#1




Imagining the Tenth Dimension
Many of you have probably seen this. I just saw it today. I think it's cool. Enjoy...
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssJ6ROlTlUA Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o
__________________
V My views and opinions do not represent those of my employer 
#2




http://mathematicalmulticore.wordpre...nthdimension/
This is terrible science. His ideas of compressing dimensions to a point doesn't help anything, and he's not explaining the ideas of string theory at all which are central to needing a tenth dimension. Time, and parallel universes, shouldn't be brought into the metaphor at all. The tenth dimension, if it exists, would be a very, very small rolled up extent to explain properties of our current space. Go and read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene for a better understanding of what string theory means. 
#3




Yes, I really did understand string theory better after I read Greene's book. Delightful, and lots of pretty pictures.

#4




I love maths! Well done for raising the subject, Alvter!
Here's the familiar 5 Platonic solids that exist in 3 Space: These have wonderful symettry. Here's the thing: In 4 dimensions there are 6. There is an extra one called a 600cell. But go above that to 5D and above, and only 3 exist. Analogues of the tetrahedron, cube and octahedron. So really, 4D space/time is the most interesting place to live, if you follow. In fact the most interesting 4D solid is the 24 cell, which is its own inverse. Jason Hise has visualised these in 3 dimensions at his site using what he calls MAYA 4D modelling software: http://www.entropygames.net/ Personally, I love the tesseract, which is the 4D cube. I'll tell you about it if you want to know where it has taken me in trying to factorise the product of two primes, which is used in encryption. 
#5




3space is the only dimensionality where you can tie a knot in your shoelaces. What good's an interesting continuum you can't walk around in?

#6




Interesting. I'm gonna watch The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3346942339345# for some insight at least. I'm doing quantum electrodynamics atm and it's a complete head f**k tbh so I doubt this will make it worse.
Last edited by James; 04202011 at 06:00 PM. 
#7




Quote:

#8




Quote:
Feynman, who originated the “renormalization” process (with Schwinger and Tomonaga), himself called it a “. . .shell game. . .Having to resort to such hocuspocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically selfconsistent. . .[renormalization] is what I would call a dippy process!” (Feynman, 1985) Asked for what he had won the Nobel Prize, Feynman replied, “For sweeping them [the infinities] under the rug.” (Gleick, 1992) The "infinities" referred to are referencing that QED can't even calculate the rest mass of an electron without "renormalization", i.e. sticking known values into the formulas where they would otherwise blow up into infinite values. 
#9




I'm not, tbh I've always had what I consider to be a healthy level of cynicism over cuttingedge theoretical science and much of quantum theory seems like a house of cards to me.
It's fascinating yes but there are more questions than answers and we are no closer to an all encompassing theory than we were 5000 years ago (imo) . 
#10




Check out this paper, I think it's a fun read:
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf It presents a case for Dirac's Equation from the 1930's to be the start of a Unified Field Theory. 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

