The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Is physical space three dimensional? Mathematical perspectives...
Replies: 4   Last Post: Feb 4, 2013 10:04 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 63
Registered: 10/22/09
Re: Is physical space three dimensional? Mathematical perspectives...
Posted: Feb 2, 2013 1:47 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Feb 1, 5:15 pm, "Tim Golden"
<> wrote:
> When we perceive physical space as three dimensional we do so in a Euclidean sense, which treats the point position as fundamental. It is satisfactory to most that a system of three continuous numerical values is sufficient to address physical space; typically (x,y,z) coordinates where x,y, and z are real values orthogonally oriented to one another.
> If we regard the region or the object as fundamental rather than the point then we expose more dimensions, for the object or region may be reoriented within the physical space: it can be rotated. We generally understand there to be two additional degrees of freedom within this approach, but this additional information comes somewhat structured, since these will be angles, whereas typically the former will be (x,y,z) coordinates.
> Under this analysis ordinary physical space takes more dimensions to fully declare the freedoms of a very small object or region of space. But these dimensions are not homogeneous. They are structured.
> This sits very closely to the relative reference frame, for by exposing the objects rotational freedoms we are essentially declaring a reference frame for it. The qualities of the fundamental object matter here. For instance an electron is regarded as fundamental, and lo and behold it has a spin characteristic, which is partially consistent with this analysis.
> I feel comfortable stating that physical space in not three dimensional, and regard the common view as a Euclidean interpretation. That way of thinking is a black and white representation. It is good to start with, but easily attacked as incomplete. This applies to the interpretation of the point particle.
>  - Tim

Dimensions and string theory.
" What does a physical particle look like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
I cannot believe in string theory as a religion.
Book ? The trouble with Physics? / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 ? 127.
?. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren?t actually studying a fundamental theory.? . . .
? . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ?
? . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea??
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /

String theory . . . . ? Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ?

/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /

We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./

How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn?t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But???. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk?"
To this Lipin?s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.