Doesn't Electron Configuration Prove The Universe Has Three Dimensions

[dimensionless]

Is a three dimensional universe not a requirement for electrons to be configured as we know them? Wouldn't atoms at the least have to exist on a three dimensional brane for the electron clouds to exist as they do?

 

[Forestman]

Are you referring to the theory that we might actually live in a two dimensional universe, and that the 3 dimensional information is stored like a hologram.

 

[dimensionless]

No. There is debate about how many dimensions there are in the universe. While I haven't studied quantum mechanics in a while now, it would seem that atoms(and electron clouds) behave as if they exist in three dimensions. Not two, not four, not ten, etc, but three.

 

[The_Duck]

It is possible that extra dimensions exist but are very small and thus don't affect physics at the scale of electron orbitals. As an analogy to how an extra dimension can be "small", a long, thin straw is essentially a one-dimensional object unless you shrink yourself down to a size smaller than the diameter of the straw, whereupon you perceive it as a two-dimensional object.

 

[ZapperZ]

No. There is debate about how many dimensions there are in the universe. While I haven't studied quantum mechanics in a while now, it would seem that atoms(and electron clouds) behave as if they exist in three dimensions. Not two, not four, not ten, etc, but three.

This is a bit strange, because we CAN confined electrons to lower dimensions, for examples, and get a zoo of new physics out of them. Example: the physics of 1D electrons in Luttinger Liquid.

Besides, since when does an atom and its electron cloud become the standard that we based on the universe on? Just because we can describe such a system in 3D space doesn't mean that such a system is adequate to be used elsewhere!

Zz.

 

[dimensionless]

You are correct, but it would place a limitation on how large the extra dimensions could be.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are correct, but it would place a limitation on how large the extra dimensions could be.

How did you draw up THAT conclusion? And what is the "limit"? How would that jive with the Randall-Sundrum-Arkani-Hamed proposal?

Zz.

 

[dimensionless]

I was responding to The _Duck's post. The limit I am referring to is one that would have thus far prevented us from detecting extra dimensions. In other words, the limit that would prevent extra dimensions from showing up in things like gravity fields and electric fields when described as a function of distance. I'm not familiar with the Randall-Sundrum-Arkani-Hamed proposal.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was responding to The _Duck's post. The limit I am referring to is one that would have thus far prevented us from detecting extra dimensions. In other words, the limit that would prevent extra dimensions from showing up in things like gravity fields and electric fields when described as a function of distance. I'm not familiar with the Randall-Sundrum-Arkani-Hamed proposal.

Read, for example, N. Arkani-Hamed et al. Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998), R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044014 (2004).

Zz.