Dimensions: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.
S D Rodrian
> sdro...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
> Could I be more specific about what I mean?
> Let's try:
> NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
> "ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:
YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.
Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.
Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).
> If one abstracts the least single dimension from
> ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
> reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
> fiction).
This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).
And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).
... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts to
describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.
In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."
The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.
If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.
Trying to advance the process,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
RE:
> Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
> "dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
> "dimension(s)."
>
> PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!
"
> String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
> part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
> then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
> since string theory can only balance its equations
> by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
> "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."
> > I am assuming that the possibility exists that
> > there are more than 3 spatial dimension.
>
> And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
> made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
> a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
> reality.
>
> IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
> DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
> (And if something exists in one or more dimension
> than those of our reality... then those so-called
> other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)
>
> String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
> Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
> life trying to figure out how string theory governs
> life!
RE:
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.
The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").
I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.
One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.
The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."
It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
being even one-dimensional:
Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).
Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...
And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)
The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]
HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.
And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).
The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]
Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]
This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!
In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.
Immortalist
S D Rodrian wrote:
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > sdro...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>
> > Could I be more specific about what I mean?
> > Let's try:
> > NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
> > "ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
>
> Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
> dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:
>
Did I see you agree to a common definition of "dimension" before you
wndered off making your own meanings in a vague way? It appears that
you will eliminate any evidence for your own dimensional theory by
trying to define_out string theory use of "dimension."
Define dimension and get someone to agree to the definition before
proceeding.
sdr
> Define dimension and get someone to agree to the definition before
> proceeding.
Sorry. I don't own a gun.
sdr
>
> I just wondered, only a 100 years ago the notion of time being relative
> to speed or that matter could be converted to energy and vica versa
> seemed quite preposterous outside mathematics.
>
> Yet now we have atomic bombs and satelites with clocks that are
> constantly adjusted for time-delay.
>
> Your whole post (and website for that matter) sounds very much like an
> argument from personal incredulity, and not so much a constructed
> counterargument. IMHO ofcourse. Kilmir
There is no way to prove reality beyond all doubt,
if for no other reason than that the prover may be
insane, the one to whom the thing is proved may be
insane, or they both may be insane... This is why
it is pointless to argue religion (unless sportingly
as I do every now & again). HOWEVER:
Here is a bit of wisdom for you, so you don't waste
too much of your life: If somebody tells you he/she
has an elephant in his/her pocket... don't hang around
to hear out the physics of it: Sanity trumps Science.