Something I don't get about Wormholes

[DaveC426913]

I am also not able to imagine such a thing. Its not our mistake . If everybody could do that , then there would be billion of eeinsteins.
That makes eeinstein different from rest of us.

You are overestimating the difficulty. I have three hypercubes at home in my cupboard that I built from wood and string, and I am not particularly Einsteinesque.

 

[Hyperspace2]

You are overestimating the difficulty. I have three hypercubes at home in my cupboard that I built from wood and string, and I am not particularly Einsteinesque.

We know , you are a genius.
Look from my presprective, then you will find me such a confused and such helpless person.
Everytime I make a conclusion about the dimension , and later I become so confuse about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

We know , you are a genius.
Look from my presprective, then you will find me such a confused and such helpless person.
Everytime I make a conclusion about the dimension , and later I become so confuse about it.

No! I'm no genius; I just read.

I'm not saying it's a simple as arithmetic, but it does not require Einstein.

I recommend any books about Flatland. They posit a 2-dimensional world inhabited by Flatlanders, that we, as 3-dimensional creatures can examine from our higher plane. After reading a few of these scenarios, one can begin to understand how to think 4-dimensionally.

Imagine a Flatlander coming upon the object on the left:

We tell him that it's possible to join all its sides so that each square shares an edge with another square, forming a cube. He claims "That's impossible - not without distorting the squares. What is a 'cube' anyway?"

with this analogy, we can begin to think about a bunch of 3-dimensional cubes, all of which share a face:

 

[candyred312]

he just has no experience of one of them because its too small to have any effect on his motion.

Ah. Too small to have any effect on his motion?? If we lived in flatland we wouldn't be able to have a factor called height (or one among the 3 dimensions). The ant does experience the other dimension, just that he is unaware. But let me hazard a guess and conclude that you don't rule out the possibility of other dimensions? I don't get it why one dimensions would have lesser significance than the other. Maybe an object might not be visible in multiple dimensions but surely it must occupy all available dimensions?

 

[DaveC426913]

Ah. Too small to have any effect on his motion??

Yes. If the garden hose is narrower than an atom, then the ant, while walking, will span its circumference many, many, many times for every inch he walks along its length. i.e. his experience is that he is simply walking along the length of a one-dimensional line.

If we lived in flatland we wouldn't be able to have a factor called height (or one among the 3 dimensions). The ant does experience the other dimension, just that he is unaware.

Right. Two different analogies.

The Flatlander's world is 2D: a macroscopic experience of both length and width, but no height at all. (Analagous to our 3D universe giving us a macro experience of 3 dimensions, just like we've always thought.)

The ant's world is also 2D, length and circumference, but circumference is curled up, so that he only has a macroscopic experience of 1D. (Analagous to our universe maybe actually having 4 or more dimensions, but we only have a macroscopic experience of 3 because the others are curled up like the garden hose.)

But let me hazard a guess and conclude that you don't rule out the possibility of other dimensions?

No. But I've never been asked to put my money where my mouth is.

I don't get it why one dimensions would have lesser significance than the other. Maybe an object might not be visible in multiple dimensions but surely it must occupy all available dimensions?

The key issue is the extent of a dimension - how far one can go before it wraps around. Our familiar 3 dimensions are virtually limitless in extent, but maybe not infinite. They might wrap around in several billion light years - it depends on the shape of the universe. (Same as the garden hose, just a very very large circumference.)

 

[Hyperspace2]

The ant's world is also 2D, length and circumference, but circumference is curled up, so that he only has a macroscopic experience of 1D. (Analagous to our universe maybe actually having 4 or more dimensions, but we only have a macroscopic experience of 3 because the others are curled up like the garden hose.)

Thanks for Pics
So How much big we have to be actually to feel 4 dimensions.?

 

[sigma143]

Dimensions that can be described topologically do not verify wormholes though. Wormholes are open ended and would provide "bridges" to transfer forces through topology. Using the layered 3 dimensonal cube analogy will not explain force exchange when the forces themselves regulate how the topology is constructed or exchanges forces between the black hole and white hole.
It may visualize extra dimensions, yet the topology to describe how the surfaces are connected is trivial using this, and surfaces are locally non-trivial. What is trivial is 'how' surfaces are connected in these extra dimensions.

Hermann Weyl proposed the wormhole theory, with mass analysis of the electromagnetic field energy with the charge and current densities. For an atom to move through space, and travel through time, it must exchange forces with other atoms electromagnetically.
The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges or currents.
The static charge is a positively charged nucleus, and the electric field is produced by attracting electrons; the electrons generate the magnetic field. Weyl focused on the masses of electrons being exchanged, and the magnetic 'currents' created by the general domains of the electron orbits relative to each other.

When the dimension of space or an object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it, we think of a stationary or 'static' point; Wormholes connect two points in spacetime.
Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law describe how static charges are connected.

In a sense topology is illusory to us. What we 'see' as topology is refracted light, an electromagnetic wave; and the forces that are exchanged through varying charge and current densities producing the electromagnetic wave are not necessarily interpreted(without non-linear mathematics)by us.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for Pics
So How much big we have to be actually to feel 4 dimensions.?

This is just guesswork but manifestation would be on a continuum. If very small, it would manifest as nothing more than discrepancies in measurements of energy levels or subatomic distances or angles or what-have-you. If it were larger, those discrepancies would be noticeable at larger and larger scales. Can't really say more than this.

In a fanciful example, Heinlein had a character in Stranger in a Strange Land that sent an object (a pistol) away in the 4th dimension. It was described as suddenly shrinking, as if getting farther away, yet staying right where it was.

 

[FantasyQueen]

all of them.
Scientists have an idea that their are 3 enlarged dimensions, forward and back, up and down, and left and right. Their is also time.
But the over dimensions are rapped up in tiny shapes called calibi-yau shapes.
About the plank size.
So we only feel the 3 enlarged ones. But we are in eccense in all of them
Is that ok?

Wow, that is amazing! Please recommend a resource where i can get more information on this topic?

 

[TheTechNoir]

Wow, that is amazing! Please recommend a resource where i can get more information on this topic?

Not meaning this in at all a rude way (this is my level of physics reading as well) but the fact that you didn't know about calabi-yau shapes means you aren't very familiar with string theory/probably are not a physics student or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe This is a great book if that is the case, if you have little experience it can take a few re-readings in a few parts as it is a lot to take it but it is completely accessible to a layman at the same time and talks a lot about the tiny wrapped up 6-dimensional CY shapes (I believe these shapes are called manifolds?).

You may already know everything covered in the first two sections though, but if not you will also get an introduction to special & general relativity as well as quantum mechanics. :)