Exploring the Possibility of Extra Dimensions

[CaptainQuasar]

I think Wolram has a point, though, about how confusing and sloppy the language of physics formalism is, to those of us who are trying to learn it. Just imagine trying to build a dictionary, or even a list of definitions, of math and physics symbols!

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/" , not too infrequently in fact.

I don't think the language of physics is all that sloppy. My own field is software engineering and I wish we used language as clearly as physicist on average do.

But I certainly think that using language precisely, or at least not being too cavalier about mixing formal and casual language, is very important when physics is being taught.

⚛​

 

[starkind]

What does "e" mean?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

It's a letter of the alphabet. What is the context in which it was used?

If you're referring to some constant I'll bet that there's a formal physics term for it that is much longer than ‘e’ which is probably specifically used for writing out equations. If you've got a teacher or professor who only ever refers to a particular constant as ‘e’ they ought to be using the constant's name more often. It's your teacher who is being sloppy, not the science of physics.

⚛​

 

[starkind]

That is my point, I guess. Symbols mean whatever the person using them intends them to mean. The trouble for the student is that specific definitions are rarely supplied...one must assume the meaning from context. But the context for one person may be very clear, while for another it may be obscure.

Perhaps a carefully structured standard course with coordinated physics, mathematics, philosophy and logic would help a student at one university understand what the professors are talking about, but an independent learner has not the advantage of such a structured standard course. And a student at one university would still have the problem of trying to understand what someone from another tradition is saying.

As a self-directed student, pursuing lines of interest rather than a course or career goal, this problem is particularly challenging for me. I suppose a traditional student would just ask someone nearby. I am trying to learn from Wikipedia and discussion forums. I suspect this may be the way everyone learns, eventually. So the problem of context and definition keeps coming back to me.

Physics is not a person and so of course cannot undertake a sloppy action. It is always teachers, students, and interested parties who go slopping about. I guess I am just venting my complaint, rather than expecting change.

 

[starkind]

Most people understand "space" as a volume we live in, the final frontier. That does seem to be the original usage. And dimension no doubt started existence as a measure of that kind of space, a length, width or volume. Someone, probably a mathematician, decided there could be a "space" of a different kind, for example a space of solutions to a formula. You can't measure this kind of space with a ruler. The dimension of such a space is not a measure of length etc. Confusion has resulted, continues, and is common. I think Wolram understands this and is playing with the absurdity.

 

[dx]

Any one who is gets to the point where they need to study spaces of solutions and other such things knows exactly what theyre dealing with. Only a lay person would be confused by such terminology.

 

[starkind]

True. And we were all lay people, once. Lay people have a legitimate interest in what physics does.

 

[dx]

Yes, and for lay people who want to understand some physics, there many good popular science books. And in these books, when words like "dimension" are used in a way that would not be familiar to lay people, the authors explain what exactly they mean. There can be no confusion in this case because it is not assumed that the readers know the sense in which the word is being used.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Most people understand "space" as a volume we live in, the final frontier. That does seem to be the original usage.

No, the original usage was broader and more abstract already. Have you ever heard a Southerner say something like “I think I'll sit down for a space”? That's using ‘space’ to express an expanse of time. See the etymological note I made above, that's the way it was being used in the 12th century. People who have decided that it's only talking about outer space or length and breadth and depth are the ones who are monkeying with the definition.

The reason you're having trouble learning from Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is sloppily written in many places. An equation or expression like

$$v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2$$​

Should always be followed by a series of qualifications like “Where $$v_0$$ is initial velocity” that define each of the symbols used.

⚛​

 

[Gear300]

hehehhhehheheeehehheh...I see now why this was moved to philosophy...exactly how different is physics from philosophy?

 

[TVP45]

No, the original usage was broader and more abstract already. Have you ever heard a Southerner say something like “I think I'll sit down for a space”? That's using ‘space’ to express an expanse of time. /QUOTE]

Interesting usage. Where I came from, people would "set a spell".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

hehehhhehheheeehehheh...I see now why this was moved to philosophy...exactly how different is physics from philosophy?

A philosopher would probably say that science in general is a form of philosophy called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism" .

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Interesting usage. Where I came from, people would "set a spell".

I've heard both. Maybe I'm wrong and it's Midwesterners who say “for a space” in reference to time. In any case, if you look at my etymological reference above it supports that “space” has always been used to refer to things other than length, width, and depth.

⚛​

 

[Noone]

There could be infinit dimensions if we were in side a black hole, and that would mean that space would be infinit kinda like Ablert.E. spoke of. a black hole within a black whole, we see it happen in space, but what's inside a black hole and what happens to the madder it eats? is there a vacuum in a black hole that suck's madder in? Well what even contains are own vacuum of space that we live in? :D *we could be in a black hole and never be able to prove it with any form of science* but logic can :)

 

[Noone]

I mean a Black hole within a black hole that is a black hole

 

[Noone]

Could that be what the big bang was? just a huge out burst of madder from the other end of a black hole? wonder if there would be a way to prove it? well i do know the people don't know if the big bang was spontaineus or if it slowly grew from one point in orgin :/ if you beg to difer please place a like to some info