http://www.99chan.org/sci Live RSS feed for http://www.99chan.org/sci en http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6940.html#6965I mean, what kind of mathematical "space" are they actually talking about and what is the relationship of this mathematical space to the universe?

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html#6964
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html#6963
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6940.html#6962>>6960
I'm not saying its more beautiful; I'm saying that there must be some reason why only motion through certain dimensions is allowed.

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6784.html#6961>>6939
They have uses; they just don't want to tell you. The research regarding them is one of those "If I told you, I'd have to kill you" things.

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6940.html#6960>>6940

Just because some solution seems more beautiful doesn't make it any more likely. All bets are off though. Maybe the universe has infinite dimensions or maybe it's 2794826958724. Who knows?

>>6941

An area is just a way of visualizing space-time that works well for the scales we exist at. Space-time is way more messy than up-down-left-right when you look at different scales though. That they can't explain "where they are" has to do with the limitations of our brains. We can't visualize more than three dimensions, so there's no way to put it into words. Only way someone can understand it is through the math.

The math is equally applicable to our three dimensions though, and our brains perception of them is nothing but a math equation. The only thing that makes the classical dimensions special is that we can visualize them, and that they seem to be the most important ones on our scales (newtonian physics).

If humans were as large as galaxies or as small as quarks, our brains would be hardwired to understand extra dimensions, because the effects would be day-to-day occurances we could observe with our own senses (try throwing a planet across a galaxy without taking the curvature of space-time into consideration). If that was the case our definition of an "area" would be something completely different.

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6921.html#6954
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6921.html#6953>>6921
got a link to an ebook download for it?

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6934.html#6952
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html#6951
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html#6950
]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html#6949>I was wondering if it's possible to make a machine that produces beta particles

>so that all the oxygen in a large room or building turns into chlorine?

Not according to my knowledge.

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6940.html#6948>>6946
It just seems to me that the most straight forward universe would be one with zero dimensions, where there is no freedom of motion, or one with complete freedom

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6947.html
So, I was wondering if it's possible to make a machine that produces beta particles so that all the oxygen in a large room or building turns into chlorine?

]]> http://www.99chan.org/sci/res/6940.html#6946>It seems to me that a universe with infinitely many dimensions would be much more natural and symmetrical.

Why should you suppose this?

>Is there any research as to how many dimensions the universe actually has and why it has the number that it does?

Not to my knowledge.

]]>