| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 02:07:48 AM |
| Object: |
M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
To String Wizards,
Superstrings or M-Theory state that there are about 11
dimensions for the equations to work at all. Does anyone
know why only 3 are extended and the rest are curled up
or smaller than the Planck size. Or better yet, how do
you prove that there are no additional extended dimensions?
What if our perceptions are just not evolved enough to
perceive these extra extended spaces? Can you show
proof why you think there are no additional extended
dimensions in addition to length, width, and height in
a macroscopic sense? What if some sort of magnetic field
separate them and we can access them using some
combinations of rotating magnetic fields keys or access
codes?
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
18 Jan 2005 12:53:35 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
To String Wizards,
Superstrings or M-Theory state that there are about 11
dimensions for the equations to work at all. Does anyone
know why only 3 are extended and the rest are curled up
or smaller than the Planck size. Or better yet, how do
you prove that there are no additional extended dimensions?
What if our perceptions are just not evolved enough to
perceive these extra extended spaces? Can you show
proof why you think there are no additional extended
dimensions in addition to length, width, and height in
a macroscopic sense? What if some sort of magnetic field
separate them and we can access them using some
combinations of rotating magnetic fields keys or access
codes?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b8
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
18 Jan 2005 12:54:36 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
To String Wizards,
Superstrings or M-Theory state that there are about 11
dimensions for the equations to work at all. Does anyone
know why only 3 are extended and the rest are curled up
or smaller than the Planck size. Or better yet, how do
you prove that there are no additional extended dimensions?
What if our perceptions are just not evolved enough to
perceive these extra extended spaces? Can you show
proof why you think there are no additional extended
dimensions in addition to length, width, and height in
a macroscopic sense?
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
What if some sort of magnetic field separate them
*sigh* You have no clue what a magnetic field is, right?
and we can access them using some
combinations of rotating magnetic fields keys or access
codes?
What if the moon is made out of green cheese?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 07:44:48 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
Good reasoning. But what if the formula is describing
reality with more than 3 spatial dimensions. I forgot this
scientist. He said gravity may be weak because the
extra extended dimension is decreasing the gravity force.
I don't know which issue of Scientific American or
Discover magazine I read it. What's the counter-arguments
against this?
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 11:07:32 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
Good reasoning. But what if the formula is describing
reality with more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Which formula???
I forgot this
scientist. He said gravity may be weak because the
extra extended dimension is decreasing the gravity force.
I don't know which issue of Scientific American or
Discover magazine I read it. What's the counter-arguments
against this?
AFAIK, no counterarguments. It's a sensible proposal.
Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the argument.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 04:53:58 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Landle wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
Good reasoning. But what if the formula is describing
reality with more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Which formula???
The equation of gravity and electrostatic force I mean.
I forgot this
scientist. He said gravity may be weak because the
extra extended dimension is decreasing the gravity force.
I don't know which issue of Scientific American or
Discover magazine I read it. What's the counter-arguments
against this?
AFAIK, no counterarguments. It's a sensible proposal.
Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the argument.
Bye,
Bjoern
You are saying it is really possible that we have more
than 3 extended spatial dimensions existing now that's
why gravity force is weak??
Can someone show any arguments or counterarguments
why there may be like 4, 5 or 6 extended spatial
dimensions now?
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:49 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106261638.414053.71590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Landle wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
Good reasoning. But what if the formula is describing
reality with more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Which formula???
The equation of gravity and electrostatic force I mean.
I forgot this
scientist. He said gravity may be weak because the
extra extended dimension is decreasing the gravity force.
I don't know which issue of Scientific American or
Discover magazine I read it. What's the counter-arguments
against this?
AFAIK, no counterarguments. It's a sensible proposal.
Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the argument.
Bye,
Bjoern
You are saying it is really possible that we have more
than 3 extended spatial dimensions existing now that's
why gravity force is weak??
I could have sworn that Bjoern said
"if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)".
Can someone show any arguments or counterarguments
why there may be like 4, 5 or 6 extended spatial
dimensions now?
I could have sworn that Bjoern said
"if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)".
Can you read?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 04:00:59 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Landle wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force
fall off with 1/r^2 (r = distance from a point source).
That shows quite nicely that there are only three spatial
dimensions (if there are n dimensions, the force has to fall
off with 1/r^(n-1)).
Good reasoning. But what if the formula is describing
reality with more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Which formula???
The equation of gravity and electrostatic force I mean.
I already explained above why that does not work. Read
again what I wrote.
I forgot this
scientist. He said gravity may be weak because the
extra extended dimension is decreasing the gravity force.
I don't know which issue of Scientific American or
Discover magazine I read it. What's the counter-arguments
against this?
AFAIK, no counterarguments. It's a sensible proposal.
Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the argument.
Bye,
Bjoern
You are saying it is really possible that we have more
than 3 extended spatial dimensions existing now that's
why gravity force is weak??
Again, I don't know the exact argument, but AFAIK, it
is sound. I do not feel qualified to comment on this further.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 07:04:55 PM |
|
|
Hi Bjoern If the string theory is accepted by you,or anyone you have to
go with 11 dimensions, The seven added dimensions are the heart of
string theory. Best Bjoern read up on Witten's M-Theory. Its very
tricky thinking about curled up dimensions in Planck size areas. Helps
our thinking when just a loop is one dimensional,and then think of it
fattened up that its surface looks like a bike tire(two dimensional)
Have strange thoughts reading about "membranes,and I end up using them
as the fundamental structures in making more and more dimensions(go
figure) I think of a Mobius strip as such a membrane??? I think of our
universe as a circular dimension,and another circular dimension inside
the big outside one,and seeing the universe as a torus structure in the
macro realm. Looks like a wheel within a wheel,but they are connected
into a unified framework by gravity. Bjoern we have QM that an
electron is a point ,and this point is said to have no dimensions. It
something has no dimensions is not that just as weird as having seven
more dimensions? Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
22 Jan 2005 07:09:04 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Bjoern If the string theory is accepted by you,or anyone you have to
go with 11 dimensions,
I accept that string theory *could* be a right description
of nature.
The seven added dimensions are the heart of
string theory. Best Bjoern read up on Witten's M-Theory.
I know already quite well what that is, thank you. Very
probably better than you.
[snip]
Bjoern we have QM that an electron is a point,
More specifically, it's the standard model of particle
physics which says that, not QM.
and this point is said to have no dimensions. It
something has no dimensions is not that just as weird as having seven
more dimensions?
Do you consider a point to be weird? I don't.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
25 Jan 2005 03:01:36 PM |
|
|
Hi Bjoern It would help me if you undersood the M-Theory better than
me. I'm here to learn. I have to admit I can't think(visualize)
anyhing that has no dimension. I like string theory because to me it
gives the elecron a dimension. I like vibrations. I like waves. spin,
pulses quantum jumps . Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
26 Jan 2005 03:27:09 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Bjoern It would help me if you undersood the M-Theory better than
me. I'm here to learn.
Well, in order to understand M-theory, one first needs a
firm grasp of string theory (i.e. not only popular science
accounts of it), and even more important, perturbation theory.
Do you have that?
I have to admit I can't think(visualize)
anyhing that has no dimension.
You can't visualize a point?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
26 Jan 2005 08:24:40 AM |
|
|
Hi Bjoern Easy for me to make a point(dot) Easy for me to see and feel
the point of a pin,but not easy for me to visualize these features are
without dimensions. The "perturbation theory"
tells me that calculations to be performed(mathematical frame- work of
the string theory) are so complicated that only approximations can be
performed(hope I go that right so far?) I hope Bjoern that those
"Calabi-Yau shapes of those hidden dimensions(curled up) has all these
dimensions on equal footing(no dimension better than the other) "my
thinking anyway" This theory seems to give only "approximation" Bjoern
could some take this as fudging since string theory can't be tested by
experiment? It are thinking gets to fuzzy on any problem can we use the
perturbation theory? I predict in the near future we will only
have our best thoughts alone(no way to prove by experiment) the final
mysteries of the universe. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
26 Jan 2005 12:26:38 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Bjoern Easy for me to make a point(dot)
I did not mean a point you draw with a pencil. I meant a
*mathematical* point.
Easy for me to see and feel
the point of a pin,but not easy for me to visualize these features are
without dimensions.
Because dots are not mathematical points.
The "perturbation theory"
tells me that calculations to be performed(mathematical frame- work of
the string theory) are so complicated that only approximations can be
performed(hope I go that right so far?)
Yes, approximately right. But that's not exclusively the case
in string theory. I would estimate that 99.99% of *all* calculations
in physics (including classical mechanics etc.) can only be
done approximately - by using perturbation theory or other
methods.
I hope Bjoern that those
"Calabi-Yau shapes of those hidden dimensions(curled up) has all these
dimensions on equal footing(no dimension better than the other)
You probably mean either "shape" indeed of "shapes" or
"have" instead of "has". Which is it?
BTW, "Calabi-Yau shape" also does not make that much sense.
"my
thinking anyway" This theory seems to give only "approximation"
Which theory?
Bjoern
could some take this as fudging since string theory can't be tested by
experiment?
Can't be tested *so far*. This could quickly become different.
It are thinking gets to fuzzy on any problem can we use the
perturbation theory?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
I predict in the near future we will only
have our best thoughts alone(no way to prove by experiment) the final
mysteries of the universe. Bert
It would help for understanding if you used proper grammar.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torbjorn Larsson" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 06:19:00 PM |
|
|
Se LM post above; the rest of a braneworld dimensions are different
from the 4 extended (3 spatial) ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:50 AM |
|
|
"Torbjorn Larsson" <070-3993938@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:1106266740.564067.304150@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Se LM post above; the rest of a braneworld dimensions are different
from the 4 extended (3 spatial) ones.
Please leave the relevant headers and the context intact, otherwise we
have not the foggiest idea of why you are replying to whom.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torbjorn Larsson" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 10:30:39 AM |
|
|
??? Google Gropus Beta (GG) has a tree view; I can see that I was
answering Landle.
If that is not enough, any tips of how to make GG do it? I don't think
they mean for us to do it by hand...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 04:27:23 PM |
|
|
"Torbjorn Larsson" <070-3993938@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:1106325039.905760.171550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
??? Google Gropus Beta (GG) has a tree view; I can see that I was
answering Landle.
If that is not enough, any tips of how to make GG do it? I don't
think
they mean for us to do it by hand...
Don't use GG, but join this newsgroup directly.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torbjorn Larsson" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 06:25:54 PM |
|
|
In case my other posting makes it to this thread (otherwise forget);
the wounded string has a 'winding' number.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
21 Jan 2005 10:26:38 AM |
|
|
"Torbjorn Larsson" <070-3993938@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:1106267154.575557.94320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In case my other posting makes it to this thread (otherwise forget);
the wounded string has a 'winding' number.
Please leave the relevant headers and the context intact, otherwise
yout post loses all its significance.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torbjorn Larsson" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
20 Jan 2005 06:27:21 PM |
|
|
Oops, 'wounded' means 'hurt' of course! Hence my confusion; it should
have been winded all along.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
18 Jan 2005 12:58:14 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
To String Wizards,
Superstrings or M-Theory state that there are about 11
dimensions for the equations to work at all. Does anyone
know why only 3 are extended and the rest are curled up
or smaller than the Planck size. Or better yet, how do
you prove that there are no additional extended dimensions?
What if our perceptions are just not evolved enough to
perceive these extra extended spaces? Can you show
proof why you think there are no additional extended
dimensions in addition to length, width, and height in
a macroscopic sense? What if some sort of magnetic field
separate them and we can access them using some
combinations of rotating magnetic fields keys or access
codes?
Landle
I asked in sci.physics.strings:
How is it known that the extra dimension is small?
L.M.:
In the models without branes, the dimensions must be small, otherwise
we
would already have seen them: they must be smaller than 10^{-18} meters
because we have probed Nature up to these small distances, and
everything
is consistent with theories based on 3+1 dimensions, and inconsistent
with
theories in other dimensions.
In the braneworld models, we may be attached to a brane, and only
gravity
can propagate to the extra dimensions. These extra dimensions,
transverse
to the branes, may be much larger, but they must still be smaller than
10
microns because we've checked that the gravitational 1/r^2 force holds
up
to 10 microns, and an extra dimension would modify this formula.
There are many other ways how to argue that the dimensions should be
rather small, but these are the basic two.
Reply
DivineNathicana Nov 25 2004, 12:27 am show options
Patrick Powers Wrote:
How is it known that the extra dimension is small?
Read The Elegant Universe. Greene explains that the theory is only
mathematically coherent if only four dimensions expand. I don't want to
give false information as it's been a while sine I read the book, so
just go read it yourself. = )
- Alisa
After thinking about this in my bumbling way for three months, I
realized that the "curled-up" dimensions are not necessarily
well-described by the word "small." It is possible that "traveling" a
very short distance in a curled up dimension is equivalent to a large
distance in the dimensions we are used to.
Is there any reason to think light travels at c in these other
dimensions? Is anything at all besides curled-upness known about them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torbjorn Larsson" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
23 Jan 2005 08:57:09 AM |
|
|
"is there any reason to think light travels at c in these other
dimensions? Is anything at all besides curled-upness known about them?"
Apparently wounded or 'pseudo-wounded' strings make them not unravel
(at least over some lifetimes of the universe). Wounded strings may
recombine (two opposite windings) and the resulting loop can travel.
Maximum speed would be c since local Lorentz symmetry always holds?!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: M-Theory Extended & Curled Up Dimensions |
18 Jan 2005 12:58:24 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
To String Wizards,
Superstrings or M-Theory state that there are about 11
dimensions for the equations to work at all. Does anyone
know why only 3 are extended and the rest are curled up
or smaller than the Planck size. Or better yet, how do
you prove that there are no additional extended dimensions?
What if our perceptions are just not evolved enough to
perceive these extra extended spaces? Can you show
proof why you think there are no additional extended
dimensions in addition to length, width, and height in
a macroscopic sense? What if some sort of magnetic field
separate them and we can access them using some
combinations of rotating magnetic fields keys or access
codes?
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
