Thread: 2 questions...

hey guys,

1) Very simple... as the earth orbits around the sun does it very slightly move closer?

2) If we live in 4 known dimensions, x,y,z, time. But according to einstein, objects warp it, wouldn't it get warped into a 5th dimension?

these have been bugging me for a bit... thanks

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

hey guys,

1) Very simple... as the earth orbits around the sun does it very slightly move closer?

As the earth orbits around the sun its distance varies. Closer at the winter solstice and farther out at the summer solstice. I don't know what you mean by "very slightly" but its like 3 million miles or close to that.

2) If we live in 4 known dimensions, x,y,z, time. But according to einstein, objects warp it, wouldn't it get warped into a 5th dimension?

these have been bugging me for a bit... thanks

Thats what some say in string theory but yet to be proven. Personally, I don't find extra dimensions believable. But, thats just me.

Bee

for the closer thing i meant the average. I'm asking if the average distance that the earth is from the sun gets fractionatly smaller.

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

hey guys,

1) Very simple... as the earth orbits around the sun does it very slightly move closer?

2) If we live in 4 known dimensions, x,y,z, time. But according to einstein, objects warp it, wouldn't it get warped into a 5th dimension?

these have been bugging me for a bit... thanks

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong: ultimately, everything is slowly moving futher apart: the moon from the earth, the earth from the sun, the planets in the solar system, etc.

Its all expanding... 2000 years ago, the moon was much closer than it is now.

:-D The Earth's orbit has its closer and futher points as always, but ultimately, its all expanding.

This relates to the conservation of angular momentum. The net angular momentum of the sun-earth system must remain the same. Tidal interaction of the sun and the Earth very slightly decreases the rotation rate of the sun. The lost angular momentum is transfered to the Earth which moves slightly further out in its orbit.

In regard to space-time warps: if I take a rubber ball (an object existing in three spatial dimensions) and squeeze it, it is deformed (warped) in three dimensions, not four. So why should objects when treated as four dimensional warp in five dimensions? (That's an answer not a a question.)

i thought of the warp as this... imagine someones holding a 2 dimensional sheet infront of you. Then you drop a ball on it. The sheet would warp into a third dimension. But what you said makes sense so thanks

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

for the closer thing i meant the average. I'm asking if the average distance that the earth is from the sun gets fractionatly smaller.

I answered your question as it was presented. Now your saying something different. Oh well.....

Bee

[quote="Bettina"]

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

hey guys,

2) If we live in 4 known dimensions, x,y,z, time. But according to Einstein, objects warp it, wouldn't it get warped into a 5th dimension?

these have been bugging me for a bit... thanks

Thats what some say in string theory but yet to be proven. Personally, I don't find extra dimensions believable. But, thats just me.

Bee

It ha been proven mathematically, that there are more than just our 4 dimensions. We believe that the matter on the other dimensions are to little to attract other matter, for them to warp to the 5'th dimension.

Also allot of people think dimension, would mean something like a parallel universe/world. in a certain way it is true but, not how we think it to be.
If you want to understand what dimensions (more closely) I would recommend to read the book flatlanders, I haven’t read it myself but it is a good example.

why are we not being randomly "warped" on another axe of the 5th dimension (we exist in all 10,or more, dimensions but are just moving in 4. we are also the 5th on a certain coordinate, why we don’t get pulled into another coordinate, is questionable. I haven’t thought about it, my explanation would be that no matter explosion radiation or other form can accelerate in a 5d direction (most likely).

[quote="miomaz"]

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

hey guys,

2) If we live in 4 known dimensions, x,y,z, time. But according to Einstein, objects warp it, wouldn't it get warped into a 5th dimension?

these have been bugging me for a bit... thanks

Thats what some say in string theory but yet to be proven. Personally, I don't find extra dimensions believable. But, thats just me.

Bee

It ha been proven mathematically, that there are more than just our 4 dimensions. We believe that the matter on the other dimensions are to little to attract other matter, for them to warp to the 5'th dimension.

Also allot of people think dimension, would mean something like a parallel universe/world. in a certain way it is true but, not how we think it to be.
If you want to understand what dimensions (more closely) I would recommend to read the book flatlanders, I haven’t read it myself but it is a good example.

why are we not being randomly "warped" on another axe of the 5th dimension (we exist in all 10,or more, dimensions but are just moving in 4. we are also the 5th on a certain coordinate, why we don’t get pulled into another coordinate, is questionable. I haven’t thought about it, my explanation would be that no matter explosion radiation or other form can accelerate in a 5d direction (most likely).

Hi,

I've read "Flatland, Sphereland, Warped Passages, The elegent universe", and many others that talk about extra dimensions from 5, all the way to hundreds of dimensions.

I just don't believe that the mathematics have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that extra dimensions exist. Mathematically they have put some pieces of a puzzle together and they fit well, but it doesn't mean they have a picture yet.

I still have my doubts about extra dimensions so I will have to wait untill the LHC fires up in 2007.

Bettina

Some comments on the ideas in this thread.

Mathematics cant prove anything about the world we find ourselves in beyond a shadow of a doubt - thats where the whole philosophy of science and mathematics in particular comes into play. If mathematics is just a formal game for example, why should we believe anything that a mathematical theory and all its abstractions says about the real world (in fact, can it say anything about the real world in the first place?)

Secondly, the existence of higher dimensions in string theory is out of necessity - without introducing more dimensions then the 3+1 world we think we find ourselves in the theories cannot work. This is hardly a good justification for their existence!

Mathematics cant prove anything about the world we find ourselves in beyond a shadow of a doubt

Mathematics is the language of the universe, a structure; it builds up on the laws of the universe. Every number has its place and stands with the infinity with all other numbers in complete harmony. Its not may be it is the complete undeniable truth that these numbers give us. I’m not a mathematician, but i know basics and its power.

Bettina,

I'm not sure all these particle accelerators are actually doing any good at all. Taking a proton/nuetron and smashing it into smaller lumps does not (to me) indicate the proton is made of these particles, merely that when you smash one up, that's what appears in it's place. Do any of the 'particles' they have discovered exist in nature?

I see it as a bit like smashing a rock into pebbles then grains of sand, grains of sand are not 'made' by nature, that is they are not some form of crystal, they are what you get when you smash up rocks into ever smaller pieces.

There are now hundreds of these particles, and as time goes on there will be perhaps thousands then millions, at what point will we say all we are making is debris?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Bettina,

I'm not sure all these particle accelerators are actually doing any good at all. Taking a proton/nuetron and smashing it into smaller lumps does not (to me) indicate the proton is made of these particles, merely that when you smash one up, that's what appears in it's place. Do any of the 'particles' they have discovered exist in nature?

I see it as a bit like smashing a rock into pebbles then grains of sand, grains of sand are not 'made' by nature, that is they are not some form of crystal, they are what you get when you smash up rocks into ever smaller pieces.

There are now hundreds of these particles, and as time goes on there will be perhaps thousands then millions, at what point will we say all we are making is debris?

Smashing open a rock just gives you smaller rocks like opening a russian doll and finding a smaller version. Smashing open protons and seeing something completely different like quarks, makes me want to know what the quark is made of.

When you reach a point where the "particle" can't be split into any other parts, then you have what we are made of. Its human nature to discover.

Bee

Mathematics is the language of the universe, a structure; it builds up on the laws of the universe.

No, we use mathematics to make predications about the universe. No where is anything concrete made about reality (what ever that is). Fourier analysis of a trumpet does not imply the existence of a multitude of pure tone trumpets playing in unison for example.

Every number has its place and stands with the infinity with all other numbers in complete harmony.

And what happens when you change the axioms? Things are not as clear cut as you believe, lack of completeness for the naturals comes to mind.

Its not may be it is the complete undeniable truth that these numbers give us.

Complete truth? What does that mean? We are not even sure if ZFC is consistant!

I’m not a mathematician, but i know basics and its power.

Mathematics is good at proving other mathematical results - it's good fortune that these have any predictive power for the universe as we observe it.

No, we use mathematics to make predications about the univers

Yes, we can use math for perdicting the for ex. the universe.
But predicting isnt math.

Code:

6+9=15

^This will never change.
This is math, in a simple way, also it wouldn't change if I wrote E=mc^2

Every number has its place and stands with the infinity with all other numbers in complete harmony.

And what happens when you change the axioms? Things are not as clear cut as you believe, lack of completeness for the naturals comes to mind

.

The axiom would rearrange and form a structure where every number has its place. To the rules of our universe it is impossible that math is an error.

Complete truth? What does that mean? We are not even sure if ZFC is consistant!

that math is based on the universes rules bound and it is simply impossible for math to be wrong, the only possible way to change the laws of math is to change the whole universe.

Mathematics is good at proving other mathematical results - it's good fortune that these have any predictive power for the universe as we observe it.

Do not insult math. Math isn't some circus joke that will predict you're future or tell you that you have won a million dollars, It is based on the laws of physics and phisik is the universe. it is, not maybe, it just is.

Yes, we can use math for perdicting the for ex. the universe.
But predicting isnt math.

Where did i say prediction was math? But the way the universe works, and the way mathematics works seems to be very different (perhaps one started as an abstraction of the other)

Code:

6+9=15

^This will never change.
This is math, in a simple way, also it wouldn't change if I wrote E=mc^2

Well in modular arithmetic it would change, or if you changed the axioms of peano's arithmetic.

The axiom would rearrange and form a structure where every number has its place. To the rules of our universe it is impossible that math is an error. that math is based on the universes rules bound and it is simply impossible for math to be wrong, the only possible way to change the laws of math is to change the whole universe.

It is? So you have a proof of the consistency of ZFC? Mathematics is based on axioms, change the axioms and you get something else. For example is the axiom of choice, or the continuum hypothesis true?

Do not insult math. Math isn't some circus joke that will predict you're future or tell you that you have won a million dollars, It is based on the laws of physics and phisik is the universe. it is, not maybe, it just is.

Mathematics is based on the laws of physics? This whole line of reasoning here is just loopy sorry. Mathematics has predictive power but cant tell you the future (huh?), how are the ideas of finite geometry based on the laws of physics (which are expressed mathematically!).