Extra diimensions [Archive]

CWatters

Nov8-04, 05:10 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I\'ve got a question but first I best admit I\'m no physics graduate. I\'m not\ncompletely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New\nScientist....\n\nMy question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of\nstring theory? I mean ...\n\nSpooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It\'s been\ndemonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it\nreasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever\nthat means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?\n\nCold Fusion - In theory this isn\'t possible because of the amount of energy\nrequired to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...\nbut what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these\nextra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these\ndimensions?\n\nor shouldn\'t I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or\nperhaps I should stick to gardening :-)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I've got a question but first I best admit I'm no physics graduate. I'm not
completely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New
Scientist....

My question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of
string theory? I mean ...

Spooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It's been
demonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it
reasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever
that means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?

Cold Fusion - In theory this isn't possible because of the amount of energy
required to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...
but what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these
extra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these
dimensions?

or shouldn't I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or
perhaps I should stick to gardening :-)

Maurice Barnhill

Nov9-04, 03:44 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nCWatters wrote:\n\n> I\'ve got a question but first I best admit I\'m no physics graduate. I\'m not\n> completely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New\n> Scientist....\n>\n> My question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of\n> string theory? I mean ...\n>\n> Spooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It\'s been\n> demonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it\n> reasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever\n> that means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?\n>\n> Cold Fusion - In theory this isn\'t possible because of the amount of energy\n> required to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...\n> but what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these\n> extra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these\n> dimensions?\n>\n> or shouldn\'t I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or\n> perhaps I should stick to gardening :-)\n>\nYou should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they\ndon\'t help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly\nclose together they must be close in all directions, so having\nextra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to\neach other.\n\nIt is the same as thinking about two cars, one 100 km due north\nof the other (ignore the earth\'s curvature). Their east-west\ndistance is 0, but their distance from each other is still 100\nkm. No cold fusion.\n\n--\nMaurice Barnhill\nmvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From]\n[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only]\nDepartment of Physics and Astronomy\nUniversity of Delaware\nNewark, DE 19716\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>CWatters wrote:

> I've got a question but first I best admit I'm no physics graduate. I'm not
> completely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New
> Scientist....
>
> My question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of
> string theory? I mean ...
>
> Spooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It's been
> demonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it
> reasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever
> that means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?
>
> Cold Fusion - In theory this isn't possible because of the amount of energy
> required to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...
> but what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these
> extra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these
> dimensions?
>
> or shouldn't I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or
> perhaps I should stick to gardening :-)
>
You should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they
don't help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly
close together they must be close in all directions, so having
extra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to
each other.

It is the same as thinking about two cars, one 100 km due north
of the other (ignore the earth's curvature). Their east-west
distance is 0, but their distance from each other is still 100
km. No cold fusion.

--
Maurice Barnhill
mvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From]
[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

CWatters

Nov9-04, 02:54 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Maurice Barnhill" <mvb@udel.edu> wrote in message\nnews:nXVjd.43\\$lY1.28@trndny04...\n>\n> You should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they\n> don\'t help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly\n> close together they must be close in all directions, so having\n> extra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to\n> each other.\n\nI must have been asleep not to have spotted that. Oh well.\n\n> It is the same as thinking about two cars, one 100 km due north\n> of the other (ignore the earth\'s curvature). Their east-west\n> distance is 0, but their distance from each other is still 100\n> km. No cold fusion.\n\nIt will be interesting to see what the DOE say this time around.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Maurice Barnhill" <mvb@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:nXVjd.43$lY1.28@trndny04...
>
> You should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they
> don't help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly
> close together they must be close in all directions, so having
> extra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to
> each other.

I must have been asleep not to have spotted that. Oh well.

> It is the same as thinking about two cars, one 100 km due north
> of the other (ignore the earth's curvature). Their east-west
> distance is 0, but their distance from each other is still 100
> km. No cold fusion.

It will be interesting to see what the DOE say this time around.

Maurice Barnhill

Nov14-04, 07:07 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Igor wrote:\n\n> Maurice Barnhill <mvb@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<nXVjd.43\\$lY1.28@trndny04>...\n>\n>>CWatter s wrote:\n>>\n>>\n>>>I\'ve got a question but first I best admit I\'m no physics graduate. I\'m not\n>>>completely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New\n>>>Scientist....\n>>>\n>>>My question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of\n>>>string theory? I mean ...\n>>>\n>>>Spooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It\'s been\n>>>demonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it\n>>>reasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever\n>>>that means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?\n>>>\n>>>Cold Fusion - In theory this isn\'t possible because of the amount of energy\n>>>required to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...\n>>>but what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these\n>>>extra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these\n>>>dimensions?\n>>>\n>>>or shouldn\'t I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or\n>>>perhaps I should stick to gardening :-)\n>>>\n>>\n>>You should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they\n>>don\'t help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly\n>>close together they must be close in all directions, so having\n>>extra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to\n>>each other.\n>\n>\n> That\'s not necessarily true. It all depends upon the signature of the\n> metric tensor.\n>\nThat\'s a good point. I was assuming a pure space-like metric\nwithout really thinking about it. I think that is a proper\nassumption for the original question, but still....\n\n--\nMaurice Barnhill\nmvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From]\n[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only]\nDepartment of Physics and Astronomy\nUniversity of Delaware\nNewark, DE 19716\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Igor wrote:

> Maurice Barnhill <mvb@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<nXVjd.43$lY1.28@trndny04>...
>
>>CWatters wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've got a question but first I best admit I'm no physics graduate. I'm not
>>>completely daft either and can cope with it at the level found in say New
>>>Scientist....
>>>
>>>My question is: How literally should we think of the extra dimensions of
>>>string theory? I mean ...
>>>
>>>Spooky Action at a Distance - is a consequence of Quantum theory. It's been
>>>demonstrated to work for entangled photons over many kilometres....but is it
>>>reasonable to suggest the photons might still be "close together" whatever
>>>that means in one of the dimensions predicted by string theory?
>>>
>>>Cold Fusion - In theory this isn't possible because of the amount of energy
>>>required to bring two atoms of Deuterium close enough together for fusion...
>>>but what if they could be brought close enough together in one of these
>>>extra dimensions? - Perhaps "energy" works differently in one of these
>>>dimensions?
>>>
>>>or shouldn't I think of these extra dimensions as literally as this? or
>>>perhaps I should stick to gardening :-)
>>>
>>
>>You should take the extra dimensions very literally, but they
>>don't help with your two examples. For two objects to be truly
>>close together they must be close in all directions, so having
>>extra dimensions does not make it easier to get objects close to
>>each other.
>
>
> That's not necessarily true. It all depends upon the signature of the
> metric tensor.
>
That's a good point. I was assuming a pure space-like metric
without really thinking about it. I think that is a proper
assumption for the original question, but still....

--
Maurice Barnhill
mvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From]
[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716