Dimension of Space: How Do We Know It's 3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dioib
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension Space
dioib
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
How do we know that the (effective) dimensionality of "space" is three in a typical physical theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a) because we see it
b) because we can measure it, e.g. via the Coulomb law which shows a behaviour like U(r) ~ r-(D-2)
c) because there are a huge number of physical predictions depending on the dimensionality (besides the Coulomb law there are the gravitational potential, diffusion processes, ...)
 
tom.stoer said:
a) because we see it
b) because we can measure it, e.g. via the Coulomb law which shows a behaviour like U(r) ~ r-(D-2)
c) because there are a huge number of physical predictions depending on the dimensionality (besides the Coulomb law there are the gravitational potential, diffusion processes, ...)

Thank you for breaking it down into parts:
a') Because we can't see/perceive "further/higher".
b',c') Taking (a'), how can I make sure it will not affect (b,c)?
 
I think you can't.

a) is certainly reasonable in the macroscopic domain
b) is valid in the microscopic domain at least at scales currently measured at the LHC (there is a minor chance to find indications for large extra dimensions at the LHC which would mean that the effective dimension D becomes energy dependent D(E) and will deviate from 3 at high energies E)
c) just means that there are other processes from which such deviations could be determined, e.g. gravitational interactions
 
dioib said:
Thank you for breaking it down into parts:
a') Because we can't see/perceive "further/higher".
b',c') Taking (a'), how can I make sure it will not affect (b,c)?
yes i have the same confusion
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
986
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top