The Meaning of Living in 3 Dimensions?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of living in a three-dimensional world, particularly in relation to the anthropic principle and its limitations. Participants express skepticism about the validity of arguments suggesting that our universe's dimensionality is optimal. The conversation highlights the challenges in altering fundamental physical laws while maintaining the coherence of universal phenomena, such as atoms and galaxies. The use of generalized tensor field equations is mentioned as a method for exploring different dimensionalities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the anthropic principle
  • Familiarity with spacetime concepts
  • Knowledge of generalized tensor field equations
  • Basic grasp of physical laws governing the universe
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the anthropic principle in cosmology
  • Study the mathematical framework of generalized tensor field equations
  • Explore the concept of spacetime and its dimensional properties
  • Investigate alternative theories of physics regarding dimensionality
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers of science, theoretical physicists, and anyone interested in the foundational aspects of dimensionality in the universe.

ronandkryn
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
What is the meaning of Living in a World having 3 Dimensions?

As to the guy on the street, how is he affected by being tied to 3 dimensions? Can we make a simplified button list in language that a non scientist can understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From "spacetime" on Wikipedia:

Spacetime_dimensionality.png


You can read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3.2B1_spacetime" on why a different number of spatial/temporal dimentions would cause some strange things to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow! That was a stroke of luck that we are there! :bugeye:
 
Thanks for pointing us to that, espen180. Very interesting. However, I don't find this particular type of argument from the anthropic principle to be very convincing at all. It's one thing to imagine slightly tweaking a continuous variable such as the fine structure constant. But when we talk about making some radical change, like going to a different number of dimensions, there is no rational way of deciding which other aspects of our own laws of physics ought to be preserved, or which aspects of our own universe's phenomena ought to be preserved (atoms? the periodic table? solar systems? galaxies?). You end up with a "just so" story that explains why ours is the best of all possible worlds. Even in the relatively modest type of anthropic-principle reasoning where all you do is fiddle with continuous parameters, there is a fallacy of only adjusting one parameter without allowing others to vary. If you allow multiple parameters to vary, you may be able to get universes just as congenial to life as ours. E.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027
 
I think what most people do when they consider universes of different dimensionality is to use generealized tensor field equations. For example the assumption that
\epsilon_0\nabla_{\mu}E^{\mu}=\rho
is still valid for μ=1,2,3,4,...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 111 ·
4
Replies
111
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K