Seeing another Dimension

beachgoer07 · Dec 13, 2008

<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I was thinking a photon has a duality. Look at it one way it’s a particle, look at it another and it’s a wave.<span>  </span>What if we’re looking at another dimension of a particle? one that we can actually detected. That’s why it has a duality.<span>  </span>Well I just wondered what everyone thought. </font></p>

kyle_baron · Dec 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking a photon has a duality. Look at it one way it’s a particle, look at it another and it’s a wave.  What if we’re looking at another dimension of a particle? one that we can actually detected. That’s why it has a duality.  Well I just wondered what everyone thought. <br />Posted by beachgoer07</DIV></p><p><strong>Because a photon has duality, you're saying that we see it as though it's in another dimension?  I would agree, since not only photons, but electrons, atoms, and individual molecules have a duality as waves (and that's where the story ends).   Louis de Broglie states that all matter has wave like characteristics:</strong></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_broglie<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking a photon has a duality. Look at it one way it’s a particle, look at it another and it’s a wave.  What if we’re looking at another dimension of a particle? one that we can actually detected. That’s why it has a duality.  Well I just wondered what everyone thought. <br />Posted by beachgoer07</DIV></p><p>How is that behavior explained as something having to do with a dimension ?  What does dimension have to do with it?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

beachgoer07 · Dec 13, 2008

<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Think about it we have our three dimensions, beyond that it gets a little fuzzy because we can’t imagine in the physical sense anything beyond that.<span>  </span>Science says there are other dimensions 22 I believe last time I checked.<span>  </span>Having a duality means for ex it’s a solid one way but a wave the next.<span>  </span>So could it be that the reason the math (which is beyond my capabilities) says it’s a duality is because we have actually stumbled on to the 4<sup>th</sup> Dimension (if you don’t count time) just an idea, but it would explain a few thing.</font></p>

vogon13 · Dec 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think about it we have our three dimensions, beyond that it gets a little fuzzy because we can’t imagine in the physical sense anything beyond that.  Science says there are other dimensions 22 I believe last time I checked.  Having a duality means for ex it’s a solid one way but a wave the next.  So could it be that the reason the math (which is beyond my capabilities) says it’s a duality is because we have actually stumbled on to the 4th Dimension (if you don’t count time) just an idea, but it would explain a few thing. <br /> Posted by beachgoer07</DIV></p><p> </p><p><font size="3">Huh ??</font></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think about it we have our three dimensions, beyond that it gets a little fuzzy because we can’t imagine in the physical sense anything beyond that.  Science says there are other dimensions 22 I believe last time I checked.  Having a duality means for ex it’s a solid one way but a wave the next.  So could it be that the reason the math (which is beyond my capabilities) says it’s a duality is because we have actually stumbled on to the 4th Dimension (if you don’t count time) just an idea, but it would explain a few thing. <br />Posted by beachgoer07</DIV></p><p>OK I  have thought about it.  Science does not say there are 22 other dimensions.  Accepted science, with real experimental validation, general relativity, says we live in 4-manifold with curvature that makes it impossible to clearly distinguish between time and space except locally.  Why can't we imagine anything beyond 3 dimensions ?</p><p>Consider a function defined on a domain with six points, say x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6.  Such a function assigns to each of those six points some real number. You can imagine the graph of such a function as a comb with 6 tines (think of a bar graph).  Now imagine the set of all such functions.  That set is a 6-dimensional space.  And I just imagined it, defined it, and showed a means of visualizing it.</p><p>Duality does not say that anything is a solid one way and a wave the next.  It says that you need to revise your notions of what matter really is at the quantum level, but duality can be a very misleading concept.  Basically the fundamental particles are indeed particles, but they do not behave like ordinary little marbles.  You can see this in the experiments that show the classic double slit interference patterns forming -- one particle at a time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment</p><p> <img class="thumbimage" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg/200px-Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="200" height="580" /></p><p> </p><p>And the math does not suggest anything at all by way of a model of quantum mechanics based on finding the 4th dimension.  3 spatial dimensions seem to suffice.  </p><p>So what are some of the "few things" that a 4th spatial dimension explains and how does it explain them ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

beachgoer07 · Dec 13, 2008

<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Ok think of it this way, and this is just an example.<span>  </span>Theory says that for every decision we make in another reality we make another, making an alternate reality existing in the same space time (don’t know if I explained that quite right). Now if you think of the wave function has being a manifestation 4<sup>th</sup> Dimension then that wave function can span all dimensions allowing that particle to exist in alternate realities simultaneously. In essence existing in the same matter in alternate dimensions at the same time.<span>  </span>And thank you DrRocket for your responses </font></p>

SHU · Dec 14, 2008

<p><font size="2">It's much more fun to subtract dimensions than add them.  Strictly speculation for it's own sake but consider "co-existing" among 4 dimensions (comparative abstract).  BTW, that could be n*(n+1)/2 combinations, providing there isn't a 0th and no causal sequence.</font></p><p><font size="2">The other stuff about parallel dimensions is science fiction.  There's string/symmetry theories suggesting 10 or 11 dimensions but those extra dimensions are very small and not part of the macro scale.  There is, or was, the bosonic string theory that is not consistent in anything other than 26 dimensions, giving 22 extra dimensions but that's pretty much forgotten decades ago along with tachyons.</font></p><p><font size="2">"Particle-like behaviour" might be a better start than "particles" if you're just becoming aquainted with quantum weirdness.</font></p>

DrRocket · Dec 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok think of it this way, and this is just an example.  Theory says that for every decision we make in another reality we make another, making an alternate reality existing in the same space time (don’t know if I explained that quite right). Now if you think of the wave function has being a manifestation 4th Dimension then that wave function can span all dimensions allowing that particle to exist in alternate realities simultaneously. In essence existing in the same matter in alternate dimensions at the same time.  And thank you DrRocket for your responses <br />Posted by beachgoer07</DIV></p><p>What you are talking about is any of the various versions of Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.  That interpretation has nothing to do with a 4th (or 5th) dimension and is really just another way of looking at quantum mechanics that is equivalent to the usual one in that it provides exactly the same predictions.  The "theory" aabout which you are speaking is not the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics -- it is not necessarily wrong, but it is not necessarily right either.  In fact it seems to be irrelevant from an observatinal perspective and useful primarily in philosophical questions regarding quantum mechanics.  </p><p>A wave function, the wave function, is a solution of Schrodinger's equation, in ordinary quantum mechanics, and takes place in the  usual 3 dimensions, perhaps 4 if you consider the time-dependent case, but it is not related to any extra unusual dimensions.</p><p>There is no such things as "alternate dimensions".  <u>Alternate</u> dimensions are the stuff of comic books and science fiction and are actually meaningless.  You might want to look at the thread here on the subject of the concept of "dimension".  http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ab1675c48-7c2d-4e4d-b6eb-8790beb68f8bDiscussion%3aa1ec83d2-eaa1-4597-8a0d-f9f0c84c9d93&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0</p><p>Quantum mechanics is somewhat weird.  That weirdness has provoked some unconventional thoughts in an attempt to interpret the theory.  Those thought are legitimate and in fact useful.  But you need to be careful and not get too carried away and read more into them than is really there.  </p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="1">"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity.<span>  </span>I do not believe that there ever was such a time.<span>  </span>There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper.<span>  </span>But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve.<span>  </span>On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." – Richard P. Feynman in <em>The Character of Physical Law</em></font></span></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="1">Feynman was IMO the best physicist of the last half of the twentieth century and understood quantum mechanics as well as anyone who has ever walked the planet.  I can highly recommend his writings, both those for physicists and for a more general audience.  It was his work in formulating quantum electrodynamics that provided the basis for much of modern quantum field theory.  He wrote a book called <em>QED</em>, really the text of some lectures, for a general lay audience, that I can recommend as an overview of what quantum mechanics really implies.  I suggest that you obtain a copy and read it.  It is quite short and with Feynman's wit it is a pretty entertaining read. If you want to delve into physics more deeply on an introductory technical level then <em>The Feynman Lectures on Physics</em> contains the lectures that he gave to a freshman physics class in the 1960s and remains one of the finest general physics texts ever. </font></span></span></p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such things as "alternate dimensions".  Alternate dimensions are the stuff of comic books and science fiction and are actually meaningless.    <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>BALONEY.  We could call the alternate (compact) dimensions DARK dimensions, along with dark matter and dark energy, if the term "alternate" bothers you.  String Theory lists 11 or 12 of them mathematically, which covers all the particles and forces. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The other stuff about parallel dimensions is science fiction.  There's string/symmetry theories suggesting 10 or 11 dimensions but those extra dimensions are very small and not part of the macro scale.  <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p><strong>Duh.  Thank you for stating the obvious.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 14, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BALONEY.  We could call the alternate (compact) dimensions DARK dimensions, along with dark matter and dark energy, if the term "alternate" bothers you.  String Theory lists 11 or 12 of them mathematically, which covers all the particles and forces. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Kyle, as we both know you couldn't recognize bologna if you had Oscar Mayer in your pocket.</p><p>There is no such thing as a dark dimension, except when you refuse to come out into the light.  Dimensions are neither dark nor alternate.  A manifold is either n-dimensional, for a specific value of n, or it is not.  The dimension is the same everywhere, and it must be so as can be rigorously shown.  A manifold can be constructed so that in certain directions it is quite small, basically admitting of compact slices that are small when measured in the metric of the manifold, but those dimensions are there all the time, are not some cubby hole where spirits hang out, and are most certainly not "alternate" in any reasonable sense of the word.</p><p>String theory is not a single theory and is not consistent in either the number of dimensions required for the formulation or in what it covers.  In fact one of the problems with string theory is that many of its predictions are so far wrong that all that is certain is that the theory need some heavy-duty refinement.  String theory and its successor M theory are valid attempts to develop a unified theory of the known forces, but those theories are still in the formative stages and are not ready for prime time.</p><p>String theory also requires supersymmetry, so it not only covers all the particles it covers an entire zoo of them which have never been seen.  We may get discover some of the in the scheduled LHC experiments if and when the collider comes back on line.  Those experiments could provide some support for string theory by finding supersymmetric particles, or kill it entirely.  Supersymmetry is required for string theories and M theory, but string/M theory is not required for supersymmetry so the LHC cannot confirm string or M theories.  </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 15, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Kyle, as we both know you couldn't recognize bologna if you had Oscar Mayer in your pocket.</DIV></p><p><strong>Ha, Ha, Ha,   Ho, Ho, Ho,   He, He, He...........</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  A manifold is either n-dimensional, for a specific value of n, or it is not.  The dimension is the same everywhere, and it must be so as can be rigorously shown.</DIV></p><p> <strong>Ahhhhhh.......No.   A dimension doesn't have to be the same everywhere.  What about time as a 0-Dimension (no time)?  Or time as a variable dimension (past and future)?  Dimensions aren't just space, ya know!  All these are possible dimensions,  with in the same universe.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p><p>   </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 15, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ha, Ha, Ha,   Ho, Ho, Ho,   He, He, He........... Ahhhhhh.......No.   A dimension doesn't have to be the same everywhere.  What about time as a 0-Dimension (no time)?  Or time as a variable dimension (past and future)?  Dimensions aren't just space, ya know!  All these are possible dimensions,  with in the same universe.     <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>You need to learn what a dimension is.  Go look up the thread on dimension and learn something, or not.</p><p>The dimension of a manifold is the same everywhere.  This results from connectedness as a topological space, the necessity to have an atlas and the fact that Euclidean spaces that are homeomorphics have the same dimension.  It doesn't matter what physical significance you place on dimensions, the number of dimensions is constant. </p><p>Consider space-time. There is no global distinction between space and time.  They are mixed together as a result of the curvature of the space-time manifold.  Nevertheless, the space-time of general relativity is 4-dimensional.  It is not 4-dimensional in some places, 3-dimensional other places and perhaps 2-dimensional somewhere else.</p><p>Time is not 0-dimensional.  It is in fact a coordinate representing 1 of the 4 dimensions of space time in a local coordinate chart.  </p><p>Time does not have variable dimension either.  Past and future do not denote differences in dimension but merely differences in direction.</p><p>Your record for accuracy continues to be unblemished by success.</p><p>You really ought to try to learn a little bit of mathematics and a little bit of physics.  This is getting ridiculous.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You need to learn what a dimension is.  Go look up the thread on dimension and learn something, or not.</DIV></p><p><strong>I choose not to, if you have anything to say in those threads.  I'd rather keep my mind open, rather than closed, like some people (hint).</strong></p><p>[<strong>QUOTE]</strong>The dimension of a manifold is the same everywhere.  This results from connectedness as a topological space, the necessity to have an atlas and the fact that Euclidean spaces that are homeomorphics have the same dimension.  It doesn't matter what physical significance you place on dimensions, the number of dimensions is constant. Consider space-time. There is no global distinction between space and time.  They are mixed together as a result of the curvature of the space-time manifold.  Nevertheless, the space-time of general relativity is 4-dimensional.  It is not 4-dimensional in some places, 3-dimensional other places and perhaps 2-dimensional somewhere else.<strong></DIV></strong></p><p><strong>That's true on a global scale.  But it falls apart, on the Quantum scale.</strong></p><p><strong>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></strong>Time is not 0-dimensional.  It is in fact a coordinate representing 1 of the 4 dimensions of space time in a local coordinate chart.<strong></DIV></strong></p><p><strong>It sure as hell is.  If space = 0 (beneath the Planck Length).  Which by the way, many physicists think is the background, to our 4 dimensional universe.</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Time does not have variable dimension either.  Past and future do not denote differences in dimension but merely differences in direction.</DIV></p><p><strong>You're talking about Times Arrow on a global scale once again!  Get off the global scale and start thinking small !!!(Quantum)!!! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really ought to try to learn a little bit of mathematics and a little bit of physics.</DIV></p><p><strong>And I suggest that you try to de-program your mathematical mind, and try to  imagine (visualize) what is actually occuring. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  This is getting ridiculous. </DIV></p><p><strong>You certainly are!  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong> <br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 16, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I choose not to, if you have anything to say in those threads.  I'd rather keep my mind open, rather than closed, like some people (hint).That's true on a global scale.  But it falls apart, on the Quantum scale.It sure as hell is.  If space = 0 (beneath the Planck Length).  Which by the way, many physicists think is the background, to our 4 dimensional universe.You're talking about Times Arrow on a global scale once again!  Get off the global scale and start thinking small !!!(Quantum)!!! And I suggest that you try to de-program your mathematical mind, and try to  imagine (visualize) what is actually occuring. You certainly are!    <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>This is a hard science forum.  If you want to post nonsense then you ought to do it in The Unexplained.</p><p><strong>Note to any lurkers desiring to understand science</strong>:  Please disregard the postings of kyle_baron.  He has no understanding of either science or mathematics and tends to mangle descriptions of both.  In this case he has corrupted the notion of a manifold, which is the structure used to model space-time on both a local and global level. The concept of the dimension of a manifold applies at all scales, and is in fact independent of any scaling considerations whatever.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note to any lurkers desiring to understand science:  Please disregard the postings of kyle_baron.  He has no understanding of either science or mathematics and tends to mangle descriptions of both. </DIV></p><p><strong>LOL!  Which is exactly what happens at the Quantum level.  Your elegant mathematics can't deal with it.  It becomes mangled.  Thanks for making my point.  Well done.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In this case he has corrupted the notion of a manifold, which is the structure used to model space-time on both a local and global level.</DIV></p><p><strong>???  Does Local = Quantum?</strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The concept of the dimension of a manifold applies at all scales, and is in fact independent of any scaling considerations whatever.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>WRONG.  I don't need a Phd in Mathematics (like Dr. Rocket) to understand how quantum space relates to our 4 dimensional universe.  A simple X-Y Coordianate system will do just fine.  Everyone with a basic math background has seen the X-Y Coordinate system, with X on the horizontal axis and Y on the vertical axis.  The Quantum space is defined as X=0 (time = 0) and Y = 0 (space = 0).  The question becomes, is this point on the graph (the graph being our 4 dimensional space) actually on the graph???  Or, is this point on the border (edge) of our 4 dimensional space?  Answer:  It's on the edge!!!</strong></p><p><strong><font size="5">***CASE CLOSED***</font></strong></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 17, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>LOL!  Which is exactly what happens at the Quantum level.  Your elegant mathematics can't deal with it.  It becomes mangled.  Thanks for making my point.  Well done.  ???  Does Local = Quantum?WRONG.  I don't need a Phd in Mathematics (like Dr. Rocket) to understand how quantum space relates to our 4 dimensional universe.  A simple X-Y Coordianate system will do just fine.  Everyone with a basic math background has seen the X-Y Coordinate system, with X on the horizontal axis and Y on the vertical axis.  The Quantum space is defined as X=0 (time = 0) and Y = 0 (space = 0).  The question becomes, is this point on the graph (the graph being our 4 dimensional space) actually on the graph???  Or, is this point on the border (edge) of our 4 dimensional space?  Answer:  It's on the edge!!!***CASE CLOSED***  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><span style="font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">"</font><font size="1">That's not right. It's not even wrong."<span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"> -- Wolfgang Pauli</span></span></font></span> <p>Kyle, you have reached a new low in understanding, even for you.</p><p>That is just nonsense.  Complete gibberish.  It doesn't make sense mathematically.  It doesn't make sense physically.  It makes no sense whatever to an educated and rational mind.</p><p>You might do better to try to learn a bit of mathematics and physics.  Spouting nonsense and insisting that it is correct when it is not even meaningful is not very constructive.  No matter how large the font you choose to to express your "thoughts", the result is still nonsense.  In this case is simply bolded capitalized nonsense.</p><p>You don't even understand that you don't understand.  Pitiful indeed.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Dec 18, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>LOL!  Which is exactly what happens at the Quantum level.  Your elegant mathematics can't deal with it.  It becomes mangled.  Thanks for making my point.  Well done.  ???  Does Local = Quantum?WRONG.  I don't need a Phd in Mathematics (like Dr. Rocket) to understand how quantum space relates to our 4 dimensional universe.  A simple X-Y Coordianate system will do just fine.  Everyone with a basic math background has seen the X-Y Coordinate system, with X on the horizontal axis and Y on the vertical axis.  The Quantum space is defined as X=0 (time = 0) and Y = 0 (space = 0).  The question becomes, is this point on the graph (the graph being our 4 dimensional space) actually on the graph???  Or, is this point on the border (edge) of our 4 dimensional space?  Answer:  It's on the edge!!!***CASE CLOSED***  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">It is possible to argue with Dr Rocket but this isn't the way.  He's already done his homework.   There is a theoretical argument that could be made here.  If you don't have the science vocabulary, get a reference.</font>

DrRocket · Dec 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is possible to argue with Dr Rocket but this isn't the way.  He's already done his homework.   There is a theoretical argument that could be made here.  If you don't have the science vocabulary, get a reference. <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p>If you think there is any sort of theoretical argument that can support Kyle's "position" I would love to hear it.  As far as I can see it is  quite easily refutable on purely mathematical grounds -- the dimension of a connected manifold is the same everywhere.  But if think there is such an argument, then please post it.  Kyle himself does not the capability to pur forth any sort of logical argument,  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  It doesn't make sense mathematically.  It doesn't make sense physically.    <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>The only thing I was trying to show, is how the Geometry of the Quantum space relates to the Geometry of the Global 4 Dimensional space.  It DOES make sence physically, even if it doesn't make sence mathematically (which is irrelevent for this example).  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p><p><strong>The fact that you insist our 4 dimensional manifold, extends into the Quantum dimension, is LAUGHABLE.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is possible to argue with Dr Rocket but this isn't the way.  He's already done his homework.   There is a theoretical argument that could be made here.   <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p><strong>Ok, what is it?  What's the secret theoretical arguement?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing I was trying to show, is how the Geometry of the Quantum space relates to the Geometry of the Global 4 Dimensional space.  It DOES make sence physically, even if it doesn't make sence mathematically (which is irrelevent for this example).  The fact that you insist our 4 dimensional manifold, extends into the Quantum dimension, is LAUGHABLE.  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/6/fac5ed88-7ce0-4fa2-b68b-f986e5d73262.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>At Time=0, Space=0 (as shown on an X-Y Graph) your precious little Manifold collapses (not even to a point) but to NOTHING.  It DISAPPEARS:  Gone, Bye-Bye, Adios, Sy-O-Nara.  All that's left is NOTHINGNESS, along with your insistance that the manifold is still there!  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></strong></p><p><strong>At Time=0, Space=0, a seperate new (non) dimension exists, that surrounds our familiar 4 Dimensional Manifold.  This is no diffferent, than the Big Bang in reverse.  Therefore, I say once again:</strong></p><p><strong><font size="6">***CASE-CLOSED***</font></strong></p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

derekmcd · Dec 19, 2008

<p>"This isn't right... It's not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli in reference to one of his students papers.</p><p> </p><p>As for the notion that the extra dimensions in various string theories are parallel or alternate universes, that is also completely wrong.  Should those dimensions exist, they exist in <em><strong>our</strong></em> universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

Seeing another Dimension

beachgoer07

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

beachgoer07

Guest

vogon13

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

beachgoer07

Guest

SHU

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

SHU

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page