| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"STJensen" |
| Date: |
26 Mar 2007 07:31:33 PM |
| Object: |
How could extra dimensions be tested? |
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist. Is anyone? If so, who and how? If not, what do scientists
speculate such a test might involve?
The above runs on the assumption that there are extra dimensions. As
far as I have heard and read, these other dimensions are speculated
about but none have been proven. Then again, have they been proven?
Scott
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
26 Mar 2007 09:36:37 PM |
|
|
"STJensen" <RecreationalPoker@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1174955493.861163.323720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.=20
If he did he'd cease to be a scientist.=20
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation=20
of Nature's phenomena.=20
Speculation about mathematical entities such as dimension
are not observation, but sci-fi. You are confusing fiction=20
with science, so wherever you heard such idle nonsense,
do not expect a scientist to follow it up.=20
Get some of the idiots around here to have go, they like to
pretend they are scientists.
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. V I Plankenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
27 Mar 2007 07:44:13 AM |
|
|
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this, and they are mostly wasting
their time. Einstein's generation was on the right track with Minkowski
Spacetime.
Speculation about mathematical entities such as dimension
are not observation, but sci-fi. You are confusing fiction
with science, so wherever you heard such idle nonsense,
do not expect a scientist to follow it up.
Unless he's a String Theeorist ? 11 dimensions, 19 dimensions, none of
them observed either.
There is only one thing which exists and that thing is dimension. Dont pay
any attention to ***** artists who try to portray energy as being
anything other than waveforms in dimensional fabric of spacetime.
Get some of the idiots around here to have go, they like to
pretend they are scientists.
Or, you could pose the question to those who are being paid to understand
such things and yet cannot quite seem to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "STJensen" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
28 Mar 2007 12:43:54 AM |
|
|
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
28 Mar 2007 06:05:37 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 12:43 am, "STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
Scott
They're all over the place. If you want to read two popular-
consumption books that say something about how we might be able to
tell if those dimensions are there, I would recommend Brian Greene's
"Elegant Universe" and Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages", both
available in used book stores. Greene is at Columbia, Randall is at
Harvard.
Other slavish workers in this arena who have also written on this
subject
Ed Witten (Princeton IAS)
Lenny Susskind (Stanford)
Lee Smolin (Perimeter Institute)
Jim Gates (Univ. Maryland)
John Schwarz (Caltech)
There are also informative layperson-interest websites, which range
all the way in sophistication from http://www.superstringtheory.com
to http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ that will have stuff
about experimental testability.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "STJensen" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
28 Mar 2007 10:26:11 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
"STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
They're all over the place. If you want to read two popular-
consumption books that say something about how we might be able to
tell if those dimensions are there, I would recommend Brian Greene's
"Elegant Universe" and Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages", both
available in used book stores. Greene is at Columbia, Randall is at
Harvard.
Other slavish workers in this arena who have also written on this
subject
Ed Witten (Princeton IAS)
Lenny Susskind (Stanford)
Lee Smolin (Perimeter Institute)
Jim Gates (Univ. Maryland)
John Schwarz (Caltech)
Has any of the above scientist proposed a possible way (theoretical is
fine) to prove extra dimensions? If so, who and what was the test?
I watched the "Elegant Universe" on PBS and don't recall it ever
suggesting such a possible test. DId Greene do so in his book?
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 05:02:33 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2007 20:26:11 -0700, "STJensen"
<RecreationalPoker@gmail.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
"STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
They're all over the place. If you want to read two popular-
consumption books that say something about how we might be able to
tell if those dimensions are there, I would recommend Brian Greene's
"Elegant Universe" and Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages", both
available in used book stores. Greene is at Columbia, Randall is at
Harvard.
Other slavish workers in this arena who have also written on this
subject
Ed Witten (Princeton IAS)
Lenny Susskind (Stanford)
Lee Smolin (Perimeter Institute)
Jim Gates (Univ. Maryland)
John Schwarz (Caltech)
Has any of the above scientist proposed a possible way (theoretical is
fine) to prove extra dimensions? If so, who and what was the test?
I watched the "Elegant Universe" on PBS and don't recall it ever
suggesting such a possible test. DId Greene do so in his book?
Scott
My understanding on this is that empirical testing by means of
something like a particle accelerator/collider would take more
energy and resources than we can ever hope to have at our
disposal. One article I read stated that a collider would have to
be as long as the diameter of our galaxy, and the amount of
energy required would be in the order of that produced by the sun
during its entire life.
Please note that I'm not saying this is truth, but it does make
sense, and it was published in some of the writings on this
subject.
Anyway, just because we can't empirically prove something does
not mean that it is false...just unproven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 05:33:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:02:33 -0500, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net>
wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 20:26:11 -0700, "STJensen"
<RecreationalPoker@gmail.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
"STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
They're all over the place. If you want to read two popular-
consumption books that say something about how we might be able to
tell if those dimensions are there, I would recommend Brian Greene's
"Elegant Universe" and Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages", both
available in used book stores. Greene is at Columbia, Randall is at
Harvard.
Other slavish workers in this arena who have also written on this
subject
Ed Witten (Princeton IAS)
Lenny Susskind (Stanford)
Lee Smolin (Perimeter Institute)
Jim Gates (Univ. Maryland)
John Schwarz (Caltech)
Has any of the above scientist proposed a possible way (theoretical is
fine) to prove extra dimensions? If so, who and what was the test?
I watched the "Elegant Universe" on PBS and don't recall it ever
suggesting such a possible test. DId Greene do so in his book?
Scott
My understanding on this is that empirical testing by means of
something like a particle accelerator/collider would take more
energy and resources than we can ever hope to have at our
disposal. One article I read stated that a collider would have to
be as long as the diameter of our galaxy, and the amount of
energy required would be in the order of that produced by the sun
during its entire life.
Please note that I'm not saying this is truth, but it does make
sense, and it was published in some of the writings on this
subject.
Anyway, just because we can't empirically prove something does
not mean that it is false...just unproven.
Well what piques my interest at this juncture, Gordon, is less whether
there is an empirical test for dimensionality than what the margins
for error are. Empirical tests invariably have error margins. I mean
are we looking at 3 plus or minus 1 dimension or 3 plus or minus 0.01
dimensions or what exactly? Until we get the units and error margins
straight I don't see we can perform any kind of exacting experiment.Of
course PBS routinely performs experiments on nothing more than their
say so. But I'm just curious what their dimensional iniquities entail.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
07 Apr 2007 09:36:59 PM |
|
|
nonsequiter;
you can throw the ktichen sink & fractal dimensions into the bath,
if you want to ignore the question of Kaluza, Klien and Co.
after all, every surfer needs emergency ballast!
if you want to test it, describe the shape of it.
Has any of the above scientist proposed a possible way (theoretical is
fine) to prove extra dimensions? If so, who and what was the test?
I watched the "Elegant Universe" on PBS and don't recall it ever
suggesting such a possible test. DId Greene do so in his book?
My understanding on this is that empirical testing by means of
something like a particle accelerator/collider would take more
energy and resources than we can ever hope to have at our
are we looking at 3 plus or minus 1 dimension or 3 plus or minus 0.01
thus:
have you ever proven the pythagorean theorem, say?
thus:
uh yeah; Borat wants you in Sudan,
why, Baby?... Harry Potter wants you in Iran --
yeah, Baby; shag'US with a spoon?
--DARFURIA CONSISTS OF ARABs & nonARABs; NEWS-ITEM:
we are marching to Darfuria, Darfuria, Darfuria!
Harry Potter IIX, ?Ordeal @ Oxford//Sudan ^ Aircraft Carrier!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3410caymans_hedges.html
ALgoreTHEmovieFORpresident.COM:
http://larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
08 Apr 2007 08:33:54 AM |
|
|
What would be the difference if we called extra dimensions "membranes"?
Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
08 Apr 2007 11:27:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 4:33 pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
What would be the difference if we called extra dimensions "membranes"?
Bert
----------------
you can call those extra dimensions
'Lemon trees' as well
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
19 Apr 2007 01:17:29 PM |
|
|
if Kaluza-Klein's one or two extra dimensions work
to solve stuff in five dimensions,
that is the conundrum that you have to address, and
how those interelate in "degrees of freedom"
to those solutions. obviously,
this had entranced everyone in mathematical physics,
for a long time.
you can call those extra dimensions
'Lemon trees' as well
thus:
while I did mistate the problem, above -- and
your foregoing "clues" are not in dyspute (since,
obviously, anyone could be a "master of ruses"
-- that's just another of your silly por-hominems),
this does not matter, since
you could still ask any amateur astronomer to explain it --
preferably someone who has never been fooled by a simulator.
although i have no experience with telescopes, i do kow that,
in general, it is extremely difficult to photograph a planet
in transition of Sun, or going into occultation by Sun, mainly
because of the relative brightness.
hence, why Venus is known as the morning or evening "star;"
that is the *only* time that it is bright enough to see!
so, what is the equivalent "star" seen from Venus
"on a clear day?..." or, from Moon, since
it is always a clear, no matter what time of day it is.
Venus is NOT a star.
Venus is so much brighter than Earth.
thus:
and, that's why, I gave the example of Goldbach's proof,
using the Fermat numbers; did he also prove that
they were pairwise co-prime, or did he just use that fact?
of course, if they were not pairwise coprime,
none of them could be prime!
thus:
yeah, but he had implied that he had "mastered symbolic logic,"
what ever he meant by that (considering,
ordinary boolean algebra is isomorphic to arithmetic). now,
he *almost* got to the point, below, of actually doing some
arithmetic, but
it was actually just an "x" abstaction. (one of my professors
often throws in an actual value for example,
to give the complex theories some grounding to Riemannian manifolds
e.g.)
what he has not mastered is the normative use of *a* language,
either English or presumably German, or Austrian;
if you can't begin to comprehend Shakespeare,
how can you "get" numbertheorie in English, or
_Disquisiciones Arithmeticae_, for that matter,
in Gauss's second (?) language?
of course, he never replies to me, since
he long-ago admitted to thinking about Munk's alleged proof.
(6) Construct W+1 = (2x3x,...,xp_f) + 1
(7) W+1 leaves a remainder of 1 as each individual prime of list P is
divided into W+1
No prime divides w+1. This is a contradiction.
Every n>1 must be divisible by some prime.
Even you must be able to understand that this means
w+1 cannot exist as a natural number and that
the assumption that the primes are finite is false.
thus:
all of this is basically pre-arranged by the algorithms
of the googolplex, to keep us to our chosen pedagoical devices,
it seems; we are far from "communicating wither every one
on the net" -- no-one could possibly read that much!
not have a adequate
definition of irrational p-adics. So there maybe several definitions
thus:
if you can't prove that all Fermat numbers are pairwise coprime,
you are of no use to the higher arithmetic;
again!
Darfur 'Mini-Summit'
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/rice_2546.html
thus:
uh yeah; Borat wants you in Sudan,
why, Baby?... Harry Potter wants you in Iran --
yeah, Baby; shag'US with a spoon?
--DARFURIA CONSISTS OF ARABs & nonARABs; NEWS-ITEM:
we are marching to Darfuria, Darfuria, Darfuria!
Harry Potter IIX, ?Ordeal @ Oxford//Sudan ^ Aircraft Carrier!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3410caymans_hedges.html
ALgoreTHEmovieFORpresident.COM:
http://larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
02 Apr 2007 07:26:16 AM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 11:26 pm, "STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
"STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
Scott Jensen wrote:
I hear about lower and higher dimensions, but I wonder if any
scientist is currently trying to come up with a way to see if they
exist.
There are many people trying to understand this...
Who? Which institute/university?
They're all over the place. If you want to read two popular-
consumption books that say something about how we might be able to
tell if those dimensions are there, I would recommend Brian Greene's
"Elegant Universe" and Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages", both
available in used book stores. Greene is at Columbia, Randall is at
Harvard.
Other slavish workers in this arena who have also written on this
subject
Ed Witten (Princeton IAS)
Lenny Susskind (Stanford)
Lee Smolin (Perimeter Institute)
Jim Gates (Univ. Maryland)
John Schwarz (Caltech)
Has any of the above scientist proposed a possible way (theoretical is
fine) to prove extra dimensions? If so, who and what was the test?
I watched the "Elegant Universe" on PBS and don't recall it ever
suggesting such a possible test. DId Greene do so in his book?
Scott
I am amazed that some here are so dismissive of this topic.
Beyond the relativistic interpretation of spacetime let's not forget
that Maxwell's equations also purvey geometrical qualities from
physical phenomena. Perhaps these concepts have not been taken far
enough. String theory was an exciting revolution. One problem is that
they forgot to derive spacetime.
Upon allowing the increased dimensional freedom the puzzle becomes one
of describing the difference between these 'special' dimensions and
the usual spacetime. Furthermore the theoretical aspects of this
puzzle suggest that it may be possible to get spacetime as a resultant
with the proper choice of basis rather than merely assuming it via
observation.
Upon opening to this possibility and reflecting on string theories
does it make sense to consider a general dimensional system? The
following construction is in one regard general dimensional yet it
follows a sub-brane compatible architecture which can simply be called
a progressive topology:
0D + 1D + 2D + 3D ...
At a given level of the progression one finds:
0D, 1D, 3D, 6D, 10D, ...
The resultant structure is general but carries with it enough
character to insight breakpoints on the structure. The resulting
format is built:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
...
This data closely resembles the format of a symmetric tensor.
The brane theorists of recent work make use of high dimension spaces
and I argue that when they come down to the lowly starting points and
get results consistent with Maxwell in a way general enough to be
extended upward through this structure that a plausible theory could
ensue. Some gravitational models are using a 2D + 1D approach though I
see this step as closer to electromagnetic behaviors.
Ultimately a system of physics that replaces spacetime with say a 10D
basis will not generate theoretical purity so easily as a system that
works on the progressive topology. The polysign construction
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
exposes the progressive topology as well as a natural spacetime
breakpoint. It redefines the real numbers as two-signed numbers and
the complex numbers as three-signed numbers. It exposes time
congruency with one-signed numbers- the first unidirectional time
approach that cannot suffer reversals. All of these numerical systems
obey the same simple rules and they extend upward in dimension yet
while the higher systems are well behaved algebraically they are ill-
behaved in terms of magnitudinal behavior.
Is it sufficient for the theoretical physicist to utilize 3D space
because it is observed or is the theoretician supposed to explain the
observation? In the past such a situation was probably considered
beyond us, but with the advent of string and brane type theories this
opening exists. A traditionalist might see this as digging beneath the
ground level and so perhaps we are studying the roots of the great
tree. The underground is radically different and to those who stay
above ground it is an invalid space. Yet something must keep the tree
from toppling.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
02 Apr 2007 08:56:27 AM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 05:26:16 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is it sufficient for the theoretical physicist to utilize 3D space
because it is observed or is the theoretician supposed to explain the
observation? In the past such a situation was probably considered
beyond us, but with the advent of string and brane type theories this
opening exists. A traditionalist might see this as digging beneath the
ground level and so perhaps we are studying the roots of the great
tree. The underground is radically different and to those who stay
above ground it is an invalid space. Yet something must keep the tree
from toppling.
True enough, but conversely why should the underlying reality have to
have dimensions? Also, why are three dimensions sufficient for us in
our day to day lives?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
02 Apr 2007 10:43:14 AM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 8:56 am, Ben Newsam <ben.new...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 05:26:16 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is it sufficient for the theoretical physicist to utilize 3D space
because it is observed or is the theoretician supposed to explain the
observation? In the past such a situation was probably considered
beyond us, but with the advent of string and brane type theories this
opening exists. A traditionalist might see this as digging beneath the
ground level and so perhaps we are studying the roots of the great
tree. The underground is radically different and to those who stay
above ground it is an invalid space. Yet something must keep the tree
from toppling.
True enough, but conversely why should the underlying reality have to
have dimensions? Also, why are three dimensions sufficient for us in
our day to day lives?
Others have conveyed here that dimensionality is a feature of our
*model* of reality. We rarely have a guarantee that our concepts
correspond to underlying structures in reality -- only that
application of those concepts seems to do a superb job of predicting
outcomes. As an example, we think of a billiard ball as having a
definite location and perimeter, carrying a definite momentum and
energy. In fact, it appears that none of these are true, though a
model that bears these characteristics works pretty well.
We actually use four dimensions now -- 3 space and 1 time. Surely you
aren't saying we don't use time as a dimension. What's different about
our understanding used in "day to day lives" is that the 3 spatial
dimensions are completely independent of the 1 time dimension. Note
that this is an *assumption* that has no justification from day to day
experience, except that our day to day experience seems to give us the
latitude to suppose that's the case. It turns out to be a mistake, but
it's a mistake that only becomes really obvious when you start looking
at the behavior of massless objects or very fast massive objects.
Since our day to day lives are so confined (slow, massive objects) and
map to such a small chunk of reality, we simply missed it until
recently.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
02 Apr 2007 05:22:02 PM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 08:43:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:56 am, Ben Newsam <ben.new...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 05:26:16 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is it sufficient for the theoretical physicist to utilize 3D space
because it is observed or is the theoretician supposed to explain the
observation? In the past such a situation was probably considered
beyond us, but with the advent of string and brane type theories this
opening exists. A traditionalist might see this as digging beneath the
ground level and so perhaps we are studying the roots of the great
tree. The underground is radically different and to those who stay
above ground it is an invalid space. Yet something must keep the tree
from toppling.
True enough, but conversely why should the underlying reality have to
have dimensions? Also, why are three dimensions sufficient for us in
our day to day lives?
Others have conveyed here that dimensionality is a feature of our
*model* of reality.
Model, model, who's got the model. Then let's ask the same question
another way. Why is everyones "model" of reality identical with this
single aspect of spatial dimensionality and not in other respects?
We rarely have a guarantee that our concepts
correspond to underlying structures in reality -- only that
application of those concepts seems to do a superb job of predicting
outcomes.
If spatial dimensionality were an empirical problem I might agree.
However one thing empiricism does not do a superb job of predicting is
why we all share a common model of spatial dimensionality. And I
rather doubt you'll ever find an experimental determinant for that.
But do keep looking. It'll keep you out of mischief for a long time.
As an example, we think of a billiard ball as having a
definite location and perimeter, carrying a definite momentum and
energy. In fact, it appears that none of these are true, though a
model that bears these characteristics works pretty well.
Just as some physical models work well and others don't. It would be
nice for a change if you could spell out why some work for some and
others work for others especially when one and the same dimensional
model seems to work pretty well for all. Is there empirical evidence
to show why or are we still looking for love in all the wrong places?
We actually use four dimensions now -- 3 space and 1 time.
Why not two or three times? Surely there's slow time and double time
and that rather peculiar time required to make the trains run on time.
Surely you
aren't saying we don't use time as a dimension.
Read my lips: we don't use time as a dimension.
What's different about
our understanding used in "day to day lives" is that the 3 spatial
dimensions are completely independent of the 1 time dimension.
Golly whiz, Mr. Dillon. You don't say. Is there experimental evidence
to support your contention or are we just supposed to take your word
for it?
Note
that this is an *assumption* that has no justification from day to day
experience, except that our day to day experience seems to give us the
latitude to suppose that's the case.
But not apparently the latitude to demonstrate such an assumption of
truth is in fact true.
It turns out to be a mistake, but
it's a mistake that only becomes really obvious when you start looking
at the behavior of massless objects or very fast massive objects.
Or even faster massive academics.
Since our day to day lives are so confined (slow, massive objects) and
map to such a small chunk of reality, we simply missed it until
recently.
Just as we missed you until recently. Just not very much.
Your sole approach to every problem seems to be to chalk it up to
peoples' deficiencies in "our" "sluggish" "outdated" mentalities as
opposed to your own "lightening" "agile" and "modern" mentality which
dismisses problems out of hand as products of bourgeoisies thought
processes. Tell us do. Are you a commie too? And is this indeed just
the dimentia branch of the university of social realism?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
02 Apr 2007 05:38:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 5:22 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 08:43:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:56 am, Ben Newsam <ben.new...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 05:26:16 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is it sufficient for the theoretical physicist to utilize 3D space
because it is observed or is the theoretician supposed to explain the
observation? In the past such a situation was probably considered
beyond us, but with the advent of string and brane type theories this
opening exists. A traditionalist might see this as digging beneath the
ground level and so perhaps we are studying the roots of the great
tree. The underground is radically different and to those who stay
above ground it is an invalid space. Yet something must keep the tree
from toppling.
True enough, but conversely why should the underlying reality have to
have dimensions? Also, why are three dimensions sufficient for us in
our day to day lives?
Others have conveyed here that dimensionality is a feature of our
*model* of reality.
Model, model, who's got the model. Then let's ask the same question
another way. Why is everyones "model" of reality identical with this
single aspect of spatial dimensionality and not in other respects?
But they're not identical. Not every model shares three spatial
dimensions. That would be the point of the original poster's question.
Perhaps your argument that three and only three are what's
mechanically feasible is based on your observation that that's what
you see. Ah, but that would be empiricist thinking, wouldn't it?
We rarely have a guarantee that our concepts
correspond to underlying structures in reality -- only that
application of those concepts seems to do a superb job of predicting
outcomes.
If spatial dimensionality were an empirical problem I might agree.
However one thing empiricism does not do a superb job of predicting is
why we all share a common model of spatial dimensionality.
In other words, common sense is the determiner of reality?
Tell me, Lester, if you shine a light on a flat, circular disk and you
look at the shadow of the disk on the wall, what does the common model
that we all share say will be at the very center of the shadow: a
light spot or a dark spot?
And I
rather doubt you'll ever find an experimental determinant for that.
But do keep looking. It'll keep you out of mischief for a long time.
As an example, we think of a billiard ball as having a
definite location and perimeter, carrying a definite momentum and
energy. In fact, it appears that none of these are true, though a
model that bears these characteristics works pretty well.
Just as some physical models work well and others don't. It would be
nice for a change if you could spell out why some work for some and
others work for others especially when one and the same dimensional
model seems to work pretty well for all. Is there empirical evidence
to show why or are we still looking for love in all the wrong places?
We actually use four dimensions now -- 3 space and 1 time.
Why not two or three times?
Ah, and you see that's the point of the original poster's question. A
model that describes reality really, really well may have more than
one time dimension.
Surely there's slow time and double time
and that rather peculiar time required to make the trains run on time.
Surely you
aren't saying we don't use time as a dimension.
Read my lips: we don't use time as a dimension.
I wasn't asking you. I know *you* say stupid things.
What's different about
our understanding used in "day to day lives" is that the 3 spatial
dimensions are completely independent of the 1 time dimension.
Golly whiz, Mr. Dillon. You don't say. Is there experimental evidence
to support your contention or are we just supposed to take your word
for it?
Note
that this is an *assumption* that has no justification from day to day
experience, except that our day to day experience seems to give us the
latitude to suppose that's the case.
But not apparently the latitude to demonstrate such an assumption of
truth is in fact true.
It turns out to be a mistake, but
it's a mistake that only becomes really obvious when you start looking
at the behavior of massless objects or very fast massive objects.
Or even faster massive academics.
Since our day to day lives are so confined (slow, massive objects) and
map to such a small chunk of reality, we simply missed it until
recently.
Just as we missed you until recently. Just not very much.
Your sole approach to every problem seems to be to chalk it up to
peoples' deficiencies in "our" "sluggish" "outdated" mentalities
Nah, just things that ordinary people have learned, following some
good patterns for figuring things out. Some people, on the other hand,
do clearly have "sluggish" "outdated" mentalities. Do you know to whom
I refer?
as
opposed to your own "lightening" "agile" and "modern" mentality which
dismisses problems out of hand as products of bourgeoisies thought
processes. Tell us do. Are you a commie too? And is this indeed just
the dimentia branch of the university of social realism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
03 Apr 2007 02:38:25 PM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 15:38:00 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Others have conveyed here that dimensionality is a feature of our
*model* of reality.
Model, model, who's got the model. Then let's ask the same question
another way. Why is everyones "model" of reality identical with this
single aspect of spatial dimensionality and not in other respects?
But they're not identical. Not every model shares three spatial
dimensions. That would be the point of the original poster's question.
You really are incredibly stupid, Paul. Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
Perhaps your argument that three and only three are what's
mechanically feasible is based on your observation that that's what
you see. Ah, but that would be empiricist thinking, wouldn't it?
No. My particular argument here is that that's what everyone sees and
the model everyone actually has and your trivial terminological
regressions to "models" doesn't alter the nature of that problem. My
particular argument here is empirical to the extent it characterizes
how people see spatial dimensionality in common with others and indeed
share a common model of spatial dimensionality despite not sharing
common "models" of other aspect of reality which you and other
empirics try to evade by regressing the conversation to "models" of
reality instead of the actual mechanics of reality that cause those
"models" to be what they are and to have the properties they have.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hero" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
04 Apr 2007 10:39:29 AM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
05 Apr 2007 08:42:17 PM |
|
|
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 09:30:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 5, 9:42 pm, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!- Hide quoted text -
Well it's not surprising at all,
Since number theory was being
used fpr data security in 3000 b.c.
before the idiot "pure" mathematicians
Great Pyrmaids were even built.
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 09:54:55 AM |
|
|
On Apr 6, 5:30 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:42 pm, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!- Hide quoted text -
Well it's not surprising at all,
Since number theory was being
used fpr data security in 3000 b.c.
before the idiot "pure" mathematicians
Great Pyrmaids were even built.
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
?????
do you have some doubts that they new to count???
see for instance the Bible
anyway
they were good engineers and architects
and artists etc etc
some of they techniques are even unknown
even in our days for instance
see their mummies .....
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 12:28:18 PM |
|
|
On Apr 6, 10:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:30 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:42 pm, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!- Hide quoted text -
Well it's not surprising at all,
Since number theory was being
used fpr data security in 3000 b.c.
before the idiot "pure" mathematicians
Great Pyrmaids were even built.
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
?????
do you have some doubts that they new to count???
see for instance the Bible
anyway
they were good engineers and architects
and artists etc etc
They were excellent gardeners.
But, since they knew a lot
about slaves, morons, sun, and
sand, and nothing about TNT and Saturn V's
that's really why we call them
Washington Post MTV imbelices. rather than engineers.
some of they techniques are even unknown
even in our days for instance
see their mummies .....
Y.Porat
---------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
07 Apr 2007 03:02:28 AM |
|
|
On Apr 6, 8:28 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:30 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:42 pm, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!- Hide quoted text -
Well it's not surprising at all,
Since number theory was being
used fpr data security in 3000 b.c.
before the idiot "pure" mathematicians
Great Pyrmaids were even built.
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
?????
do you have some doubts that they new to count???
see for instance the Bible
anyway
they were good engineers and architects
and artists etc etc
They were excellent gardeners.
But, since they knew a lot
about slaves, morons, sun, and
sand, and nothing about TNT and Saturn V's
that's really why we call them
Washington Post MTV imbelices. rather than engineers.
some of they techniques are even unknown
even in our days for instance
see their mummies .....
Y.Porat
---------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-------------------
????????
sorry i ddint get your point.
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 04:04:11 AM |
|
|
On Apr 6, 4:42 am, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics. But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
that has nothing to do with extra dimensions theories!!!
indeed the amny dimensions theories
wher inveted as i can guess by
*mathematiciance*
and that does nt make it less nonsense physics !!!
and just another profe that
advance in physics will nor be donr by
mathematiciance
but by peole who are **first of all ** physicists !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 02:43:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:42:17 -0500, Dan <dan@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
[. . .]
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics.
Yes and persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really seem
to care much about truth either.
But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!
My, my, and even a totally useless stopped clock is right twice a day.
We just don't get to know exactly when that may be.Which is precisely
why the clock remains useless despite the protestations, fulminations,
and recriminations of DvdM to wit that it remains nonetheless a clock.
It might help if those persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics
with such an air of ethereal condescension had a clue but they prefer
to pursue their butterflies and guess at their subject matter instead.
Yet for every guess which turns out to have empirical utility many
millions and billions more turn out to be wrong and even pernicious in
their supposedly uitilitarian application: to wit Euler's treatment of
angular mechanics, transfinite arithmetic, irrational numbers, and the
Peano and suc( ) arithmetic axioms which can't even be used to produce
straight lines, not to mention Einstein's treatment of special and
general relativity whose deleterious effects persist even today. So
but me no but's about those persons who study and enjoy Pure
Mathematics and don't really care about Physics, Mechanics, or truth.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
07 Apr 2007 04:32:12 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Yes and persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really seem
to care much about truth either.
Pure mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics) is not the least
bit concerned with empirical truth. The main truth that matters is: does
a conclusion follow from the given set of axioms. The only other
question that matters is: is the given set of axioms consistent.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
07 Apr 2007 06:23:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:32:12 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Yes and persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really seem
to care much about truth either.
Pure mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics) is not the least
bit concerned with empirical truth.
Pure mathematics is concerned with nothing else except empirical truth
unless you're pretending the axioms of "Pure Mathematics" are divinely
inspired truth? You know, oh homo bozoid, like the ten commandments?
The main truth that matters is: does
a conclusion follow from the given set of axioms.
Tell it to Aristotle, Bob. Modern mathematics' sole criterion of truth
is consistency with its own axiomatic assumptions of truth and not
with truth itself in strictly mechanically reducible exhaustive terms.
What's so incredibly laughable in all this, Bob, is that mathematikers
are first to insist people solve equations and perform calculations in
strict mechanical accordance with their assumptions of truth. They're
nothing but the holiest of holier than thou sacred cows when it comes
to exhaustive mechanical reductions in terms of their own assumptions
of truth.
Could you imagine what quantum physicists would say if people just
went off and solved quantum equations any old way they pleased? Or
supposing people just felt like solving problems in relativity any old
way they pleased? Or if modern mathematics students just felt like
addressing and resolving SOAP operas any old way they pleased?
Of course not. You're a stickler for exhaustive mechanical reductions
when it comes to consistency with your own axioms, canons, postulates,
paradigms, and definitions but you can't stand to have any similar
exhaustive mechanical reductions to self contradictory alternatives
applied to your own axioms, canons, postulates, paradigms, and
definitions since you're too lazy or stupid to do anything but divine
axioms, canons, postulates, paradigms, and definitions to begin with.
The only other
question that matters is: is the given set of axioms consistent.
Consistent with what pray tell, Bob? Consistent with any real number
line, Bob? Consistent with the production of straight lines, Bob? With
the integration of points into lines, Bob? You're an idiot. Consistent
with truth in absolute universal terms? You can't even get off your
knees of divine inspiriation long enough to figure out what's true in
modern math and science and what's not.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
06 Apr 2007 04:32:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 6, 3:43 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:42:17 -0500, Dan <d...@nospamstuff.com> wrote:
On 4/4/07 10:39 AM, Hero wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
[. . .]
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
Persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really care about
Physics.
Yes and persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics don't really seem
to care much about truth either.
But is funny how the totally useless Number Theory has become
so important to securing the Internet!
My, my, and even a totally useless stopped clock is right twice a day.
We just don't get to know exactly when that may be.Which is precisely
why the clock remains useless despite the protestations, fulminations,
and recriminations of DvdM to wit that it remains nonetheless a clock.
That's never been a problem though in all of histroy.
Since it's only physics cranks who
have EVER built clocks seperate from marked rulers.
Since the morons actually think
rods shrinks, but clocks DON'T.
It might help if those persons who study and enjoy Pure Mathematics
with such an air of ethereal condescension had a clue but they prefer
to pursue their butterflies and guess at their subject matter instead.
Yet for every guess which turns out to have empirical utility many
millions and billions more turn out to be wrong and even pernicious in
their supposedly uitilitarian application: to wit Euler's treatment of
angular mechanics, transfinite arithmetic, irrational numbers, and the
Peano and suc( ) arithmetic axioms which can't even be used to produce
straight lines, not to mention Einstein's treatment of special and
general relativity whose deleterious effects persist even today. So
but me no but's about those persons who study and enjoy Pure
Mathematics and don't really care about Physics, Mechanics, or truth.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
04 Apr 2007 11:53:08 AM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 11:39 am, "Hero" <Hero.van.Jind...@gmx.de> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
...... Can you cite one person whose
own particular model of spatial dimensionality is not three without
being purely speculative or outrightly pretentious?
I agree.
As the extra spatial dimension wasn't found until now in the space,
where we do our empirical experiments in and where we live in, it
originates in the head of people. How can we prove, their ideas are
wrong or right?
Lobachevsky considered astronomical data to find that the sum of
angles in any of his triangles differs less than 1/100th of a second
from the 180 degrees of Euklids triangels, if it would be true. Is
that a proof? Not completely.
Logic is needed. The same human brains, from which the idea of an
extra dimension comes from, can also find out, if it's properties fit
into reality.
For this, one needs a description of this extra D. Is it inside every
point? Is it a splitting and doubling of every line? Is it a
direction? What are the solids in this space - "ghosts"?
We have the properties of our 3D:
there are length, height and depth - three straight lines, every pair
of them being at an right angle to each other. And we have a cross-
prduct of arrow-vectors in our space.
What kind of properties are assigned to a 4D?
What is really funny, some pure mathematicians turn their back to the
three spatial dimensions of reality, and reality in general -
but a forth spatial dimension, a real real one, they are eager to talk
into our heads. It would give them the space, where to display the
holy grail of Hollywood-math.
With friendly greetings
Hero
There is a fascinating breakpoint in standard dimensional mathematics
that may deserve some attention. When one looks at the literature on
the ratio of hyperspherical volume to surface area as a dimensional
concept a breakpoint is exposed at 7 dimensions:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
(See formula (11) of this link and the graph above it)
Could such a natural breakpoint hold the key to why spacetime is our
observed basis?
Whether one accepts the spacetime basis or not the usual behavior of
objects in a room must be accounted for and this includes measurements
yielding a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system.
To deny this detail in a multidimensional theory is inadequate. We are
forced to a structural distinction that should indicate the structure
of nature itself. We have the junction of physics to rely upon here.
When we go this deep we are shooting at the moon. A sense of spacetime
is not all that will be yielded here. All of physics should be yielded
as well. The concepts of material and spacetime are coexistent and the
traditional structure places material in spacetime as a hierarchical
development and this is our ordinary human sense. The general
dimensional basis has the ability to perform tremendously dense
informational operations and this complexity is encouraging. A general
dimensional space may be a substrate which we cannot access as we are
products of the substrate. The important thing to focus on is yielding
spacetime and hopefully physics as well from a general dimensional
construction. The denial of spacetime must explain spacetime. This is
the correspondence principle. Reduction of information is far more
acceptable than the denial of information. Degenerate is a word that
seems too negative to associate reality with yet that is probably an
accurate term within this paradigm.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: How could extra dimensions be tested? |
04 Apr 2007 04:44:32 PM |
|
|
Easy way is to fall into a BH and get connect to our parrel universe via
a worm hole. Once you are in this worm tunnel you are in an extra
dimension.There is no light in this tunnel,but crawl straight ahead.the
other universe is just a membrane away. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
