Here's a really interesting question I just came up with the other day. According to string theory (and for string theory to actually work) there need to be 6 more dimensions than the ones that we are familiar with. (original 3 plus time) Calabi-Yau spaces do a lot of curving back in on themselves, and that would tell me that an object, if it were small enough, could conceivably get trapped within a single Calabi-Yau dimension, right? So how big are Calabi-Yau spaces within the physical universe anyway? And to me, it seems that whole atoms as built by their fundamental pieces would necessarily have to be in more than one SEPERATE Calabi-Yau space at the same time. So do these strings all have an inherent energy that allows them to break into and out of these dimensions easily? Is it conceivable that we could leave the four that know to occupy, given enough energy, regardless of whether or not the original 3 are circular over time?
First of all, there is only one time direction. Secondly, the Calabi-Yaus have radii that are very small---if we take the hydrogen atom at about 1 angstrom (10^-10 m) in size, the string scale is another 20 or so orders of magnitude smaller. This is roughly the ratio between the radius of the hydrogen atom and the radius of the earth's orbit around the sun. So an atom is just not SMALL enough to fit into a compactified dimension. There are also other reasons why this won't work. For example, in the Type II string theories (just technical words!), matter in our universe (electrons, quarks, etc.) is stuck to a higher dimensional surface, called a D-brane. The endpoints on the string (stuck to the surface of the d-brane) look like particles to us. In this sense, the particles are confined to four dimensions, and cannot leave.
I didn't say anything about a different time direction... Sorry, I should have said, "if the 3dimensions are circular over large distances." But doesn't the size of the atoms mean that they are in more than 1 dimension at once?
"But doesn't the size of the atoms mean that they are in more than 1 dimension at once?" Yes, they are 3 dimensional just like all ordinary stuff.
At second, the F-theory is string theory based and it considers two time dimensions. Albeit Ed Witten has argued that the second time dimension is only a mathematical fiction used to simplify calculations, here are many recent works, which supports the existence of many time dimensions. A Two-Time Universe? Mathematician suggests extra dimensions are time-like and many others... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15,16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). In AWT, the multiple time dimensions concept is directly supported by model of Aether foam, where every (mem)brane has at least two surface gradients. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
zephir is right about F-Theory (which is a certain limit of M Theory)---it appears that it has two time dimensions, but I think there is nothing physical about the second time direction. I don't know very much about this field, though, or how it fits into the larger framework of Mtheory.
What I REALLY meant by "the atoms are in more than 1 dimension at the same time" is this... They are occupying multiple SETS of dimesions at the same time... Their structure is inhabiting more than one different calabi-yau space at the same time... Is this correct?
No. Normal matter just lives in three dimensions. In this sense, (by definition) it cannot leave the three dimensions.
As you said, realistic backgrounds in string theory are viewed as having a spacetime part M and an internal or compact part K. The point here is that K is not a box that things can be trapped in, but a surface that things live on. However, there is a sense in string theory in which your question makes a certain kind of sense. To specify the location of an object requires we give it`s coordinates on MxK, which we can think of as M with a copy of K at each of it`s points. In string theory we can confine objects like F-strings and D-branes to a single point p in M by wrapping them around the cycles of the copy of K at p. In fact, by wrapping them in certain ways one can construct solutions that have event horizons so that the point at which the objects have been wrapped may be viewed as a classical black hole singularity. However, these are nothing like ordinary astrophysical black holes. For example, there`s no process of gravitational collapse that can produce them. If an object is spatially extended in M, it will intersect each copy of K at each point of M over which it extends. Right. The extra dimension simply allows a helpful geometrical interpretation of the theory.
i just come out of a sight from my countries defence thing and there were unusual formula on it also had all there pay and who got what pay and also strange looking maths and im no math wizard but i spotted this out a mile away everything down t news paper clippings and this is not a secured sight and im wondering if this is the case wouldnt the real defence have a more secure sight rather than have all their pays plastered over the net and their names their kids their even holidays and credit cards and fuck me rome what ifdiots and that cannot be true they cannoit be the real defence army of australia and im no hacker either but it seems to me if one can hack from their pc in that company would they leave tell tale signs of where they came from would that be more likely why i ended up there and not where i wanted to go and they just that dumb and gave me everything dam i know very big secrets now cause of stupidity the things i know iwont say but dont be silly with me cause im n9o hackere but idiots that think they dont leave tell tale signs are just plain out right dumb
