I was thinking a long time ago, and I might turn out to be right, who knows....? But.... wouldn't it be logical to have a "size" "dimension" as the fourth space dimension? Here's the hypothesis. Size is relative to the observer. You may say that an ant is small, but it is only small when you compare it to yourself. A bacteria would obviously be smaller than an ant. The first thing that one can notice about all the scales that we have is the fact that they are simply naming conventions for different sizes. Also, it is not only impossible to see really tiny things with the naked eyes, but there are also different rules applied to the microscopic world in comparison with the macroscopic world. In other words: a size dimension could connect the microscopic "world" to the macroscopic "world". It would be an adittional "vertical" space dimension. This is hard to conceive, but here's an example. If you draw a circle, it will always have 360 degrees. However, if you magnify it, you willl have two different possible perspectives: 1. each one of those degrees would look bigger 2. the size of degrees would be the same even tough it would represent a smaller portion of the circle observed The conclusion tha comes to my mind is the fact that just as time is relative, size is also relative, and a fourth space dimension should be account for. Because eventough we have diffferent measurements for those different sizes, it is not that any of those sizes are any different. All that tha means is the fact that it is impossible to have a standard measure of size, because it varies according to the scale. The iplications of this size dimension could become extremely clear if you try to apply it to compare, for example, the strong force that binds the nucleus together, and gravity. They are similar forces, but they work in different scales. Maybe they are the same force. Maybe that is where the missing link is (in this case, at least). And maybe magnetism has something to do with it too. To compare, both strong force and gravity are forces of attraction. Both of them also work only in "small" scales (the "small" amount is relative to the size dimension). The only question in my mind is: how would such a dimension work? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, anyways.... that's my hypothesis. Please beat it up as much as you guys want..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hum, It sounds basically like the <i>Grand unified theory</i> of old.... (Though not in regard to the `size` of dimensions) i imagine that all the 4 force carriers are actually space-time configurations that operate in at least 10 dimensions and are interchangeable and unifyable.
I can see where you are coming from. But to me it translates into perspective. And that is defined in and of itself. I wouldn't agree that it is arguably a cause for being a dimension. Size is a term used mostly as a description for surface area or bounds. It is all measured with 3 dimensions. We measure using a ruler, but we also measure using electrons (I don't know if we can measure using quarks yet.) Micro and macro scopic things can all be measured on the same scale to some degree of approximation. Just because I can't experience the weight of the sun, does not mean I cannot comprehend it. What should really be interesting you is the fact of how much space is really out there and within us. (I don't remember exact quotes from science books.) 1. If the atoms nucleus were the size of a pea in a football field, then the closest electron orbits out by the in-zone. 2. If you were to cram as many atoms as you could next to one another into the size of a period, then it'd weigh some number of tons. 3. No one piece of matter actually touches or comes into contact with another piece. Everything is bound together and kept apart by forces. On our level we appear solid, but in fact we are spread so thin. Ghostly I'd say. I'd be more curious to picture the ratios of the distances between stellar bodies and those of our own bodies or atoms. Anyways, I'm sorry if I'm wandering off your topic. I probably don't see it like you do and this is what I'm prompted to submit in my reply.
I agree that size is certainly a dimension, but I don't agree that it is the 4th dimension relative to us. Time is our 4th dimension. Our size dimension, however, may be the 4th dimension to some other creatures, whose time flows some other direction through the multiverse.
No, you are not wondering off-topic, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone thinks it is a matter of perspective, I suppose. But I'm trying to go a little bit deeper than that. The time dimension is also a matter of perspective anyways. And as I said, a size dimension could explain the connnections between the micro and macro worlds. It would also be like the time dimension, but instead of explaining time differences throughout long regions of space, it would explain space differences throghout space. In this sense, the size dimension would be for a bacteria what the time dimension is for us.
>>3. No one piece of matter actually touches or comes into contact with another piece. Everything is bound together and kept apart by forces. Hum, Sounds very classical to me… But what if we were to imagine that the bits of matter were not discrete? What if, say, an electron existed as a <b>probability field</b> orbiting a nucleus; a orbiting cloud that stretches out, to the size of the universe? That would imply that every part of space-time is, <i>potentially</i>, filled with that electron… An expanded Coulomb's law (Maxwell's equation) http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Coulomb.html can be found here: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/feynman/feynpro1.html (<b>Wheeler-Feynman time theory</b>) In a nutshell, it says that an electromagnetic wave radiates outwards spherically into space; but Maxwell's equation <i>also</i> allows it to radiates outwards in the temporal dimension. My own view, is that this temporal dimension is maybe just <i>another</i> spatial dimension, except that it would be `compactified` (<i>er, or `modified` , so that there is a clear difference to our normal 3 macro dimensions, otherwise we would maybe have many more time dimensions, which is clearly not the case. ie why has, say `length` (the y dimension) not a time dimension…</i>) Size doesn`t matter, they say....
hmmm, I'm thinking more this morning than last night. I see more of what you're saying. Time-size issue... as if the universe is a big bang in progress that for us seems like billions of years, but on the scale of the universe it might only last a second. Like a grenade blowing up on our scale. Is that kind of what you mean? You say the size dimension would be for a bacteria what the time dimension is for us. Even though I still don't get that, it implies a hierarchy structure for this. Going from bottom to top; a bacteria size dimension = an ants time dimension, an ant size dimension = human time dimension, a human size dimension = an unknown time dimension, etc. Where are the boundaries for each one and how many are there? Or is it continuous in a manner? I never got past my physics class. So please ignore any ignorance like a fly on the wall. I thought that potential was implied, but it is our awareness that only imagines it and actual reaction that creates a single state from the probabilities. Then again, if I can't pass physics, then maybe it's not worth trying to comprehend. Well if a dumptruck has at least 3 dimensions, then it will appear as a point if you zoom out from above. So wouldn't that be another analogy? But everything is just a bunch of points right?
>>I thought that potential was implied. Cool, It was also just to point out that the micro extends out to the macro. So that the size of subatomic particles isn`t really restricted to the very small, but has a macro component to it… Er, if you see what I mean…particles are smears... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) >>it will appear as a point Hum, yeah.. sort of.... (that`s the usual analogy for compaction of the extra 6 dimensions....)
Some more thoughts on the 3 dimensions. At our level things have 3 dimensions. But zooming out from above it can appear we live in 2 dimensions comprising the surface area of the earth. We can imagine the 3 dimensions in space, but we are held to the surface of the earth by gravity. So if all planets are round, then it is gravity that propogates a 2D existence of sorts. For smaller forms of life gravity becomes almost a force that isn't sensed. So allot of other forces become more pronounced. Maybe this ties in with some boundaries of your size-time dimension thoughts.
Hey! You guys are really getting it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will try to post some comments and answers tomorrow.... I have som work to do now.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hum, in the interlude, you may amuse yourself with this <b>realplayer</b> stream of theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explaining his theory of multi dimensions and parallel universes alongside our own... <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/fivelive/michio_kaku.ram"><img src="http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/newpic/audionews.gif" alt="Click to listen!" width="60" height="13" border="0"> Click to listen: </a>
Yup. Sort of. It seems that time is just a variable in it. Well, the "real" thing is how the spacial difference relates to time and other forces. It seems continuous. Altough we are not used to see it that way. We usually just jump many "boundaries" with a microscope or telescope.... Ahhh.... I didn't quite understand what you said.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's a good analogy for the illusion behind multi-dimensional structures. As for this in particular... Well, in a way, everything is composed of atoms... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh! Now I get what he said.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Huuumm... that also reminds me of quantum entanglement!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yep. That ties in nicely with my absurdutist philosophy..... Oh yeah! That's exactly what I'm talking about Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
