Re: 2D
- From: "Hylander" <john.gagon@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jun 2005 09:41:09 -0700
Traveler wrote:
> In article <1118847573.306021.55450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Hylander" <john.gagon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >we know 1D (time) and 3D (space). Is there anything / concept that is
> >2D? Since 4D is more useful in things like big bang and black holes and
> >coordinates for spacetime curvature in the presence of gravity....does
> >2D map to anything or describe anything? Perhaps at smaller quantum
> >scales since the coordinates for things at that level are not so clear?
> >Does String Theory deal with this 2D like it does 4D? Is it possible
> >that 10D = 1+2+3+4D? (a second "4D" in there?)
> >
> >John
> >(reading a book on dimensions and another book on the various theories
> >of the universe/big bang/open vs closed/topographics etc.)
>
> First off, you'll never understand dimensions by reading books on
> physics, especially relativity books.
> Relativists have no clue as to
> what a dimension is.
> They believe a dimension can be curled up into a
> tiny ball! It's pathetic.
That sounds like a "string theorist" concept. Here was an interesting
article in my expansive list of articles that probably describes what
their "tiny ball" would look like:
http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2005/1/17/56647.html
It seems fine to question the idea of curved dimensions but one of the
explanations of gravity is that it is not just acceleration but rather
our mass is bound by it's curvature (or consumption of) space. (for
something to curve or curl, some of it must reduce in volume or be
consumed like how plastic wrinkles in a flame as it evaporates)
> Second, time is not a dimension;
No reason why it cannot be mathematically. A linear geometrical concept
is very often used to model time. The word is not the thing here.
Dimensions are nice models for time. One question however is whether
time and space are open or not. Big bang theorists posit that all space
was in a singularity and that there is no void outside the universe and
that it is closed. The supernova observations and the redshifting show
that the universe is expanding (k>0 IIRC?)...this argument all stems
from Einstein's cosmological constant (lambda IIRC).
> it is an evolution parameter
What makes it more appropriate than a "dimension". These are math
models...in reality, the universe is still 3D, not 4D. It is 4D "in a
sense" in that there is also "time". Also, we don't know that it is
only 4D since locations are not possible at certain magnitudes of scale
ie: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle./HUP (if I read & recall that
correctly)
> used in
> describing change. Time cannot change because to describe change in
> time would require a meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the
> meta-time, ad infinitum.
Time in isolation has little meaning. It is in conjunction with some
object in space moving that we have a model for "change" which is a
concept fixed to a reality requiring both time and space. I posit that
reality requires even more than mere time and space to have proper
modelling and meaning for all levels. There are many changes in QED
that are not properly accounted for with merely spacetime to my
recollection. Being that usenet is not a good place to spew formulas,
I'm at a loss but I could point you to some good stuff that
demonstrates some of the problems and things like fields and the like
which are used instead to measure motion and change at such levels. If
we are interested in motion and change of location alone for a
particular object then there seems to be nothing wrong with using
dimensions to track them. I just find that spacetime is not very
relavent at some point and QED seems to use a completely different
system for it.
>
> Third, a dimension is not "out there".
Depends on what is being meant by "out there". Dimensions are
mathematical abstractions like numbers. They are infinite boundless
degrees of freedom as you say but always in a kind of "outside" the
current realm kind of way. ie: a point not on a plane occupies/defines
a 3D space. a point outside of 3D space (yet somewhere relative to that
space) at some arbitrary other "distance" is 4D. just as a point
outside the plane retains it's planar coordinates but has an additional
distance to that particular plane and in fact is part of it's own
"plane". A point in another universe is in a 4D reality if we use 4D to
represent an extension of "space" (forgetting about 4D spacetime here
for a moment). This won't make sense to anyone who doesn't understand
dimensions of course. It can make even less sense to physicists not
well read in both geometry and physics. (which is odd being that many
advanced topics of gemoetry are required for physics in terms of
calculus and the like but I still think many are only cognizant of
their memorized formulas and symbols and fail to think geometrically
excepting the string theorists who dare to understand it and are able
to solve problems with it. ).
> A dimension is a degree of
> freedom used to separate/locate particles. It means that every
> particle has a variable positional property.
Correct...
> It is not the property of
> space because space does not exist.
Space is merely distances between particles. When you say space doesn't
exist, you refute the big bang theory that space was once bound up and
later expanded. By your definition, there would be no "space" to
expand...only light and "matter". (google photon dominated universe and
the charts which show the various sizes of the universe at certain
small moments of time after the big bang...all having to do with Planck
lengths etc. (being the earliest point))
> Only particles exist.
Or waves....In the texts on subatomica, you find that everything is
merely a force or wave FTMP and that most "particles" are empty space
and "cushions" of attraction or repulsive forces or boundaries where
things probably are or are not.
> In a 1D
> universe, every particle would have only one coordinate variable. In a
> 4D universe, every particle has four coordinate properties.
A nice "flat land" analogy. Einstein has stated that we have a 4D
universe practically speaking that can be useful for understanding
relativity and mass/gravity and acceleration within frames of
reference.
> Fourth, the universe is 4-dimensional. There are only four degrees of
> freedom, no more and no less, and none of them is temporal.
What about quantum dynamics and the problem that particles burst into
and out of existence all the timek seemingly out of nowhere? Is there
anything that dictates this randomness at all? Does a 4D universe
explain QED sufficiently? It seems most would disagree.
> There is a
> simple logical reason for only four dimensions but I cannot divulge it
> here. I will do so when I publish my findings. Real soon now. :-)
:) I'd love to know your credentials. I've skimmed the website and
while it's a good and novel idea to question this...I don't see much
support yet for the idea. Perhaps if more peer support were there for
your ideas, I could bother. What is to say you aren't another
"crackpot"? I often question anyone who has a "secret paper" soon to be
published. Obviously, everything isn't on the website because part of
it is a "secret" soon to be published....so when should I be looking
for your "revelation" to the world of physics and who is on board with
you? (perhaps it is all on the website but it appears you are yet
another lone ranger physicist with just enough of the proverbial rope
to do you know what.) ;>
> Go to:
>
> Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>
> and
>
> More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
> ahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2D
- From: xxein
- Re: 2D
- Prev by Date: Re: 2D
- Next by Date: Re: man made black hole
- Previous by thread: Re: 2D
- Next by thread: Re: 2D
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
