Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

New dimension?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D - 28 Jan 2005 21:41 GMT
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension".  Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
  So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
Bill Hobba - 28 Jan 2005 22:51 GMT
> Hello a while back I watched the public television
> series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
> of the same old 3 dimensions?

No - they are actually an entirely different dimensions eg in general
relativity you need 4 quantities to describe the each element of the space -
hence is said to have dimension 4, in Kaluza-Klein gravity (see
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018 ) you need 5 quantities - hence it is
said to have dimension 5, in string theory you need 11 - I am sure you see
the pattern.

Thanks
Bill
Ken S. Tucker - 28 Jan 2005 23:48 GMT
> No - they are actually an entirely different dimensions eg in general
> relativity you need 4 quantities to describe the each element of the space -
> hence is said to have dimension 4, in Kaluza-Klein gravity (see
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018 ) you need 5 quantities - hence it is
> said to have dimension 5, in string theory you need 11 - I am sure you see
> the pattern.

Well Bill we don't eat the same mushrooms as you aborigines do
so 11 dimensions does fit in any pattern I do, what drugs are
you on?

> Thanks
> Bill
ande452@attglobal.net - 29 Jan 2005 05:50 GMT
> > No - they are actually an entirely different dimensions eg in general
> > relativity you need 4 quantities to describe the each element of the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> so 11 dimensions does fit in any pattern I do, what drugs are
> you on?

You don't perceive the higher dimensions unless you're a string.

No wonder you think that's strange.  You don't have the imagination
to understand what the math is describing.

John Anderson
Ken S. Tucker - 29 Jan 2005 10:19 GMT
> You don't perceive the higher dimensions unless you're a string.
> No wonder you think that's strange.  You don't have the imagination
> to understand what the math is describing.

Agreed, I'm ok up to 5D, but more or less loose it
at 6. I'd even go so far to say the word "dimension"
may be inappropriate. I prefer to think of those
extra dimensions as independent characteristics of a
small but finite sized point.
It's easy to see 3D around us and see a varying
matter density to see/imagine 5D.

> John Anderson

Ken
ande452@attglobal.net - 29 Jan 2005 05:48 GMT
> Hello a while back I watched the public television
> series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
> of the same old 3 dimensions?

High school algebra doesn't address the concept
of spacetime dimension.

You're mathetically unarmed to fight the battle that
you want to fight.

We describe the 3-D world with 3 position coordinates.

To describe more dimensions, we just add more coordinates.

In string theory, the extension of spacetime in some of
the coordinate directions is very small so that we aren't
aware of it in our normal everday lives.

It's not a matter of dividing the same intervals into
smaller pieces.  It's a matter of different directions
for the intervals to go.

John Anderson
Bilge - 29 Jan 2005 05:50 GMT
D:
>Hello a while back I watched the public television
>series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
>I can not figure why they are calling this another
>"dimension".

 Because what they mean is that spacetime literally has more than
three spatial dimensions.

>Since high school algebra we've known that something can always
>be smaller than the present (or larger for that matter) all the
>way to infinity. You can always divide anything by 1/2.

 Actually, that is not correct. Current theories suggest that at
some point there is a limit beyond which it makes no sense to
think in terms of ``smaller.''

>  So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they are beyond our
>sight and awareness, but why are these new dimensions? Aren't they
>just smaller areas of the same old 3 dimensions?

 No. They are literally additional dimensions. The only way to try and
picture additional dimensions is to start by picturing yourself as
two-dimensional and think of what how a three-dimensional object would
appear as passed through the plane that consitutes your two-dimensional
universe and then mentally extrapolate.
D - 29 Jan 2005 18:31 GMT
>Because what they mean is that spacetime literally
>has more than three spatial dimensions.

Ok I can see the space time thing as possibly being
called another dimension since it can exist at the
same time and still be inside (or outside )what we
perceive as occurring time.

>They are literally additional dimensions. The only
>way to try and picture additional dimensions is to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>your two-dimensional universe and then mentally
>extrapolate.

Well if I was 2 dimensional I could perceive of a 3-d
object passing thru me and taking varying amounts of
time to do so depending on it's size of the 3rd dimension.
However as I side issue I've never really seen how a
truly 2 dimension object can exist since it would have
to be zero units thick which would then make it
non-existent to my perception.
DavidBowman - 29 Jan 2005 09:41 GMT
Lemme give it a try...

You can orient a yardstick so that it extends in the up and down
direction.  That is, you hold it vertically so it's pointing at the
ceiling and floor.

You can also hold it so it's length is in the left and right direction,
which is the way we normally use it.

If you extend it in front of you like you're going to stab somebody
with it, then it's measuring length in the "in and out" direction.

Time is just another "direction" you could point a yardstick in, except
that the length of every line in that dimension (measured in inches) is
a negative number, so we can't point real yardsticks that way.

And if there were any yardsticks which DO point that way, we can't see
them.  We percieve this direction however, as "future" and "past".

Unlike time, the other 7 string dimensions are real "directions" you
can point at, like left/right and up/down. But the diameter of the
universe in those directions so unimaginably small that for objects as
big as yardsticks (or even atoms), it's the same as if they didn't
exist at all.

But we CAN  see the effect of energy that bounces back and forth
between these dimensions.  We percieve it as gravity, light, and the
nuclear forces, depending on which of those tiny directions the energy
is bouncing back and forth between.

====

This is my understanding of ST (except that "bouncing" isn't exactly
the word I want).

I'd appreciate corrections from anyone who understands it better.
(Note: that doesn't include you Androclese, so keep quiet).

=[ d
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.