| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"seunghuicho777" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2007 07:38:10 PM |
| Object: |
are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
.
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:52:42 PM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. ...
Another way to visualize time as a 4th dimension is to equate
a unit of time to a unit of length (say 1 sec to 1 cm), and
consider time as length of existence. Thus a cube of 1 cm
sides, existing for 1 sec of time, has a space-time volume
of 1, and a cube of 2 cm sides, existing for 2 sec of time,
has a space-time volume of 16. A sphere of radius 1 cm,
existing for 5 sec, would have a space-time volume of 20pi/3.
Similarly, a triangle of area 5 sq cm, existing for 1 minute would
have
a (3d) volume of 300, and a 10 cm line existing for 10 sec would have
an area (in 2d) of 100.
And a zero-dimensional point, existing for 1 second, would have
a one-dimensional length of 1.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 06:28:17 AM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
If you are considering multidimensional behavior in general then no,
there is no breakdown.
When we graph a two dimensional realm we can use a piece of paper.
When we graph a three-dimensional realm on a piece of paper we are
forced to a projection; three Cartesian axes are somewhat arbitrarily
placed down intersecting at the origin. It is quite easy to graph
points in 3D. Likewise with 4D and up just throw on more axes and each
will contribute an offset to a point position which will then yield a
2D projection of the higher dimension realm. Orthogonality isn't much
of an issue and even in a 2D realm we can use skewed axes.
These same projectional concepts extend to projections of higher
dimensions downward to say 3D or 4D as well, its just that we cannot
draw them. The most interesting behavioral change that I can point out
is the density of information. Consider for instance a point series
that defines a unit shell in n dimensions and attempt a point series
that has an angle characteristic so for instance all points are at
most 0.1 radians from their neighbors. The density of such point sets
becomes difficult to manage and especially their 2D projections will
not take on very much meaning since the density is overwhelming. Our
eyes work in 2D so I a do attempt to being open to the 3D state of
nature as an illusion. Still, though, when I pull out a tape measure
and observe that the math works out and that there is no local (e.g.
within 5 meters) point selection that breaks the 3D mold then I feel
caught and must concede 3D space as real.
But beyond this we can ask why 3D space is reality and what is time
doing as a unique but joined thing to it? What is so natural about
spacetime? Well I have a mathematical construction that build natural
spacetime correspondence including unidirectional time. It is called
polysign
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
numbers and as the name suggests generalizes sign in a way that is
consistent with the real numbers. It turns out that sign and dimension
are tightly related and so the Cartesian construction that you and I
have layed out above is questionable under the polysign paradigm. Each
dimension has unique properties and to arbitrarily tack on additional
dimensions under the polysign paradigm makes less sense than it did
with the Cartesian model.
Another way to pose this puzzle is to consider independence: under the
Cartesian system independence is inherently granted amongst multiple
dimensions. Upon gluing them together are they independent? No, I
don't think so. So the Cartesian form has this funny dependence/
independence stance. This then leaks into orthogonality a bit and
leads one to insist upon orthogonal reference systems. What then is
this ninety degree angle between truly independent components? Is that
a dependency? The polysign system comes to dimension from an entirely
different perspective and interestingly is nonorthogonal and perfectly
symmetrical (simplex coordinate system) wherby any issue of dependence
or independence is superceded by the numerical construction itself.
The geometry is implied by the construction under polysign so I
believe that your own exploration ought to be extended and it is in
this realm that a lot of interesting physics theory will fall out. If
one has an answer for why 3D space is observed then one likely has a
physical basis and so a physical theory, not just pure mathematics.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "seunghuicho777" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
09 Oct 2007 08:46:25 AM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
If you are considering multidimensional behavior in general then no,
there is no breakdown.
<snip>
-Tim
thanks to everyone who responded. your words are immortalised forever.
having considered the model carefully i realise that it is absurd and
irrational. the t-axis is not perpendicular to any other real axis.
however, having said that, there might be some merit in maintaining
the model. the angle which the t-axis makes with the x y and z axes is
the greatest degree of seperation from all three. perhaps this might
find application in chemical bond angle determination. but the
question still holds true, wether the axes thus extended ever repeat
themselves. it is hard to visualise without a computer. any ideas?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
09 Oct 2007 09:29:52 AM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:38 pm, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
If you are considering multidimensional behavior in general then no,
there is no breakdown.
<snip>
-Tim
thanks to everyone who responded. your words are immortalised forever.
having considered the model carefully i realise that it is absurd and
irrational. the t-axis is not perpendicular to any other real axis.
however, having said that, there might be some merit in maintaining
the model. the angle which the t-axis makes with the x y and z axes is
the greatest degree of seperation from all three. perhaps this might
find application in chemical bond angle determination. but the
question still holds true, wether the axes thus extended ever repeat
themselves. it is hard to visualise without a computer. any ideas?
I like that you are opening up to chemical bonding. When you go here
though the can of worms hasbecome a can of dragons and lizards and
other creatures too. Especially the behaviors at cold temperature are
fascinating and overwhelming. Especially though trying to incorporate
the bonding angle diversity of atomic structure signals that higher
dimensions may be useful if not necessary. One beautiful thing about
working in higher D is that angles are still just angles and the
largest angle that you can have is pi radians. How can we have a
structural integrity that leads to enough complexity to derive the
diversity we observe? Within the polysign paradigm there are
dimensional reductions that take place in the hegher sign products and
so there is a tendril of promise that those higher dimensions will
result in lower behaviors. Some will address this as 'zero divisors'
but this term is very bland compared to the structural consequences
that are exposed. See for instance the P4 product survey
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Deformation/DeformationUnitSphereP4.html
which exposes a structure that I believe is akin to electron spin.
Whereas we are taught that spin is either up or down the experimental
nomenclature constantly discusses shaving off components in a
continuous manner. Thus the 'improper' transform may be a more
realistic interpretation of electron spin. I do not mean to construe
the electron as this sphere that is under study but only the abstract
behavior of improper tranformation which is a natural consequence of
higher(4+) sign arithmetic product.
There are theorems in associative algebra that dictate that higher
dimension algebras will decompose into lower dimension algebras and so
there is even support in traditional mathematics. I do not fully
understand this information but I am happy to point you to some old
threads with capable people speaking to this topic if you are
interested.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
09 Oct 2007 09:04:00 AM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
thanks to everyone who responded. your words are immortalised forever.
having considered the model carefully i realise that it is absurd and
irrational. the t-axis is not perpendicular to any other real axis. ...
Yes it is, in the sense of 'orthogonal'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "seunghuicho777" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
09 Oct 2007 09:26:06 AM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 3:04 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
thanks to everyone who responded. your words are immortalised forever.
having considered the model carefully i realise that it is absurd and
irrational. the t-axis is not perpendicular to any other real axis. ...
Yes it is, in the sense of 'orthogonal'.
i don't quite understand your meaning. anyhow, in the real world, i
think this model apears more convincing in our efforts to calculate
electron trajectories than the strangely shaped shells that are
currently in vogue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
09 Oct 2007 09:50:45 AM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 10:26 am, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:04 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, seunghuicho777 <seunghuicho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
thanks to everyone who responded. your words are immortalised forever.
having considered the model carefully i realise that it is absurd and
irrational. the t-axis is not perpendicular to any other real axis. ...
Yes it is, in the sense of 'orthogonal'.
i don't quite understand your meaning. ...
As in my post in this thread about matching a unit of time
to a unit of length (1 sec : 1 cm), and considering, for example,
a 2 cm cube as 'existing' for 2 sec, then the 4 dimensional
volume is 16 space/time units. This time axis is orthogonal
to the other three (x, y, z) axes. Just as a particle moving
in the x direction does not have its y and z positions
changed, a particle moving in the t direction does not have
its x, y, and z positions changed. That's the meaning of
orthogonal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Elliot" |
|
| Title: [] are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:36:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, seunghuicho777 wrote:
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
Consider how you don't use capital letters at the beginning of a sentence.
This makes skimming your post slower because the eye can't easily pick out
where sentences begin. That is, it becomes a featureless sequence of
unstructured words. This makes it bothersome to quickly find sentences
that are of interest to pursue. Thus instead of reading your point, I
advise how better to garner an interested audience.
Other than not capitalizing, your English appears excellent (barring a
couple of misspellings). Does your computer system not have shift key?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleks Kleyn" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
07 Oct 2007 08:47:27 PM |
|
|
This depends what we consider.
If you look the answer in the math, the answer will be yes. The Hilbert
space may have infinite number of dimentions.
If you look the answer in the physics the answer will be different. Any
geometry that you want to apply in physics has to show specific propertyes
which we can prove or disprove in experiment. The dimension of space or
space-time is property of geometry. If we state that space has dimention 5
or 10, we need not only to explain what we mean, but we need to show
physical phenomenon which posible only because space has this dimention.
In particular this is the problem of string theory which claims higher
dimention of space time. We yet not have enough energy to verify this
statement. However I hope in near future it will be possible.
Aleks Kleyn
http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn
"seunghuicho777" <seunghuicho777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191803890.407237.179870@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
hi,
consider the three naturally observed dimensions of length (x-axis),
breadth (y-axis) and depth (z-axis). further consider the widely
accepted concept of time as being the fourth dimension which is
visualised as a straight line meeting the x y and z axes at the point
(0,0,0) while being perpendicular to all three. consider now the
existance of the fifth dimension running perpendicular to the time (t-
axis) and thereby forming a two dimensional plane upon which the
"box" (and its negative mirror) of the natural dimensions skates.
further dimensions are added in the same manner by projecting a line
from the 0 point in both directions so that the previous dimensions
are progressively encompassed by three dimensional boxes ad infinitum.
is this model viable to visualise and compute trajectories in infinite
dimensions or does the model break down at some point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
07 Oct 2007 09:42:13 PM |
|
|
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Terry" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 06:46:21 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191811333.847192.82120@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
It is not giberish mathematically.
Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface, and
one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the cylinder,
if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and return to
your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set off
perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in the
"unfurled" dimension. Of course, you need to imagine this 2-dimensional
model of the cylinder applying in higher dimensions to visualise what is
suggested in these modern theories.
In string theory, the "distance around the cylinder" for the curled up
dimensions is supposedly extremely small, which is why you would not be
aware of these dimensions. E.g. if you were a 2-d being existing on the
surface of the cylinder described above, but even the smallest distance you
could measure was a billion times the width of the cylinder, then you would
no doubt view your "universe" as only one dimensional.
Regards,
Mike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 10:22:34 AM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 7:46 am, "Mike Terry"
<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
It is not giberish mathematically.
Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface, and
one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the cylinder,
if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and return to
your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set off
perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in the
"unfurled" dimension.
Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
talk gibberish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 10:46:23 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191856954.400796.171620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 7:46 am, "Mike Terry"
: <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > > I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
: > > talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
: > > up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
: > > is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
: >
: > > In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
: > > for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
: > > other than gibberish?
: >
: > It is not giberish mathematically.
: >
: > Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface,
and
: > one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the
cylinder,
: > if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and return
to
: > your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set off
: > perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in
the
: > "unfurled" dimension.
:
: Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: talk gibberish.
A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
volume is.
Mathematically one can have any number of dimensions
as long as they can be represented by mutually independent
VECTORS, but time isn't one of them, it isn't a vector.
It isn't a vector because it has no additive inverse.
Hawking utters Gibberese or Gibberish or Gibbonese, he's a
Gibbon.
He spoke Gibberish when he lost his bet and he wrote Gibberese
in his book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 11:00:58 AM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 11:46 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: talk gibberish.
A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
volume is.
I'm aware that a sphere is three dimensional, and so is its
surface when seen as a hollow sphere. But I was referring
to the 'world' of the surface itself, which is only two-dimensional.
Similarly, any great circle around that surface is only one-
dimensional when seen as a self-contained 'world'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 12:56:44 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191859258.742844.114750@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 11:46 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: > : Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: > : sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: > : the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: > : dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: > : have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: > : talk gibberish.
: >
: > A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
: > of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
: > volume is.
:
: I'm aware that a sphere is three dimensional, and so is its
: surface when seen as a hollow sphere. But I was referring
: to the 'world' of the surface itself, which is only two-dimensional.
: Similarly, any great circle around that surface is only one-
: dimensional when seen as a self-contained 'world'.
If you are going to use mathematics then subjective concepts such as
a "two-dimensional world or two-dimensional surface of a sphere"
have no meaning. The purpose of science is explanation of natural
phenomena in this order : Observation, investigation, explanation.
You see a rainbow, you investigate, find refraction and internal
reflection, you do the math and explain where the sun will be in relation
to the eye.
Hawking doesn't do that. He explains a black hole that has never
been observed, certainly never investigated and doesn't exist, sending
out young students with exotic ideas in their head to go looking for them.
They might as well go looking for the broken eggshell that the bright
green flying elephants hatched from, because adult female bright green
flying
elephants use black holes as nests, especially 11-dimensional black holes
that are curled, probably with Aunt Sally's curling tongs.
Mathematics is ART, playing mathematical games is playing games,
and the investigation of Nature is science.
If you want to play mathematical gibberish games, have fun.
All triangles are isosceles.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath392.htm
a = b, given
a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from both sides)
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) .. cancel (a-b)
a+b = b
but a = b, so b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
Just don't try to tell anyone it is science and don't say Hawking is any
kind of scientist. He's a dolt in a wheelchair. Sorry he's in a wheelchair,
but he's still a fruitcake living in a make-believe world of 11 curly
dimensions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleks Kleyn" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 07:03:17 PM |
|
|
Math grows from reality. It is true. However the power of math is that it
generalize the observed facts and creates new, which never existed in the
world. It may happens that somebody will discover analog in the world, and
math object soon become real. When Gaus made measurement on Earth, he
created 2 dimentional differential geomet
ry. Generalization by Rieman never existed in the world, when he presented
Rieman geometry to the people. Who could expect at the time that Einstein
will use it 50 years later. Can you find in the world universal algebra. But
this is math.
--
Aleks Kleyn
http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:wbuOi.413096$p7.400106@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191859258.742844.114750@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 11:46 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: > : Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: > : sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: > : the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: > : dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: > : have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: > : talk gibberish.
: >
: > A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
: > of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
: > volume is.
:
: I'm aware that a sphere is three dimensional, and so is its
: surface when seen as a hollow sphere. But I was referring
: to the 'world' of the surface itself, which is only two-dimensional.
: Similarly, any great circle around that surface is only one-
: dimensional when seen as a self-contained 'world'.
If you are going to use mathematics then subjective concepts such as
a "two-dimensional world or two-dimensional surface of a sphere"
have no meaning. The purpose of science is explanation of natural
phenomena in this order : Observation, investigation, explanation.
You see a rainbow, you investigate, find refraction and internal
reflection, you do the math and explain where the sun will be in relation
to the eye.
Hawking doesn't do that. He explains a black hole that has never
been observed, certainly never investigated and doesn't exist, sending
out young students with exotic ideas in their head to go looking for them.
They might as well go looking for the broken eggshell that the bright
green flying elephants hatched from, because adult female bright green
flying
elephants use black holes as nests, especially 11-dimensional black holes
that are curled, probably with Aunt Sally's curling tongs.
Mathematics is ART, playing mathematical games is playing games,
and the investigation of Nature is science.
If you want to play mathematical gibberish games, have fun.
All triangles are isosceles.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath392.htm
a = b, given
a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from both sides)
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) .. cancel (a-b)
a+b = b
but a = b, so b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
Just don't try to tell anyone it is science and don't say Hawking is any
kind of scientist. He's a dolt in a wheelchair. Sorry he's in a
wheelchair,
but he's still a fruitcake living in a make-believe world of 11 curly
dimensions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 11:26:56 AM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 9:46 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191856954.400796.171620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 7:46 am, "Mike Terry": <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.pl=
us.com> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > > I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
: > > talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
: > > up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
: > > is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
: >
: > > In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
: > > for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
: > > other than gibberish?
: >
: > It is not giberish mathematically.
: >
: > Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface,
and
: > one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the
cylinder,
: > if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and ret=
urn
to
: > your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set =
off
: > perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in
the
: > "unfurled" dimension.
:
: Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: talk gibberish.
A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
volume is.
Mathematically one can have any number of dimensions
as long as they can be represented by mutually independent
VECTORS, but time isn't one of them, it isn't a vector.
It isn't a vector because it has no additive inverse.
Hawking utters Gibberese or Gibberish or Gibbonese, he's a
Gibbon.
He spoke Gibberish when he lost his bet and he wrote Gibberese
in his book.
Total agreement with the Andro-man.
There are three dimensions. Only. You can make
anything with the three.
The arena where we have unlimited freedom to make more
realities is in the area of SCOPE. I can declare an
atom to be a galaxy. I can declare that this atom's
electrons are exactly like a galaxy's arms of stars.
I can declare that these arms of stars contain a Sun
just like our sun with an Earth around it.
Voil=E0. Tiny dimensions- not curled up, just small. A whole new
faster Time and a whole new Universe, albeit the Milky Way
may now actually BE part of a chocolate bar. And the suns making
up the electron arms of this Carbon Atom in this chocolate bar are
themselves composed of tiny atoms, whose whirling electrons
are themselves tinier suns, with ever smaller planets and life forms
and
intelligence orbitting them and again a whole new Time defined
by their much faster movement..
Complexity does not diminish with size. It cannot.
Our foundations cannot be amorphous- - -building blocks
need shape just as much as what is built from them.
There can be no smallest just as there can be no biggest- we
live in an infinite Universe. Those who draw lines in the sand
will find it is just that. Sand.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 01:16:51 PM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:1191860816.112965.310270@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 9:46 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191856954.400796.171620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 7:46 am, "Mike Terry":
<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
: > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
: > > I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
: > > talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
: > > up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
: > > is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
: >
: > > In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
: > > for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
: > > other than gibberish?
: >
: > It is not giberish mathematically.
: >
: > Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface,
and
: > one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the
cylinder,
: > if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and
return
to
: > your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set
off
: > perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in
the
: > "unfurled" dimension.
:
: Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
: sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
: the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
: dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
: have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
: talk gibberish.
A sphere is three dimensional and so is its surface, any point
of which is represented by (x,y,z) just as any point within its
volume is.
Mathematically one can have any number of dimensions
as long as they can be represented by mutually independent
VECTORS, but time isn't one of them, it isn't a vector.
It isn't a vector because it has no additive inverse.
Hawking utters Gibberese or Gibberish or Gibbonese, he's a
Gibbon.
He spoke Gibberish when he lost his bet and he wrote Gibberese
in his book.
Total agreement with the Andro-man.
There are three dimensions. Only. You can make
anything with the three.
The arena where we have unlimited freedom to make more
realities is in the area of SCOPE. I can declare an
atom to be a galaxy. I can declare that this atom's
electrons are exactly like a galaxy's arms of stars.
You can't be certain where THEY are, either.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
Blue light travels 21 million light years in 20 million years.
Red light travels 21 million light years in 21 million years.
In one million years the galaxy rotates.
We see it NOW as it was 21 million years ago by red light
and 20 million years ago by blue light. The spiral arms are
rotated one to the other. What idiot said the speed of light
was a universal constant? Let's invent shock waves...in the
non-existent aether, of course. That's typical gibberese.
Androcles.
I can declare that these arms of stars contain a Sun
just like our sun with an Earth around it.
Voilą. Tiny dimensions- not curled up, just small. A whole new
faster Time and a whole new Universe, albeit the Milky Way
may now actually BE part of a chocolate bar. And the suns making
up the electron arms of this Carbon Atom in this chocolate bar are
themselves composed of tiny atoms, whose whirling electrons
are themselves tinier suns, with ever smaller planets and life forms
and
intelligence orbitting them and again a whole new Time defined
by their much faster movement..
Complexity does not diminish with size. It cannot.
Our foundations cannot be amorphous- - -building blocks
need shape just as much as what is built from them.
There can be no smallest just as there can be no biggest- we
live in an infinite Universe. Those who draw lines in the sand
will find it is just that. Sand.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleks Kleyn" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 06:55:33 PM |
|
|
By the way this is exactly what physists see when they describe not 1, but
few dimentions in which world is curled. Like n-dimentional sphere of small
size. I can recomend also Green book 'elegant universe'.
--
Aleks Kleyn
http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191856954.400796.171620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 7:46 am, "Mike Terry"
<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
It is not giberish mathematically.
Consider the surface of a cylinder - this is a 2-dimensional surface, and
one of the dimensions is "curled up", no? Wherever you are on the
cylinder,
if you go off in one direction you will go round the cylinder and return
to
your starting point - this is the "curled up" dimension. If you set off
perpendicular to this direction you will travel along the cylinder in the
"unfurled" dimension.
Thanks for the cylinder analogy. Now I start to have a
sense of what is meant by 'curled up dimensions'. Maybe
the surface of a sphere is another analogy. It's two
dimensional, but 'curled' in all directions. I should
have trusted Hawking more than to suspect that he would
talk gibberish.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:55:11 AM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191811333.847192.82120@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
: talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
: up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
: is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
:
: In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
: for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
: other than gibberish?
It is gibberish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
07 Oct 2007 11:02:09 PM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
...
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
Let me rephrase that. I'm sitting in a three-dimensional
room. There is the north/south dimension, the east/west
dimension, and the up/down dimension. I want to know
what it would mean for the up/down dimension to be
'curled up'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleks Kleyn" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
07 Oct 2007 11:49:54 PM |
|
|
Imagine that whole your world is limitted by your room. No any signal can
come outside. Now you have staircase which starts on the bottom of the room
and finish on the top. You climb by this staircase to paint top into white
collor. When you succeded you discover that you are not on the top, but on
the bottom and you cover by collor both top and bottop. This means that
geometry in up-down direction is curled up.
--
Aleks Kleyn
http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191816129.851315.228680@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
...
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
Let me rephrase that. I'm sitting in a three-dimensional
room. There is the north/south dimension, the east/west
dimension, and the up/down dimension. I want to know
what it would mean for the up/down dimension to be
'curled up'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:55:11 AM |
|
|
"Aleks Kleyn" <Aleks_Kleyn@MailAps.org> wrote in message
news:jGiOi.126$mA.10@newsfe12.lga...
: Imagine that whole your world is limitted by your room. No any signal can
: come outside. Now you have staircase which starts on the bottom of the
room
: and finish on the top. You climb by this staircase to paint top into white
: collor. When you succeded you discover that you are not on the top, but on
: the bottom and you cover by collor both top and bottop. This means that
: geometry in up-down direction is curled up.
:
Gibberish, you'd fall through the ceiling, accelerating all the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleks Kleyn" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 06:49:39 PM |
|
|
No. There will be different law of physics. Or may be I need to be in
permanent movement. However, because size of the cell is very small, i would
not care about it and see this type of movement only in certain interaction.
Like electron in atom do not care about its movement.
--
Aleks Kleyn
http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn
:
Gibberish, you'd fall through the ceiling, accelerating all the time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hagman" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
10 Oct 2007 05:02:59 AM |
|
|
On 8 Okt., 06:02, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
...
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
Let me rephrase that. I'm sitting in a three-dimensional
room. There is the north/south dimension, the east/west
dimension, and the up/down dimension. I want to know
what it would mean for the up/down dimension to be
'curled up'.
Ignore up/down.
Imagine the universe were 2-dimensional and you had only east/west and
north/south as on the surface of the well-known earth. Since that
surface is a sphere, the dimensions are "curled up". Moving "straight"
in any direction will take you home after about 40000km.
(Two dimensions might also curl up to form a torus instead of a sphere)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 01:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
Yes. It's called a mathematical model, and it's definitely not
gibberish. It's technically known as compatification. In general,
coordinate systems do not have to be defined by straight lines. They
can easily be defined by curves and usually closed curves. A very
good example of this is the perimeter of a cylinder. Ideally, the
cylinder may extend to infinity along its axis in both directions, but
the other surface coordinate that we used to define it around the
perimeter does not. Indeed, this dimension can be thought of as
occupying an effective region 2 pi times the radius and extending no
further.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 03:23:24 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:42 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
I believe that the book, 'A Brief History of Time',
talks about 11 dimensions, some of which are 'curled
up'. That's where it loses my respect. A dimension
is a direction, not a thing to be 'curled up'.
In ordinary 3 dimensional space, what would it mean
for the x-axis to be 'curled up'? Is this anything
other than gibberish?
Yes. It's called a mathematical model, and it's definitely not
gibberish. It's technically known as compatification. In general,
coordinate systems do not have to be defined by straight lines. They
can easily be defined by curves and usually closed curves. A very
good example of this is the perimeter of a cylinder. Ideally, the
cylinder may extend to infinity along its axis in both directions, but
the other surface coordinate that we used to define it around the
perimeter does not. Indeed, this dimension can be thought of as
occupying an effective region 2 pi times the radius and extending no
further.
you can think of fairies, too, and angels
dancing on pins.
A cylinder is a 3 dimensional object- hello?
Math includes imaginary numbers, negative numbers,
and lots of extra dimensions.
Math is not physics.
There are 3 spatial dimensions.
Period.
There is no 'flatland'.
There are no 'flatlanders'.
There is up, sideways and back, and combinations of
these can take you anywhere you want to go
(except 'flatland' or up a fairy's skirt- not you, Elton; ugh)
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 4:23 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
Math includes imaginary numbers, negative numbers,
and lots of extra dimensions.
Math is not physics.
I thought there were applications for complex numbers in the
physics of electricity. Is that not true?
And there certainly are applications for negative numbers in
physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 04:35:27 PM |
|
|
"Calvin" <crice5@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1191877877.059867.307940@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 8, 4:23 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
: > Math includes imaginary numbers, negative numbers,
: > and lots of extra dimensions.
: > Math is not physics.
:
: I thought there were applications for complex numbers in the
: physics of electricity. Is that not true?
Yes, it is true.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/signals/complex/react.html
However, English is not biology and written music is not chemistry; math,
english and written music are languages used to describe and to convey
ideas.
You cannot create physics with mathematics anymore than you can
creat biology with English. You can create music with written music
though.
: And there certainly are applications for negative numbers in
: physics.
Of course there are, but there is no such animal as negative time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Calvin" |
|
| Title: Re: are infinite dimensions possible with this model? |
08 Oct 2007 05:40:54 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 5:35 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
: And there certainly are applications for negative numbers in
: physics.
Of course there are, but there is no such animal as negative time.
Sure there is. Suppose I have two hours to finish
studying for an exam. I put in the two hours, but
waste half of it goofing off.
2 hours study time
-1 hour goofing off
--
1 hour net study
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
