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
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. ( !)
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
What is result?
When you added more dimensions, or more twists
to the geometry, thing always got worse, not better
/ page 52. Lee Smolin /
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..
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./
/ 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
> 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
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 /
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
> 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