illusory spatial dimension

[t7c1@hotmail.com]

Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63

"Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."

Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

Do gasoline stations charge by area or volume?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Spud]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

2d+gravity+time or variants, any answer would be philosophy not
physics.

Spud

[Douglas Eagleson]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

A special kind of truth must be responsible for the appearence of
illusionary dimension. A dimension in relation to the next appears a
causality of measure. And to call all measure anything but grounded in
the sense's truth is to be dishonest.

A failed sense or failed mesure then become the illusion. And the
three space dimensions are rooted in geometric reality. A coordinate
to cause the failed dimension is allowed in some theory of formal
system.

And the failed wavefunctional collapse would then be allowed to prove
the false dimension. And it is an abstract loss only. Caused by the
certain observation falsehood.

So believe me, the truth applying crowd can figure the logic in a
certain formal system to cause a falshood to appear true. It is a
scientific feat to do this as a matter of fact.

[Marcel LeBel]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
>>The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>>
>>"Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
>>dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>>
>>Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?
>
>
> A special kind of truth must be responsible for the appearence of
> illusionary dimension. A dimension in relation to the next appears a
> causality of measure. And to call all measure anything but grounded in
> the sense's truth is to be dishonest.
>
To expose that special kind of truth is called ontology; what ever
exists out there, by itself, and not as a result of us interacting with
it. An ontology of the universe can be acquired, not via the senses, but
via senses and logic. Senses, experiments, physics procure a knowledge
that allows us to do things, the first one being required is to be able
to crawl to the test bench and be tested. But if you want to understand
how and why things work the way they do by themselves, you have to go
one step further. You have to take the knowledge acquired via experience
and strip it of our own influence and presence. Then, the concept so
obtained must (is required to) also crawl on its own to the test bench
of logic and survive the test. The universe being a spontaneous process
requires that it be a logical process i.e. that it follows naturally
from its own internal rules and limitations.

From this approach, I have come to the idea that no system showing any
type of organization can exist without at least one internal rule of
limitation. In other words, there is at least/least one built-in rule of
impossibility that is required to define the/a system and its behavior.
I am sure this is already known in maths, physics.. Anyone with ideas or
examples of this ???

Marcel LeBel lebel@muontailpig.com remove particle

[Igor Khavkine]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Scientific American magazine Nov 2005
> The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena pg 57-63
>
> "Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three
> dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion..."
>
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

I have not read the article myself. But through hearsay, I know that
it's about AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. From my limited
understanding of the conjecture, it says that a theory describing a
certain space-time (that's the AdS part, standing for anti-de Sitter
space) is equivalent to a conformal field theory living on the boundary
of this space-time (that's the CFT part). In other words, if you can do
a calculation in one theory and get a physical prediction, then the
corresponding calculation in the other thoery will give the same
result. I call this correspondence a conjecture because, last I heard,
there was no proof of it. However, it seems that there is a lot of
evidence that the conjecture is indeed true.

Now, remember that the boundary of any space is one dimension lower
than the dimension of its so-called bulk. So if we hypothesize that a
similar correspondence holds between the theory describing our
space-time and another theory defined on a one-dimension-lower space,
in principle, all physical predictions can be made using on the the
latter one. In this way, we've reduced a theory defined on 4
dimensions, to an equivalent one defined on 3 dimensions. However, this
correspondence would not be as simple as simply chopping off one of the
x, y, or z axes.

If one is in a philosophical mood, as Maldacena seems to have been when
he wrote that article, then one could conclude that, if the above
hypothesis were true, one spacial dimension is an illusion (something
that we see but is not "really there"). But if the hypothesized
equivalence is true, one could equally say that, if we describe
everything using the 3 dimensional theory, that one spacial dimension
is hidden (something that we don't see but is "really there"), since
the 4 dimensional theory is still valid. That's the beauty of
mathematical equivalence, you are free to take up whichever of the two
views you like and you receive no objections.

For the significant reason that the above hypothesis is still only a
hypothesis, that is we don't have a 3 dimensional theory that can
describe everything we see in 4 dimensions, it is most convenient to
not worry about a possibly illusory nature of one of the 4 dimensions
of our space-time.

Hope this helps.

Igor

[Tony]

t7c1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Could all the spatial dimensions be illusions?

In don't think that's possible. One must be careful about the meaning
of the term illusion in this context.

My understanding is that it means that the dynamics of the world,
presumed to have D dimensions, can be completely determined by the
dynamics of the fields on its D-1 dimensionl hypersurface.

In this sense extra dimension is *not necessary* simply becuase you can
describe the world on the manifold having one dimension less.

It is an important (and, admittedly, somewhat shocking) theoretical
result but I don't think you can easily translate it in the world of
our everyday experience.