Dimensions
BulletHead
Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
in Discussions
Comments
Astral Dimension
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For most of us, or perhaps all of us, it's impossible to imagine a world consisting of more than three spatial dimensions. Are we correct when we intuit that such a world couldn't exist? Or is it that our brains are simply incapable of imagining additional dimensions—dimensions that may turn out to be as real as other things we can't detect?
String theorists are betting that extra dimensions do indeed exist; in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll let someone else explain superstring theory. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wouldn't go basing my life on its philosophical implications, though it is fun to try to get one's mind around the reality of those curled up extra dimensions.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html</a>
I'm personally excited by what physicists are building with string theory - like Einstein's theory of Relativity, and Maxwell's EM field equations, the idea has an elegance that has allowed it's creators to leap ahead of what experiment can verify and make some bold predictions.
But I still can't bring myself to fully endorse it until it makes an experimentally verifiable prediction... no matter how elegant it is. Give us the chance to disprove it - make it through the crucible of a test in the real world, and we'll have a full fledged scientific theory on our hands.
Like juice said above, perhaps we should hold off on extra dimensions until we have compelling evidence for the necessity of them - rather than the 4 we can empirically know exist. Now using them as a computational tool if 4 dimensional quantum gravity is too messy mathematically? That's something different, just a shortcut any physicist would use if he had it - they're lazy/smart that way.
Apparently not all scientists agree on this curvature-of-space model, but it is the only model I've seen that explains Universal Background Radiation.
and read it cover to cover. It is the most amazing thing you'll ever read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is plucked and how much tension is in the string, different musical notes will be created by the string. These musical notes could be said to be excitation modes of that guitar string under tension.
. In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings.
. In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale.
. If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average size of a string should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. Unfortunately, this means that strings are way too small to see by current or expected particle physics technology (or financing!!) and so string theorists must devise more clever methods to test the theory than just looking for little strings in particle experiments.
. String theories are classified according to whether or not the strings are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the particle spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up matter). So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the particles that make up matter.
. Supersymmetric partners to to currently known particles have not been observed in particle experiments, but theorists believe this is because supersymmetric particles are too massive to be detected at current accelerators. Particle accelerators could be on the verge of finding evidence for high energy supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for supersymmetry at high energy would be compelling evidence that string theory was a good mathematical model for Nature at the smallest distance scales.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would actually be interesting to find out what exactly those other 7 dimensions are. I did read that Hyperspace book, and it was amazing.
So what is?
I believe time is actually designated as the 7th dimension. But it's just the fourth we NOTICE. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm proud to see others taking this seriously! Only a handful of kids at my school think this is even possible, the rest think I'm a loon 0o'
They're both right. It's possible <i>and</i> you're a loon. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Then again, the only NORMAL people are those you don't know very well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Think of it this way. If I had 50 sheets of paper, numbered one to fifty, and I threw them into the air, and gathered them up, they would be in disorder. What would be the chance that once I gathered them up, they would be number exactly one to fifty? Very unlikely. Basically, the reason things don't go "backwards" in time is because things have a higher chance of "breaking down" than "returning to order."
String Theory pwns Standard Model also.
I've read alot of physics books (EDIT: Almost All), and this is what i've gathered about extra dimensions:
Just like how a movie screen is a two dimensional object in our world, our world is a "something" in a four dimension world. Basically, we are floating around in a "bigger" four dimension just like how a two dimensional movie screen is in our world.
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/Tsaiyao/Branes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Probably true, at that. I don't think I'd call any of the people that I know well "normal". I think you're on to something there... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't like the Standard Model as much as String Theory, I dunno, the Standard Model seems like a big mess...
EDIT: Better explanation below V
Those other theories ("standard model") require numerous variables that mathematicians have to change depending on the given situation; there is no universal static equation to be found, which is why string theory is causing such a buzz in the scientific community. Supposedly string theory's math is much more...elegant...than the current equations, and it would hold true for <u>everything</u>.
That's 4 down, 7 to go. It's 5:30 or so am, and I'm braindead. I will input more, TOMORROW.
DISCUSS! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
my CS teacher in highschool said Electricity was a dimension.
I am not sure whether it is or not though.
Electricity is part of Electromagnetism, which is one of the
four major forces that modern physics is trying to combine...
not exactly a dimension though?
Were talking about dimensions like:
Back-Forth
Left-Right
Up-Down
Whatever-Whatever
That's 4 down, 7 to go. It's 5:30 or so am, and I'm braindead. I will input more, TOMORROW.
DISCUSS! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my CS teacher in highschool said Electricity was a dimension.
I am not sure whether it is or not though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
-------------------------->http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/ <-----------------------------
FTW
REALLY intresting if u like these kind of things
What about mass?