Dimensions ! ?

==.

Euclidean space is a flat two dimensions space without

conception of time .

Put negative time ( -t ) into Euclidean flat two dimensions

space and it will be Pseudo Euclidean space

Put negative time ( -t ) into Euclidean/ Descartes three

dimensions space and it will be negative Minkowski

4D spacetime

Add to (-4D) a new D and it will be Kaluza 5D space.

Add to 5D a new D and it will be 6D space.

Etc 11D . . Etc 26D . . . . to . . . .higher super

- extra dimensions. ( !)

The problem.

Every new dimension was taken from the heaven. (!)

Every new D needs new list of constants, which

were freely specifiable / The trouble with physics.

Page 119. Lee Smolin./, needs new extra particles

- particles not seen in nature, / The trouble with physics.

Page 121. Lee Smolin / , needs new parameters.

#

What is next step?

a) some D must be freeze or hidden.

The real mechanism of the freeze is unknown.

Unless there is some mysterious mechanism that

freezes the geometry of the extra dimensions . . .

/Page 123. Lee Smolin /

b) some D must be wrapped or curled and there are

many different ways to curl them up / page 51, 119.

Lee Smolin / . But the real force (s ? ) of this process is

unknown.

#

What is result?

When you added more dimensions, or more twists

to the geometry, thing always got worse, not better

/ page 52. Lee Smolin /

Why?

Indeed, the more dimensions you include, the higher

the price you pay for freezing their geometry.

/ page 51. Lee Smolin /

( and also the higher the price you pay for curling

their geometry. My opinion.)

#

What is the situation?

In fact, neither theory nor experiment offers any evidence

at all that extra dimensions exist.

/ page XVI. Lee Smolin./

I think the higher super extra dimensions are only

good mathematical toys, it is good mathematical training..

So.

Pecking order of the sciences:

Biologists answer only to Chemists.

Chemists answer only to Physicists.

Physicists answer only to Mathematicians.

Mathematicians answer only to God.

#

I knew many physicists who were sure that supersymmetry

and the extra dimensions were there, waiting to be discovered

/ Page 125. Lee Smolin./

Why?

My opinion.

/ Page 234./

It was discovered in the 1980s that quantum gravity can be

precisely defined in a world with only two spatial dimensions.

We call this 2 + 1 quantum gravity, for two dimensions of space

and one of time. / Lee Smolin./

#

So, what did they do?

At first they added one D and then one D more and more D

and later they began to hide these D and as conclusion (!)

we need only two D ( only 2D - !) and time (!) to explain

quantum gravity. (! ? !? )

I have no words.

====.

P.S.

What is ( 2D+ t) ?

In my peasant opinion ( 2D+ t ) is Euclidean flat two dimensions

space with positive time . Putting mass and electric charge

in this space we make step to understand the gravity.

===.

Israel Soctatus.

========================..

Comment by leonardomenderes :

==.

Dimensions are interesting.

When you think about it, x,y, z

are interchangeable, depending on

your orientation. x, y, and z can

be replaced by a radius and two angles.

The "fourth dimension", time,

is completely different. It cannot

be traded with the others at all.

It seems that "extra dimensions" just

mean "things we cannot see", and are

mainly a mathematical convenience.

/ leonardomenderes /

#

Comment by Jonathan

==....

Dimensions ! ?

==.

> Every new dimension was taken from the heaven. (!)

> Every new D needs new list of constants, which

> were freely specifiable / The trouble with physics.

> Page 119. Lee Smolin./, needs new extra particles

> - particles not seen in nature, / The trouble with physics.

> Page 121. Lee Smolin / , needs new parameters.

> #

The problem with physics is that it only deals

with physical properties. But ..system properties

vanish the moment one tries to 'detail' the

microphysical details. System properties such

as a ..market force for instance. How much

does a market force weigh? What color are

they, and show me the equations that precisely

describe their force?

System....properties have no physical existence.

Yet such properties, like a market force or natural

selection are the MOST important variables of all

when trying to predict future behavior.

> What is next step?

Only /subjective/ methods can deal with real world

complexity, like a market force. But since writers

like Smolin can't comprehend such a thing, they

fail to explore the obvious...next step.

> a) some D must be freeze or hidden.

Exactly!

In a real world system, the dimensionality is infinite.

It's only our attempt to simplify reality for deterministic

methods that force us to reduce it to the minimum

possible... X, Y and Z! Your attempt to extrapolate

from the simplified dimensionality to higher levels

is backwards. It's like trying to understand biology

with only the ...shadow...a tree casts on a wall.

The grossly simplified reductionist approach

of physics gives us only a shadow of reality.

From which the truth cannot be directly

discovered.

We should work the other way around, from

the complex, we understand the simple.

Just as first understanding the biology of a tree

makes the shadow it casts easy to comprehend.

If not completely superfluous.

We can never hope to grasp the true simplicity

or fundamental laws of the universe from

particle physics.

Reality is found in things like clouds and emotions.

Where the concept of dimensionality is entirely

meaningless. A larger statistical sample

best shows the underlying patterns of behavior.

Then the most /complex/ the universe has to offer

best shows fundamental law.

The most complex the universe has to offer is ...LIFE.

The great mistake of modern science is trying

to comprehend reality from the simplest it has to offer.

'Darwin' shows us how the physical world works.

>The real mechanism of the freeze is unknown.

We are the mechanism, our chosen form of

observation is the cause of the collapse

of dimensionality.

> Unless there is some mysterious mechanism that

> freezes the geometry of the extra dimensions . . .

> /Page 123. Lee Smolin /

> b) some D must be wrapped or curled and there are

> many different ways to curl them up / page 51, 119.

> Lee Smolin / . But the real force (s ? ) of this process is

> unknown.

Well, how does one hope to create a true picture

of a tree from a shadow? Adding these supposed

hidden dimensions is an exercise in guessing.

> #

> What is result?

> When you added more dimensions, or more twists

> to the geometry, thing always got worse, not better

> / page 52. Lee Smolin /

> Why?

What happens whenever one extrapolates from the

smallest part out to the whole? Any slight error

at all quickly compounds with each new

extrapolation. The butterfly effect makes such

attempts to put the eggshell back together completely

futile.

> Indeed, the more dimensions you include, the higher

> the price you pay for freezing their geometry.

NO, the more you reduce the dimensionality

the less it has to do with reality

Jonathan

=============..