Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #576423 > unrolled thread

Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 11:47 +0000
    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 13:58 +0200
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 13:15 +0000
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 15:23 +0200
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 13:47 +0000
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 15:55 +0200
              Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 15:36 +0000
                Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:42 -0700
    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:03 -0500
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 13:25 +0000
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 12:47 -0500
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 11:28 -0700
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-08 20:33 +0000
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 18:32 -0700
              Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 19:08 -0700
                Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 19:14 -0700
                  Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 04:39 -0700
                    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 04:51 -0700
                      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 05:10 -0700
                        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 05:41 -0700
                          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 05:57 -0700
                        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-09 12:04 -0400
                    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-09 11:56 -0400
                      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 09:29 -0700
                        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-09 14:30 -0400
                    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-09 12:02 -0400
                  Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:11 -0500
              Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:09 -0500
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 11:51 -0700
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 13:52 -0500
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 23:17 -0700
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:33 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#576423 — Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

The only clue I think we get at the moment
is that all matter is made up of 3 quarks.

These 3 quarks define the interaction of one
quark with another through 3 legs of each quark.

If we had 4 quarks, then there would be 4 different
ways of spatial interaction.

One result of viewing it this way is that if we
accelerate the particles, the interaction
distances grow because their linear velocity
must be added to their group velocity.

So the space between them should expand and interactions
would slow down.

Odd result! But certainly we see the interactions
slowing down in an accelerator, but do we see
the space between them expand as well?????

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#576424

Dne 08/05/2016 v 13:47 7 napsal(a):
> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
> 
> The only clue I think we get at the moment
> is that all matter is made up of 3 quarks.
> 
> These 3 quarks define the interaction of one
> quark with another through 3 legs of each quark.
> 
> If we had 4 quarks, then there would be 4 different
> ways of spatial interaction.
> 
Usual matter consists of just 2 quarks ( u, d )
But there are known 6 quarks ( u,d,s,c,b,t)
( plus anti plus color variants )

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576448

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 08/05/2016 v 13:47 7 napsal(a):
>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>> 
>> The only clue I think we get at the moment
>> is that all matter is made up of 3 quarks.
>> 
>> These 3 quarks define the interaction of one
>> quark with another through 3 legs of each quark.
>> 
>> If we had 4 quarks, then there would be 4 different
>> ways of spatial interaction.
>> 
> Usual matter consists of just 2 quarks ( u, d )
> But there are known 6 quarks ( u,d,s,c,b,t)
> ( plus anti plus color variants )


Apologie - quark quantity not type: 

3 physical quarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576450

Dne 08/05/2016 v 15:15 7 napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Dne 08/05/2016 v 13:47 7 napsal(a):
>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>
>>> The only clue I think we get at the moment
>>> is that all matter is made up of 3 quarks.
>>>
>>> These 3 quarks define the interaction of one
>>> quark with another through 3 legs of each quark.
>>>
>>> If we had 4 quarks, then there would be 4 different
>>> ways of spatial interaction.
>>>
>> Usual matter consists of just 2 quarks ( u, d )
>> But there are known 6 quarks ( u,d,s,c,b,t)
>> ( plus anti plus color variants )
> 
> 
> Apologie - quark quantity not type: 
> 
> 3 physical quarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
> 
> 
And how does relate
the number of independent values  needed to dermine the position
to number of quarks in baryons ?

Do exist 3 quark baryons in 3D space,
while 2 quark mesons in 2D only space
and zero quark leptons and photons in 0D space ?

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576458

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 08/05/2016 v 15:15 7 napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> Dne 08/05/2016 v 13:47 7 napsal(a):
>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>>
>>>> The only clue I think we get at the moment
>>>> is that all matter is made up of 3 quarks.
>>>>
>>>> These 3 quarks define the interaction of one
>>>> quark with another through 3 legs of each quark.
>>>>
>>>> If we had 4 quarks, then there would be 4 different
>>>> ways of spatial interaction.
>>>>
>>> Usual matter consists of just 2 quarks ( u, d )
>>> But there are known 6 quarks ( u,d,s,c,b,t)
>>> ( plus anti plus color variants )
>> 
>> 
>> Apologie - quark quantity not type:
>> 
>> 3 physical quarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
>> 
>> 
> And how does relate
> the number of independent values  needed to dermine the position
> to number of quarks in baryons ?
> 
> Do exist 3 quark baryons in 3D space,
> while 2 quark mesons in 2D only space
> and zero quark leptons and photons in 0D space ?

This is kind of where I'm trying to get at.

If 2 quark mesons interact over a distance even if it is 3D space,
its behaviour would be 2D. So if you disturb a 2 quark condensate,
would the disturbance follow a 2D path? If the answer is yes,
then may be the answer to our 3D dimension is somehow related
to the 3 quarks in baryonic matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576463

Dne 08/05/2016 v 15:47 7 napsal(a):

> 
> This is kind of where I'm trying to get at.
> 
> If 2 quark mesons interact over a distance even if it is 3D space,
> its behaviour would be 2D. So if you disturb a 2 quark condensate,
> would the disturbance follow a 2D path? If the answer is yes,
> then may be the answer to our 3D dimension is somehow related
> to the 3 quarks in baryonic matter.
> 
I will reformulate the question:

What do quarks in baryons have in common
with space dimensionality but the number 3 ?



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576475

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 08/05/2016 v 15:47 7 napsal(a):
> 
>> 
>> This is kind of where I'm trying to get at.
>> 
>> If 2 quark mesons interact over a distance even if it is 3D space,
>> its behaviour would be 2D. So if you disturb a 2 quark condensate,
>> would the disturbance follow a 2D path? If the answer is yes,
>> then may be the answer to our 3D dimension is somehow related
>> to the 3 quarks in baryonic matter.
>> 
> I will reformulate the question:
> 
> What do quarks in baryons have in common
> with space dimensionality but the number 3 ?

I don't know - merely enquiring if the two are related.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576495

You turn once to make 2D.
You precess the turn to make 3D.
Throw as many quarks in there
as you can make balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576441

On 5/8/16 6:47 AM, 7 wrote:
> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

   One might say that the three spatial dimensions where created in the
   big bang... and that of course begs the question, where there three
   spatial dimensions in the environment in which the big bang occurred.


   Here is a reason there are only four dimensions in our universe.
   Tegmark: On the dimensionality of spacetime
 > http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

 > Abstract.

 > Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy
 > limit corresponding to classical spacetimes with different
 > dimensionalities. We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one
 > might correspond to ‘dead worlds’, devoid of observers, in which case
 > all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find
 > ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. With more or
 > less than one time dimension, the partial differential equations of
 > nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers
 > to make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions,
 > there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures. A
 > space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational force
 > and may be too simple and barren to contain observers.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576454

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/8/16 6:47 AM, 7 wrote:
>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
> 
>    One might say that the three spatial dimensions where created in the
>    big bang... and that of course begs the question, where there three
>    spatial dimensions in the environment in which the big bang occurred.

Sorry you can't do that because it assumes the 3 spatial dimensions did
not exist before big bang in order for you to claim that it was
created in the big bang.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576507

On 5/8/16 8:25 AM, 7 wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/16 6:47 AM, 7 wrote:
>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>
>>    One might say that the three spatial dimensions where created in the
>>    big bang... and that of course begs the question, where there three
>>    spatial dimensions in the environment in which the big bang occurred.
>
> Sorry you can't do that because it assumes the 3 spatial dimensions did
> not exist before big bang in order for you to claim that it was
> created in the big bang.
>

   Who's to say? Assumption, not testable, are just that.

   What would you assume if the our observable universe started via a
   quantum fluctuation?
  > http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/tobbc/Week4.html





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576516

Quantum computer?
Quantum gravity?
Quantum bullshit: fancy Latin word

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576534

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/8/16 8:25 AM, 7 wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/8/16 6:47 AM, 7 wrote:
>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>
>>>    One might say that the three spatial dimensions where created in the
>>>    big bang... and that of course begs the question, where there three
>>>    spatial dimensions in the environment in which the big bang occurred.
>>
>> Sorry you can't do that because it assumes the 3 spatial dimensions did
>> not exist before big bang in order for you to claim that it was
>> created in the big bang.
>>
> 
>    Who's to say? Assumption, not testable, are just that.


So the science isn't settled.


>    What would you assume if the our observable universe started via a
>    quantum fluctuation?
>   > http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/tobbc/Week4.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576587

Haha.
Not settled?
Cosmic jets are involved in
new star production.
When did current theory predict that?

Wait a minute!? Isn't the story that
stars came before Black Holes and just
all collected together to make the Black Hole?
But then, for some reason, the BH doesn't
eat them all, but stops, and now it's
jets are involved in new star production?
So- if BHs make stars, how could the 
stars come first?

And now they saw a bunch of jets all
aligned. Those pesky jets that current
theory doesn't even consider!
For instance: there are two opposite
jets. Each spins with the galactic disc.
So, opposite jets have opposite spin.
Does one jet contribute to new star
formation of matter with one spin, while
the other jet makes new
stars composed of matter with the
opposite spin?

Not settled?
How about totally out to lunch?
Yes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576591

john
Haha. 
Not settled? 
Cosmic jets are involved in 
new star production. 
When did current theory predict that? 

Wait a minute!? Isn't the story that 
stars came before Black Holes and just 
all collected together to make the Black Hole? 
But then, for some reason, the BH doesn't 
eat them all, but stops, and now it's 
jets are involved in new star production? 
So- if BHs make stars, how could the 
stars come first? 
-----------

John it's kind of interesting following along as you walk down the road of illogic. You start with an unsupported claim, based on absolutely nothing and then whip yourself into a frenzy of retarded thinking. Pretty cool

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576595

Help me here, HVAC.
Do stars create Black Holes
or do Black Holes create stars?
Or both?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576666

john
Help me here, HVAC. 
Do stars create Black Holes 
or do Black Holes create stars? 
Or both? 
-------------

OK. First of all, nothing in our universe is ever created.

Next. All black holes are/were stars. When a star is formed that is 15+ times the mass of our sun, physics determines its fate. 

Now, as these stars go supernova, they spew matter and energy into their local space in the form of dust clouds and shock waves. These dust clouds can form new stars as they coalesce under their mutual gravitational attraction. Oftentimes this is aided by the shock waves from other exploding stars. There is also some evidence that relativistic jets from smbh can aid in star formation. But this is a poorly understood phenomenon and other evidence seems to indicate that quasars actually slow stellar growth. Stay tuned.

Now look, John. I am no teacher but I am an expert in stellar evolution. You can take that to the bank.

If you want more information on this topic, I suggest you address the same question to Michael Moroney, Jim Pennino, Odd Bodkin or professor Wormley. 

These people are far better equipped and have far more patience than I.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576670

So, stars explode and new stars form
from them, BHs used to be stars but
they collapsed from their gravity and
now have jets form when other stars
fall in and this also forms stars.
Wish on a falling star.
Wow!
Looks like you guys got a good handle
on the star thing.
Especially you, HVAC

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576673

john
So, stars explode and new stars form 
from them, BHs used to be stars but 
they collapsed from their gravity and 
now have jets form when other stars 
fall in and this also forms stars. 
Wish on a falling star. 
Wow! 
Looks like you guys got a good handle 
on the star thing. 
Especially you, HVAC 
-----------

Thank you John, but rockstar/philosopher/genius/kings like me have no need of titles nor accolades

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576674

Yes HVAC
Your humbleness is inspiring.
I especially like how you
are so consistent in your
know-nothing cover

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web