Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: a question regarding hyper-dimensions

  1. #1 a question regarding hyper-dimensions 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Greetings all.


    There is currently much written about hyper-dimensions of space and time, extra-dimensions that is, employed for the purpose of better explaining and linking known laws of space-time. Could anyone in this forum offer any insight into the restrictions placed on these hyperdimension models.

    For instance, if it were fesible for a hyper-dimension of space or time, whatever the case may be, to link quantum physics with gravitational physics, a hyperdimension explained as a model of space-time that is purely theoretical, and not observable as our stream of scientific research would consider, does that make the hyperdimension construct that links (for instance) quantum and gravitational physics a valid construct?

    Are there, therefore, any road rules to be followed when constructing hyper-dimensions? For instance, does a hyperdimension have to be a universal fix, so to speak, linking all facets of physics, or can it link only two or so streams of knowledge?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Greetings Mr. Smith

    The only restriction of such theorizing is how large you want to make the equations to explain your model

    I think many of the observations are valid, but that the explanations for them are simply wrong. They are too deeply based in 'virtual foundations'. As in, you purport idea A to be true but have no proof that it is, and then do the same for B. It just so happens that if you believe both A and B to be true, they offer solutions for each other and allow an individual to see both as true....but only assuming that both are true in of themselves. People often do not consider the 'in of itself' truth involved and get too mixed up in virtual systems with no real solid roots.

    Some things are far simpler and far more complex than we make them out to be. I feel as if modern science is 180 degrees out of phase with the correct train of thought to be used. They do not like the idea of action at a distance because it is too complicated, so they make it simple by saying all is one, but then create a perplexing number mess in order to validate their attempts at simplicity, and in the end never really make anything better and only add more twists and turns to a potentially liner idea.

    They are saying 'the truth tends to be simple' but they are making the paradigm with which that idea is applied to too malleable. They need to come from a far more fundamental perception of simplicity and include not only simplicity in of itself, but simplicity of the whole system you are designing and working with. The number of negatives you create in order to form positives must also be taken into account.


    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Thank you for your reply Cold Fusion. Ideally it would seem, by your reply, a link could be made provided it doesn't cast too many shadows on associated laws, which I agree with. Fundamental simplicity though, as a logic, borders on basic conscious ability, which is a hazard in any science equation, as Sartre pointed out.

    One thing I have learnt through experience is that hyperdimensions that link equations are required to be entirely devoid of philosophy. I wish I had not learnt that by experience, because it's a tough lesson. It would have been far simpler for me to realise that the only current link between quantum and gravitational physics for instance is the "theorist", his perception and research "äbility". But, that link is not valid, it is not a valid scientific link, therefore suggesting that a hyperdimensional link between say quantum physics and gravitational physics "must" sacrifice all connotations of perception-philosophy, and thus all philosophical dogma, and thus not focus on pure simplicity of connection.

    It's possible. It has to be. The question is "how", and back to my initial question, how will that non-philosophical link be judged? How will the hyperdimension be given "real" status if indeed it is not a quality of philosophy let alone consciousness-realisaton? Would science accept the need for an entirely fictictious hyperdimension of time or space if it could link say gravity and quantum physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    We'll just have to test it out eventually.

    Philosophy can be used in the process to judge your own motives however; to check to see whether you are emotionally pursuing something, or logically. Whether you are looking for strings simply because you find them 'beautiful', or because they are a logical conclusion of data.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Yes, that's correct.

    The general question is whether or not the overall link between the equations is a feature of space-time we have overlooked that has been right in front of us, or something of space-time we need to "fabricate"; something organic to observable science, or something artificial. Or, something else. The chances of it being something organic we have overlooked can be well-dismissed given our powers of observation and insight, leaving only an artificial bridge. The question though is, "how could an artificial bridge be taken seriously", "by what standard", "by the mere standard of being an overall bridge"?

    I think, to get to my point, a theory of all things will come across as over-rated. It will merely be an artificial concoction of ficticious space-time mechanics linking all the hard work done by others. The only "thing" it could do is offer us a mechanical-based science for gravity, which could revolutionalise the wheel as we know it, but of course only owing to a fictictious bridge of space-time fanciful wizardry. The reason I say this is in support of all that we already know, that we haven't missed anything, that we've done a good job, except for the fanciful link frontier scientists are trying to put together, that we shouldn't expect too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •