View Single Post
Re: 2 Dimensions does not a (string) 'theory' Make.
Old
  (#4 (permalink))
RascalPuff
Aka the White Mongol
RascalPuff has a spectacular aura about
 
RascalPuff's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,449
Thanks Given: 87
Thanked 80x in 76 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2007
Rep Power: 20
   
Awards Showcase
2nd Place - Monthly Theme Quiz 
Total Awards: 1
Re: 2 Dimensions does not a (string) 'theory' Make. - 10-29-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino View Post
I've answered this in the thread where the quote comes from.
Neutralino's response to the above quote by Lloyd:
"Of course a 2 dimensional surface is not a model of the universe. However, the 3 dimensional surface of a 4 dimensional sphere is a conceivable model of the universe. This surface (called S^3 amongst mathematicians) is topologically equivalent to the surface of a 3-sphere, but we cannot picture what it would look like. Therefore, I used the lower dimensional model to try and emphasize the point that there are models of the universe that have no centre. I hope that this has emphasized it sufficiently."

Dear Neutralino:

There are no three dimensional 'surfaces' - only charges of EM that become more dense as the center of a '3-D' system (electron, for example) is approached.

Best regards,
- RP


(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.

"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus
"Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein
"Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
  
Reply With Quote