to see is to believe or to believe is to see?

[AntonioLao]

although the quarks and the leptons do not have any spatial extension, they are the building blocks of matter. These cannot be "seen" but nonetheless they do have other measurable properties of mass, energy, intrinsic spin, electric moment, and magnetic moment.

when 2 up-quarks combined with 1 down-quark and with 1 electron, the 1st hydrogen atom is formed. For the hydrogen atom, its spatial extension can be measured. This is the same thing as saying that something is created out of nothing.

So what is spatial extension? Is spatial extension the same as dimension? We seem capable of seeing 3D. But we can never see 2D or 1D or 0D or 4D or 11D. Yet many do believe that these other realities exist.

[Omni]

You say: "the quarks and the leptons do not have any spatial extension" and you say "For the hydrogen atom, its spatial extension can be measured". "do not have" and "can be". Musn't it be: "For the quarks and leptons, their spatial extension cannot be measured untill now." ?

[AntonioLao]

when a high-energy experiment is done by bombarding the quarks with neutrinos the collision cross section is practically zero. This means that the quarks have no spatial extension. But collision cross sections came from an exisiting interaction. This interaction implies the existing of force particles such as the vector bosons: photon, W+, W-, Z0, gluons (cannot be isolated), graviton (not yet detected), together with the scalar boson called Higgs boson (not yet detected).

[Fredrick]

We seem capable of seeing 3D. But we can never see 2D or 1D or 0D or 4D or 11D. Yet many do believe that these other realities exist.

I only believe in 3D and in 2D. 3D is the world we can experience, 2D is the artful representations we make. A movie for instance delivers a 2D representation of 3D; it isn't real but it is real in a fake sense. So 3D exists, but 2D exists as well as part of our 3D world. People can get lost inside a book, a movie, an idea; it is quite easy and sometimes it is really wonderful to get lost in one of these mediums of entertainment. Sometimes people get lost forever in ideas that do not exist. Religion is one big example where generations of people believe in something that is not even out there, but they make it real by recreating their ideas in the way we build, write, speak, and think; they made it real. Beautiful buildings, artifacts, philosophies were created because of the possibility of 2D within 3D. Our world has moved away from being a singular natural world into a natural world that now contains a lot of art as well. Some may call it enriching, others may call it polluted. The reasons people may look for multiple dimensions is according to me because they are searching for answers in the 2D world, which means they think the 2D world is somehow real all by itself.

For me the idea of 3D is only that, an idea. It is possible to make dimensions be fields, not directions, and then only 2 fields are required to deliver a full, comprehensive dimensional image. In that case only 2FD and 1FD would be in existence, and directions would then come in 2 pairs. 2FD would stand for the world we can experience, while 1FD stands for the fake additions that are nevertheless additions to the 2FD world. When looking for a 1FD-answer people get lost or have to make use of a belief system to maintain the 1FD idea. When looking for a 2FD-answer most people do not get lost at all.

I only have two eyes, not three, so I tend to go with dimensions being fields, not directions, because two would then simply be all it takes.

[AntonioLao]

Fredrick,

the visual arts, I agree with you, is perceived mostly in 2D. But I have seen holograms that can project several angular degrees beyond 180 allowing hidden details of depth to be seen. Maybe in the future, holography can fully project 360 degrees viewing angle similar to what shown in the movie Star Wars.

antonio

[Fredrick]

How interesting to think/deliver that what is a representation of reality can one day be fully 3D, like reality. Of course statutes could already be considered 3D, but moving imagery that could do the same would indeed be like holo-decks out of Star Trek's Next Generation (sorry, Star Wars Trilogy only somewhat familiar with, isn't that horrible?).

Such a 3D hologram would definitively be a good metaphore for, for instance, people under the influence of certain religions, being a devote member of a sect, or like - in the Matrix - being an un-aware participant of a gigantic battery because the view is considered the correct view when it is not.

Or to keep it within the realm of this ToeQuest forum, being a scientist (or an amateur of science) expecting to find the final answer while looking for as many dimensions as one can count on their fingers.

[AntonioLao]

I'm just gonna restrict my theory in one dimension using only vectors without the complexity of tensor analysis. Hopefully, I can get away with it.

[mkirkpatrick]

Prehaps Antonio there is only one dimension,which loops around itself,creating the "illusion" of many,but in reality there is but ONE?




regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

there is only one dimension,which loops around itself,creating the "illusion" of many

Come to think of it, this is how color television works by the one scanner movements of the electron gun that phosphorized the color coatings.

[mkirkpatrick]

Come to think of it, this is how color television works by the one scanner movements of the electron gun that phosphorized the color coatings.

Now your talking Antonio,let us look at the expansion of the ONE acting as though it is many,then we can expand this one dimension to include "all dimensions"??



regards michael.