Exploring the Relationship of Dimensions and Entropy: A Research Project

[Imparcticle]

I need help with this...

I have a question I'm craving to ask about the relationship of dimensions and entropy. It's a specific question I'm having a really hard time identifying. So here is the outline that has been floating in my mind for days now:

In The Elegant Universe, Greene describes a sphere's geometry to be similar to that of a circle in 3D space spinning on a constant axis. As it spins faster and faster, it begins to take on the shape of a sphere.
Okay, I realize this is JUST AN ANOLOGY. But it gave me a striking idea. What if the very movements of atoms act as the circle does for the sphere? Atoms are always in constant motion. Could this constant motion influence our perception of demension? (THERE! That is the specific question I've been looking for! :rofl: )

BTW, could 1D objects consist of atoms?

I'm exploring this topic for a long term research project ( 1 yr.) for a science competition. Do you think it's worth the time?

 

[techwonder]

I remember reading about an experiment a little earlier this year that sent very short laser pulses (atto second or there about) down on an atom in order to see the electrons orbiting it. Normally we consider the electron a smeared-out wave, but they acutally saw/measured the electron's position in its orbit, i.e. point-like electrons in a classical orbit. The pulses were short enough to "see" the electron going around the atom.

Your question goes along the lines of a theory I heard of many years ago that postulated that everything is composed of ever smaller particles. These ever smaller particles would move at an ever more frantic pace, but just taking protons; At some energies of investigation they are "point-like", but at increasing energies we can make out the quarks inside. Who's to say that that will not also happen to quarks?

I also remember reading several years ago, in Scientific American I think, a "proof" that there could not be more than 4 forces. There couldn't even be only 3. It was a statistical distribution that would change form and as this distribution had been measured ... So that would imply that quarks are not composed of anything else, but then again, maybe the proof was in error.

 

[Imparcticle]

I remember reading about an experiment a little earlier this year that sent very short laser pulses (atto second or there about) down on an atom in order to see the electrons orbiting it. Normally we consider the electron a smeared-out wave, but they acutally saw/measured the electron's position in its orbit, i.e. point-like electrons in a classical orbit. The pulses were short enough to "see" the electron going around the atom.

I read that too. It was in last month's SCIAM.

My inquiry does not concern the possibility of particles that are smaller than quarks (BTW, have you ever heard of M-theory?). Instead, I am wondering if the constant motion of particles, in anyway influence our perception of macroscopic objects.