- #1

- 1

- 0

there is probably a rather simple explenation to these questions and i would appreciate it if someone could help. i was a firm believer in string theory until these problems came up. thanks.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter chingomorph
- Start date

- #1

- 1

- 0

there is probably a rather simple explenation to these questions and i would appreciate it if someone could help. i was a firm believer in string theory until these problems came up. thanks.

- #2

- 372

- 0

My interpretation is that what the analogy means is that field gradients in these dimensions are so steep that relative to the three (four?) expanded dimensions, it's unrealistic to be able to move far enough to be noticeable in projection.

Consider a flat sheet of paper with a movable point on it. Look at it from some distance, at an arbitrary viewing angle. If you move the point on the paper you can perceive, from your point of observation, movement in the two-dimensional projection of the paper into your eyes. Now take the paper and roll it up very tightly into a tube - almost infinitely tight, in fact. For the point, nothing has changed, it's still free to move anywhere on the paper. For you observing from a distance though, moving the point parallel to the circular path enclosing the tube won't look like anything at all; whereas moving perpendicular to this same path i.e. up and down the tube, will look much the same as before.

Of course this could be completely wrong. Anyone who knows better, please do correct me.

Share: