# Thread: Which is the math models explain the different dimensions ?

1. Which is the math models explain the different dimensions ?...Euclides, Riemann, ...

How we could modelize a n-space dimensional ... with different "n" values?... 1D. 2D. 3D, 4D,..., nD....

Which model could give a logical, balanced, symmetrical, variable and adjustable n-space ?

2.

3. First question - the number of dimensions is not determined by the type of geometry. Eucildean, etc. geometry can be defined for any finite n.

I don't understand your other questions.

4. Originally Posted by mathman
First question - the number of dimensions is not determined by the type of geometry. Eucildean, etc. geometry can be defined for any finite n.

I don't understand your other questions.
OK...I mean if there are any maths model that parametrize the different space dimensions... I thought that Euclides do part of it...

For example...which maths could modelize the 6D-Calabi-Yau shapes?

5. I think what you are after is the area of differential geometry. This is a very complex field though, and one could easily devote a lifetime to studying this.

6. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I think what you are after is the area of differential geometry. This is a very complex field though, and one could easily devote a lifetime to studying this.
Ok...I would look for it (just to have an idea)...thanks

7. Originally Posted by mathman
First question - the number of dimensions is not determined by the type of geometry. Eucildean, etc. geometry can be defined for any finite n.

I don't understand your other questions.
Please clarify - the number of dimensions is not determined by their type of geometry? Is each dimension itself not a geometric construct? Fields, Vectors, Potentials?

8. Originally Posted by Write4U
Please clarify - the number of dimensions is not determined by their type of geometry? Is each dimension itself not a geometric construct? Fields, Vectors, Potentials?
What he means to say is that you can define any type of geometry ( flat, curved ) in any number of dimensions; e.g. it is just as easy to mathematically describe a 6-sphere in (8+3)-spacetime than it is to describe a circle on a flat plane. Both are mathematically trivial. Same for fields, vectors and potentials - you can define each of these in arbitrary dimensions. What does change though is the physics - (3+1) space-time has a somewhat privileged status, as many laws of physics simply wouldn't work in space-times with a different number of spatial and temporal dimensions. For example, the inverse square law for conservative force fields is true only in three spatial dimensions; change this to, say, five spatial dimensions, and you'd get a very different force law.

9. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
.... What does change though is the physics - (3+1) space-time has a somewhat privileged status, as many laws of physics simply wouldn't work in space-times with a different number of spatial and temporal dimensions. For example, the inverse square law for conservative force fields is true only in three spatial dimensions; change this to, say, five spatial dimensions, and you'd get a very different force law.
Now, Iīm who do not understand what you mean in this sentence ...(??)

10. Originally Posted by dapifo
Now, Iīm who do not understand what you mean in this sentence ...(??)
Basically what I am trying to say is that the world as we see it can only be the way it is in a universe with three spatial and one temporal ( macroscopic ) dimensions. If the number of macroscopic dimensions differed in any way, then we most likely would not be here, or at least the universe would be a very different place with different laws of physics.

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
just as easy to mathematically describe a 6-sphere in (8+3)-spacetime
Just curious, but do the 6-sphere and/or this 8+3 space-time have any real interest in the physics realm? One particular thing comes to mind, but I'm not sure if this was purely for example.

12. Originally Posted by epidecus
Just curious, but do the 6-sphere and/or this 8+3 space-time have any real interest in the physics realm?
No, it was just an arbitrary example.

13. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by dapifo
Now, Iīm who do not understand what you mean in this sentence ...(??)
Basically what I am trying to say is that the world as we see it can only be the way it is in a universe with three spatial and one temporal ( macroscopic ) dimensions. If the number of macroscopic dimensions differed in any way, then we most likely would not be here, or at least the universe would be a very different place with different laws of physics.
Markus...what you say now is more clear...but only there is an mistake: As you make refferences to "macroscopic" dimensions...you know that there could be 6D extra space dimensions (Calabi-Yau shapes) rolled at very small dimensions (Planck dimensiion: 10^-35 meters))...but there also could be 1D extra (4+1 D space-time dimensions) at very large dimension (larger than Our Universe: 10^+27 meters).

So, yes we could be in a 3+1 D Universe between two others Universes with other dimensions (6+3+1 D for smaller & 4+1 D for larger)....then our physics law models are valid only for this range...and other physics law models could be out of these limmits...although the "underlaying laws" could be the same for all of them... and we could define a new TOA wider thn M-Theory that could be valid also for these scales....where we have to take into account the extra dimensions that will be there.

The dimensions could be a funtion of the space scale (!??)....D (n) = f (n_scale).

And as you propose...there could be other forces fields...nD Forces Fields...

14. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
No, it was just an arbitrary example.
Okay. Thanks.

15. Originally Posted by dapifo
Markus...what you say now is more clear...but only there is an mistake: As you make refferences to "macroscopic" dimensions...you know that there could be 6D extra space dimensions (Calabi-Yau shapes) rolled at very small dimensions (Planck dimensiion: 10^-35 meters))...but there also could be 1D extra (4+1 D space-time dimensions) at very large dimension (larger than Our Universe: 10^+27 meters).

So, yes we could be in a 3+1 D Universe between two others Universes with other dimensions (6+3+1 D for smaller & 4+1 D for larger)....then our physics law models are valid only for this range...and other physics law models could be out of these limmits...although the "underlaying laws" could be the same for all of them... and we could define a new TOA wider thn M-Theory that could be valid also for these scales....where we have to take into account the extra dimensions that will be there.

The dimensions could be a funtion of the space scale (!??)....D (n) = f (n_scale).

And as you propose...there could be other forces fields...nD Forces Fields...
I agree, that is quite possible, and there are various proposals along those very lines, e.g. String theory, brane cosmology, causal dynamical triangulation etc.

16. OK...Thanks..I didnīt know about the "causal dynamical triangulation "....but it seams to be very similar to the "fractal cosmology"....

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement