Comments on: The Holy Grail of Physics http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:09:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: JohnM http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73681 JohnM Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:23:51 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73681 Do multiple dimensions simultaneously co-exist? If so, can humans hope to experience them? Is access to them determined by sensory ability, or .... ? Could dancing get us there? Do multiple dimensions simultaneously co-exist? If so, can humans hope to experience them? Is access to them determined by sensory ability, or …. ?

Could dancing get us there?

]]> By: 3-D Neil http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73680 3-D Neil Wed, 10 May 2006 00:45:29 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73680 Note: Please check out my blog at http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com . Note: Please check out my blog at http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com .

]]> By: 3-D Neil http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73679 3-D Neil Fri, 05 May 2006 18:40:03 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73679 Stephen: You are asking very deep questions, for which no clear answers can be demonstrated. Nevertheless, they are worth asking and reflecting upon, IMHO. For insight, consult _The Mind of God_ by Paul Davies about foundational issues of physics, creation, and "Why?" Also consult _Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty_ by Morris Kline, which delves into the still-debatable question of to what extent mathematics is invented or discovered, and its internal contradictions such as logic paradoxes, infinite set dilemmas, and the infamous Gödel Paradox of incompleteness (of any mathematical system.) Stephen:

You are asking very deep questions, for which no clear answers can be demonstrated. Nevertheless, they are worth asking and reflecting upon, IMHO. For insight, consult _The Mind of God_ by Paul Davies about foundational issues of physics, creation, and “Why?” Also consult _Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty_ by Morris Kline, which delves into the still-debatable question of to what extent mathematics is invented or discovered, and its internal contradictions such as logic paradoxes, infinite set dilemmas, and the infamous Gödel Paradox of incompleteness (of any mathematical system.)

]]> By: Stephen McCloud http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73678 Stephen McCloud Thu, 04 May 2006 19:05:02 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73678 Explanations in physics never come to an end and it doesn't appear they ever will. If everything is just vibrating strings and branes then what is vibrating and where are they vibrating? The end of all this just seems to be our brains. Isn't the assumption that mathematics is required to explain everyting a BIG assumption? Is mathematics invented or discovered? Explanations in physics never come to an end and it doesn’t appear they ever will. If everything is just vibrating strings and branes then what is vibrating and where are they vibrating? The end of all this just seems to be our brains. Isn’t the assumption that mathematics is required to explain everyting a BIG assumption? Is mathematics invented or discovered?

]]> By: Gray Catbird http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73677 Gray Catbird Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:15:13 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73677 Anyone heard any good birdsong lately? You can hire me. I'm a mimic-thrush. Click my name and find the booking information in my profile. Anyone heard any good birdsong lately? You can hire me. I’m a mimic-thrush. Click my name and find the booking information in my profile.

]]> By: SourcePatchKid http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73676 SourcePatchKid Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:41:29 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73676 If, as the physicists claim, everything is really only various forms of energy, then why is it that I never seem to have any? If, as the physicists claim, everything is really only various forms of energy, then why is it that I never seem to have any?

]]> By: elevine http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73675 elevine Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:55:12 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73675 I want to add my voice to the chorus of praise for Flatland. The book was recommended to me by a teacher iin my junior high school. It completely changed my view of the world, and I have lost track of the number of people I have suggested it to. Gene Levine I want to add my voice to the chorus of praise for Flatland.

The book was recommended to me by a teacher iin my junior high school. It completely changed my view of the world, and I have lost track of the number of people I have suggested it to.

Gene Levine

]]> By: 3-D Neil http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73674 3-D Neil Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:25:42 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73674 Hello I just listened to the interview with Lisa today, and it was thrilling. I have been working myself on the question, why are there three *large* dimensions of space? (There are probably more, like a total of 10 or 11 space dimensions, but the rest are curled up very small.) After extrapolating electromagnetic interactions to spaces of other dimensions, I found at least two arguments: 1. In spaces with other than one or three dimensions, an oscillating charge does not project the same *average* field along the axis of oscillation. That is due to two things: the combination of “projection� of its retarded distance – where it would be had it continued at the velocity it had when light left it – and the distortion of the field due to Lorentz contraction, which weakens it to gamma^(1-N) the value it has at rest. N is the number of large space dimensions. That would impose a net force on a second “target� charge, and violate conservation of momentum and energy. The one-dimensional case is rule out due to infinite potential energy (why didn’t Dewdney realize that about the 2-D Planiverse?) 2. Let two charges be connected by a reasonably rigid rod. Then, accelerate the rod along its length. The combined force between the charges will be derived from the sort of considerations given in (1.), as the projected field of each charge catches up to the other charge. Then we must take into account the relativistic stress-correction to the momentum and energy of the rod. Only in three dimensions of space does that equal in net the effective momentum the charges should have given their potential energy. (In higher dimensions, taking the integral of f = q1q2/r^(N-1), that potential w.r.t. infinity is: -q1q2r^(2-N)/(2-N). ) I hope I can publish the full development of this before long. I don’t think anyone else has an explicit proof that N *must* equal three, only reasons it was more likely to form that way, or oddities like being unfriendly to life, distorted wave propagation etc. (see Barrow and Tipler’s _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ for great discussion of this.) Neil Bates Hello

I just listened to the interview with Lisa today, and it was thrilling. I have been working myself on the question, why are there three *large* dimensions of space? (There are probably more, like a total of 10 or 11 space dimensions, but the rest are curled up very small.) After extrapolating electromagnetic interactions to spaces of other dimensions, I found at least two arguments:

1. In spaces with other than one or three dimensions, an oscillating charge does not project the same *average* field along the axis of oscillation. That is due to two things: the combination of “projection� of its retarded distance – where it would be had it continued at the velocity it had when light left it – and the distortion of the field due to Lorentz contraction, which weakens it to

gamma^(1-N) the value it has at rest. N is the number of large space dimensions. That would impose a net force on a second “target� charge, and violate conservation of momentum and energy. The one-dimensional case is rule out due to infinite potential energy (why didn’t Dewdney realize that about the 2-D Planiverse?)

2. Let two charges be connected by a reasonably rigid rod. Then, accelerate the rod along its length. The combined force between the charges will be derived from the sort of considerations given in (1.), as the projected field of each charge catches up to the other charge. Then we must take into account the relativistic stress-correction to the momentum and energy of the rod. Only in three dimensions of space does that equal in net the effective momentum the charges should have given their potential energy. (In higher dimensions, taking the integral of f = q1q2/r^(N-1), that potential w.r.t. infinity is:

-q1q2r^(2-N)/(2-N). )

I hope I can publish the full development of this before long. I don’t think anyone else has an explicit proof that N *must* equal three, only reasons it was more likely to form that way, or oddities like being unfriendly to life, distorted wave propagation etc. (see Barrow and Tipler’s _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ for great discussion of this.)

Neil Bates

]]> By: peggysue http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73673 peggysue Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:44:30 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73673 I perked up my ears when Lisa Randall talked about the art historian. It seemed like she said artists were thinking about other dimensions prior to the idea of time being thought of as the 4th dimension. It seems like artists are often translating from one dimension into another like transposing three dimensions into two if you are painting a bowl of apples on a flat board or in sculpture starting with a block with that has two dimensional drawings on each side and you carve into it until it becomes a three dimensional object. There is an exquisite moment if you are carving a stone piece and you create a hole that goes all the way through. The moment you carve all the way though it's like you've suddenly slipped from the second into the third dimension. Drawing in one point, two point or three-point perspective also seems to be a way to tweak the second dimension. I'm wondering after listening to Lisa Randall if this play between the dimensions that we are used to floating around in might be a way to develop sensitivity to moving from one dimension into another. With practice, could a person possibly be able to develop the perception muscles enough to perceive dimensions hitherto un-seen. I perked up my ears when Lisa Randall talked about the art historian. It seemed like she said artists were thinking about other dimensions prior to the idea of time being thought of as the 4th dimension. It seems like artists are often translating from one dimension into another like transposing three dimensions into two if you are painting a bowl of apples on a flat board or in sculpture starting with a block with that has two dimensional drawings on each side and you carve into it until it becomes a three dimensional object. There is an exquisite moment if you are carving a stone piece and you create a hole that goes all the way through. The moment you carve all the way though it’s like you’ve suddenly slipped from the second into the third dimension. Drawing in one point, two point or three-point perspective also seems to be a way to tweak the second dimension.

I’m wondering after listening to Lisa Randall if this play between the dimensions that we are used to floating around in might be a way to develop sensitivity to moving from one dimension into another. With practice, could a person possibly be able to develop the perception muscles enough to perceive dimensions hitherto un-seen.

]]> By: Nikos http://www.radioopensource.org/the-holy-grail-of-physics/#comment-73672 Nikos Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:11:53 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=509#comment-73672 My expert opinion: Lisa Randall rocks. That's an expert ROS <i>listener's</i> opinion, mind you. Moreover, Robin the Substitute Blog-Mistress rocks too. (You got a great voice and delivery, girl.) Rachel: I checked Flatland out from my local library earlier today (as if I needed yet another frickin' book to read!!!) It's off to a great beginning, too. Anyone: is Professor Randall's book readable for science-imbeciles (like me)? My expert opinion: Lisa Randall rocks.

That’s an expert ROS listener’s opinion, mind you.

Moreover, Robin the Substitute Blog-Mistress rocks too. (You got a great voice and delivery, girl.)

Rachel: I checked Flatland out from my local library earlier today (as if I needed yet another frickin’ book to read!!!) It’s off to a great beginning, too.

Anyone: is Professor Randall’s book readable for science-imbeciles (like me)?

]]>