|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: String! Theory! What is it good for ?!? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Whew, A real answer!
Refreshing to say the least. Now, why ten coordinates and not eleven?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think your are starting to trip over your own words. I think you're misunderstanding them.
The definition I provided stated that "a dimension is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it." Right, as in "how many dimensions does this thing have?" This is different from what a physical dimension is.
You have just stated that lines and time only have one dimension. Right, to specify each point in a line, or time, you only need one dimension.
What one dimension does time have then-the dimension of time? Yes, it is the temporal dimension. Which is different from a physical, or spatial, dimension.
Or does it have the dimension of a line? huh? It has the same number of dimensions as a line, but this is different than being a dimension. You really have a lot to learn about what dimensions are. Again I suggest you read throught the wiki article for starters. Then you can come back with any questions you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all. 1. If a line can be defined as a space requiring only one coordinate to specify a point on it, and time also only requires one coordinate to specify a point on it, then don't a line and time have the same definition? They are the same thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Whew, A real answer! Refreshing to say the least. Now, why ten coordinates and not eleven? Funny you should say that. There are several string theories, most say 10 coordinates, one suggests 26. Each theory is better at explaining one thing about the universe than the others, but they all disagree on points. M-theory overcomes the inconsistencies in all the present string theories by bringing in an eleventh dimension. So it might well actually be eleven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If a line can be defined as a space requiring only one coordinate to specify a point on it, and time also only requires one coordinate to specify a point on it, then don't a line and time have the same definition? They are the same thing? Time is a line, but not all lines are time. Length is a line too, by this definition. As is height. And depth. I should note actually that a time isn't really a line. A line is just something that has one dimension rather than being a dimension itself. I figured that might end up being confusing. Maybe it would better to think of time as linegiving. The existence of time as a dimension allows timelines to exist. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A square is a rectangle so doesn't that mean a rectangle is a square?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
The reason you are having such difficulty explaining this in any way that makes sense at all, is because trying to equate time, with the dimensions of space is a futile effort.
Time is what it is-we call it a dimension in relativity, because some people have decided that this is what they wish to call it. But the problem comes when you try to make a definition of a dimension-and the definition for one, doesn't fit the definition of the other. And thus you have to fudge the answer by saying things like-"they are different kinds of dimensions!" Yes, they certainly are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I actually already knew that, and was using that as an indication of the utter hopelessness of an actual cogent explanation of the theory.
"10 dimensions, 26, ok ok, let's not get all fussy about a few dimensions here are there. Just pick whatever dimension you like" It would make a great Faulty Towers skit. So now does M Theory have 11 dimensions, or are we including time as another dimension, so that makes 12? I think temperature is a dimension-can it be if I want it to be? Its one of the tempera kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The reason you are having such difficulty explaining this in any way that makes sense at all, is because trying to equate time, with the dimensions of space is a futile effort. But I haven't equated them. In fact, I've distinguished between spatial and temporal dimensions.
Time is what it is-we call it a dimension in relativity, because some people have decided that this is what they wish to call it. Yeah, and relativity is a successful theory so obviously time is a dimension.
But the problem comes when you try to make a definition of a dimension-and the definition for one, doesn't fit the definition of the other. And thus you have to fudge the answer by saying things like-"they are different kinds of dimensions!" Yes, they certainly are. Its not fudge, one word can describe more than one thing. You are the one trying to conflate the different definitions and that's probably the root of your misunderstandings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"10 dimensions, 26, ok ok, let's not get all fussy about a few dimensions here are there. Just pick whatever dimension you like" It would make a great Faulty Towers skit. So now does M Theory have 11 dimensions, or are we including time as another dimension, so that makes 12? I think temperature is a dimension-can it be if I want it to be? Its one of the tempera kind.
Of course you can. And if your theory is confirmed and actually works, then we will all know that temperature is a dimension. But if it doesn't work and is falsified, then we'll know that you were wrong. Welcome to science. Its awesome isn't it? Even put a man on the frickin moon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I actually already knew that, and was using that as an indication of the utter hopelessness of an actual cogent explanation of the theory. Well that's true. But if you wanted to express hopelessness of an actual cogent explanation of a theory, you needn't have come so far. Quantum Physics already gives us that anyway.
quote: "10 dimensions, 26, ok ok, let's not get all fussy about a few dimensions here are there. Just pick whatever dimension you like" It would make a great Faulty Towers skit. I'd be amazed if it hadn't been attempted somewhere. Geek chic being 'in' and all.
So now does M Theory have 11 dimensions, or are we including time as another dimension, so that makes 12? 11 total, including time.
I think temperature is a dimension-can it be if I want it to be? Its one of the tempera kind. No. You can specify a point in this universe without needing a temperature to do so. If you want to hypothesise a dimension you need to do the maths. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
At the risk of being accused of being off topic, but I can think of no better time to ask this
If we need time to specify a point in the universe, and if time never actually stands still, how can we ever identify a point. I am not attempting to be obtuse, its a real point. There is no point when time actually is, is there? Time is either coming from somewhere, or leaving somewhere, time doesn't have an instant when it becomes a fixed point. How does math ever come to grips with the fat that we can never define an exact moment in time...does it just throw away some decimal points?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Are you using the default position on this website of calling foul every time you feel yourself getting trapped in a debate? I didn't know such a default existed, and I've been here for 2 years. I'm wondering how you figured that out in just a month? I was just commenting on the fact that you answer questions with questions, then demand that your questions be answered first. But anyway...
I believe he is talking about extra dimensions here, what do you think? Yes, extra dimensions, or, extra coordinates. I think you may be confusing the word 'dimension' with the sci-fi concept of it, where its some other place outside of the universe.
So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all. 1, as has been explained already. And yes, it makes perfect sense - it didn't the first time I heard it, but after studying it it eventually did.
Gee, I dunno, I might use the definition of time to define time. Right, and what is time? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I am not attempting to be obtuse, its a real point. There is no point when time actually is, is there? Time is either coming from somewhere, or leaving somewhere, time doesn't have an instant when it becomes a fixed point. This is obviously completely off-topic but there is actually an open thread about what time is in the Big Bang/Cosmolgy forum - you can ask questions there. However, here's a great 5 part series by physicist Brian Cox on time: Hope this helps, if not, you can ask questions in the 'Time' thread. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3925 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
The reason you are having such difficulty explaining this in any way that makes sense at all, is because trying to equate time, with the dimensions of space is a futile effort. False. It is one of the most successful equations in physics. Message 75 How does math ever come to grips with the fat that we can never define an exact moment in time...does it just throw away some decimal points? False. The smallest quantum of length (Planck length) that appears to be possible in a spacetime shaped the way ours is is about 1.616 x 10^-35 meters. (The negative exponent there represents an exponential fraction. 10^-4, for example, would be 1/10,000 so 10^-35 is 1/(a 1 followed by 35 0s).) As 1 second is demonstrably about 300 million meters, the minimum quantum of duration (Planck time) is about 5.391 x 10^-44 seconds. Planck units - Wikipedia Edited by Iblis, : spellig Edited by Iblis, : &punctuation
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024