Further to:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

Quora has a good, in my mind, description of what curled up dimensions are.

Got a link?

Or should I switch on my sarcasm detector?

https://www.quora.com/In-string-theory-what-does-it-mean-that-spatial-dimensions-are-curled-up-How-can-a-dimension-be-confined-in-a-space-when-it-is-itself-describing-a-space#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20about%20a,wraps%20back%20around%20on%20itself.

Link.

There was a little bit of sarc there.

:-)

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Further to:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Got a link?

Or should I switch on my sarcasm detector?

https://www.quora.com/In-string-theory-what-does-it-mean-that-spatial-dimensions-are-curled-up-How-can-a-dimension-be-confined-in-a-space-when-it-is-itself-describing-a-space#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20about%20a,wraps%20back%20around%20on%20itself.

Link.

There was a little bit of sarc there.

:-)

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

The Rev Dodgson said:

Further to:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Got a link?

Or should I switch on my sarcasm detector?

https://www.quora.com/In-string-theory-what-does-it-mean-that-spatial-dimensions-are-curled-up-How-can-a-dimension-be-confined-in-a-space-when-it-is-itself-describing-a-space#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20about%20a,wraps%20back%20around%20on%20itself.

Link.

There was a little bit of sarc there.

:-)

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

It influences the larger macroscopic universe ?

Don’t know about all that but in the fields that we work in we do computations with vectors of many dimensions so there could be 2000 dimensions in some of these models, curled up or otherwise.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Further to:

JudgeMental said:

https://www.quora.com/In-string-theory-what-does-it-mean-that-spatial-dimensions-are-curled-up-How-can-a-dimension-be-confined-in-a-space-when-it-is-itself-describing-a-space#:~:text=If%20you%20think%20about%20a,wraps%20back%20around%20on%20itself.

Link.

There was a little bit of sarc there.

:-)

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Further to:

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

They can both be described in natural language¡

SCIENCE said:

Don’t know about all that but in the fields that we work in we do computations with vectors of many dimensions so there could be 2000 dimensions in some of these models, curled up or otherwise.

Well yes, I spend my days observing my computer calculating 1000+ dimensional spaces, but I still don’t get the curled up concept.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Further to:

The link says:
What it means is that the dimensions, which are like length, width, and height, don’t have much distance. If you think about a pencil drawing on a piece of paper, you might think it’s two-dimensional, but it isn’t, the third dimension is just so tiny that you don’t notice it. When scientists say a dimension is curled up, what they mean is that it wraps back around on itself. The idea is that, of something was small enough to traverse the dimension it wouldn’t be able to travel very far in that direction before it ended up back where it started, but also, that distance is so small that even electrons won’t fit (their wavelength is too big), but maybe some extremely short wavelength light can (though what that would mean to how the light behaves, I don’t know).

To which I say, if a dimension is curled up to a tiny point within 3D space, how is that a new dimension, rather than a point within 3D space?

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

They can both be described in natural language¡

Don’t know about all that but in the fields that we work in we do computations with vectors of many dimensions so there could be 2000 dimensions in some of these models, curled up or otherwise.

Well yes, I spend my days observing my computer calculating 1000+ dimensional spaces, but I still don’t get the curled up concept.

Good point, we retract our earlier and issue the following correction.

They can both be misleadingly or inaccurately or simplistically or otherwise unhelpfully described in natural language¡

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Most analogies don’t bear close analysis

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

I made a swiss roll, he was not happy being pushed down that hill

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But surely an analogy must have some similarities to the thing they are analogous to, or they wouldn’t be an analogy?

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

String theory is probably shit anyway so alas I can’t bother to uncurl this is greater detail.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Imagine an analogy is a a rollmop

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

String theory is probably shit anyway so alas I can’t bother to uncurl this is greater detail.

Takes back the “Good” :)

Maybe we’re all overthinking it and all they meant was that the spatial dimensions were all subject to a ∇ × operation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You mean an analogy is an analogy of a rollmop, or a rollmop is an analogy of an analogy?

Either way, I’m not sure how it helps.

String theory is probably shit anyway so alas I can’t bother to uncurl this is greater detail.

Takes back the “Good” :)

But where does stringy shit belong on the Bristol chart anyway¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

String theory is probably shit anyway so alas I can’t bother to uncurl this is greater detail.

Takes back the “Good” :)

But where does stringy shit belong on the Bristol chart anyway¿

Proctologists have fought wars over this decision

SCIENCE said:

Maybe we’re all overthinking it and all they meant was that the spatial dimensions were all subject to a ∇ × operation.

You will no doubt be horrified to learn that I had to look up ∇ × operation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Maybe we’re all overthinking it and all they meant was that the spatial dimensions were all subject to a ∇ × operation.

You will no doubt be horrified to learn that I had to look up ∇ × operation.

The nabla is used in vector calculus as part of three distinct differential operators: the gradient (∇), the divergence (∇⋅), and the curl (∇×). The last of these uses the cross product and thus makes sense only in three dimensions; the first two are fully general. They were all originally studied in the context of the classical theory of electromagnetism, and contemporary university physics curricula typically treat the material using approximately the concepts and notation found in Gibbs and Wilson’s Vector Analysis.

Can you 3d print it out ?

String theorists aren’t very good with words, so when they talk to you about “curled up dimensions” just watch what they do with their hands, that’ll give you an idea.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23197/how-can-one-imagine-curled-up-dimensions