Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: the microscopic dimensions

  1. #1 the microscopic dimensions 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    could anyone point me to a source that describes what the microscopic dimensions predicted by string or M-theory actually are?


    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    My suspicion is that these can only be properly described in mathematics. If your maths sucks, then verbal explanations using analogies won't really cut it. I always fall back on the observation by J.B.S.Haldane: "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    My suspicion is that these can only be properly described in mathematics. If your maths sucks, then verbal explanations using analogies won't really cut it. I always fall back on the observation by J.B.S.Haldane: "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."
    Do you believe it will ever be possible to describe these dimensions, or even subatomic "particles", by way of verbal explanations as well as by mathematical descriptions?
    I find it difficult to accept that we will never be able to describe the structure of such objects in words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Well the analogy I've heard is picture an ant on a string. There's one long dimension that we can all easily see, the ant walking back and forth across the string. There's also a much smaller, curled up dimension where the ant walks around the string itself, not along it, and ends up back where it started in no time at all. That's analogous to the small curled-up dimensions in string theory. Using that analogy it's not really that far-feteched to imagine that it could be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well the analogy I've heard is picture an ant on a string. There's one long dimension that we can all easily see, the ant walking back and forth across the string. There's also a much smaller, curled up dimension where the ant walks around the string itself, not along it, and ends up back where it started in no time at all. That's analogous to the small curled-up dimensions in string theory. Using that analogy it's not really that far-feteched to imagine that it could be true.
    Another well-known analogy is the visualisation of the atom as a miniature solar system but this picture,altho' useful,is not an accurate picture of reality.
    However I do feel reluctant to believe what I read in a science magazine,ages ago,where the writer declared there were no words, in any language, that could adequately describe objects such as quarks,photons and electrons.
    I admit I would like to know what a sub-atomic particle is like and also what,if anything,happened before the BB. This probably explains why I would never have made a scientist!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    pictures says more than 1000 words.
    http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

    here you go. start imagining.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    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
  •