| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Research Forum » Curled up dimensions... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Lester Welch... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
When speaking of extra (beyond 4) dimensions the hypothesis is often
given that the extra dimensions are curled up and the example is given
of the stretched wire - which from afar looks like a 1-D object, but a
bug crawling on it could turn right angles and travel around the small
circumference and arrive back at his starting point (hence the 2nd
dimension is curled up).
Suppose instead of an apparently 1-D object one has a Euclidean plane
(2-D) - say in the x, y direction. What would a curled up z dimension
look like? Would it be a "soda straw" lying on the plane? Or perhaps
a soda straw bisected length-wise by the plane? Or...?
Thanks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lester Welch wrote:
[quote:81e9fca5cc]
When speaking of extra (beyond 4) dimensions the hypothesis is often
given that the extra dimensions are curled up and the example is given
of the stretched wire - which from afar looks like a 1-D object, but a
bug crawling on it could turn right angles and travel around the small
circumference and arrive back at his starting point (hence the 2nd
dimension is curled up).
Suppose instead of an apparently 1-D object one has a Euclidean plane
(2-D) - say in the x, y direction. What would a curled up z dimension
look like? Would it be a "soda straw" lying on the plane? Or perhaps
a soda straw bisected length-wise by the plane? Or...?
[/quote:81e9fca5cc]
Curl the plane into a cylinder, curl the cylinder into a toroid,
shrink the toroid to a point. One has come to suspect that the
glorious mathematical elegances of proposed physical theory in
physical fact sum to a naked emperor. Why suspect anything is
exotic? GR and QM are incomplete as Euclid and Newton were
incomplete. Proposed theory is not the answer, rather it is a
worsening.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Bruere at NeoPax... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[quote:12e2e83940]Lester Welch wrote:
When speaking of extra (beyond 4) dimensions the hypothesis is often
given that the extra dimensions are curled up and the example is given
of the stretched wire - which from afar looks like a 1-D object, but a
bug crawling on it could turn right angles and travel around the small
circumference and arrive back at his starting point (hence the 2nd
dimension is curled up).
Suppose instead of an apparently 1-D object one has a Euclidean plane
(2-D) - say in the x, y direction. What would a curled up z dimension
look like? Would it be a "soda straw" lying on the plane? Or perhaps
a soda straw bisected length-wise by the plane? Or...?
Curl the plane into a cylinder, curl the cylinder into a toroid,
shrink the toroid to a point. One has come to suspect that the
glorious mathematical elegances of proposed physical theory in
physical fact sum to a naked emperor. Why suspect anything is
exotic? GR and QM are incomplete as Euclid and Newton were
incomplete. Proposed theory is not the answer, rather it is a
worsening.
Which reminds me.[/quote:12e2e83940]
If CERN does not find the Higgs, are there any epicycles waiting to be
wheeled out to explain it?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
[quote:a0d522d470]
Uncle Al wrote:
Lester Welch wrote:
When speaking of extra (beyond 4) dimensions the hypothesis is often
given that the extra dimensions are curled up and the example is given
of the stretched wire - which from afar looks like a 1-D object, but a
bug crawling on it could turn right angles and travel around the small
circumference and arrive back at his starting point (hence the 2nd
dimension is curled up).
Suppose instead of an apparently 1-D object one has a Euclidean plane
(2-D) - say in the x, y direction. What would a curled up z dimension
look like? Would it be a "soda straw" lying on the plane? Or perhaps
a soda straw bisected length-wise by the plane? Or...?
Curl the plane into a cylinder, curl the cylinder into a toroid,
shrink the toroid to a point. One has come to suspect that the
glorious mathematical elegances of proposed physical theory in
physical fact sum to a naked emperor. Why suspect anything is
exotic? GR and QM are incomplete as Euclid and Newton were
incomplete. Proposed theory is not the answer, rather it is a
worsening.
Which reminds me.
If CERN does not find the Higgs, are there any epicycles waiting to be
wheeled out to explain it?
[/quote:a0d522d470]
The Standard Model arrives massless with all its contents propagating
at lightspeed. The Higgs mechanism resolves that minor divergence
between theory and observation. We're talking a 26-parameter curve
fit
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html
that then births awesomely odious SUSY - for which there is zero
empirical support. Still.
Uncle Al favors the simple, testable route: who says the vacuum is
isotropic in the massed sector? Nobody has ever looked. The test is
trivial: a parity Eotvos experiment opposing left- versus right-handed
single crystal quartz,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Fused silica is the control test mass. If a non-zero net output is
reproducibly detected, all of physics is wrong for a subtle footnote.
Cosmic inflation was then fueled by an intense pseudoscalar vacuum
background, matter was chosen over antimatter, the Weak interaction
froze out left-handed. Biological homochirality is evidence of massed
sector trace chiral vacuum background residual. Nobody has to tap
dance.
Neat, clean, consistent without contradiction, TESTABLE. Teleparallel
gravitation displaces GR, QM is richer than expected, and all the
dysfunctional goo and dribble of contemporaryr physical theory is
trashed.
Somebody should look. The apparatus is in continuous use disgorging
least publishable bit outputs. Perhaps its keepers could spare 90
days measuring nothing to measure something. You argue with them.
If alpha-quartz is too New Age for you, glycine gamma-polymorph in
enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) and P3(2) calculates better than
quartz for geometric parity divergence. 160% the atoms/volume of
quartz, too. We're grinding the graph of log(1- CHI) versus radius.
Should be out to 10^15 atoms by March 2010 (unless somebody has a
bored Beowulf cluster or a slack server farm. We can go parallel
execution to a few hundred cores).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rich L.... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 14, 1:48 pm, Lester Welch <lester.we... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:c8a43d6f69]When speaking of extra (beyond 4) dimensions the hypothesis is often
given that the extra dimensions are curled up and the example is given
of the stretched wire - which from afar looks like a 1-D object, but a
bug crawling on it could turn right angles and travel around the small
circumference and arrive back at his starting point (hence the 2nd
dimension is curled up).
Suppose instead of an apparently 1-D object one has a Euclidean plane
(2-D) - say in the x, y direction. What would a curled up z dimension
look like? Would it be a "soda straw" lying on the plane? Or perhaps
a soda straw bisected length-wise by the plane? Or...?
Thanks.
[/quote:c8a43d6f69]
The answer given by another poster appears to have misunderstood your
question. The geometry you are asking about cannot be visualized in 3-
space in an ordinary way. Consider the flat sheet of paper
representing your 2D space aligned with XY plane. From any point on
this sheet if you move in the Z direction a distance corresponding to
the circumference of the curled up dimension, you have to end up at
the starting point on the sheet. In other words, imagine that the
sheet has a thickness equal to the circumference, C. If you move in Z
from z=0 to z=C at any (x,y) point, then move a little bit further in
z, you end up back at z=0 again. In other words, the looping, as seen
in this 3D model, happens suddenly at the z=C and z=0 boundaries.
Sort of like the repeating boundary conditions used in some physics
problems involving strings or EM cavities.
Rich L. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4AD66F4E.93579523 at (no spam) hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> writes:
[quote]Uncle Al favors the simple, testable route: who says the vacuum is
isotropic in the massed sector? Nobody has ever looked. The test is
trivial: a parity Eotvos experiment opposing left- versus right-handed
single crystal quartz,
[/quote]
How expensive would it be to look? Either it is prohibitively
expensive, or it is not. If the former, then there is no point in
hoping for it. If the latter, do you have a ballpark figure? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
[quote]
In article <4AD66F4E.93579523 at (no spam) hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> writes:
Uncle Al favors the simple, testable route: who says the vacuum is
isotropic in the massed sector? Nobody has ever looked. The test is
trivial: a parity Eotvos experiment opposing left- versus right-handed
single crystal quartz,
How expensive would it be to look? Either it is prohibitively
expensive, or it is not. If the former, then there is no point in
hoping for it. If the latter, do you have a ballpark figure?
[/quote]
A parity Eotvos experiment in quartz is about $50K more than SOP
composition experiments; less for glycine gamma-polymorph. Eotvos
experiment costs differ only by test masses' costs,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
rotor is about 5 cm in diameter
Sawyer Research quoted $25K and 12-18 months to grow single crystal
x-plate slabs of quartz in both hands to extreme purity, Grade A
dryness, and low dislocation density. Commercial z-plate is
questionable. Shaping silica test masses, re Gravity Probe B, runs
about the same again. Quartz is enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21
versus P3(2)21, 79.64 atoms/nm^3.
Glycine gamma-polymorph is enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) versus
P3(2), 127.1 atoms/nm^3. It grows from pH 4-5 water in a kitchen,
then shape with a CNC lathe. "50.0 ml of water plus 17.4 g glycine
heated to 60°C and 3.05 ml HOAc added with mixing. Slow cooling to
gamma-glycine." Quartz has 60 years of large scale industrial quality
assurance and it polishes to lambda/10. Physicists will whine that
hydrogen atoms, C_2 H_6 O_2, are different from nuclei containing
neutrons.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
middle
http://www.somewhereville.com/?m=200809
Cry. Res. Techn. 42(1) 671 (2006)
J. Pharm. Sci. 91(11) 2367 (2002)
Physica B 403 (21-22) 3883 (2008)
Spectrochim. Acta A 69(4) 1114 (2008)
J. Cryst. Growth 280(3-4) 581 (2005)
J. Cryst. Growth 311(1) 156 (2009)
J. Chem. Eng. Data 53(5) 1133 (2008)
J. Chem. Eng. Data 52(5) 1626 (2007)
Physicists really will whine about the H atoms in glycine:
polyethylene vs. non-H test masses in a proposed composition Eotvos
experiment. This is a flat out stupid experiment, as is (Li-7)D vs.
(Li-6)H for neutron contrast.
GR exactly describes 1.74 solar-mass pulsar PSR J1903+0327 in a
95.17-day 0.437-eccentricity orbit with its 1.05 solar-mass star
companion. 27% vs. 1.4x10^(-4)% gravitational binding energy,
1.8x10^11 vs. ~30 surface gees, 2x10^8 gauss vs. ~5 gauss magnetic
field; superconductive compressed neutrons and exotica vs.
proton-electron plasma; pulsar equatorial spin exceeding 11%
lightspeed. The EP is validated within observational error.
Only one test remains: spacetime geometry tested with opposite parity
atomic mass distribution geometry. No gravitation theory mentions
composition but all are geometries - and *most* demand mirror
symmetry. Rememeber Yang and Lee?
Somebody should look.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:31 am
|
|