The Meaning of Living in 3 Dimensions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and interpretations of living in a three-dimensional world, exploring both conceptual and theoretical aspects. Participants consider how this dimensionality affects human experience and the nature of physical laws, as well as the potential for different dimensional frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the significance of living in three dimensions and seeks a simplified explanation for non-scientists.
  • Another participant references Wikipedia's discussion on spacetime and the implications of different numbers of spatial and temporal dimensions, suggesting that such changes could lead to unusual phenomena.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the anthropic principle, arguing that it is problematic to assume that certain aspects of our universe would remain unchanged if dimensionality were altered.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of reasoning that relies solely on adjusting one parameter while ignoring others, suggesting that multiple parameters could lead to equally viable universes.
  • One participant mentions the use of generalized tensor field equations in considering universes with different dimensionalities, proposing that certain equations may still hold across various dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the implications of the anthropic principle and the assumptions made when discussing different dimensional frameworks. No consensus is reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in reasoning about dimensionality, particularly concerning the preservation of physical laws and the assumptions underlying various arguments. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved questions about the nature of dimensionality and its implications.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, cosmology, and the philosophical implications 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