Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 61 of 107 (538840)
12-10-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Bolder-dash
12-10-2009 12:06 PM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
not sure that it makes the needed dimensions for string theory any more believable
Then you didn't understand the post.
Let me ask you, why do you believe the 4 dimensions of relativity exist? Do you consider time a dimension, if so, why?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-10-2009 12:06 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 8:33 AM onifre has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 107 (538870)
12-11-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by onifre
12-10-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
I think your point is irrelevant. The only reason for believing in these other dimensions that string theory proposes is because without them the numbers don't add up. And no one can even agree on exactly how many extra dimensions we need to add. I should think one would need a better reason for imagining extra dimensions other than simply because numbers don't add up.
Its like my earlier analogy of 2+2=9. If I said the reason I know there must be other dimensions is because in this dimension 2+2 does not equal 9, so therefore there simply must be other dimensions, because that's what my theory says.
Besides which, I would perhaps philosophically take disagreement that time is an actual dimension in the strictest sense of the word. A dimension is a physical space that can be located by specifying its location. I think if we are speaking clearly, time is not a dimension, because we can not define where it is.
Furthermore, one can suppose in their minds all the dimensions they wish, because they are relying on the safety of knowing no one can prove them wrong because we can not (ever) see or experience them. They hold no more reality for us than any other fantasy one wants to create. Its science fiction. Aren't you the one who objects to people believing in a God we can't see?
There is certainly a heck of a lot more evidence for a God then there is for any imagined dimensions!
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 12-10-2009 4:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 9:54 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 107 (538874)
12-11-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
I think your point is irrelevant.
Regardless of what you think, can you answer it?
The only reason for believing in these other dimensions that string theory proposes is because without them the numbers don't add up. And no one can even agree on exactly how many extra dimensions we need to add. I should think one would need a better reason for imagining extra dimensions other than simply because numbers don't add up.
And the same could have been said for relativity in its early conception, yet it is now the most confirmed theory is physics.
Your inability to currently comprehend it is not a problem for string theory, its a problem for you.
Its like my earlier analogy of 2+2=9. If I said the reason I know there must be other dimensions is because in this dimension 2+2 does not equal 9, so therefore there simply must be other dimensions, because that's what my theory says.
I don't think you understand enough about string theory to realize how nonsensical that analogy is.
Do you understand that the 'dimensions' in question are still part of our normal reality?
Besides which, I would perhaps philosophically take disagreement that time is an actual dimension in the strictest sense of the word.
Then you would be 100% wrong, and about 100 years behind science.
A dimension is a physical space that can be located by specifying its location. I think if we are speaking clearly, time is not a dimension, because we can not define where it is.
So not only do you feel string theory is wrong, you also feel that relativity and Einstein were/are wrong?
There is certainly a heck of a lot more evidence for a God then there is for any imagined dimensions!
Ok
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 8:33 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:04 AM onifre has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 64 of 107 (538875)
12-11-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by onifre
12-11-2009 9:54 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
Define dimension then.
And BTW, defining time as something other than a dimension doesn't negate relativity. Calling time a dimension is not much different than calling temperature a dimension. You can if you like, but it doesn't change whether or not you feel hot. Maintain some measure of creative intelligence won't you. It makes the world so much more interesting.
And you didn't answer the question-why do you believe in other dimensions when you can't see, touch, or experience them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 9:54 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 10:30 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 11:22 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 65 of 107 (538878)
12-11-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 10:04 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
Hello BD. I don't think we've conversed before. {This was typed up as a reply to Message 62 but you had already posted this one while I was composing it so I'm replying here instead.}
Imma try to help you out.
The only reason for believing in these other dimensions that string theory proposes is because without them the numbers don't add up.
Not really. I'll try to explain why. But first:
Its like my earlier analogy of 2+2=9. If I said the reason I know there must be other dimensions is because in this dimension 2+2 does not equal 9, so therefore there simply must be other dimensions, because that's what my theory says.
This is not a very good analogy. Iblis's in Message 59 is better and I'll pull from that in my attempt to help explain this to you.
but also:
Besides which, I would perhaps philosophically take disagreement that time is an actual dimension in the strictest sense of the word. A dimension is a physical space that can be located by specifying its location. I think if we are speaking clearly, time is not a dimension, because we can not define where it is.
If you're going to insist on 'dimensions' being defined as above, then you are not going to understand. If we're going to have a scientific discussion then we should be using science's definitions.
Maybe a look through the wiki page on dimension might help a little.
I should think one would need a better reason for imagining extra dimensions other than simply because numbers don't add up.
Okay. So lets look at the analogy of the reasons that Iblis provided.
quote:
So now let's consider Mr. A Square, of Flatland, who is only aware of two dimensions. The things he thinks of as volume are what we consider surfaces, the things he considers surfaces are what we would call borders. But he has some genuinely 3-dimensional objects penetrating his reality, of which he is only directly aware of a cross-section of. These are alive, for the sake of argument, or some kind of crystal perhaps, that he can effectively "double" the size of by feeding or watering or whatever. Because he is aware of two dimensions, he understands that this is really making them "4 times bigger" from his viewpoint. But in experimentation, by trying to move them around, for example, he determines that they are actually becoming 8 times heavier.
If he thinks about this enough, and extrapolates, he may come to understand that there must be an unexpected third dimension, that he cannot experience in the normal way that he experiences the two he has. If he keeps investigating more and more of these crystals or whatever they are and experimenting, he can become pretty sure of this.
Do you see how, even though limited in the dimensions he can see, that it is possible for him observe phenomenon that suggest that the extra dimension is there?
The thing got heavier than it was supposed to be. Now, this is a matter of "the numbers not adding up" but not just.
quote:
Other phenomena that might alert him to this state of affairs are, if things somehow flip into mirror images of themselves from his point of view. This can happen to 2d objects because of rotation through the 3rd dimension. Another might be, if there are things that seem to appear and disappear, due to the fact that they sometimes penetrate his plane and at other times do not.
Does that make sense to you?
So far, do you think you're getting the point of the analogy?
Assuming so, let move on to our world:
quote:
Now, with quantum mechanics we have long suspected the existence of more dimensions than the 4 we know. We get a lot of effects that seem to indicate this. When we split a photon, we don't get two half-photons, we get two complete photons at half the amplitude. When we break up fermions we get even more astounding results! Fractional spin is another great example, we have to turn a quantum particle around not once but twice to get back to our original state.
I don't know what your education level is. Do you know about an electron's spin? just the numbers not adding up but actual phenomenon suggesting that other dimensions must exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:04 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 107 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 11:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 66 of 107 (538880)
12-11-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
Hello CS,
I find it a bit amusing how many people here want to say that if someone disagrees with them-they simply must not understand.
I understand, that doesn't mean I agree. Just because you say something is a dimension doesn't make it so. The definition of a dimension, if you want to use Wikipedia, is:" In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it"
Now, if you want to begin calling all kinds of other concepts dimensions, where do you draw the line? Is a dimension another place? Is it a different condition within an area-like say compression. Is it change? is it a gas? Is it visible? When you start using words so loosely, they lose their original meaning, and can be adapted to whatever the speaker wishes. But that still doesn't make it so. So what's your definition of a dimension?
Now are YOU starting to understand?
Its almost as if many people here believe that if anyone with the title of 'scientist" proposes something, it is therefore true. That doesn't make for a very impressive mind, when you just accept something people tell you, without question. So what is a dimension? I think we have been looking for them for well over a hundred years and have yet to find even one of them.
Care to give me your definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 10:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 11:41 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 75 by Iblis, posted 12-11-2009 11:57 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 67 of 107 (538881)
12-11-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 10:04 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
You don't like to follow the debate properly, do you?
Define dimension then.
What does that mean? In what sense?
How about the wiki definition just to keep it easy: dimension
quote:
In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it
Good?
And BTW, defining time as something other than a dimension doesn't negate relativity.
I don't understand what that means ... what else would you define it as?
And the point to what I meant by time being a dimension, is that the numbers that you claim don't work in string without the other dimensions, in the same sense, don't work either in relativity without thinking of time as another, or the 4th, dimension.
But once Einstein did this, his equations made sense, and then experiments confirmed it. It is now used in many of our current technology.
You can if you like, but it doesn't change whether or not you feel hot.
It would change whether or not you land on the moon, or whether or not your GPS worked. It is very important.
And you didn't answer the question-why do you believe in other dimensions when you can't see, touch, or experience them?
It is not a matter of 'belief', it is a matter of following the evidence where it points. I can't see, touch or experience dinosaurs either, yet the evidence tells me they existed.
Your question would be better asked like this: Why are you trying to understand multi-dimensional theories in physics?
And my answer would be: Because the evidence seems to suggest that they exist.
That is all I could honestly say about it - and, like with any other theory, time will tell if they are correct.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:04 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:40 AM onifre has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 68 of 107 (538883)
12-11-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
12-11-2009 11:22 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
You don't like to follow the debate properly, do you?
Are you using the default position on this website of calling foul every time you feel yourself getting trapped in a debate?
Do I need to remind you what this topic is about:
Op:
This tends to read like a detailed specification for Wheeler's "Many Worlds" speculation. That is, there are many adjacent "branes" or sub-universes which have an indirect effect on our own. Thus, gravity is such a weak force because most of the gravitons are leaking into other branes. Conversely, the universe-binding extra gravity we tend to attribute to "dark matter" is actually caused by gravitons leaking in from other branes. Or something like that ...
There's a growing tendency for apparently reputable people to describe this whole line of thinking as "pseudo-science"....."
I believe he is talking about extra dimensions here, what do you think?
quote:In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it
So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all.
And BTW, defining time as something other than a dimension doesn't negate relativity.
I don't understand what that means ... what else would you define it as?
Gee, I dunno, I might use the definition of time to define time.
But, I guess I am just whacky like that.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 11:22 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 11:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2009 11:49 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 1:14 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 107 (538884)
12-11-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
I find it a bit amusing how many people here want to say that if someone disagrees with them-they simply must not understand.
Its not the disagreement, but rather the display of misunderstanding, that suggest that you do not understand.
For example:
quote:
A dimension is a physical space that can be located by specifying its location.
This doesn't seem to be saying that you are disagreeing with the scientific definition of 'dimension' but that you are misunderstanding what a dimension is. Locations are within a dimension.
I suppose you can define the words how you want to (although its not going to promote a meaningful discussion) but it doesn't always work that way.
Lets say I claim this: The sky is red.
Doesn't that suggest that I don't know what color the sky is? What if I say that I am defining "red" as the color of the sky? That's not going to help us at all. If you want ot discuss scientific theories, then we're going to need to use the definitions that science uses.
You can't define a dimension as "a physical space that can be located by specifying its location" and then use that definition to argue that the extra dimensions that string theory proposed are unfounded. Its nonsense. We might as well argue that the sky is red.
I understand, that doesn't mean I agree.
But you're incorrect. Its not a matter of disagreeing, its a matter of being wrong and I think you're wrong because you don't understand.
Just because you say something is a dimension doesn't make it so. The definition of a dimension, if you want to use Wikipedia, is:" In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it"
Now, if you want to begin calling all kinds of other concepts dimensions, where do you draw the line?
What you've quoted there is the dimension of an object, as in a square has 2 dimensions because we need a miminum number of 2 coordinates to specify each point in the square.
What is porposed in string theory is more spatial dimensions:
quote:
Spatial dimensions
Classical physics theories describe three physical dimensions: from a particular point in space, the basic directions in which we can move are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Movement in any other direction can be expressed in terms of just these three. Moving down is the same as moving up a negative distance. Moving diagonally upward and forward is just as the name of the direction implies; i.e., moving in a linear combination of up and forward.
Is a dimension another place? Is it a different condition within an area-like say compression. Is it change? is it a gas? Is it visible?
Its not a gas and is not visible (can you see the direction of upwards?). Being 'another place' is decent, but its more like 'another direction'. When you pull a line into another dimension you get a square, when you pull a square into another dimension you get a cube, when you pull a cube into another dimension you get a tesseract.
When you start using words so loosely, they lose their original meaning, and can be adapted to whatever the speaker wishes. But that still doesn't make it so.
The original meaning is unimportant when advances are being made. And the definition really isn't that loose.
Now are YOU starting to understand?
I think you're being obtuse and avoiding learning so that you can maintain your position on string theory. If you really want to learn about it and try to understand then I'm sure you'll find all kinds of help. If you just want to maintain your ignorace and have an argument, then we'll probably just find something else to do.
Its almost as if many people here believe that if anyone with the title of 'scientist" proposes something, it is therefore true. That doesn't make for a very impressive mind, when you just accept something people tell you, without question.
Ummm... we put a man on the frickin moon! Here we are, talking instantly over vast distances on computers made by scientists and you're telling me that we can't trust the scientists!? yeah and the sky is red.
So what is a dimension? I think we have been looking for them for well over a hundred years and have yet to find even one of them.
See. This is exposing your misunderstanding... not disagreement. If you honestly believe that then you don't know what is meant by the word 'dimension'.
Care to give me your definition?
The word 'dimension' can mean multiple things. There's a whole wiki page on it that I've linked to. I'll conform to the applicable scientific definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:59 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 107 (538885)
12-11-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all.
You only need one coordinate to specify each point in time.
Ever heard the phrase timeline. Lines, and time, only have one dimension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:40 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 71 of 107 (538886)
12-11-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
So your definition of a dimension is??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 11:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


(1)
Message 72 of 107 (538887)
12-11-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 11:40 AM


another dimension
So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all.
1.
I understand, that doesn't mean I agree. Just because you say something is a dimension doesn't make it so. The definition of a dimension, if you want to use Wikipedia, is:" In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it"
Now, if you want to begin calling all kinds of other concepts dimensions, where do you draw the line?
String theory doesn't 'call all kinds of other concepts dimensions'. It agrees with the definition in wikipedia. String Theory holds that in order to precisely specify a point in the universe you need to give 10 coordinates, however a reasonable approximation (ie macro scales) can be given with only 4 coordinates.
edit: If you were playing pacman on a rectangle you'd note that one dimension in pacman's universe is bigger than the other. If the rectangle was so extreme that it was as wide as the pacman sprite, you could describe Pacman's position with just one dimension (4cm to the left of the cherry for example). However, Pacman's eye dot would require the precision of full 2D to describe. And of course you would need to specify a time in each example adding another dimension into the mix.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:40 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:58 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 107 (538888)
12-11-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
Please reply to the substance of my post and not repeat answered questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:46 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 74 of 107 (538889)
12-11-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2009 11:44 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
Lines, and time, only have one dimension.
I think your are starting to trip over your own words.
The definition I provided stated that "a dimension is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it."
You have just stated that lines and time only have one dimension.
What one dimension does time have then-the dimension of time? Or does it have the dimension of a line? huh?
If time only has one dimension to it, then what dimension has more than one dimension to it?
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 12:02 PM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 75 of 107 (538891)
12-11-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 10:59 AM


Remedial Geometry
I see part of where this conversation is going wrong. You are eager to assert that the other worlds or "branes" of M-theory are unprovable, purely theoretical, do not exist, cannot be observed, or a similar argument along those lines.
This debate, like many of the debates you try to engage in, is getting bogged down in semantics. Media saturation in the form of things like Twilight Zone, comic book universes, and yes Star Trek, have confused the question of these other worlds or spaces or realities with the concept of "other dimensions". I will go into why this happens in more detail in a bit, but for now here's this quote from the wiki Catholic Scientist linked you to
Science fiction texts often mention the concept of dimension, when really referring to parallel universes, alternate universes, or other planes of existence. This usage is derived from the idea that to travel to parallel/alternate universes/planes of existence one must travel in a spatial direction/dimension besides the standard ones. In effect, the other universes/planes are just a small distance away from our own, but the distance is in a fourth (or higher) spatial dimension, not the standard ones.
Dimension - Wikipedia
A dimension is just a linear measurement, like length, width, or depth. A single linear measurement, like the length of a pole, is one-dimensional. Two linear measurements which meet at some point, like the length and width of this screen, define a plane, which is two-dimensional. Add depth, which we do not see directly because our eyes are surfaces, but can infer by touch and have learned to see via a convenient optical illusion that we create by focusing two eyes, and you have defined the three-dimensional space we pretty much all admit to. "3-d" movies operate by presenting slightly different images to each of our eyes, taking advantage of this illusion to make us see depth that isn't really there.
Note that these are what we could call real, non-fictitious dimensions.
Calling time a dimension is not much different than calling temperature a dimension.
This isn't a bad point to argue. Temperature, on paper, is certainly a linear measurement. We can do a lot of good math by treating it as such. For example, imagine a graph showing distance from the sun as length (y) and average temperature as width (x). The line we draw on this graph correlating our measurements tells us a lot about radiation levels. We do geometry with numbers like this all the time, it's very useful.
But as far as we know so far, temperature in this sense is what we could definitely call a fictitious dimension. That is, while we find it convenient for some work to treat it this way, it does not appear to represent an actual direction at right angles to the space we conceive ourselves as existing in. We cannot point at temperature using a constant and say, this many degrees equals this many feet, uniformly.
Time, as it turns out, is different. Our experiments with light revealed, to our dismay, that there is such a constant in this case. 1 second of time equals about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) of space. Yes, that means that as you sit there, your perception or identity or "soul" is moving at about 300 million meters per second into the future! This is a very disturbing and counter-intuitive concept. But that doesn't make it untrue. Every experiment so far confirms this, it's the way things really are.
Real science is full of facts like this. Most people understand, or think that they understand, that the earth is rotating. But when I point out that that means that they are traveling east at about a thousand miles per hour, give or take a few hundred depending on their real distance from the equator, some of them get physically ill. They tend to crouch a little, and ask why the thing doesn't rip itself apart. (The answer is, it does, in the form of earthquakes, continental drift, hurricane winds, etc.)
That's enough of this for now. If you want to attack the branes, call them branes. Don't confuse them with the extra dimensions (linear directions) which separate them from our own alleged brane.
Edited by Iblis, : link
Edited by Iblis, : &spelng

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 10:59 AM Bolder-dash 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