This is getting to be one of the most popular folders in the Pub.
Author  Comment  

Macaroo  
*SIGH!*
This is getting to be one of the most popular folders in the Pub. “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while” ~ Groucho Marx 

dg  
re: 19 & 20
"And I say go fuck yourself." And thus ends our communications forever, you and I. Goodbye!
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" (POGO)


Rambo123UK  
It's your loss.


Padre Mellyrn  
Dr. Michio Kaku and the Theory of Ten dimensional space. Really good read.
"Asshemble da Minyons!!!!"  Dispicable me. 

JohnSA  
Yeah, I like Kaku, he's not afraid to speculate on new ideas and "think outside the box".


dg  
pm & john:
a thought of mine ... We know that y = ax + b is two dimensional (x,y) and we know that if x = r +i(s), the RE{ y } becomes three dimensional due to the imaginary axis imposed on the x direction (and four dimensional if x and y each have their own imaginary axes). Right? So ... If I write a vector equation that uses complex numbers for its variables, and itself represents the four dimensions of space and time, is this not a 10 dimensional representation? F(x,y,z,t) = ... where x = a + i(b), y = c + j(d), z = e + k(f), and t = g + l(h) where F, x, y, z, and t each have their own imaginary axes Should you say yes, then what does that say about 10 dimensional space considerations? Are all the dimensions real, or are some mathematical imaginaries needed to make the math work?
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" (POGO)
Last Edited By: dg
Jul 28 11 7:59 AM.
Edited 1 times.


JohnSA  
I'm afraid you lost me after "We know that..." dg. I never was any good at mathematics, and vectors are an alien language to me. Sorry.
Over to you, Padre. John 

Padre Mellyrn  
My understanding, which I admit is limited, is that they were using the idea like you said, only doing the 'dimensions' as Scaler Vector. If we go by the "W" theory, which another part of the 'Bran theory, where particles are not 'solids' but the wavefunction of the interaction of the 10 dimensions, and what we perceive is the 'four dimensions' of Space time, and we can percive the effects of Gravity, Electromagnetics, Nucler strong and weak, and so on, and measure them. Even time has a measurement in the plank world.
This says that the dimension are real, and best works when only 10 or 26 dimension are used. In other words infinate does not work here. There must be a finte number. Now we are assuming for the time that the Dimensions are real, are can be represented by either actual measurement, or measure the effects on other things. This is what ties into the 'there is no before' because there is no meaning to 'before'. Even the "and there was choas and darkness", doesn't begin to cover it. The dimensions were folded up in the thier smalleset size, 10 39 centimeters. Everything was there. Talk about over crowding in your basic flat..... Then someone open the door. But things weren't there, and then were there (first there was a mountian, then there is no mountain, then there is) there were being created and uncreated in the same instant of time, but there was no time either. so it was created or uncreated, but then it was. somewhere, at somepoint, it 'was', and that started the whole process of thier being something other than everythingandnothinginthesaminstant. So yes for the arugument, the dimension are considered real, Electricity has it's own place, Gravity, Time, and so on are real.... "Asshemble da Minyons!!!!"  Dispicable me. 

dg  
Well then, ignoring for the time being that the brane theory has zero physical experimental confirmation, I have a question about units. We know that the three dimensions of space have units of length (meters) and that of time has units of time (seconds). So, what are the units of the other 6 dimensions (assuming 10 total)?
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" (POGO)


dg  
forget #29. If you want the headache I just gave myself, read this explanation from wikipedia:
"Extra dimensions[edit] Number of dimensionsAn intriguing feature of string theory is that it involves the prediction of extra dimensions. The number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion,[dubious – discuss] but flat spacetime solutions do exist in the socalled "critical dimension". Cosmological solutions exist in a wider variety of dimensionalities, and these different dimensions are related by dynamical transitions. The dimensions are more precisely different values of the "effective central charge", a count of degrees of freedom which reduces to dimensionality in weakly curved regimes.[14] One such theory is the 11dimensional Mtheory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[15] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. The original string theories from the 1980s describe special cases of Mtheory where the eleventh dimension is a very small circle or a line, and if these formulations are considered as fundamental, then string theory requires ten dimensions. But the theory also describes universes like ours, with four observable spacetime dimensions, as well as universes with up to 10 flat space dimensions, and also cases where the position in some of the dimensions is not described by a real number, but by a completely different type of mathematical quantity. So the notion of spacetime dimension is not fixed in string theory: it is best thought of as different in different circumstances.[16] Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by both hands", and this number is fixed and independent of potential energy. String theory allows one to relate the number of dimensions to scalar potential energy. Technically, this happens because a gauge anomaly exists for every separate number of predicted dimensions, and the gauge anomaly can be counteracted by including nontrivial potential energy into equations to solve motion. Furthermore, the absence of potential energy in the "critical dimension" explains why flat spacetime solutions are possible. This can be better understood by noting that a photon included in a consistent theory (technically, a particle carrying a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry) must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from the Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions, since for a larger number of dimensions there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefore, the photon in flat spacetime will be massless—and the theory consistent—only for a particular number of dimensions.[17] When the calculation is done, the critical dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time). The subset of X is equal to the relation of photon fluctuations in a linear dimension. Flat space string theories are 26dimensional in the bosonic case, while superstring and Mtheories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions for flat solutions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation.[18] Starting from any dimension greater than four, it is necessary to consider how these are reduced to four dimensional spacetime. [edit] Compact dimensions Calabi–Yau manifold (3D projection)Two different ways have been proposed to resolve this apparent contradiction. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable by present day experiments. To retain a high degree of supersymmetry, these compactification spaces must be very special, as reflected in their holonomy. A 6dimensional manifold must have SU(3) structure, a particular case (torsionless) of this being SU(3) holonomy, making it a Calabi–Yau space, and a 7dimensional manifold must have G2 structure, with G2 holonomy again being a specific, simple, case. Such spaces have been studied in attempts to relate string theory to the 4dimensional Standard Model, in part due to the computational simplicity afforded by the assumption of supersymmetry. More recently, progress has been made constructing more realistic compactifications without the degree of symmetry of Calabi–Yau or G2 manifolds. A standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If the hose is viewed from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. Indeed, think of a ball just small enough to enter the hose. Throwing such a ball inside the hose, the ball would move more or less in one dimension; in any experiment we make by throwing such balls in the hose, the only important movement will be onedimensional, that is, along the hose. However, as one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. Thus, an ant crawling inside it would move in two dimensions (and a fly flying in it would move in three dimensions). This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, or if one "throws in" small enough objects. Similarly, the extra compact dimensions are only "visible" at extremely small distances, or by experimenting with particles with extremely small wavelengths (of the order of the compact dimension's radius), which in quantum mechanics means very high energies (see waveparticle duality). [edit] Braneworld scenarioAnother possibility is that we are "stuck" in a 3+1 dimensional (i.e. three spatial dimensions plus the time dimension) subspace of the full universe. If such subspacetimes are exceptional sets within a largerdimensional one, there typically exist properly localized matter and Yang–Mills gauge fields.[19] These "exceptional sets" are ubiquitous in Calabi–Yau nfolds and may be described as subspaces without local deformations, akin to a crease in a sheet of paper or a crack in a crystal, the neighborhood of which is markedly different from the exceptional subspace itself. However, until the work of Randall and Sundrum,[20] it was not known that gravity too can be properly localized to a subspacetime; their proof that it can made such cosmological scenarios realistic. In addition, spacetime may well be stratified, containing strata of various dimensions so that we may be inhabiting a 3+1 dimensional stratum; such geometries occur naturally in Calabi–Yau compactifications.[21] Such subspacetimes are supposed to be Dbranes, hence such models are known as a braneworld scenarios. [edit] Effect of the hidden dimensionsIn either case, gravity acting in the hidden dimensions affects other nongravitational forces such as electromagnetism. In fact, Kaluza's early work demonstrated that general relativity in five dimensions actually predicts the existence of electromagnetism. However, because of the nature of Calabi–Yau manifolds, no new forces appear from the small dimensions, but their shape has a profound effect on how the forces between the strings appear in our fourdimensional universe. In principle, therefore, it is possible to deduce the nature of those extra dimensions by requiring consistency with the standard model, but this is not yet a practical possibility. It is also possible to extract information regarding the hidden dimensions by precision tests of gravity, but so far these have only put upper limitations on the size of such hidden dimensions. [edit] DbranesMain article: Dbrane Another key feature of string theory is the existence of Dbranes. These are membranes of different dimensionality (anywhere from a zero dimensional membrane—which is in fact a point — and up, including 2dimensional membranes, 3dimensional volumes and so on). Dbranes are defined by the fact that worldsheet boundaries are attached to them. Dbranes have mass, since they emit and absorb closed strings which describe gravitons, and — in superstring theories — charge as well, since they couple to open strings which describe gauge interactions. From the point of view of open strings, Dbranes are objects to which the ends of open strings are attached. The open strings attached to a Dbrane are said to "live" on it, and they give rise to gauge theories "living" on it (since one of the open string modes is a gauge boson such as the photon). In the case of one Dbrane there will be one type of a gauge boson and we will have an Abelian gauge theory (with the gauge boson being the photon). If there are multiple parallel Dbranes there will be multiple types of gauge bosons, giving rise to a nonAbelian gauge theory. Dbranes are thus gravitational sources, on which a gauge theory "lives". This gauge theory is coupled to gravity (which is said to exist in the bulk), so that normally each of these two different viewpoints is incomplete." My interpretation of this garbage is that the extra dimensions are imaginary degrees of freedom necessary to make the equations work. The most meaningful thing I read is that none of these extra dimensions has ever been physically measured, deduced to be too small to measure. Bring on the tooth fairies!
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" (POGO)
Last Edited By: dg
Jul 29 11 5:23 PM.
Edited 1 times.


Padre Mellyrn  
Well the numbers are supposed to be in 'Plank Units', i.e. for Physical, 10^39 Cm for the small end, and 10^39 Cm for the large end (space itself) and so, but like anything "theoretical" you have to call it something until you can actually do something to measure it. Not unlike the TimeSpaceLight trio, where for the longest time, it was thought light was instantanous, and time was unvarible.
This is all part and parcel of the Unified Theory of General Relativity. Not to be confused the specific theory of relatives, which states that as soon as you run out of time, money and food, your relatives will show up for dinner and a movie, and expect you to pay. "Asshemble da Minyons!!!!"  Dispicable me. 

Rambo123UK  
Quoting Hawking in ABHOT "The universe would be completely selfcontained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."
... "Thus all the complicated structures that we see in the universe might be explained by the noboundary condition for the universe together with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics." ... "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely selfcontained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" ... "Einstein once asked the question: 'How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?' If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose the initial conditions."  An Uncaused Universe By: Quentin Smith Edited by: Peter R Bromer Not only is there no evidence for the theist's causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability  near 100%  of coming into existence uncaused. Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale  that is, on the level of superclusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe  our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang  would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe. So, scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence, tells us that the universe began without being caused. If you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then you must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists uncaused, in accordance with the Wave Function law. Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a fourdimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 1033 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding. Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No, because the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective. So contemporary scientific cosmology is not only, not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism. (original source misplaced but credit of authorship given)  

Macaroo  
"Einstein once asked the question: 'How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?' If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose the initial conditions."From a theistic POV, he had no choice, either. Omniscience implies that God would be privy to events before they happen. No matter what the necessary conditions for the "creation" of the Universe, if it's been predicted he would have no choice in whether or not to initiate it. Otherwise, he's not omniscient. He's apparently a prisoner of his own...or (DumdumDAH!! Something Other's) decrees... which negates omnipotence, God's own freewill and sovereignity. Man, this shit gets complicated once you start to analyze it! “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while” ~ Groucho Marx 