Why can't we perceive extra dimensions?

Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
String theorists postulate that our world has 9 dimensions and these extra dimensions are very twisted up such that they are too small to be seen.

Question 1:
Why don't we postulate, instead, that the reason we can't see these extra dimensions is because we are not genetically wired to do so, just like a fish or a worm is not genetically wired to understand economics?

Question 2:
What does it mean for these dimensions to be twisted up? Twisted up in where? What I imagine is these dimensions are twisted like a tiny ball of threads; they would be twisted in our macro 3-dimensional space. If so, this picture seems wrong because then they are still existing in our 3-dimensional space, not really being extra-dimensional.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Q1: that's just the same statement but more general and without any testable predictions - i.e. it is "begging the question".
What is it about our genetic wiring that prevents us from seeing the extra dimensions?

Q2: "twisted up" = "lots of curvature". It's maths.
They are not curved in space (in a sense they are space), but have intrinsic curvature like regular spacetime does only more of it.
 
Simon Bridge said:
Q1: that's just the same statement but more general and without any testable predictions - i.e. it is "begging the question".
What is it about our genetic wiring that prevents us from seeing the extra dimensions?

Or maybe some people have the genes that allow them to see the extra dimensions. But when they say they do, we don't believe them.
 
Happiness said:
Or maybe some people have the genes that allow them to see the extra dimensions.

That is, quite literally, not physically possible. At all. Thread locked since we don't allow speculation of this nature.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...

Similar threads

Back
Top