Points with separation.

1. Dec 3, 2003

John

I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm not that smart in science, but I have done a couple of very remarkable engineering feats, and I have figured out what happens when points have distance between them.

If you look at the screen that comes up between screens on this website, the screen with a bunch of dots all over it, that is an example of a plane made of points with distance between them. On that screen, if you were to go from point to point, you can only go in a limited number of directions. You can go from a point, to any point next to it, and you can only go back and forth in four directions.

If you consider going from a point, to any random point on the whole screen, you have to describe that direction and location by two conceptual dimensions. On this plane of points, arranged in a square pattern, since the two conceptual dimensions used to describe the location and direction of any point, and two of the four dimensions are the same, you have a total of four dimensions. On a plane made of points arranged in triangles, you have three directions that you can travel from point to point, and you need two conceptual dimensions that are different from those three formed by triangles; so that plane would have five dimensions. If you count time, that is six. Using this method to count the number of dimensions in a cubic space, you count ten dimensions, which is in remarkable agreement with string theory which predicts ten dimensions if points are really strings, meaning that they have distance between their centers. I am not Einstein, but I wish someone could see the genius of this idea. It is the answer to where the ten dimensions are! It describes why particles follow odd paths in accelerators, it describes why snowflakes look like they do, and I am tired of starving.

2. Dec 3, 2003

alkaline

meekness is always desirable over arrogance...
I'm not quite clear on what you are claiming here. The only possibility that makes sense to me is the following:

You are describing vectors that are assigned to locations. Each location has two coordinates, and each vector has two coordinates also. A space that counts all of the possibilities of these locations with all the possibilities of vectors assigned to these locations is four dimensional.

No other possibility results in four dimensions. There is something that is very important to remember: a dimension has AT LEAST, but at the same time, AT MOST two directions. You can't take a plane of two dimensions, which has four directions, then go and say it has four dimensions. You just then renamed "directions" to "dimensions".

In your theory, you introduce "four dimensions" out of the middle of nowhere. where did it come from?

I won't comment on the triangle thing until i understand this first part of your theory.

3. Dec 4, 2003

John

You just went over every part that is hard to explain, which is why no one understands it, yet. I'll try to explain smaller parts of it in more detail. I don't have the time right now. I have to deliver newspapers at 3 am, but I'll take a stab at it.

All travel is from point to point. Limit yourself to that. It is important to limit yourself to the idea that all travel that exists can only be from a point, to a point next to it. If the points line up in a square grid like this:

XXXXXXU
XXXOXXX
XXXXXXX

And you are at O, notice you can only go in eight directions, and that's all. If the points that make a plane are SEPARATED by a distance, the points have to line up in squares or triangles. You can only go from the point you are at, to a point next to it. You can only travel back and forth in four dimensions. If you want to get to U, you can go diagonally and across. Or across and up. Considering those two options, you have used three of the four dimensions. Travel across is a dimension. Travel diagonally is a dimension. Travel vertically is a dimension. In this plane of points there are only eight directions possible. The limited numer of directions is four dimensions. They are all flat. There is Vertical. There is Across. There is Diagonally One Way, and Diagonally The Other Way. Four dimensions, only eight directions. To get to U you have to travel though two of the four dimensions, such as Across, then Vertical. You can't go directly to U because you have to travel from point to point. If you are a photon, you can't skip points as you travel. If you are a high energy particle after a collision, and you try to squeeze between points, you start to spiral wildly and lose energy.

If points have separation between them, you get this very lame world where you can only travel in certain directions. But that has to be the structure of fundamental space. Points must have separation. They can't have no separation between them.

Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
4. Dec 4, 2003

Staff Emeritus
How do you handle the fact that according to math there is no point next to a given point. Since if you had a candidate for next, then you would have two points, your original and your candidate, and between any two points there is a third one. So your candidate for next failed the test.

This what we mean by "separable".

5. Dec 4, 2003

alkaline

Also: between every two rationals there is a real number, and between every two reals there is a rational number.
Here is the big problem: Dimensions are linearly independent. The very word "diagonal" means you are using a linear combination of more than one dimension. Diagonally to the upper right means that you are using a combination of the up direction and the right direction. This means that in this plane of points, there are still only two dimensions.

If you take your idea to its limit you will see why it doesn't make sense. Take for example a compass. It has 360 points around it. If you take a point and arrange 360 points around it so that it has 360 directions to travel in, then according to your system it has 360 dimensions. If you add points ad infinitum, you create a circle. the point in the middle thus has an infinite number of directions to travel to, and thus it has an infinite number of dimensions. This is just absurd, and is NOT what the word dimension means. Direction DOES NOT EQUAL dimension. Travelling diagonally NEVER creates a new dimension.

Maybe you got confused when someone described the fourth dimension as a "direction you can't point to". It's true that it's a direction, but it's a *linearly independent direction* from the directions that we can point.

6. Dec 4, 2003

John

When I say diagonal, I don't mean a combination of two measurements. It's a specific thing. Directions do not equal dimensions until they are the only directions you can go in. The dimensions of a triangle could be 2" by 3" by 4": three dimensions.

The dimensions of a box could be 2" by 3" by 4".

selfAdjoint said, "How do you handle the fact that according to math there is no point next to a given point."

But according to your proof that there is always a point between the two, it is also a proof that there is ALWAYS a distance between two points, since you can ALWAYS place something between them.

You must come to the conclusion that all points include the distance between two points, or that all points are strings. And then, at some place in physical reality, just like with the Planck Number you have to assign a specific distance to be the smallest distance there is. Which is what string theory assumes, although it doesn't know what that distance is.

So now a line we think looks like this __________

Really looks like this..................................

There is a point next to another point. The big question is, What exists in the distance between the points?

If you look at that line of periods, it looks like matter expanding out into the nothingness of the universe. So what exists in the distance between points, a distance that math says doesn't exist, is gravity, the thing that math can't deal with, but string theory can.

Last edited: Dec 5, 2003
7. Dec 7, 2003

alkaline

Now you're confusing "measurements" with "dimensions". In English, dimension can be used for the scientific sense, a linearly independent direction, or it can mean a measurement. These are completely different concepts. If you used dimensions this way, then the dimensions of a polygon would depend on its sides: triangle = 3 dimensions, quadrilateral = 4 dimensions, 5-gon = 5 dimensions, etc. This is absurd. An additional problem is that with the triangle you counted each side of it, but for the box you only counted half of the sides - you said it has 3 dimensions, but it actually has 6 sides.

8. Dec 10, 2003

cozzmikjoker

need help explaining dimensions

Here's a post in response to someone who asked what hyperspace and dimensions are.
Any additional help would be appreciated.

Dimensions (referring here to finite objects like a ball or a cube) are the measurement of an object in relation to the space around it.

We approach the (what we see as) surface of the 3d object and measure its 1st and 2nd dimensions.

You see the outside of a finite box and you measure what you see as the outer surface. 1D 2D and then you enter the object and come out the other side to measure 3D. The measurements are usually all done on the outside of the object but you are technically measuring the inside (accounting for it) of the object.
Let's assume this is a perfect cube.
If it's a perfect cube, it's length, width and depth measurements will be the same. Simple enough.

Dimensions are our description of what we see, in the way that we see it on our level.
Getting away from finite objects, however, most people into string theory are referring to spatial dimensions across the great expanse.
The first three dimensions are surpassed in order to describe what objects and space are actually comprised of. Magnifying small bits of matter, until you've pried stuff apart so small you're seeing molecules and atoms, then you keep looking at it smaller and smaller until you are seeing (i.e. theorizing or observing its existence by effects) what makes up an atom (electrons, protons and all that junk).

Then you go even smaller and start seeing quantum particles and such (by "seeing", I mean theorizing or analysis through effects- such as what they do with their billiard-playing stuff at Cern).

So even though this stuff at our 3d level looks like solid matter, it appears very different on these other levels. You cannot grasp atoms or quantum particles in your hand.

So these "layers" (which is really not even quite the word but it might help visualization a little) have come to be known as "dimensions".
The higher the number of dimension, the smaller its constituents.

This isn't a perfect analogy either but think of the facets of a diamond.
You look inside a clear diamond and see reflections from various angles. It's a cohesive object, a diamond, but it's facets make the observer see different points.

There are doctors of physics who explore higher dimensions using advanced Newton stuff.
There is even a theory called "superstring theory" that says that as we keep looking smaller and smaller (way smaller than the nucleus of an atom), strings will eventually appear. Strings unfathomably small.
They theorize that when these strings vibrate, their holistic patterns are what make up matter, make matter move, make up forces and make forces act.

Einstein said that all matter is condensed energy.
I think that matter, as well as forces are various patterns of condensed energy. The theory behind strings does not contradict this.

I believe Einstein had it all figured out and just didn't know it- Relativity. The confusion put forth by quantum mechanics simply upset Einstein's applecart because he forgot to apply relativity to the human brain (which is our perception tool of the universe). If quantum stuff had come along earlier and been introduced to Einstein early in life, he would probably have had more time to figure it all out. But that's all just my opinion.

Back to theoretical physics.
But not to worry, Dr. Kaku (a noble warrior, indeed) has come to Einstein's side. Can't wait for his book "Einstein's Cosmos" to come out in April.

To find the connection between the very small and the very large, you have to find the common denominator. Since the two (very small and the very large) are actually just various reductionistic patterns of each other (they're all part of the same diamond), we have to reduce them down and find their smallest common denominator.
Superstrings are this smallest common denominator.
Even if string theory is (somehow) someday proven incorrect, it's a DAMNED good guess and it's certainly pointing us in the right direction. It makes a lot of sense.

9. Dec 12, 2003

John

If points are strings, and if ultimately, atoms are made of strings that vibrate and express matter and energy, what if the energy shell of an atom is made entirely of strings? It looks like a sphere, or a douhgnut, or any shape that the energy shell is in; and it is made of strings, as if the doughnut were made of chicken wire. The strings are there all the time, but the electron moves by vibrating one piece of the chicken wire, then vibrating the next piece.

If the electron is vibrating the surface of the energy shell, the energy shell inflates. If the electrons leave the energy shell, it deflates into a proton, which is a condensed bunch of strings, like taking chicken wire and balling it up into a bit of twisted metal. In this case, matter really is condensed energy. When the electron gets back into the strings of the proton, it inflates again into an energy shell.

The proton or energy shell is a two-dimensional membrane.

10. Dec 13, 2003

cozzmikjoker

The additional information is appreciated but unfortunately I can't post it because the site has gone down for a few days. It happens all the time when the atheists and creationists have their wars and they all get pissed at each other and then someone takes the board down.

In the meantime, however, can you tell me what a brane is or membrane or whatever?
Is it several strings put together? I'm assuming it's not the fragment of a string since you supposedly cannot break a string down into anything but another string.

In this case, matter really is condensed energy.

Now, hang on a minute. I thought Einstein said that matter is condensed energy. (meaning that all matter is condensed energy). Are you saying that only some of matter is condensed energy?
I mean, I would think that atoms are the 'missing link' between solid matter and energy.
Atoms, after all, are only smaller constituents of 'solid matter'. So I would think they are the point at which we can start observing that all matter is really made up of energy. ?

The proton or energy shell is a two-dimensional membrane.

Now that's something I have a problem with- two dimensionality. It's like taking a slice of space and saying that it exists independently, when we know that 2d is the observation of a surface - a surface which is always connected to something else. Therefore, a 2d surface can never exist autonomously from anything else. It's more of a point of view.
So when you say a 2d membrane, are you saying that the shell simply has much different properties from the atom?

11. Dec 14, 2003

John

Einstein meant, "According to my equations, matter is condensed energy, even though science doesn't really define matter as condensed energy, yet." Likewise, mathematicians say branes are surfaces that exist on their own. I developed a definition of a string, and my definition can create real branes, and when my string compresses it becomes matter. When it stretches it becomes energy.

For anything to exist it must be three-dimensional. I say the original string was created when matter from the singularity broke off and formed a separate piece of matter. That was when the universe first had three dimensions. The three dimensions were one piece of matter. The other piece of matter. And the nothingness that existed between them. Since one of the dimensions in a string is nothingness, a string exists as a two-dimensional reality. And that’s what math says it is: a two-dimensional reality. The third dimension of a string is the manifold of nothingness that surrounds the two points of matter. That manifold surrounding two points would make a string look like a hollow tube that has walls with no thickness. Draw a manifold around two points. It looks like a tube. Technically, you are talking about two non-dimensional points, and yet, it has a manifold that surrounds the two points. The manifold that surrounds the two points is a tube, and since the tube is nothingness, it has walls with no thickness.

Another quality of a string is tension. Imagine a point. A point is what exists. Imagine two non-dimensional points that are side by side. Two of nothing still have no dimension, they are non dimensional; so the two points are a singularity. A million billion points can be a singularity if they are connected to each other. But now separate two non-dimensional points: disconnect them. You are separating the two points into something that does not exist, since a point is what exists. Now there is a space, a distance between two points. The distance is made of what does not exist. What do the two points want to do? They try to fill what does not exist. There is a huge tension between the two separated points. And that’s what string theory originally was: it was a theory that describes the strong force. The vacuum between two points causes the two points to be attracted to each other, and the attraction is the strong force. So if space is made of points, and space is expanding, space is expanding against the strong force!!!

And photons are points moving through space, so photons must be pulled from point to point by the strong force! (If there is no such thing as momentum expressed over more than the distance between two points, then a photon or an electron is literally being pulled from point to point by a very consistent force, which would make it continually maintain a very consistent speed, by the way.)

Non-dimensional points can make a membrane. If those points in the membrane are attracted to each other by the strong force, and if an electron is being pulled from point to point on the surface of the spherical membrane, its moving mass is pulling the curved membrane outward. The electron is held in its orbit by the strong force, and yet, the electron can easily be knocked out of its orbit if a force acts on the electron perpendicularly to the membrane.

On the brane, the energy shell of an atom, two points that form a string are closer together to form an electron. Somewhere on the brane a group of strings has more mass and less energy. There's the electron.