I Why do dimensions curl up or expand?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Trollfaz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Dimensions
Trollfaz
Messages
143
Reaction score
14
In string theory, the universe can have 9-10 spatial dimensions and the reason why we experience 3 is because those higher dimensions compactify. Under right conditions the extra dimensions can decompactify into the macroscopic dimensions we see. Why do some dimensions curl up or expand? Is energy required to curl up the extra dimensions
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Trollfaz said:
Why do some dimensions curl up or expand?
Happens when they get wet. Fabric of space and all.

The question seems to presuppose that they have a natural size and something causes them to deviate from it - this "cause" you mention. That's not necessarily true.
 
  • Haha
Likes ohwilleke, DennisN and Cepatiti
Trollfaz said:
Under right conditions the extra dimensions can decompactify into the macroscopic dimensions we see. Why do some dimensions curl up or expand? Is energy required to curl up the extra dimensions
Are you referring to this paper: The fate of four dimensions ? Personally, I didn't know that paper. I didn't check, but does it have a lot of follow-up papers?

Some remarks related to your question:

As far as I know, there is no well-established model in string theory explaining why some dimensions are compact and others not.

Another question to ponder is why these compact dimensions remained small during the cosmic inflation. Here I read something in the past about cosmic strings, which stated that during the inflationary epoch, cosmic strings were wrapped around the compact dimensions, thus preventing them from expanding. Unfortunately, I do not have a reference for this anymore.
 
Last edited:
In string theory we compactify by using fluxes of fields. This can already be done in GR with an electromagnetic field. You can compactify one spatial dimension and keep it small by using a flux from the EM-field. But that solution will be unstable.

To me, this flux compactification reeks a bit like fine tuning. And why just 6 dimensions compactified? Nobody knows. People were primarily happy to use the geometry of this 6d spaces to explain features of standard models, and saw the former curse of extra dimensions as a new blessing.
 
Some trolling nonsense has been deleted from the thread and the thread is reopened.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
Trollfaz said:
In string theory, the universe can have 9-10 spatial dimensions and the reason why we experience 3 is because those higher dimensions compactify. Under right conditions the extra dimensions can decompactify into the macroscopic dimensions we see. Why do some dimensions curl up or expand? Is energy required to curl up the extra dimensions
The theory has 9-10 spatial dimensions in the first place to motivate the weakness of gravity relative to the Standard Model forces and to allow for mathematical beauty.

The theory has compactified dimensions because we need them to conform to observation.

Alternately, the theory doesn't use compactified dimensions at all, and instead confines Standard Model forces but not gravity to four dimensional branes. This also has the virtue of providing a dumping ground on branes we don't live on for particles and forces that the theory predicts that aren't seen.

But a theoretical motivation or mechanism for compactification is more of a open problem than it is something that there is an answer at the ready to address.
 
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

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top