Certain of dimensional fields as expressed in recent theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poorichard2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Theories
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the certainty of dimensional fields in recent theories, particularly in string theory, which predicts the existence of extra dimensions beyond the known three. While string theory has not been disproven, it lacks experimental validation, leading to debates about its plausibility among physicists. Some argue that a true understanding of string theory is necessary to appreciate its validity, as popular accounts may not convey the complexity involved. Additionally, a perspective on quantized space suggests that one-dimensional space and time can be embedded in higher dimensions, with implications for the nature of matter and forces. The conversation highlights ongoing tensions in theoretical physics regarding the understanding and acceptance of dimensional theories.
Poorichard2
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Are we so certain of dimensional fields as expressed in recent
theories? true we know of three for certain, but can it be
possible the 10 or 11 maybe even more dimensions are
mirroring the 3 principle dimensions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The extra dimensions, beyond four, is a firm prediction of stringy physics (strings, supertstring, branes, M-theory, string field theory, AdS/CFT, and anything I've left out). If the extra dimensions were solidly shown not to exist, then string physics would have failed.

Stringy physics has not failed, but it has not proven itself in the test of experiment yet either. The string theory experts make the argument that even experimental success only confers plausibility (no theory can be "proven true", only proven false) and they claim string physics is intensely plausible to anyone who truly understands it. That's a tall order because popular accounts like the PBS special "Elegant Universe" can't give you the critical understanding you would need to verify this. Indeed in current disputes with non-string physicists, the stringy folks insist the others (professional physicists all) just don't really understand string theory.
 
One Dimension is Good Enough

I'm doing research on quantized space. In this research, I attributed space as one dimensional. And time is also one dimensional. The one-dim space is a subset of a two-dim space and two-dim space is a subset of three-dim space. Any one-dim object such as a vector of a force, a metric, a velocity, an acceleration can have infinite degrees of freedom when embedded in two dim-space or in three-dim space. while the one-dim time has only two degrees of freedom and no more.

Matter is derived from quantized space (one-dim) but it is embedded in a continuous space (two-dim and three-dim spaces). The force that separate quantized space from continuous space is the strong nuclear force with its property of asymptotic freedom. There can be two distinct types of space charges. let's call them H+ and H-. The force that binds H+ to H- is the weak nuclear force. But when there are eight H's, either plus or minus, the electromagnetic force is created. The attractive gravitational force can be found only inside the H+ or the H-. The physical principle controlling the formation of H+ and H- is the principle of directional invariance. Each of these H's can be described by the product of two Lagrangian functions.
And when these products are added together, a square Hamiltonian is formed giving the total energy of the universe as a constant.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top