was that the 4d effective theory was no longer General Relativity, but General Relativity *PLUS* Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism!!!
So, General Relativity in 5d gives us GR plus EM in 4d. This unifies GR and EM, and reduces them to one theory. For those of us deeply into our physics, it doesn't get sexier than this
There are a few problems: there is an extra field that is introduced, the dilaton, which appears unrelated to the physics of our Universe; there are none of the other bosonic fields (weak, strong); there are no fermionic (matter) fields; and this is all still classical - this is no quantum gravity.
But what it does show is that extra dimensions are possibly *the* key to the unification of all physics. And also, extra dimensions are not some new bizarre concept related to just string theory.
The logical extension of Kaluza-Klein theory, and the resolution of its above issues, came much later with the Supergravity programme. Although Sugra ultimately failed on its own, it reappeared in String/M-Theory putting it on a much more solid foundation.
So, extra space-time dimensions are a good thing. But our theories still don't tell us how many we have. Sugra started to, by giving limitations to the number of dimensions of space-time based on having well-behaved supersymmetry. This gave us the famous limit of 11 dimensions (10+1). Wrapping up an extra 7 dimensions gave plenty of ways to generate the observed bosonic and fermionic fields of the Standard Model. Unfortunately, it never quite worked out in this context...
Then along comes String Theory. It is a mathematical physics theory of 2d space-times - tubes or pipes if you will, that can interconnect. If you take a constant-time slice through the tubes, you see lots of circles - the cross-sections of the tubes. These are the strings of String Theory. The tubes (or strings) can appear to be embedded in a virtual d+1 dimensional space-time by considering d+1 fields defined over the strings.
When you do the calculations, you realise that this 'virtual' d+1 space-time contains General Relativity, and in fact much of the Supergravity we had been working on years before. This is the first miracle of String Theory: a simple 2d theory predicts a world like ours, in d+1 dimensions! More work shows that for the theory to actually stay consistent, d has to be a particular value...
Wait, say that again. The theory tells us what d should be??? That is a first!!! d has always been an input to theories, but now the theory is telling us what d should be!!! This is the second miracle of string theory.
In the toy version of string theory that only looks at bosons, d comes out to be 25 (so d+1 is 26), but in the real versions (Superstrings and Heterotic strings) d+1 comes out to be the famous 10. And ten dimensions is great for creating all the extra fields we need for the Standard Model, when we wrap up the extra six dimensions to get our 4d Universe.
Of course, the fact that string theory says that the Universe is ten dimenionsal is regarded as a huge problem by those who don't actually understand the science and mathematics of quantum gravity. We just laugh at them
The one valid embaressing point concerning Superstring Theory was the number of potential theories: Type I, Type IIa, Type IIb, and Heterotic. These are all ten dimensional. And there was the mysterious 11d Supergravity to which they seemed somehow related.
My own subject area of string duality was what led to the realisation (principally proposed by Ed Witten) that all five theories were just different aspects of one master theory, or M-Theory.
And that is where we are now - a mysterious M-Theory, that seems to sit, from a space-time perspective, in 11 dimensions. Below the 10d string theories lies the fundemental 2d theory of tubes. The nature of the fundemental theory underlying M-theory is yet to be determined.
But the one thing that is in no way a problem for theory is the predicted existence of the extra space-time dimensions. They are the bonus!
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 8:59 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 105 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 3:06 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 107 (539007)
12-12-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 6:45 AM


Re: Discussing string theory...
Please, no replies to this message. Let's keep discussion focused on the topic and not on the people discussing the topic. --Admin
You often weigh in on subjects which are not your major, and I don't think it is appropriate for others to simply tell you, that if you can't follow, go do some learning (like in philosophy for instance).
really? Would you care to point to anything that I cannot follow? Do not mistake a desire to not be drawn into conversing in bullshit, with not being rather well versed in a subject.
And as far as I know, I haven't made any declarations of incorrectness of the facts.
Hmmm...
The reason I called the other dimensions fictional, is just because the only reason for imaging these dimensions is because they are necessary to make the numbers fit. I think no one can say what these dimensions are, little yet show evidence for them.
Sounds a lot like someone have opinions on something about which they know nothing...
Hint: Opinions are the building blocks of ignorance - asking questions is the way forward.
I have asked for these dimensions to be defined.
And Mod has given you some very good answers. If you don't find them satisfactory, then there's not much that can be done. The world of science won't lose sleep because you don't understand a concept.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Post short note at top in red.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 6:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 101 of 107 (539020)
12-12-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by cavediver
12-12-2009 7:09 AM


Re: Why extra dimensions are a good thing
Brilliant post! I'm still confused, of course (it comes from being a bit of a moron, you know.)
Does M-Theory consist of the tiny 2d pipes of simple string theory, plus the 3d+1 normal spacetime, plus 5 more? Or, if M-Theory is still uncertain, does real String Theory consist of the 2d pipes plus 9d+1 plus perhaps this extra one to make Supergravity work?
What I'm asking really is, are the 2 dimensions of the String Theory tubes a part of, or in addition to, the count of spacetime + extra stuff that makes a total of 10 or 11? In other words, should the real total be 13 or 12, or not?
Feel more than free to throw in anything that helps define what the extra dimensions do for a living in a practical sense, the way gravity, magnetic poles, rotation, and entropy give us markers to help describe what the normal 4 dimensions are about. Please.
PS: OK, on closer examination and repeated attempts to imagine, I believe I see that one of the dimensions of the tubes is just normal time, and the other is the extremely curved "circles", considered as 1-dimensional. I think. So maybe what I'm asking is, is this 1 dimensional circularity in addition to, or part of, the count of 10 or 11. And anything I can get to help imagine what the other dimensions are doing, of course. Thanks!
Edited by Iblis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 7:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 9:27 AM Iblis has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 102 of 107 (539026)
12-12-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Iblis
12-12-2009 8:59 AM


Re: Why extra dimensions are a good thing
Does M-Theory consist of the tiny 2d pipes of simple string theory, plus the 3d+1 normal spacetime, plus 5 more?
Ok, I can see why this is confusing
The 2d pipes are completely separate from any discussion of the dimensions of our space-time. In a sense, the whole of our space-time (4d, 10d, 11d, 26d, whatever) lives as a virtual existence on the 2d pipes! Our reality is like a program running on a computer. At least, that was how some of us we looked at it in the days before M-Theory. M-Theory has thrown that picture into disarray, and now I really have no clue. That's why I said that we don't understand the underlying theory to M-Theory.
The 11d of M-Theory is "simply" our observed 3+1 plus another 7 space dimensions. And the 10d of String Theory is 3+1 and another 6 space dimensions.
More later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 8:59 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 10:59 AM cavediver has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 103 of 107 (539040)
12-12-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by cavediver
12-12-2009 9:27 AM


Re: Why extra dimensions are a good thing
So it's more like f(2d)=10d, and/or f(??}=11d; where the function in question is the stuff being discussed (very sparsely) in HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE? .
I loved that stuff in Warren Ellis's Planetary. Of course it's brilliantly ironic there, in the sense that they really obviously are an array of 2 dimensional representations extrapolated out to a full-scale multiverse (ie, a comic book.)
circumstantial
Anyway, this is a minor disappointment, in that I seriously thought I understood what at least one of the allegedly so-curved-as-to-be-irrelevant-outside-quantum-mechanics extra dimensions was up to, and now I guess I don't. Oh well, che sera, sera ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 9:27 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 11:06 AM Iblis has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 104 of 107 (539042)
12-12-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Iblis
12-12-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Why extra dimensions are a good thing
So it's more like f(2d)=10d, and/or f(??}=11d; where the function in question is the stuff being discussed...
Yep, spot on. But this may or may not be the way reality works.
By the way, this reminds me of how you spot cranks, at least in my field - they say, "my theory solves everything!", we say "my theory is great here and here, but it's a bit crap over there, and I'm really not sure what the hell is going on down there... but hey, it's great!"
Bear that in mind as you read recent posts around here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 10:59 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 105 of 107 (539060)
12-12-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by cavediver
12-12-2009 7:09 AM


Re: Why extra dimensions are a good thing
OK, I'm going to skip over what I've been trying to digest about the pipes (and also spin) for the moment, and try again.
The first consideration of extra dimensions came soon after Einstein published the General Theory Relativity, by Kaluza and Klein, who independently looked at formulating General Relativity in 5 dimensions, as in 4+1. When the extra dimension was considered as circular and too small to see, the five dimensional theory became an effective four dimensional theory. The miraculous part was that the 4d effective theory was no longer General Relativity, but General Relativity *PLUS* Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism!!!
This is the sort of place I want to start, yes. This extra 5th dimension, unlike the other 4, which may or may not be curved inward such that they theoretically lead back around to wherever you started from, but it's all academic, because you could never live long enough or even go fast enough to ever actually make the trip in any way; this guy, this 4th spatial dimension, is curved inward on itself so much that it is only recognizable as a direction at all in the very small motions and interactions of the subatomic waveforms/particles. Yes?
But that smallness doesn't have anything to do with its location. Like North, or Up, or Left, I can move in these 7th and converse 8th directions from anywhere in the universe I happen to be. I just get right back where I started from so fast I never even know I'm gone, unless I happen to be a Micronaut of some kind. To a photon, however, motion or force or spin to or from this tiny direction is a noticeable thing which has a real effect on its relationship with the other dimensions. Good so far?
So Ok, that covers electromagnetic fields and photons. Is there one for each field? One for each boson? Various combinations? And which of them are big enough to significantly allow room to fit in these many branes, some of which may be similar to, and others wildly different from, our own spacetime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 7:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 4:15 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024