Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Brian Q. Hutchings

Posts: 4,945
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Is physical space three dimensional? Mathematical perspectives...
Posted: Feb 4, 2013 10:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

get rid of the lightconeheads;
use quaternions, where "t is the real,
scalar parameter; thank you."

> of quaternions, or "the first-get vector mechanics,
> wherefrom we get *all* of the lingo thereof."


thus:
thus increasing the concentration of iron,
decreases the bio-availablity of all of the other trace-elements;
we cannot be sure that all 92 of them are not ultimately required,
although most of them are known to be so,
viz molydenum, vanadium etc. etc. for animal nutrition;
read a dogfood label & create a recipe!

> >There's no reason not to increase the size of the tests.

> If it was done in measured amounts
> and increases the edible fish population,


thus:
the Copenhagenskoolers have merely "reified" the math
of the mere probablities, which are no different in effect
than they are for flipping a coin;
til you actually look at the result,
it might be funny. and, if you try
to look at anything that is "not on your scale,"
either interatomic or intergalactic, you will find odd,
"quantized" behaviors that are amenable to "QM" ...
as well as to a modicum of good sense.

thus quoth:
observation/measurement) forcing change on the electron's position or
momentum. I've heard the phenomenon explained in this way many times,
with the unexplained caveat that this implies a fundamental randomness
to the universe, rather than just the nature of trying to observe it.

thus:
the speed of lightwaves' propogation is dependent
solely upon the index of refraction of the medum,
which is relaed to its a)
composition and b)
density; not the *sotto voce* velocity
of some ur-newtonian corpuscles,
already set-up to violate Snell's law (of refraction) by Sir Isaac.

that was really dumb.

> basically, he's hide-bound by certain things he's learned in the past
> (like momentum = m*v) and won't let them go.


thus:
typically obfuscating nondimensional analysis,
you twosome. space is clearly three-dimensional
for several applications (surveying & navigation e.g.),
and it is clearly "more complicated that that,"
for both interatomic & intergalactic processes,
hence the enormous efficacy of stringtheory
for appreciating the many "quantized" phenomena,
beginning with the Kaluza theory.

however, the "compactification to a string"
of Klein may not be necessary;
it is simply an abstuse math-speak;
it may not be "hidden variables," but
there are "hidden dimensionalities" or spaces,
at least in a formal sense.

it is not that Kaluza was wrong, it's just that
no-one knew how to treat of such dimensionality,
other than through phase-spaces (like Hamiltonians and
Lagrangians) -- with the notable exception
of quaternions, or "the first-get vector mechanics,
wherefrom we get *all* of the lingo thereof."

> > Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
> > to explain SRT using 5D space.




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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.