Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jul 2006 06:48:06 -0700
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Sue... wrote:
<< The major issue we have left to address is the origin
of four-dimensional gravity. We now suggest several rea-
sons that four-dimensional gravity can exist, leaving the
details for a forthcoming publication. Perhaps the least
interesting possibility is that dimensions are in fact com-
pact. One way our analysis could apply in that case is if
nine spatial dimensions expand to a large size in the early
evolution of the universe, and only afterwards stabilize at
a small size. Or the universe gets eectively compacti-
fied without moduli fields due to the presence of the 7-
branes, which can effectively compactify dimensions as
in Ref. [13]. 7-branes are codimension 2 branes in 10d
and as such they change the metric not just in their local
neighborhood, but also affect the global geometry. >>
"Relaxing to Three Dimensions"
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0506053
There is a philosophical problem with this argument.
If we pose the question
'why three-dimensional space?'
The structural rigidity of a triangle. The inverse square distance law
Maxwell's equations... I could go on.
And we answer with nine-dimensional space we are then left with the
question
'why nine-dimensional space?'
Because you prefer three closets to a yard sale?
I once emailed Lisa Randall to this effect but never heard back.
I believe the answer is that there is no upper bound. The polysign
construction of spacetime supports this conclusion:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
Under polysign whether higher dimensions are supported or not there is
still a natural basis for spacetime. That the progression should just
stop is doubtful. Rather than curled up higher dimensions perhaps the
context of misbehaved higher dimensions will eventually take hold. If
they misbehave by curling up that would be a nice consistency. Nicer
yet would be that they just vanish.
Your polysign is a space-time (as opposed to a space) so I
don't get that knee jerk skepticism that Lisa's ruminations
evoke. Still... the mathmatical properties are, to me at least
in the category of a magic square until something testable
is described.
I remember you didn't feel confident expressing Maxwell's
equations in your construction (they *are* daunting in 3+1)
and I have been trying to come up with something simpler.
To no avail. Anything you could come up with to illustrate
the superposition of moving charges in your space-time
might spark some insight where someone else can help
to connect a few dots to a physical application.
Sue...
-Tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- References:
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- From: Neil
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- From: Sue...
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
- Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm the Queen of England.
- Next by Date: God is pure
- Previous by thread: Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- Next by thread: Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|