The Case for Fewer Dimensions
nautil.us
The Case for Fewer Dimensions
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#2> Please sign in to Nautilus Prime or turn your cookies on to continue viewing this site.
Meh.
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#3> Please sign in to Nautilus Prime or turn your cookies on to continue viewing this site. Meh.
Looks like it might be Disqus.
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#4> Please sign in to Nautilus Prime or turn your cookies on to continue viewing this site. Meh.
Does this link work for you?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Anauti...
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#5Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#6Dimensionality is a common problem in many sciences but this article is really crazy! Maybe we won't know some of the answers to these questions until we make our own black holes?
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#7"As a result, gravity, which is a pushover on everyday scales, catches up with the other forces and becomes their equal at a sub-sub-subatomic distance known as the Planck scale (around a few trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a meter)."
What? How is that not completely wrong? Gravity is at its most important on large scales. Or are they just badly describing a (known-to-be-broken) quantum gravity model?
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#8The leaps here are just ridiculous. With one hypothesis (yeah I'm not gonna lie and call this stuff a theory) spcetime looks the same at all scales - the definition of fractal!!! Woohoo spacetime is fractal at small scales! Wheeeeee!!! Either something is really lost in translation here, or the people coming up with this stuff are. Either way I can read non technical articles on science or tech any more.
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#9"As a result, gravity, which is a pushover on everyday scales, catches up with the other forces and becomes their equal at a sub-sub-subatomic distance known as the Planck scale (around a few trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a meter)." What? How is that not completely wrong? Gravity is at its most important on large scales. Or are they just badly describing a (known-to-be-broken) quantum gravity model?
Re: The Case for Fewer Dimensions
#10"If we could ascend into that higher domain, we would free ourselves from the straitjacket of ordinary space. We could bend our arm through an extra dimension to reach into a locked safe, or see the insides of a human body laid out before us."
This is often brought up in discussions on 4th dimensions but think about it: For the 4th dimensional being to see inside a closed 3D space, photons from that space should reach its visual organs. From the viewpoint of beings in 3D these photons would be "lost". This energy discrepancy should be detectable by placing 3D sensors around that space.