Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Imagination is more important than knowledge

  1. Apr 16, 2006 #1
    According to the concept of space-time, we live in a 4 dimensional universe.

    But according to electro-magnetism and any other subject that uses imaginary or complex numbers, we express the world in 5 or more dimensions and assume they are imaginary, possibly because we have already seen they combined affects in our 4 dimensional universe, to detect them in the first place.

    Do we live in a multi-dimensional (5D) or a space-time (4D) universe?

    Or

    Is Space-time is a simple subset, of what we can observe, in a multi-dimensional universe.

    Regards

    Terry Giblin
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 16, 2006 #2
    Good question, in my opinion anyway.
     
  4. Apr 16, 2006 #3

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I really cannot see any connection.
     
  5. Apr 16, 2006 #4
    Hi Terry, maybe I am too tired, but I don't even understand the question. What is the question? Here's my opinon: we live on a 4d curved submanifold in an inifinetly extended flat 10d space. Coordinates are real valued. You want to complexify, you get an extra structure, which is certainly nice, but which is probably in the realm of the M(aths)-Theory.

    When I was in high school I had a poster with Einstein above my bed, featuring the quotaion that is the title for this thread. Had to find out it's only true when you consider your career to be not important.

    Best,

    B.
     
  6. Apr 17, 2006 #5
    Hi Terry

    I don't have a career and so I am still free to use my imagination, which I usually find to be a pleasurable, if unpaid, experience. On the complimentary side, purchasing access to knowlege via books and internet is my single greatest expense.

    Ah well.

    I have been contemplating the idea of dimensionality for some time now, and have even made some headway into the mysterious (obfuscated?) realm of quantum maths. My current opinion of dimensionality suggests that you may need to think more deeply about what a dimension is.

    First you must abandon the common idea that dimension is some kind of "other world", as in the science fiction sense, where Earth is periodically assaulted by various denizens of "dimension X" or some varient. I sense from the location and text of your post that you are ready to take that step.

    Then what is a dimension? Well, it is nothing more than a measurement. In light of the Measurement Problem, that is still quite a lot. Clearly in measureing an object, or in measuring our world, we can use as many dimensions as seem necessary. For most physical objects, some selection from the length-width-depth catagory is usually sufficient, and then we add time. But if the shape and position of the object do not change much or are not interesting, we can usually ignore time. Then if the object is very simple or if we are only interested in some limited part of its repetoire, we can usually get by merely measuring one or two of its dimensions. So the trajectory of a cannon ball can be shown in two dimensions, since it basically moves up and down, and, it is to be hoped, far away. I think it is interesting to note that the cannonballs flight can be represented adequately by a two dimensional surface on which is drawn a smooth curve, which curve remains the same when one of the dimensions is taken to be spatial, and the other can be either space or time. You see in this instance that space and time are interchangeable, in accordance with the Einstein space-time equivalence principle.

    I repeat all this in order to support the necessary idea that fewer dimensions is generally better, or at least more useful in calculation. The math gets complicated pretty fast and so most theories seem to start out dealing with one or two dimensions before going on to explain "our world" and its subsets (objects and events) in four or more dimensions. Generally then, the use of five or more dimensions to describe events is considered a weakness in the explanation, not an indication of some higher form of consciousness.

    Still, there is a sort of developmental sequence in progressing from the ability to hold in mind one or two dimensions to holding in mind three or four. This is mostly apparent to me in the process of learning to render three dimensional objects in still life on two dimensional paper. If you study developmental psychology you will find that the process of leaning to visualize three dimensions happens to most humans in the cradle, along with the process of discovering fingers and toes.

    Discriminating one, two, three, or many things from each other is part of this process. Perhaps this is why we commoners imagine that it is better to be able to hold three or four or even five dimensions in mind, even though mathematicians and scientists, widely believed to be among the most developed of minds, routinely stick to one or two or three, rarely trying to think in terms of four dimensions. Higher dimensions are strictly mathematical, and are said not to be accessible to the sense vision.

    Having said that, I still enjoy trying to imagine, in the visual sense, things in four dimensions. It is a hobby which is very solitary and not easy to record or share with others. Perhaps it leads to insanity. Many inmates in asylums have been fascinated with the sense of time. Certainly there are many anecdotal cases where an obsession with time lead to asocial, even antisocial, or even sociopathic behavior. I try to keep myself safe from that fate by diligently practising the Hippocratic virtue of first, doing no harm.

    So, I rather agree with your last comment, in that the world we observe is some subset of a multidimensional universe. Different observers necessarily observe different subsets. I don't think this viewpoint necessarily leads to a belief in gods and demons and various other-dimensional monsters. There isn't really any need to shoot cannonballs at each other to enforce the universality of our particular viewpoint, although at this writing Humans seem to want to engage almost universally in this form of blood sport.

    Anyway, I don't know if your question has an answer that comes from the store of human knowlege, or even if it has an imaginary one. But I wish you well in the imaginary journey.

    Richard.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2006
  7. Apr 18, 2006 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

  8. Apr 18, 2006 #7
    I have to agree with Zz here ... the ability to meaningfully ``think out of the box´´ as I encourage is only for those who master (a large part of) accepted physics sufficiently, something which takes years of hard work. BTW: when I refer to ``thinking out of the box´´ I am very specifically aiming at approaches to FUNDAMENTAL physics - and doing this meaningfully (that is according to old fashioned standards of scientific research) is very hard indeed : (a) you have to come up with a new framework (b) you have to make your theory TESTABLE (c) you have to compare it with already existing work. On the other hand, it must be said that even under the latter stringent conditions, such work is generally not encouraged and such people are generally classified under the same crackpot nominator as the rest. I have read on some other websites comments about some very prominent recognized physicists going in that direction.

    I however disagree with Zapperz when he ascribes on this link the undisputed progress in physics as a definite counterexample to nonconservative attitude of physicists. Again, I think Zapper has his prejudice of an experimentator here : progress in physics is mostly made through experiment and the latter physicists certainly have to be very creative and are doing genuinly new stuff (I am thinking here about recent research in two dimensional lattice structures called graphite - I think it was that). Simply look at the nobel prize winner distribution - very few theorists (!), and if some of them get a prize, it is due to the discovery of experimentally verified theories. I believe that the most useful experiments towards FUNDAMENTAL physics which can be done now, are those which look for the boundaries (?) of quantum mechanics (Bell experiments just form a small subset). That is why I think it is useful to look for fundamentally different (realist) alternatives to QM (and trying to classify them), some of which can also violate the Bell inequalities. This is directly testable and can lead to true progress in fundamental physics - it should not meet with frantic resistance.

    Cheers,

    Careful
     
  9. Apr 18, 2006 #8

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I could also accuse you of having your own prejudice in trying to push your agenda.

    I have never hidden my background, nor my opinion on what actually is the impetus for new knowledge in physics. Even many theorists such as Anderson, Laughlin, and even Harry Lipkin (ref: Who Ordered Theorists? http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-53/iss-7/p15.html) who would argue along that line. The very FACT that many of these phenomena were NEVER predicted by theory is my evidence that experimental evidence provide THE major impetus for the expansion of our knowledge.

    Now, you may belittle these as not being "fundamental", but I disagree. There's nothing "not fundamental" when one discovers fractional charges, and that the phase diagram of an antiferromagnetic insulator has the same topology as that proposed in many aspect of cosmology and fundamental particles. In fact, I would go a step further and say that your disdain for it has caused you to miss the importance of many connection between various experimental and theoretical idea in many areas of physics that are based on QM (such as condensed matter) which are as "fundamental" as anything you can come up with.

    Experimental evidence is a FACT. No matter what theoretical ideas or religious belief one subscribes to, one MUST somehow have the ability to reproduce that fact. Until you could reproduce ALL the outstanding features of all these tons of facts, even you must admit that you really don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on.

    Zz.
     
  10. Apr 18, 2006 #9
    **I could also accuse you of having your own prejudice in trying to push your agenda. **

    I know you think like that, that is why I replied to make the distinction clear. I repeat, I have never had any agenda, all I want is people to think for a moment ``hey why this?´´.

    **
    I have never hidden my background, nor my opinion on what actually is the impetus for new knowledge in physics. Even many theorists such as Anderson, Laughlin, and even Harry Lipkin (ref: Who Ordered Theorists? http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-53/iss-7/p15.html) who would argue along that line. The very FACT that many of these phenomena were NEVER predicted by theory is my evidence that experimental evidence provide THE major impetus for the expansion of our knowledge. **

    True, and I agree. So your solution seems to be : ``abolish theorists, make approximate calculations, test them and don't worry about ontology´´. On the other hand, theorists are necessary once in 30 years or so to give you a new way of thinking, a new ``formulation´´ of the laws of physics. So, what to do with theorists ?? Clearly, these persons behave and think very differently from the standard practicing physicists, on the other hand they need IMO to be amongst the latter just to have enough common sense and first hand experimental information. But now it becomes tricky, what about the output of these people, what about their ``results´´ ? I am afraid that we have met here with the very human phenomenon of clustering. Theoretical physics has become a whole new, strange branch too much disconnected from experimental output with the exception of high energy physics a la standard model, cosmology or a bit more speculative GUT. I deplore this, therefore my suggestion towards testing the boundaries of QM is - I believe- one of the (very few) interesting theoretical possibilities (apart from cosmology and dark matter/energy). But then, this needs topic needs to get out of the taboo atmosphere.


    **
    Now, you may belittle these as not being "fundamental", but I disagree. There's nothing "not fundamental" when one discovers fractional charges, and that the phase diagram of an antiferromagnetic insulator has the same topology as that proposed in many aspect of cosmology and fundamental particles. **

    I do not belittle these, they are hard, well founded results and good guidelines. But indeed, if one believes quantum mechanics to be an effective theory, then I would not call these fundamental but that is just word play.


    **
    In fact, I would go a step further and say that your disdain for it has caused you to miss the importance of many connection between various experimental and theoretical idea in many areas of physics that are based on QM (such as condensed matter) which are as "fundamental" as anything you can come up with. **

    I am sure I missed some things just as you do in other areas of physics, one cannot learn everything and/or appreciate everything on the same level. Often such differences in appreciation come from different points of view due to specialization and the corresponding nastly little reflexes. An example of this might be my moderate appreciation of the gauge theoretical idea in particle physics as a ***fundamental*** tool, but do mind that I know where it comes from as well as its technical advantages. Actually, I thought that 't Hooft also suggests that these groups are emerging rather than fundamental.

    **
    Experimental evidence is a FACT. No matter what theoretical ideas or religious belief one subscribes to, one MUST somehow have the ability to reproduce that fact. **

    Euhh do you think I ever doubted that ??

    **
    Until you could reproduce ALL the outstanding features of all these tons of facts, even you must admit that you really don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on. **

    Sure, but this proves a bit of conservatism from your side no :-) My position in that regard is that IF theorists are there, THEN they should be occupied with those issues closest to experiment.

    Look, it is clear for me that in fundamental physics some of our cherished ideas have to be sacrified, otherwise the puzzle is unlikely to fit. Now, you a priori seem to judge such effort as a waste of time and react negatively on it. Of course, that raises my blood pressure and causes me to react on you in the sense ``are your so called results really established theoretically?´´ - recall atomic structure/and BCS. Of course, I do appreciate these ideas and consider them of fundamental importance (some really good men got a damn nobel prize for that) in physics! I did not miss their importance at all - recently I was trying to reconstruct how superconductivity could work vis a vis different ideas about wave mechanics I have *guided* by the semiclassical explanation of the quantum phenomenon. Experimentalists on the other hand, have to understand that theorists sometimes need to make crazy jumps (since either relativity or something else appears to impose that.). Honesty is the best policy in that regard and unlike what you think my disdain is not towards quantum mechanics, but towards its high priests who silently prepare grounds for the statement that EPR experiments do confirm QM and EXCLUDE local realism (or those who did not understand their business, realism tout court).

    All the best,

    Careful
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2006
  11. Apr 18, 2006 #10

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You may not think you do, but from what I have read, I'd say you do. Unlike you, I don't have any self-delusion that I am "free" of any prejudice. The fact that I am aware of how and what I have inclination towards gives me a better awareness on when I strongly favor one thing over another. I never lose sight of the fact that I CAN be influenced by something that I have preference for, and I make sure that when I report something in my papers, that I have made sure my preferences have not cause me to severely cloud my judgements.

    I distrust people who claim to have no prejudice whatsoever.


    Oh, please do resist putting words into my mouth.

    Let's be VERY clear of my stance FIRST before putting such criticism. I argue that most of the IMPETUS for new physics came out of experimental discovery. I NEVER, EVER, said that to understand and have a complete picture of physics or any phenomena, theoretical aspects and theorists are not needed. I challenge you to cite any of my thousands of posts on PF where I have indicated otherwise.

    This would be a VERY silly thing to adopt. As an experimentalist, I require theoretical understanding of how the quantities that I measure fit into place! I cannot just measure the energy and momentum of the photoelectrons that hit my electron analyzer and expect to be able to just read off those values while being CLUELESS on how they fit into the physics of what I'm studying. Contrary to what you may believe, experimentalists are not blind monkeys who can only do grunge work.

    And considering that I had to DEFEND the word "theory" and what it is in that journal entry that I cited, this criticism from you is definitely unfounded.

    I believe you are doing the word playing here. "Fundamental"? "Not Fundamental"? I really don't care! Reproduce ALL of what QM has managed and match all the experimental observation? THAT, I care!

    The only difference being that I don't go around and telling other people that what I do is more fundamental than those that I don't fully understand. Many people miss out on the importance of condensed matter physics, where the field somehow has been religated to "applied physics", without realizing that there are plenty of fundamental ideas that came out of condensed matter that became central to physics. To go around and telling people that you know what is fundamental and what isn't is just plain obnoxious.

    Conservatism? What's that? Could you please say that lounder so that the physicist who stood up after my presentation at the 2002 March Meeting and told me that I was being too "out of the box" for interpreting the existence of spin-charge separation in my 2D conductor could hear that? He would have a very difficult time believe that.

    But see, not only do you have to use the SAME consistent theory to explain a whole zoo of phenomena, you also need to show where they deviate so that us experimentalists can go on and prove which one of you is right! I'm sure you already know that you simply cannot challenge established physics simply based on "Oh, I can some up with the same thing too"-type of arguments. It has never resulted in anything. And unless I missed something, new ideas are seldom accepted without experimental basis. Show me new physics that cannot be described by the current physics and that can be tested, and I'll pay attention. But tell me "Oh, I have so-and-so and it can do the same thing", and I'll say "Yeah, right! Pick a number!"

    Zz.
     
  12. Apr 18, 2006 #11
    **
    I distrust people who claim to have no prejudice whatsoever. **

    I am not responsible for your psychological prejudices, neither for your lack of patience towards people whom you cannot immediatly classify.
    **
    Oh, please do resist putting words into my mouth.
    Let's be VERY clear of my stance FIRST before putting such criticism. I argue that most of the IMPETUS for new physics came out of experimental discovery. **

    And I agreed two times in the previous message :frown:

    **
    I NEVER, EVER, said that to understand and have a complete picture of physics or any phenomena, theoretical aspects and theorists are not needed. I challenge you to cite any of my thousands of posts on PF where I have indicated otherwise. **

    So, then define a theorist for me since everything in your comments gives the impression that the people who are considered as such are making a terrible mess. And yes, I did not calculate the condensed matter theorists as theorists; the theorists in my previous statements are those involved in the business of unfalsifiable theoretical thinking - I think that was crystal clear no ???

    **. Contrary to what you may believe, experimentalists are not blind monkeys who can only do grunge work. **

    Oh my god, stop telling me what I believe, they are certainly smart people who can make ingenious setups.

    **And considering that I had to DEFEND the word "theory" and what it is in that journal entry that I cited, this criticism from you is definitely unfounded. **

    See two comments ago and learn to accept that if one has to define precisely everything one means in one mail, then we can write 15 pages. :frown:

    **
    I believe you are doing the word playing here. "Fundamental"? "Not Fundamental"? I really don't care! **

    Me neither (again I said that before).


    ** Reproduce ALL of what QM has managed and match all the experimental observation? THAT, I care! **

    Me too, but I am more willing to listen than you are.

    **
    The only difference being that I don't go around and telling other people that what I do is more fundamental than those that I don't fully understand. **

    Are you going to nag like a baby over the word fundamental ?? If you take my stance on QM, then logically such adventure is more fundamental.

    **
    Many people miss out on the importance of condensed matter physics, where the field somehow has been religated to "applied physics", without realizing that there are plenty of fundamental ideas that came out of condensed matter that became central to physics. To go around and telling people that you know what is fundamental and what isn't is just plain obnoxious. **

    Sigh, go and complain to the big guys who don't even mention the word condensed matter physics. Logically speaking, condensed matter physics is applied quantum mechanics. So, it seems to me you are frustrated for nothing. YOU could make some positive advertisement about it too, you see.

    **
    Conservatism? What's that? Could you please say that lounder so that the physicist who stood up after my presentation at the 2002 March Meeting and told me that I was being too "out of the box" for interpreting the existence of spin-charge separation in my 2D conductor could hear that? He would have a very difficult time believe that. **

    I don't care who said that to you and neither can you expect me to keep track of your history. I can only assert this on basis of your current attitude. We basically disagree upon at least the following two issues:

    (a) you say, I am only interested to listen when a full theory reproducing all QM results is constructed. Now, you know that this a VERY hard job and you equally are aware of the fact that the QM development took 85 years. I think it is good to discuss partial alternatives - you categorically refuse this, hence stopping this kind of research by force.

    (b) Your refuse to understand that even to come up with a theory which gives the same predictions (but is realist) is by itself very interesting in the light of unification (even Hartle acknowledges that). Your last quote ``yeah pick a number´´ shows a fundamental disrespect and lack of understanding for this.

    All you basically did in the previous message was nagging on my use of the word fundamental (which is actually a logically correct use) and spelling out your feelings about any alternative to QM which are unreasonable actually by any standards. In fact, you demand any person discussing this to be a potential nobel prize winner - since anyone being able to find a realist theory behind QM would get such prize.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2006
  13. Apr 18, 2006 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    And you make the presumption that you CAN classify people easily. It appears that those who somehow disagree with your ingenious ideas are labelled "conservative" automatically, regardless of whether you are aware of other dimensions to that person. And this is BETTER than not classifying someone? If it is, you can have it.

    Then why did you make such accusation of my post? If you agreed, then you have brought up a point that I did not make!

    Excuse me? What mess? Did a mess happened while I wasn't looking?

    Oh, so you expect me to know what's in your mind while you make a complete disclaimer about your knowledge of my history? Besides, since when are condensed matter theorists not theorists? What is your authority to relegate them to a lower stature? Because they don't work on "fundamental" issues?

    Since you are putting words into my mouth and arguing against phantom issues that I didn't even say, why can't I tell you what you believe in? Furthermore, I am EXACTLY RIGHT in my impression of you based on THIS VERY RESPONSE from you. You gave yourself away! You think experimentalists are nothing more than people who are "smart people who can make ingenious setups"!!!!!! That's GRUNGE work! It ignores the fact there are many experimentalists that work in PHENOMENOLOGY. It ignores the fact that many experimentalists publish theoretical model of their experimental observations. The Tsui-Kirtley Nature paper is one paper that automatically came to mind where they developed the theoretical prediction of a model, and went ahead and measured it! People who can make ingenious SETUPS? That's utterly amazing!

    Then why did you BRING IT UP in the first place? I'm sorry, but who had a stroke here, you or I? You were the one who cared so much that what I was describing in my journal entry isn't "fundamental" and therefore, has nothing to do with a real expansion of our knoweldge boundary. Did I imagined the whole thing, or did you?

    I only listen when there's something substantial. So far, all I've seen are simply based on a matter of tastes. I do not have time for such thing. You are welcome to listen all you want.

    ... and we just gone through your assertion that you really don't care what is fundamental and what isn't. Sure is getting very confusing.

    No, the "big guys" actually acknowledge the role of CM pretty well! Read Peter Higgs article in Physics World. Frank Wilczek has repeatedly acknowledged the origin of many advancement in field theory. No, the big boys know it very well. It's the LITTLE BOYS who seems to be clueless and relegating it to "applied quantum mechanics" without realizing that some of THE most "fundamental" interactions are most apparent in condensed matter systems!

    And maybe you should start caring because I've just illustrated to you the fallacy of your impression. I may not classify people that easily, but you on the other hand, shouldn't be TOO QUICK to classify people this freely. My disagreement with you has NOTHING to do with my view of the current status of physics. You are not the standard by which my view of physics is based upon. Disagreeing with what you said has nothing to do with being conservative or not. You do not set the standard.

    Er... I have the ability to stop this kind of research, and stop it BY FORCE? WHOA!

    <ZapperZ flexes his super-force power biceps>

    So how many is it already that you have somehow imagined all of these things that I have said? Anyone keeping count? Was this in the same "post" where I belittled theorists, or where I said they made a mess? I may have been sleep-typing when I wrote all that. That's that the only possible explanation because I certainly don't remember them, and I somehow can't believe you would have spewed all of these incredible and outrageous claims of what I have said or wish to do!

    No, the "pick a number" part means get in line! You are not the ONLY one with such alternative theory.

    I have ZERO problems with people trying to come up with alternative ideas. I do however, have loads of problem with people who claim to have managed to "come with with a theory which gives the same predictions" of a small part of a phenomena, and then CLAIM that QM is faulty! Would you like to go back and look at all of your posts and see the TONE of your attitude towards QM? Think about it! You claim to make a miniscule agreement with experimental observation and proclaim it being better than another established theory that has made a substantially MORE agreement with a whole load of other observation! And you claim to be logical? Hello?

    Stop picking on QM every chance you get! One can only hope you spend as much time analyzing your attitude as the amount of effort you put in analyzing others, not to mention the amount of time you imagined and made up all of the things I was supposed to have said! If you wish to change my mind with all of this, it is not working (big surprise). On the contrary, based on your lack of respect for my profession (we can make ingenious setups. Hooray!) and my field of study (nothing more than applied quantum mechanics, eh?), it solidified my believe that you clearly know nothing of what you are talking about.

    Zz.
     
  14. Apr 18, 2006 #13
    So, is all this fuzz about my use of the word *fundamental* connected to experiments testing the boundaries of QM ?? That is just too amazing for any words. And now you are picking on me because I did not mention the fact that experimentalists can figure out effective theoretical models? And you seem to imply that I think that somehow experimental work - putting up effective models and so on is ``lower´´ work. :bugeye:

    **On the contrary, based on your lack of respect for my profession (we can make ingenious setups. Hooray!) and my field of study (nothing more than applied quantum mechanics, eh?), it solidified my believe that you clearly know nothing of what you are talking about. **

    Stop your stupid games, of course I do know that people working in statistical physics, solid state physics and so on examine effective models. What is YOUR damn problem with accepting that your are modelling within a theory, called quantum mechanics ??? Don't you think that anyone knows that modelling is respectful, I even follow progress in the three body problem still. Stop trying to project your FEELINGS about me by going over to some SILLY arguments. I told you which theorists I was talking about, but you did not even listen.

    The only part where I claimed that QM could be faulty in concerning perfect Bell experiments, and you damn know that very well.

    This conversation is meaningless and over.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2006
  15. Apr 18, 2006 #14

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    am sure any serious conflict or ill feeling could be reconciled between people of good will with sense of humor
    I was struck by something Hossi said in post #4. Unless mods choose to lock thread we could continue in a different direction and look at her answer to the O.P.

    "Hi Terry,...What is the question? Here's my opinon: we live on a 4d curved submanifold in an infinitely extended flat 10d space. Coordinates are real valued. You want to complexify, you get an extra structure, ..."

    personally I don't see any evidence that we live in a smooth manifold----the differential geometry type of thing. Riemann had his doubts, I believe, but he went ahead and invented the smooth manifold anyway, and it is great to do mathematics on.

    Nice as they are I still see no reason to suppose that we live on one-----whether 4D or some other dimension.

    as I understand it the Hole Argument indicates that we dont live on a manifold. That is, the points of the manifold we might IMAGINE living on do not have physical meaning---do not exist. Einstein is quoted saying they had lost their last vestige of existence or something to that effect.

    I dont want to DENY that we live on a differentiable manifold like we studied in diff geom. I dont want to have to ARGUE about it, I am simply expressing a little skepticism, for discussion's sake. As I said, I dont right now see any evidence that we do, or any physical evidence that it is, like Hossi says, 10D and flat.

    this is in case anyone wants to change the subject of discussion and talk about something else :smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2006
  16. Apr 18, 2006 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Wonderful! Maybe next time you consider who you think you can pick on, especially when you have decided to completely ignore the fact that you keep reading things I never wrote! But somehow, it annoys you when the same thing happens to you.

    Zz.
     
  17. Apr 18, 2006 #16
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought in online forums." ~Albert Einstein (slighly reinterpreted) :tongue2:
     
  18. Apr 18, 2006 #17
    I love a good debate---too bad it wasn't televised on cable
     
  19. Apr 18, 2006 #18

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Oh, but it was! It was televised on South Park, the episode about Scientology.

    Zz.
     
  20. Apr 18, 2006 #19
    The bootleg copies of that episode are running/costing as high as a new idea about electron sub-particles from non-academic theorists to as high as a signature of published physicists (published in the last five months)--

    wow--
     
  21. Apr 18, 2006 #20
    Nice!
    Prejudice of opinion(and even FACT) is an unavoidable aspect of life.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?