cormac mac airt Posted July 4, 2019 #26 Share Posted July 4, 2019 17 hours ago, sci-nerd said: This is an imagined 11 dimensional particle , No, it's NOT. It's a 2 dimensional slice of a 6 dimensional Calabi Yau manifold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi–Yau_manifold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calabi_yau.jpg cormac 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 4, 2019 Author #27 Share Posted July 4, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said: No, it's NOT. It's a 2 dimensional slice of a 6 dimensional Calabi Yau manifold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi–Yau_manifold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calabi_yau.jpg cormac Oops! Google failed me there... This better? Edited July 4, 2019 by sci-nerd 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted July 4, 2019 #28 Share Posted July 4, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: Oops! Google failed me there... This better? Better, but you should also be aware of the fact that your previous quote "But what was not told about those dimensions - the crucial aspects about them - is that they are mathematical conjectures and that they are smaller than tiny. If they exist - and that is far from proven yet - they exist inside particles, and are at the Planck level." is NOT entirely true as it does not apply to M-Theory/Brane Theory. Quote These theories require the presence of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D3-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support other universes.[69][70] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Further Sources: Richard J Szabo, An introduction to string theory and D-brane dynamics (2004) Maurizio Gasperini, Elements of String Cosmology (2007) Overall I would agree that the OP has NOTHING to do with validating "A natural explanation of the hidden world of gods, angels, demons and spirits." as you put it, obviously it doesn't. cormac Edited July 4, 2019 by cormac mac airt 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 4, 2019 Author #29 Share Posted July 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said: is NOT entirely true as it does not apply to M-Theory/Brane Theory. I know that, but of those unfalsifiable theories, I chose the original and least complicated. I did that to make the whole dimension ado more comprehensible for laymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted July 4, 2019 #30 Share Posted July 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: I know that, but of those unfalsifiable theories, I chose the original and least complicated. I did that to make the whole dimension ado more comprehensible for laymen. You may have known that but others reading that may not have known that. Not everyone is as uneducated as 'some' may seem. cormac 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 4, 2019 Author #31 Share Posted July 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said: You may have known that but others reading that may not have known that. Not everyone is as uneducated as 'some' may seem. cormac I would never underestimate or insult anyone's intelligence or degree of knowledge. This thread is about clearing up the great misconception, that higher string theory dimensions are other worlds. We do agree on that, right? That branes create big bangs all the time, is a whole different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted July 4, 2019 #32 Share Posted July 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: I would never underestimate or insult anyone's intelligence or degree of knowledge. This thread is about clearing up the great misconception, that higher string theory dimensions are other worlds. We do agree on that, right? That branes create big bangs all the time, is a whole different matter. My point is that sometimes making something more comprehensible for a laymen CAN BE underestimating their knowledge. But yes, in general we agree. cormac 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 4, 2019 Author #33 Share Posted July 4, 2019 4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said: My point is that sometimes making something more comprehensible for a laymen CAN BE underestimating their knowledge That is the reason I did not post this in "Science & Technology". It is posted in "Spirituality vs Skepticism" due to the popular misconception of dimensions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted July 5, 2019 #34 Share Posted July 5, 2019 17 hours ago, sci-nerd said: I know that, but of those unfalsifiable theories, I chose the original and least complicated. I did that to make the whole dimension ado more comprehensible for laymen. Dont be sucked in by terms like unfalsifiable. You are debating with someone without any understanding of physics who has picked up terms that others use along the way. He got that one from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 5, 2019 Author #35 Share Posted July 5, 2019 4 hours ago, RabidMongoose said: Dont be sucked in by terms like unfalsifiable. I didn't get sucked in. I chose to use that term, because it was the correct term to use. 4 hours ago, RabidMongoose said: You are debating with someone without any understanding of physics who has picked up terms that others use along the way. He got that one from me. And who might that be? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted July 5, 2019 #36 Share Posted July 5, 2019 On 7/3/2019 at 6:57 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said: I get so worked up when people take scientific concepts they don't understand and twist them into some dumbass woo. Read a ****ing book for a chnage. Me too, but I don't think it is the concepts, it is the actual words they use incorrectly, like dimensions. This was happening before quantum physics was mainstream. It is a pet peeve I have and includes vitamin/supplement sales tactics misusing medical terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted July 5, 2019 #37 Share Posted July 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Me too, but I don't think it is the concepts, it is the actual words they use incorrectly, like dimensions. This was happening before quantum physics was mainstream. It is a pet peeve I have and includes vitamin/supplement sales tactics misusing medical terms. The simplest thing to say here is that, the dimensions are only (as of right now) mathematical constructs. That's all we know, these constructions might be explained in the future due to some unknown force, event, reaction or whatever. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted July 5, 2019 #38 Share Posted July 5, 2019 14 minutes ago, danydandan said: The simplest thing to say here is that, the dimensions are only (as of right now) mathematical constructs. That's all we know, these constructions might be explained in the future due to some unknown force, event, reaction or whatever. Right and "moving or ascending in to the 5th dimension" in pseudo spiritual terms is ridiculous. If you want to describe consciousness being in dimensions mathematically our consciousness would be in 5th dimension as 4th dimension is a 3rd dimensional object with time as the 4th dimension. Since we tend to think outside of time we might get away with claiming our consciousness or the way we think is the 5th dimension, but even that is stretching it because that is not what the math is about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted July 5, 2019 #39 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Right and "moving or ascending in to the 5th dimension" in pseudo spiritual terms is ridiculous. If you want to describe consciousness being in dimensions mathematically our consciousness would be in 5th dimension as 4th dimension is a 3rd dimensional object with time as the 4th dimension. Since we tend to think outside of time we might get away with claiming our consciousness or the way we think is the 5th dimension, but even that is stretching it because that is not what the math is about. I think they really need to drop a lot of terms and focus on what it really is. States of mind. Not astral travel in higher dimensions. More on Brainwaves. Edited July 5, 2019 by XenoFish Wrong link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 5, 2019 #40 Share Posted July 5, 2019 For myself, being not that well-versed in mathematics, I have a question... Does higher math provide for higher dimensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 5, 2019 Author #41 Share Posted July 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, pallidin said: For myself, being not that well-versed in mathematics, I have a question... Does higher math provide for higher dimensions? I'm not sure there's such a thing as "higher math". Math is just a tool to describe nature. The math of string theory attempts to find gravity inside particles, and does a really good job at it. The only problem is that we can't verify the equations with experiments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 5, 2019 #42 Share Posted July 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: ...The only problem is that we can't verify the equations with experiments. Ok, can experiments be designed to effort validation or dismissal... or are we just 'not there' yet in technological prowess? Or is the 'math' wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 5, 2019 Author #43 Share Posted July 5, 2019 1 minute ago, pallidin said: Ok, can experiments be designed to effort validation or dismissal... or are we just 'not there' yet in technological prowess? Or is the 'math' wrong? To verify the equations, we would have to build a particle collider the size of our solar system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 5, 2019 #44 Share Posted July 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: To verify the equations, we would have to build a particle collider the size of our solar system. So, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has energy levels insufficient for priordial investigation of extra-dimensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 5, 2019 Author #45 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, pallidin said: So, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has energy levels insufficient for priordial investigation of extra-dimensions? Yes, it's too small/not energy efficient enough to find the energy signature of gravity (we're not looking for dimensions, they are just mathematical constructs!). It was built mainly to find the Higgs, and it succeeded with that. Edited July 5, 2019 by sci-nerd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted July 5, 2019 #46 Share Posted July 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, pallidin said: So, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has energy levels insufficient for priordial investigation of extra-dimensions? There isn't enough energy in the universe to run that experiment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted July 5, 2019 Author #47 Share Posted July 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, danydandan said: There isn't enough energy in the universe to run that experiment. Maybe we can lend some energy from our mirror universe, if they find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 5, 2019 #48 Share Posted July 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, danydandan said: There isn't enough energy in the universe to run that experiment. Upon what, exactly, do you base that assertion? Not hitting you, just asking. Surely there is a formal paper on the suggestive energy requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted July 5, 2019 #49 Share Posted July 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: Maybe we can lend some energy from our mirror universe, if they find it? I think they tried that in a Stargate episode and it ended badly. Someone had to come from another universe to save both universe or something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted July 5, 2019 #50 Share Posted July 5, 2019 11 minutes ago, pallidin said: Upon what, exactly, do you base that assertion? Not hitting you, just asking. Surely there is a formal paper on the suggestive energy requirements. The simple fact that the size of the universe is infinite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now