How can a dimension be small ?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gbarnett
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "small" dimensions, particularly in the context of theoretical physics and extra dimensions. Participants explore the implications of dimensions being "curled up" and how this relates to our understanding of spatial dimensions in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the meaning of "small" dimensions, questioning how they can exist alongside seemingly limitless height, width, and depth.
  • Another participant illustrates the concept of "curled-up" dimensions using an analogy of traveling in a straight line and returning to the starting point after a very small distance.
  • A participant suggests that small and curled-up dimensions could theoretically exist within our three spatial dimensions.
  • It is proposed that while a universe could have all spatial dimensions small and curled-up, this does not align with observations of our universe.
  • One participant introduces the idea of a minimum possible length, the Planck length, suggesting that anything smaller could collapse into a mini black hole, which raises questions about limits on dimensions.
  • Another participant clarifies that the concept of a minimum length does not equate to an upper limit on dimension size, which is the original question posed.
  • An analogy involving an ant on a garden hose is used to explain the concept of dimensional size and freedom of movement, suggesting that dimensions may not be infinite but could wrap around over vast distances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some clarifying concepts while others challenge or refine earlier claims. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications and interpretations of small dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference theoretical constructs such as the Planck length and the concept of dimensions wrapping around, which may depend on specific definitions and assumptions not fully explored in the discussion.

gbarnett
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
how can a dimension be "small" ?

Sorry, I'm not much of a physicist. I have read that extra dimensions may be "small" and curled up. Since height, width, and depth appear to be limitless, I am having a hard time understanding what small means when applied to dimensions. I suspect it has something to do with our 3 spatial dimensions being "flat".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Imagine that you went forward in a straight line for 100 meters and discovered that you are now in the exact same place you started.

Loosely speaking, that's what "curled-up" means.


Now, imagine you only have to go 1.6*10-35 meters before you return to the place where you started. That's "small".
 
OK, but

small and curled up could be contained in any of our 3 spatial dimensions. In this case the dimension itself is small and curled up, correct?
 
In principle, a universe with 3 spatial dimensions could have them all be small and curled-up, but a brief observation proves that this is not the case for our universe. :smile:
 
Image that your friend is 0,00000000000000000000000000000000001m high:D
 
gbarnett said:
Sorry, I'm not much of a physicist. I have read that extra dimensions may be "small" and curled up. Since height, width, and depth appear to be limitless, I am having a hard time understanding what small means when applied to dimensions. I suspect it has something to do with our 3 spatial dimensions being "flat".

Height, width, and depth actually do appear to be limited. Or at least, there is a smallest possible length, based on the Planck length, which is very small indeed. The idea is that anything smaller would collapse into a mini black hole and disappear. This result is due to Max Planck, who showed in the early part of last century that certain problems involving black body radiation went away if you assumed a minimum possible length. This minimum length has been generalized to a minimum possible time, the Planck time, and a minimum possible energy, the Planck energy.
 
starkind said:
Height, width, and depth actually do appear to be limited. Or at least, there is a smallest possible length, based on the Planck length, which is very small indeed. The idea is that anything smaller would collapse into a mini black hole and disappear. This result is due to Max Planck, who showed in the early part of last century that certain problems involving black body radiation went away if you assumed a minimum possible length. This minimum length has been generalized to a minimum possible time, the Planck time, and a minimum possible energy, the Planck energy.
Well yes, but that's not the same as having a small upper limit, which is what the OP is asking about.
 
Hurkyl's respone is what you should concentrate on.

The size of a dimension is defined by how much freedom you have to move in it before you "wrap around".

Imagine an ant walking on a gardenhose; The ant's universe is 50 feet long in one dimension but only 2 inches in another. The ant's travel is unbounded, yet he does not have complete freedom of movement.

One theory of the universe is that length, width and depth are not infinite but will wrap around over billions or trillions of light years.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K