Clarification Requested: Particles as higher dimensional objects

  • B
  • Thread starter zeroace
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Particles
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of 4th dimensional objects interacting with the 3rd dimension and how they would appear as coherent 3D slices at a specific time. The question is raised about the behavior of subatomic particles if they were higher dimensional objects, and whether they would exist in a superposition until observed. The response explains that the Schroedinger equation is for point particles, which also have three-dimensional wave functions. The idea of describing the wave function in a 3D slice of a 4D space would not fit with observations.
  • #1
zeroace
5
0
IMG_3414.JPG


I request clarification on the the dimensional definition of fundamental particles.

4th dimensional objects interacting with the 3rd dimension would appear as coherent 3D slices of their 4th dimensional bodies at time T. The "slice" observed would be unknown without complete knowledge of the 4th dimensional body but could be deduced via a wave function for objects that fluctuate between known states.

My question is this: if sub atomic particles were higher dimensional objects, wouldn't they appear as if they exist in a super position of states until observation in which the wave function collapses (or in other words, the higher dimensional object interacts with a 3D plane as an observed slice of collapsed properties)?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Schroedinger equation is for point particles. Those point particles have three-dimensional wave functions. They could also have four-dimensional wave functions in a four-dimensional space, but that is the same idea. You would observe completely erratic behavior if you try to describe the wave function in a 3D slice of the 4D space (without taking the full wave function into account). That would not fit to observations at all.
 

1. What are particles as higher dimensional objects?

Particles as higher dimensional objects refer to the concept that particles, such as atoms and subatomic particles, may have more than three dimensions. This idea comes from theories such as string theory, which suggest that the building blocks of the universe may exist in more than three dimensions.

2. How is this different from the traditional understanding of particles?

The traditional understanding of particles is that they exist in three dimensions - length, width, and height. However, the concept of particles as higher dimensional objects suggests that they may have additional dimensions beyond these three, which can help explain certain phenomena, such as gravity, that cannot be fully explained within the traditional framework.

3. Is there evidence to support the idea of particles having higher dimensions?

Currently, there is no direct evidence to support the concept of particles having higher dimensions. However, theories such as string theory and supersymmetry, which posit the existence of higher dimensions, have been able to make predictions and calculations that align with experimental data. This suggests that there may be some validity to the concept of particles as higher dimensional objects.

4. How does the idea of particles having higher dimensions impact our understanding of the universe?

The idea of particles having higher dimensions challenges our traditional understanding of the universe and opens up new possibilities for how it operates. It could potentially help explain phenomena that have yet to be fully understood, such as dark matter and dark energy, and lead to new discoveries in physics and cosmology.

5. Are there any practical applications of this concept?

Currently, there are no practical applications of the idea of particles having higher dimensions. However, further research and understanding of this concept could potentially lead to advancements in technology, such as improved understanding of quantum mechanics and the development of new materials.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
608
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
966
Replies
5
Views
263
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
43
Views
858
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
834
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top