This one’s pretty good
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This one’s pretty good
http://panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html[/quote]
mind blowing
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This one’s pretty good
http://panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html[/quote]
mind blowing[/quote]
speechless
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This one’s pretty good
http://panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html[/quote]
mind blowing[/quote]
speechless
[/quote]
as shall be my alien playmate … it’s rude to speak with your mouth full
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This one’s pretty good
http://panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html[/quote]
mind blowing[/quote]
speechless
[/quote]
as shall be my alien playmate … it’s rude to speak with your mouth full[/quote]
gutsy man
(from thread’s page 1, I’m just seeing it now)
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Physics is for people without the faith or personal strength to accept Jesus and all his miracles as their personal savior.[/quote]
Its not the domain of physics to prove/disprove God.
In fact, many scientists themselves would cite various ‘anthropic principle’ versions as proof of ‘intelligent design’ by God (or a Creator)
In other words there’s simply no either/or here, that’s just poor phrasing/understanding of what physics even is on your part.
edit - upon review that 2nd sentence doesnt even make sense to me, but its the quoted terms that matter regardless
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This one’s pretty good
http://panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html[/quote]
mind blowing[/quote]
speechless
[/quote]
as shall be my alien playmate … it’s rude to speak with your mouth full[/quote]
gutsy man
http://files.sharenator.com/alien_Infinite_Picdump_59-s455x600-198692-535.jpg [/quote]
I’m well aware of the possible variants. It’s a risk worth taking.
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A
“Now an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition.”
[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A
“Now an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition.”
[/quote]
Hey, I was just reading that paper the other day! I am doing some work on causal relations at the quantum level myself. Here is the full paper if anyone is interested in reading it:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A
“Now an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition.”
[/quote]
Hey, I was just reading that paper the other day! I am doing some work on causal relations at the quantum level myself. Here is the full paper if anyone is interested in reading it:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4464v2.pdf [/quote]
Will read. I promise not to TL;DR.
Dr. Matt, curious to hear what you think about QST model as a tool for intuitive visualization of (3^n)+n dimensional frameworks.
Bump
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
Dr. Matt, curious to hear what you think about QST model as a tool for intuitive visualization of (3^n)+n dimensional frameworks.[/quote]
Sorry I missed this one, could you be more specific about what you mean? Intuitive visualization of any dimension outside of the three spatial dimensions is not humanly possible since we have no natural way of identifying them, or what kind of dimensions they are. We can intuitively visualize 1, 2, and 3 dimensional systems because we can compare them to things that we see. Beyond that it is best guess until we have a way of directly measuring their properties. It is not even definitively known what, if any, dimensions there are beyond the 4 that we know about so we can’t really intuitively visualize something that we are not yet sure exist. All we can say for sure right now is that the three and four dimensional models of the universe that currently exist are not entirely sufficient, which means that there are probably other dimensions that humans are unable to perceive with our senses.
Also, why did you use (3^n) + n? The only potentially useful dimensional frameworks you can get using that notation are 1, 4, and 11 dimensions. Just go with n dimensional. I would highly recommend that anybody looking into other dimensions not limit themselves to topics such as String Theory (11 dimensions) and General Relativity (4 dimensions).
DISCLAMER: I’m just a physics student, and a novice one at that. If I misuse any terms or have an incorrect axioms I would greatly appreciate someone pointing them out for me for my own understanding and also not to confuse others. My wording is HIGHLY repetative, this is for the sake of achieving maximum clarity.
P.S. I can’t spell and have horrible grammar
(3^n)+n is used as sort of a means of referencing heirarchal layers of dimensions. Ex. The first layer would be 3^0+0 = 1 dimensional. Layer 2, 3^1+1 gives us our familiar 4 dimensional model. 3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal. 3^2+2 gives us the elven dimensions familiar to M-theory, 9 spatial 2 temporal.
So what this is saying is that spatial dimensions come in volumetric layers.
The planck length is stated as being the smallest measureable spatial distance. As I understand it this is due to the fact that lengths smaller than the planck gravitational effects are considered neglagable aka there are no gravitational effects associated with space under this length.
This implies that 3d space is discontinious in some way. Lets play with this implication.
Imagine a sphere of 3d familiar space, refered to as a quanta, existing in some medium. The distance from one sphere to another is one planck length. The sum of all these individual quanta is our familiar 3 dimensional spatial space. Matter or more correctly energy contained within a quanta exists in 3d familiar space. The space between these two quanta is not our 3d space, it is the medium.
This begs the question, what is this medium?
This medium is another greater space volume, superspace.
It helps to visualize a tesseract. Our “limited visualization” of a 4 dimensional cube gives us essentially a cube within a cube. The inscribed cube can be thought of as our 3 spatial dimensions and the cube outside as superspace a greater 3 dimensional volume.
Now imagine a point particle existing within this inner cube. As this particle moves about within the innercube as the innercube moves about within the outercube does this particle move through our familiar 3d space?
No. Because we have defined our space as quanta, thus you would need atleast two quanta, the particle being transfered or having moved from one quanta to another to be moving in our space.
Back to the tesseract. So what is happening to this particle as it moves about within the innercube of the tesseract? Well it is moving through some sort of volume just not familiar 3d space according to the definition we have given to familiar space. This volume is defined as interspace. Now imagine the particle maintains some position within the innercube as the innercube moves about in the outercube. This particle is not moving in inner or familiar space but it is moving through superspace.
This is my terribad attempt to convey this visualization of 9 spatial dimensions. I left out the 2 temporal dimensions for simplicities sake but they are time and supertime.
The formula (3^n)+n implies that looking at the third layer 3^3+3 would produce 30 dimensions… so on and so forth. While I haven’t fact checked it I believe that M-theory has been mathematically proven to work with 30 dimensions and also the 4th layer. Not sure if anyone has really attempted to go beyond that. This seems to imply that space is actually infinetly continious but in the hilberts hotel sense.
Examing phenomona using this model can provide us with explanitions for quantum tunneling, gravity and a host of other things.
This is the video that inspired me to investigate furthur.
What do you guys think? Make any sense?
[quote]Mendomorph wrote:
DISCLAMER: I’m just a physics student, and a novice one at that. If I misuse any terms or have an incorrect axioms I would greatly appreciate someone pointing them out for me for my own understanding and also not to confuse others. My wording is HIGHLY repetative, this is for the sake of achieving maximum clarity.
P.S. I can’t spell and have horrible grammar
(3^n)+n is used as sort of a means of referencing heirarchal layers of dimensions. Ex. The first layer would be 3^0+0 = 1 dimensional. Layer 2, 3^1+1 gives us our familiar 4 dimensional model. 3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal. 3^2+2 gives us the elven dimensions familiar to M-theory, 9 spatial 2 temporal. [/quote]
M-theory only has one temporal dimension, as do all other forms of string theory. All other forms of string theory also require only a single temporal dimension, even the ones with 26 dimensions. A specific requirement of all the string theories is that all dimensions outside of the 4 in a standard Minkowski continuum are spatial.
No, they don’t. There is no valid theory that posits this. see above.
The plank length is considered the smallest measurable spatial distance because of something called the uncertainty principle. It is defined through three of the fundamental constants of nature: the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and the reduced plank constant. The reason that this is the smallest possible unit of length measurement is because at a certain point all the values involved can not be measured with increasing accuracy without sacrificing the accuracy of another measurement. There is no model in which the force of gravitation is considered negligible on a quantum scale, Einstein destroyed that idea with his theories on relativity. The problem now is to describe the interaction of the gravitational force at that level, which there are several theories on but we do not have the technology yet to measure energy at that level, so it is still just best guess, but saying that it is negligible is just plain wrong, and even if it was it would have nothing to do with the Plank length.
What you stated above, even if it had been correct, still would not have had any implication on the discontinuity of 3 dimensional space. 3D models of the universe are not “discontinuous” (they would actually work if they were, look up continuity in a calculus textbook and apply that concept to the Newtonian theories of classical mechanics), it is the fact that they are NOT discontinuous that we need a better explanation of phenomena at the quantum level, hence the need for quantum mechanics and other theories.
Quanta is plural so a single object that is quantized is called a quantum, and a quantum is not an object in and of itself, it is used to describe something (quantum of _______). You are also misunderstanding the equivalence of matter and energy, I would recommend that you go back and refer to your sophomore level Modern Physics textbook. If you no longer have it, I would recommend you get your hands on Tippler and Llewellyn’s Modern Physics textbook. It is the one I use in my classes and should clear up a lot of misunderstandings you have on these topics. Do not feel bad about any of this, by the way, nothing about quantum mechanics is intuitive and it usually takes many years of formal graduate level study to really understand it.
[quote]This begs the question, what is this medium?
This medium is another greater space volume, superspace. [/quote]
No, it isn’t. Look up superspace, and supersymmetry, while you are at it.
[quote]
It helps to visualize a tesseract. Our “limited visualization” of a 4 dimensional cube gives us essentially a cube within a cube. The inscribed cube can be thought of as our 3 spatial dimensions and the cube outside as superspace a greater 3 dimensional volume. [/quote]
This is just completely wrong. I would be nicer here, but I have discussed tesseracts on this site many times now. That description as a “cube within a cube” is wrong, and it requires the fourth dimension to be spatial, which it isn’t. Look up Minkowski space to get a better understanding of 4 dimensional space. Also, please look up superspace and supersymmetry, you clearly do not understand what those are. Also, read up on string theory. You seem to see the dimensions outside the 4 in Minkowski space as grander then what they are.
I would continue, but there is really no need. I am going to stop here, because everything else you said was built on the faulty logic and science used up to this point.
Thanks for your reply Dr. Matt!
Did you happen to take a look at the video also?
Sorry for the hatchet job I did in attemping to present what I had thus far garnered from the theory. Operating at 1st semester freshman physics and wikipedia based knowledge obviously leaves me rather limited at the moment, but for now it’s all I have while school continues.
Why is M-Theory limited to one temporal dimension?
Is it correct that P branes are 0 to 9 dimensional? + 1 temporal = 10 of classical string theorys. Where does M-theorys 11th dimension come from?
Thanks for playing along, if you get tired of answering my silly questions just tell me to go read a fucking book. Oh, wait…
Here is a more formal description of what I was trying to explain in an intuitive manner.
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
Here is a more formal description of what I was trying to explain in an intuitive manner.
[/quote]
drove by the perimeter institute last week