tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post114712081737179120..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Why do we live in 3+1 dimensions?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3204153999634629502016-04-16T14:12:14.575-04:002016-04-16T14:12:14.575-04:00Thanks for a very useful blog post, Bee.Thanks for a very useful blog post, Bee.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48887559974064690392009-08-10T08:29:48.958-04:002009-08-10T08:29:48.958-04:00CONJECTURE: it will take understanding what octoni...CONJECTURE: it will take understanding what octonions are about to make sense of why space is three dimensional. <br /><br />Also - Ingemar's paper mentions the garden. We would not think much of an explanation if the 3 space had only photons or electrons and positrons - we really need to expect it to make sense with space + hydrogen atoms.joel ricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38042084643296522532009-08-08T11:07:23.027-04:002009-08-08T11:07:23.027-04:00it would seem relevant that
if you complexify octo...it would seem relevant that<br />if you complexify octonion algebra<br />you get -+++ and +---, unlike <br />Clifford algebra where those two<br />are not algebraically isomorphic<br />over R.joel ricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62648218376679709752009-08-08T03:06:25.064-04:002009-08-08T03:06:25.064-04:00This thread surprises me, given the following refe...This thread surprises me, given the following references:<br /><br />Tegmark, Max (1998) “Is the ‘theory of everything’ merely the ultimate ensemble theory?” <i>Annals of Physics</i> 270: 1-29. §IV.B. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009v2. <br /><br />Tegmark, Max (1997) “On the dimensionality of spacetime,” <i>Classic and Quantum Gravity</i> 14: L69-L75, p. L69.<br />http://www.iop.org/EJ/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23718965627500201542008-09-01T06:01:00.000-04:002008-09-01T06:01:00.000-04:00By AWT the reality is formed by density fluctuatio...By AWT the reality is formed by density fluctuations of dense particle environement and we are living in 3D space because just the 3D hyperspheres exhibits the most dense packing (compare the Kepler conjecture for kissing hyperspheres packing).Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153932110948776852006-07-26T12:41:00.000-04:002006-07-26T12:41:00.000-04:00Hello. It's great to find a quality blog about fro...Hello. It's great to find a quality blog about frontier issues like extra dimensions. I've posted about why space must have three large dimensions on my own blog, <A HREF="http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">tyrannogenius</A>. I posted the same to another thread, but this is so relevant here (since it is presumed, falsely IMHO, that there isn't a good reason for the specification 3Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1152127194288920212006-07-05T15:19:00.000-04:002006-07-05T15:19:00.000-04:00there were no references to a FRW model incorporat...there were no references to a FRW model incorporating higher dimensions (curse you google), but quite a grade A blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147396821654889942006-05-11T21:20:00.000-04:002006-05-11T21:20:00.000-04:00insigtaction said: The confusion was because I was...<I>insigtaction said: The confusion was because I was rambling.<BR/><BR/>Shows the danger of making off the cuff remarks about the nature of observation. </I><BR/><BR/>thanks for the comment anyway: <BR/>I LOVE questions that I can answer :-)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147303341554899102006-05-10T19:22:00.000-04:002006-05-10T19:22:00.000-04:00The confusion was because I was rambling.Shows the...The confusion was because I was rambling.<BR/><BR/>Shows the danger of making off the cuff remarks about the nature of observation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147291961168698052006-05-10T16:12:00.000-04:002006-05-10T16:12:00.000-04:00insightaction said: Once again sorry for being obt...<I>insightaction said: Once again sorry for being obtuse. Hope that makes me sound a little less like a cracked-pot. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, it's my blog and I allow crack-pots :-) Anyway, I didn't mean to make fun out of your comment.<BR/><BR/><I>insightaction said: And yes I would really like to discard the idea that other fundamental particles move through higher dimensions, but first one has to Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147283066428721962006-05-10T13:44:00.000-04:002006-05-10T13:44:00.000-04:00Okay, so that was a bit obtuse on my part. My poi...Okay, so that was a bit obtuse on my part. My point was that unless someone has built a direct strong or weak force detector our observations of the universe are mediated by electromagnetic interactions, correct?<BR/><BR/>Unless there is something horribly wrong with my knowledge of particle experiments, we infere the other forces by looking at the behavior of particles in electromagnetic fieldsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147223238339450502006-05-09T21:07:00.000-04:002006-05-09T21:07:00.000-04:00We may not live in 3+1 dimensions, but photons sur...<I>We may not live in 3+1 dimensions, but photons sure seem to.</I><BR/><BR/>We = quarks,gluons,electrons?Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147213355580924582006-05-09T18:22:00.000-04:002006-05-09T18:22:00.000-04:00We may not live in 3+1 dimensions, but photons sur...We may not live in 3+1 dimensions, but photons sure seem to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147210921206291022006-05-09T17:42:00.000-04:002006-05-09T17:42:00.000-04:00Stefan said: what is this point about the chiral f...<I>Stefan said: what is this point about the chiral fermions? What restrictions do they imply, and why? And what happens if there aren't any chiral fermions in a therory?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, if there are no chiral fermions, than the theory is not the standard model. That's the point.<BR/><BR/><I>a said: The three comes from the fact that "Da Vinci Code" has three words</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147207071563460602006-05-09T16:37:00.000-04:002006-05-09T16:37:00.000-04:00Dear Bee,what is this point about the chiral fermi...Dear Bee,<BR/><BR/><BR/>what is this point about the chiral fermions? What restrictions do they imply, and why? And what happens if there aren't any chiral fermions in a therory?<BR/><BR/>Best, Stefanstefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1147140270479499842006-05-08T22:04:00.000-04:002006-05-08T22:04:00.000-04:00Oh no...this is all wrong...The three comes from t...Oh no...this is all wrong...<BR/><BR/>The three comes from the fact that "Da Vinci Code" has three words, and the seven comes from the fact that "opus dei" has seven letters. <BR/><BR/>(sorry, I couldn't help myself)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com