Are we past due to declare EM/Light/Waves its own dimension?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pittsburgh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether electromagnetic waves, light, and other wave phenomena should be considered as their own dimension in addition to the traditional three spatial dimensions and time. Participants explore the implications of this idea for unifying theories in physics, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that defining a dimension for unobservable phenomena could lead to a unifying theory for large and small scales, suggesting a framework of 3D + Time + Waves.
  • Others argue that waves are mathematical models within the existing four dimensions of spacetime and do not represent an additional dimension.
  • A participant suggests that when an object is in superposition and unobservable, it may be losing a dimension or entering another dimension, raising questions about the nature of observation and measurement.
  • Some participants challenge the notion of superposition, asserting that all objects are in superposition at all times and caution against misinterpretations of quantum mechanics.
  • Concerns are raised about the undefined terms and assertions in the discussion, with a call for clarity and adherence to scientific rigor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of waves and dimensions, with no consensus reached on whether waves should be considered a separate dimension or how to interpret superposition in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes undefined terms and varying interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly regarding superposition and the nature of observation, which remain unresolved.

pittsburgh
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Unifying theory for the large and small
If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small.
3D + Time + Waves
When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit.
If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pittsburgh said:
Summary: Unifying theory for the large and small

If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small.
3D + Time + Waves
When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit.
If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.
We discuss mainstream science here at the PF, not personal theories. Can you post a couple links to reputable scientific articles that you've been reading that have led you to ask these questions? Thanks.
 
Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.
 
pittsburgh said:
Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.
Then it should be easy for you to find some links to post. That will help us to respond to you. Thanks.
 
I'm afraid it isn't that easy. Spacetime is what we live in, what we observe, experience or measure. Everything we know takes place in this environment. Waves are an observation within this spacetime. Your suggestion is a bit as if we should model a car ride by location, time and velocity. We can do this, but they are no longer a basis, which means we lose uniqueness: there will be arbitrary combinations of (location, time, velocity) all belonging to the same configuration 'car'. This way we will have lost, not gained a perspective.

Waves are a mathematical model within this spacetime. A model which sometimes fits well to our understanding of waves on water, and sometimes less. In any case they do not represent an extra dimension, only something which takes place in the other four dimensions.

There might be additional dimensions or not. But they can't be described in a meaningful way by something which already is described by space and time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron and bhobba
If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension. Do you want a unifying theory or not?
 
pittsburgh said:
Everything I said is derived from mainstream science. I'm pointing out the obvious.

You are not. Its rot. You speak of superposition for instance - all objects are in superposition all the time and in an infinite number of ways. A word of warning from a mentor - please get facts straight before posting. Its
in our rules - please stick to them.

Thanks
Bill
 
I mentioned the double slit, this the type of superposition I am talking about.
 
pittsburgh said:
I mentioned the double slit, this the type of superposition I am talking about.

There is only one type of superposition - that the states form a vector space for pure states. Even the computer you re writing this on is in superposition - admittedly a superposition of states very close to each other. Everything is quantum all the time.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #10
When something can only be described as a wave/math then.
 
  • #11
pittsburgh said:
If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension.
This is nonsense. Even if I substitute the undefined word 'see' by 'measurable' means, that it isn't there at all, or that my equipement isn't accurate enough. Going into another dimension might not be ruled out at the beginning, but if we do not find any evidence for this, and we haven't, then it is only a fantasy and has nothing to do with science. We know of nothing which disappears and reappears again. If so, dimensions would be a good way to investigate the phenomenon. But, there is no such phenomenon so far.
Do you want a unifying theory or not?
Sure, however, no fairy tales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
  • #12
This thread is operating on too thin ice by its undefined terms, inaccurate language and hidden assertions.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: strangerep, berkeman and bhobba

Similar threads

High School New hypothesis of continuous wave function collapse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School New idea about wave-particle duality - looking for feedback/criticism
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School I can't understand more than 3 spatial dimensions
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Undergrad Testing string/m-theory extra dimensions prediction
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Undergrad Making the wave observable in the double-slit experiment
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
9K
High School Need to Check GR Beliefs? Integrity Filter Here!
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
High School Can we say a photon doesn't exist until the wavefunction collapses?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Wave Function Collapse using faulty recording devices.
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad What are the Priority Tasks for High Energy Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School FTL communication by Quantum Entanglement
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K