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

Schrodinger's equation

  1. Feb 2, 2009 #1
    i was reading up on schrodinger's equation and they had mentioned that the equation only works with 11 dimension 10 spacial 1 time. could these extra 10 spacial dimensions be harnessed and used for dimensional compression. what i mean is be able to harness the dimension and place it into an empty space. (walk up to a shack open the door and inside its a mansion type of thing)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 2, 2009 #2

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    cite reference, according to me, it works fine with 4dimensions (3 spatial and one time)...

    You are perhaps referring to String Theory which are combining Quantum Mechanics and General Theory of relativity, which only works in 11dimensions (10 spatial and 1 time). But there are several kinds of string theories, one has 26dimensions for instance. But these extra dimension can not be used by us, they are (if they exists) very very microscopical. The dimensions are curled up (kaluza klein), compare it with a piece of hair - to us it is just 1dimensional, but for a flea (if u got any) it has more dimensions.
     
  4. Feb 2, 2009 #3
    ahh yes sorry about that i was thinking about the string theory. but how can a dimension be microscopic exactly?
     
  5. Feb 2, 2009 #4

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    how and how...
    Didn't you understand the analogy I gave you? Only at very very small scales these "extra" dimensions became important -> scales down at approx 10^-30 meters.
     
  6. Feb 2, 2009 #5
    ok well i am just going to stop posting now and post back at a later time after more studying is done sorry guys i know i must seem like a complete retard here.
     
  7. Feb 2, 2009 #6
    but just out of curiousity could dimensional compression become reality?
     
  8. Feb 2, 2009 #7

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  9. Feb 2, 2009 #8

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The simplest way is to have a circular extra dimension: If you move say 10-20 meters in a direction that's perpendicular to the three "standard" dimensions of space ("right", "forward" and "up") you have already moved all the way around the entire universe and returned to your starting point. (That number is just something I pulled out of my ***. The actual number could be bigger or smaller).

    It seems very unlikely. In theory, space can be stretched even without the extra dimensions, but (I think) doing something like that always involves exotic matter of a type that has never been observed, and even if it exists, you'd have to squeeze a lot of it into a small space and keep it there.
     
  10. Feb 2, 2009 #9
    so if i am understanding this then if you were to go completly around the universe and end were you started thats another dimension
     
  11. Feb 3, 2009 #10

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well now the universe is bigger than us, so the universe is an example of a circular dimensions then, but not "another"
     
  12. Feb 3, 2009 #11

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It depends on what direction you're going in. If you go right, forward or up, and eventually get back to where you started (after traveling at least a few hundred billion light-years (probably much more)), that only means that space curves back on itself, or possibly that it has a non-trivial topology, like the space in the Asteroids game. Extra dimensions don't have anything to do with it.

    If on the other hand you can find a direction that's perpendicular to all of the three I mentioned, and go in that direction, it's possible (even likely) that if you go a single nanometer in that direction, you will have moved millions of laps around the entire universe. That would explain why we can't perceive that this extra dimension is there.

    People have also thought of ways that extra dimensions can be much larger and still not noticeable, but those ideas are more complicated. I don't know much about the details, but I think the basic idea is that gravity would be the only "force" that acts in the directions that are perpendicular to right, forward and up.
     
  13. Feb 3, 2009 #12
    wow i actually understood that. thanks. but is there any way of being able to go past the edge of our universe i mean what is out there beyond that?
     
  14. Feb 3, 2009 #13

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    you are asking what is outside our universe?
     
  15. Feb 3, 2009 #14
    yes i was. oh and i am very interested in worm hole, dimensions, time and space what part of physics should i study for all this. i havent been able to get my mind off of all of this since i started reading about quantum mechanics.
     
  16. Feb 3, 2009 #15

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But "what is outside our universe" is a methaphysical question... not a physical question.

    General and Special Theory of relativity you should study.
     
  17. Feb 3, 2009 #16
    so what is out side of it? or is it that once you go all the way right you would go past the edge and simply end up on the left?
     
  18. Feb 3, 2009 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    This is getting way to speculative. Please review the PF Guidelines that you had agreed to. I don't see this thread going anywhere productive, so it is done.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Schrodinger's equation
  1. Schrodinger Equation (Replies: 1)

  2. Schrodinger equation? (Replies: 8)

  3. Schrodinger equation (Replies: 1)

  4. Schrodinger equation (Replies: 4)

Loading...