Can Sub-Atomic Particles Exist in an Unseen Dimension?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brianthewhitie7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dimensions in physics, particularly the possibility of sub-atomic particles existing in unseen dimensions beyond the conventional four dimensions (three spatial and one temporal). Participants explore the implications of dimensionality on the understanding of fundamental particles and the order in which dimensions can be considered.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the order of dimensions and proposes that sub-atomic particles might exist in another dimension, suggesting this could complicate our understanding of these particles.
  • Another participant asserts that fundamental particles are well understood within the framework of four dimensions and mentions the lack of hard evidence for extra dimensions, while acknowledging that some theories incorporate them.
  • It is noted that three spatial dimensions are necessary to uniquely define a point in space, but the choice of how to label these dimensions is subjective and does not affect the underlying physics.
  • A participant suggests that while three spatial dimensions are required, the movement of particles may necessitate considering four variables, prompting further discussion on dimensionality.
  • Another idea is introduced regarding the possibility of having four spatial dimensions, with time as a fifth non-spatial dimension, which could influence the flow of information.
  • One participant emphasizes that the classical phase space for a particle is six-dimensional, as it requires additional variables for momentum in three directions.
  • A later reply reiterates that the arrangement of spatial and temporal dimensions is flexible and primarily a matter of convention.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and arrangement of dimensions, with some supporting the traditional four-dimensional framework and others proposing alternative models, such as additional spatial dimensions or different interpretations of time. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the subjective nature of dimension labeling and the implications of dimensionality on particle movement, but do not reach a consensus on the necessity of additional dimensions or the order of existing ones.

brianthewhitie7
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
The 4 dimensions are the 3 spatial and the one time but is there any order for which these can be listed?
Also is it possible that the sub-atomic particles exist on another dimesion (such as photons, neutrinos, and etc.)? And this is why we have such a challenging problem understanding the particles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We understand fundamental particles fairly well with our boring 4 dimensions. And so far there's no hard evidence for extra dimensions, although some theories make use of them.

I don't know what you mean by 'is there any order for ... listed'. You can list them in any order you like as long as you remember it.

After all, you know '11 o'clock' is a time and not a street address.
 
There's three spatial dimensions because you require 3 independent variables to uniquely define a point in space. This doesn't say anything about the layout of those dimensions, ie your choice of basis, and for the most part your basis choice is entirely up to you. There is no 'natural basis' to things, with orthogonal x,y,z vectors pointing in a specific orientation, you have to pick such a thing every time do you a calculation or a modelling scenario.

As such, if you pick your coordinates x,y,z in a certain orientation, someone else can come along and say "I prefer my coordinates as y,z,x in this orientation". Now yours and his are equivalent under a certain transformation and your choices should have no bearing at all on th end result of your calculations (ie no change in the physics). Thus it seems there's no 'order' to the dimensions at all. You can tell there's 3 of them but how you label them throughout space is pretty much up to you (up to the matter of self consistency obviously).
 
Thank You!
 
AlphaNumeric said:
There's three spatial dimensions because you require 3 independent variables to uniquely define a point in space.
True, but the points in space are not the same thinh as particles in space (even if they are point particles). Particles move with regards to points in space, so it seems to me we need four variables. No?
 
Last edited:
Why not allow for 4 spatial dimensions, with one of them what the clock measures, then add time as a fifth non-spatial dimension which gives order to flow of information from past to future ?
 
MeJennifer said:
Particles move with regards to points in space, so it seems to me we need four variables. No?

Particles do indeed move. That's why the classical phase space for a single particle is 6 dimensional. You need three more variables to specify the momenta in 3 chosen directions.
 
A friend of mine asked me the same question in which you are wondering, the three spatial dimensions and the additional time dimension do not require to be placed in any particular order, rearrange them as you like, it's just a method of remembering. The three spatial dimensions are more traditional than that of time, so rightly they are usually represented prior to time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K