|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 8, 2008 18:16:47 GMT -11
Here is a simple way to look at the whole multi-dimensional thingy... Lets compare our world as we know it (3 dimensions plus time), to a 2 dimensional world (plus time). We could represent that world as a flat piece of paper. You could draw a square to represent a house belonging to Mr Flat. Mr Flat is sitting comfortably inside his flat square house, just minding his own business. When suddenly... A horrible 3D alien (that would be you) puts their cup of coffee on top of his world! In fact, the coffee cup actually appears right in the middle of Mr Flat’s living room as if out of no where. Mr Flat couldn't see it approaching, because he only perceives reality in 2D! Only the horrible 3D alien can understand how it got there through the 2D walls of Mr Flat's very solid (from his perspective) house. And Mr Flat can't even see the whole cup; he only sees the part of it that intersects with his 2D world. If the 3D alien picks up the coffee cup and moves it to a different spot on the paper, from Mr Flat's perspective it would look as if the cup suddenly and inexplicably disappeared and then reappeared in a different spot. (Of course the 3D alien will do this just to freak out poor Mr Flat.) Then a 4D alien (a theoretical creature) decides to play a similar prank on the 3D alien. The 4D alien drops his coffee cup into the 3D world. From our perspective, it just appears out of no where because we are unable to perceive the dimension where it came from. We can’t see the entire 4D cup, just the 3D aspects of it that intersect with our 3D world. It freaks us out just like we freaked out Mr Flat (who says there is no Karma in Quantum Physics). The problem with 11 dimensions is that there is no intuitive understanding--we try but we are still looking at only a mathematical necessity in the solution set of possible string theory analysis techniques. It is really hard to get a gut feeling about how 7 extra dimensions would move and shift in time. Greene gives the Flatland explanation in his book as well (other people have probably mentioned this) but I always thought it was a bit simplistic--we are really just dealing with math at this point; it doesn't have an empirically testable element to these dimensions. In fact, the only possible test of strings is the graviton mass test that they are attempting at Cern--never found it yet; and it only proves that supersymetry and strings are possible--not true. I do think it is fun to try and imagine though!!! PGA
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 8, 2008 18:26:25 GMT -11
Check out the ad at the top of the page. LMAO Where do I get a dancing Yoda??!
|
|
|
Post by ifpthenq on Jun 8, 2008 18:46:20 GMT -11
I think there are sort of two "branches" of quantum physics. There is the very scientific branch, like ifp was talking about, and then there is the more spiritual branch - as in What the Bleep. I've spent some time with both, and it kind of comes down to a matter of interpretation, I suppose. If you are interested in the more spiritual interpretation of quantum physics, then you might be interested in books like "The Field" by Lynn McTaggert and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav. When you get into the very scientific aspects of Quantum Mechanics - someone says (and I can't remember who), that if you think you understand QM, then you don't understand it. I only see little teeny bits and pieces of it, and it is fascinating - but also very strange. The first thing I read about QM was Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" - which was okay. Also, The Bit and the Pendulum by Tom Siegfried is an interesting read. I believe that the answers to the paranormal lie in quantum physics. The scientific kind. I have some theories - but I have a headache, and lack the brainpower to explain it all today. Maybe another day. My only problem with using QM as a spiritual outlet is that it is a scientific theory that uses probability in a bit too much of a positivistic sense of realism (in many interpretations). The problem with What the Bleep and other, more spiritual applications, are that they take a loose interpretation of a scientific theory and run through the grey areas--exploiting the unprovable aspects of the theory. Goswami does this (he was in the movie) in his books and becomes less of a physicist and more of a mystic. Most of these theories are not consistent with observable testing currently done in QM. I mentioned at a phil lecture we hosted in our phil club a few years back that QM is not adequate to end the monism/pluralism debate (simply put, the world is one substance, or type of substance--or is many). String theory is an attempt at the former (monistic substance); the original standard model seems to be in support of the latter--but this is very shaky. This is a basic debate at the heart of metaphysics--what is the basic makeup of the universe. QM is loose enough to potentially be true in either case. This leaves a great deal of leverage for spiritual thinkers. If QM can't solve basic substance--it also can't discuss many other elements of metaphysics very accurately. So while I like that people incorporate science into the their spirtual quests--realize that QM is a slippery slope, with few answers to ultimate questions. It works much better as a method of predicting particle interactions probablistically. The metaphysics under QM are still too unpredictable to give a finite definition that sits well with the human intuition--kind of why most of the theorists claim they will never have a gut level understanding of the theory (I know I don't). PGA
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 8, 2008 22:07:32 GMT -11
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 9, 2008 12:17:32 GMT -11
Here is a simple way to look at the whole multi-dimensional thingy... Lets compare our world as we know it (3 dimensions plus time), to a 2 dimensional world (plus time). We could represent that world as a flat piece of paper. You could draw a square to represent a house belonging to Mr Flat. Mr Flat is sitting comfortably inside his flat square house, just minding his own business. When suddenly... A horrible 3D alien (that would be you) puts their cup of coffee on top of his world! In fact, the coffee cup actually appears right in the middle of Mr Flat’s living room as if out of no where. Mr Flat couldn't see it approaching, because he only perceives reality in 2D! Only the horrible 3D alien can understand how it got there through the 2D walls of Mr Flat's very solid (from his perspective) house. And Mr Flat can't even see the whole cup; he only sees the part of it that intersects with his 2D world. If the 3D alien picks up the coffee cup and moves it to a different spot on the paper, from Mr Flat's perspective it would look as if the cup suddenly and inexplicably disappeared and then reappeared in a different spot. (Of course the 3D alien will do this just to freak out poor Mr Flat.) Then a 4D alien (a theoretical creature) decides to play a similar prank on the 3D alien. The 4D alien drops his coffee cup into the 3D world. From our perspective, it just appears out of no where because we are unable to perceive the dimension where it came from. We can’t see the entire 4D cup, just the 3D aspects of it that intersect with our 3D world. It freaks us out just like we freaked out Mr Flat (who says there is no Karma in Quantum Physics). The problem with 11 dimensions is that there is no intuitive understanding--we try but we are still looking at only a mathematical necessity in the solution set of possible string theory analysis techniques. It is really hard to get a gut feeling about how 7 extra dimensions would move and shift in time. Greene gives the Flatland explanation in his book as well (other people have probably mentioned this) but I always thought it was a bit simplistic--we are really just dealing with math at this point; it doesn't have an empirically testable element to these dimensions. In fact, the only possible test of strings is the graviton mass test that they are attempting at Cern--never found it yet; and it only proves that supersymetry and strings are possible--not true. I do think it is fun to try and imagine though!!! PGA You are right, ifpthenq, Mr Flat does have his limits, but he is able to illustrate the idea that we are limited by our ability to only perceive 3 dimensions (plus time). By thinking about those poor flatlanders stuck in 2D, we can relate to the idea that our world would be much more complex if we could in fact perceive more dimensions. (Maybe there really are aliens that travel inter-dimensionally, probing unsuspecting victims at will!) I think the first time I saw flatland used was by Carl Sagan on Cosmos (I loved that show). Remember that we are trying to make this easier to understand (although I realize it can be fun to go in the other direction)...
|
|