Existance of extra dimensions

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

Existance of extra dimensions

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:28 am

How do you know there aren't some more dimensions, perhaps at Planck length? :?

Split from "number of dimensions" by Rob.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby bo198214 » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:43 am

Curled up dimensions are anyway not what one usally would regard a dimension.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:59 am

I see. I believed Icon considered all of them.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:02 pm

moonlord wrote:Three spatial and a temporal, I assume this is what you meant. But how do you know there aren't some more, perhaps at Planck length? :?


No matter how small an extra dimension is, any 3D particle would fall out of place if there were any extra dimensions, and if all particles were composed of n-D hypercubes where n is the number of extra dimensions, they would become unstable. The fact that things don't randomly disappear is proof that we only have three spatial dimensions.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:15 pm

What if all particles are extruded in W infinitely? Doesn't that count as a dimension? What if you replace infinitely with the size of W?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:38 pm

They would be unstable no matter how far you extend them. In any hypercube, the shortest distance from one face to the opposite lies on a cardinal axis.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:24 pm

Yes but what does that have to do with their stability? Particles wouldn't be hypercubes, anyway, they'd be spheric prisms (sphere-hypercube biprisms). If we consider particles as spheres...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:54 pm

They would fall out of place, and nothing would be attached correctly.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby Hugh » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:05 pm

Rob wrote:They would fall out of place, and nothing would be attached correctly.

You're assuming of course, that there are actually only 3 spatial dimensions to the matter that makes up our universe, and applying the laws thought to be based on that, to a possible higher dimensional universe.

It is possible that there are actually more than 3 spatial dimensions, and that the laws that we think are based on only 3 spatial dimensions, are actually based on more.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:17 pm

At least the electrostatic and gravitational force are based on 3D...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Hugh » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:33 pm

moonlord wrote:At least the electrostatic and gravitational force are based on 3D...

We may think that they are, but they might not actually be.

We think we understand how all the laws work yet why is there all this "dark matter" and "dark energy" yet to be found to explain things fully?

Could it be that we only see a "3d slice" of all the higher dimensional matter, and are basing our laws on only that slice instead of the whole thing?
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:10 pm

The 1/r^2 in the expression of both forces is almost clearly a sign we live in 3D. Otherwise fields would propagate by glomes (1/r^3) and not spheres. Or at least that's what I think...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby thigle » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:50 pm

i am an amateur so the following might be gibberish, but...

isn't it so that even though expressions for both mentioned forces exist in forms that do not imply higher dimensionality than 3, those expressions are isolated ?

by isolated i mean that the ultimate quest of physics is to come up with unified theory, call it TOE or whatyouwant, right ? and if we look for unification of these isolated fragments, then the more we fuse/unify, the more dimensions we need to keep it holding together. like when em,strong&weak interactions were all unified, were they expressed in 3dimensional math ? or when Kaluza send his solution to Einstein, why did he use 5dimensions ?

so boldly: dimensionality of the pluriverse is infinite: everywhere at microscale under Planck, everywhere at macroscale beyond blackhole.

ehm, jmho
thigle
Tetronian
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby papernuke » Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:44 am

There most likely are, but not at Planck length. Most scientists think its 11 more dimensions.




I asked that question already :D.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby wendy » Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:23 am

There are theories that suggest that length does not exist, and that it is a variation of some entity.

On the other hand, the reason for going for 11 dimensions is to hold the symmetry of the group in, and that the collapse of the group to produce extensions of four dimensions (three real, one complex), is a fait of the way this group collapses.

Still, three dimensions means that there are three freely settable coordinates. For all we know, there might be something like 15 or 28 dimensions, and our three dimensions are much the same as we might make one dimension out of a peice of cotton.

A peice of cotton, is while extensive in 1d, is still 3d. It is what i call a latrous (1d-extended) chorid (3d solid).
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Eric B » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:16 am

Rob wrote:No matter how small an extra dimension is, any 3D particle would fall out of place if there were any extra dimensions, and if all particles were composed of n-D hypercubes where n is the number of extra dimensions, they would become unstable. The fact that things don't randomly disappear is proof that we only have three spatial dimensions.

But if the extra dimensions are circular, and the circumference of them the Planck Length (which is the smallest length possible in the theory; any smaller than that, the notion space itself breaks down), and the strings that make up matter occupy (circumnavigate) them, then nothing would disappear from view. We all have this hyperthickness that is too incredibly small for us to detect.
Eric B
Trionian
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: NYC

Its possible

Postby Russ1953 » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:55 pm

That anything encapsulating enhanced dimensional aptitude should be a house. Just because we can't see an object does not mean it is not there. Cloaking a surface with matter is in effect bending a property. Any and all properties can be bent. Its the spectrums we lack that need to be expanded. The better the sensor capability the easier the analysis of study. We will probably find that the 3rd dimention has many houses. Many creatures have the ability to know what they illuminate and are able to cloak. Many people have seen huge block like structures floating in the sky and then dissapear. It doe not mean they moved from location but housed themselves with dimentional cloaking.
Russ1953
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

Postby PWrong » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:02 am

That anything encapsulating enhanced dimensional aptitude should be a house.

To quote Brian from Family Guy: That wasn't even a sentence.

We will probably find that the 3rd dimention has many houses.

It does :|. I'm living in one right now ;).

Many people have seen huge block like structures floating in the sky and then dissapear.

The vast majority of people haven't seen these.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

You can't see anything

Postby Russ1953 » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:21 pm

You're not open to. Woof Woof
Russ1953
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

Postby PWrong » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:40 pm

So you're saying that people live in houses in the sky, and they cloak themselves by moving into the 4th dimension? Is that right?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

What the

Postby Russ1953 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:33 pm

http://english.pravda.ru/science/myster ... -skyfish-0 These have been around even before the cave drawings of them.
Russ1953
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

Re: Its possible

Postby papernuke » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:58 am

Russ1953 wrote:That anything encapsulating enhanced dimensional aptitude should be a house. Just because we can't see an object does not mean it is not there. Cloaking a surface with matter is in effect bending a property. Any and all properties can be bent. Its the spectrums we lack that need to be expanded. The better the sensor capability the easier the analysis of study. We will probably find that the 3rd dimention has many houses. Many creatures have the ability to know what they illuminate and are able to cloak. Many people have seen huge block like structures floating in the sky and then dissapear. It doe not mean they moved from location but housed themselves with dimentional cloaking.


How will the object cloak? And people seeing things isnt that uncommon, most people would just make it up or thought they saw it. Also, an object cant just jump from dimension to dimension. If it wanted to go to a higher dimension, it would have to be pushed in a direction perpendicular to up, down, left, right, forewards, and backwards, and that would need a higher dimensional being's help. To go to a lower one, for example the second dimension, it would have to be squished unimaginably flat, and then somehow go into the second dimension.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby PWrong » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:06 am

Well, a skyfish isn't quite an invisible flying house, but it's still pretty awesome. Maybe people live in the fish?

Also, an object cant just jump from dimension to dimension.

I haven't seen any evidence that Russ knows what a dimension is.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Existance of extra dimensions

Postby W axis » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:46 pm

One thought I had was, what if we could "flatten" the extra dimensions.
W axis
Nullonian
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:54 pm


Return to Where Should I Post This?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron