Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?
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

  
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

  
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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 107 (538893)
12-11-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
I think your are starting to trip over your own words.
I think you're misunderstanding them.
The definition I provided stated that "a dimension is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it."
Right, as in "how many dimensions does this thing have?" This is different from what a physical dimension is.
You have just stated that lines and time only have one dimension.
Right, to specify each point in a line, or time, you only need one dimension.
What one dimension does time have then-the dimension of time?
Yes, it is the temporal dimension. Which is different from a physical, or spatial, dimension.
Or does it have the dimension of a line? huh?
It has the same number of dimensions as a line, but this is different than being a dimension.
You really have a lot to learn about what dimensions are. Again I suggest you read throught the wiki article for starters. Then you can come back with any questions you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 11:54 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 107 (538897)
12-11-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 12:05 PM


Re: another dimension
A square is a rectangle so doesn't that mean a rectangle is a square?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 12:05 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 107 (538900)
12-11-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Bolder-dash ...
The reason you are having such difficulty explaining this in any way that makes sense at all, is because trying to equate time, with the dimensions of space is a futile effort.
But I haven't equated them. In fact, I've distinguished between spatial and temporal dimensions.
Time is what it is-we call it a dimension in relativity, because some people have decided that this is what they wish to call it.
Yeah, and relativity is a successful theory so obviously time is a dimension.
But the problem comes when you try to make a definition of a dimension-and the definition for one, doesn't fit the definition of the other. And thus you have to fudge the answer by saying things like-"they are different kinds of dimensions!"
Yes, they certainly are.
Its not fudge, one word can describe more than one thing. You are the one trying to conflate the different definitions and that's probably the root of your misunderstandings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 12:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 107 (538901)
12-11-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 12:21 PM


Re: another dimension
"10 dimensions, 26, ok ok, let's not get all fussy about a few dimensions here are there. Just pick whatever dimension you like" It would make a great Faulty Towers skit.
So now does M Theory have 11 dimensions, or are we including time as another dimension, so that makes 12?
I think temperature is a dimension-can it be if I want it to be? Its one of the tempera kind.
Of course you can. And if your theory is confirmed and actually works, then we will all know that temperature is a dimension. But if it doesn't work and is falsified, then we'll know that you were wrong.
Welcome to science. Its awesome isn't it? Even put a man on the frickin moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 12:21 PM 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