1. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
By observing the electrons, their Schroedinger wave function collapses, and they display particle properties. To say that the particle is a 0 dimensional point (standard model) or a 1-dimensional string is simply a convenient mathematical constuct for an approximation of their behaviour which appears to be sufficient for our needs. But these are so small they can not be observed (which is convenient), but unless direct experimental proof of their existence can be shown, they remain just math.
I don't believe that answers my question. However we model their behavior, they presumably have some real nature, which our model may or may not match. Why does that nature have to be three dimensional in order for them to interact with each other?

2. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
By observing the electrons, their Schroedinger wave function collapses, and they display particle properties. To say that the particle is a 0 dimensional point (standard model) or a 1-dimensional string is simply a convenient mathematical constuct for an approximation of their behaviour which appears to be sufficient for our needs. But these are so small they can not be observed (which is convenient), but unless direct experimental proof of their existence can be shown, they remain just math.
What does it mean for an object to be 3-dimensional? Well, for one thing, it must have a measurable size. Atoms, nuclei and nucleons have sizes and we have measured them. To call an electron 3-dimensional we would have to measure its size. I could challenge you as to the size of the electron, and we could get into such things as the classical electron radius (something that lyndonashmore believed was real and significant) and the Compton length but that won't be necessary. If the electron has a "size", the Compton wavelength is probably the best estimate.

Let's go back to the example of me jumping into a swimming pool. Yes, I leave bubbles but I also make waves. In principle if we measured the spectrum of the waves in the pool before I jumped and compared it with spectra taken at various times while I am in the water it may be possible to determine that there is some volume where there is no water and infer from it that some three-dimensional object displaced that water. It would be a terrible waste of the computing power at CERN or Fermilab but in principle it could be done.

So how do we measure the size of a particle? By scattering other particles off of it. In the case of atoms we can scatter electrons off them and see that the scattering is non-elastic indicating that atoms appear "mushy" to electrons. In his famous experiment Ernest Rutherford tried scattering alpha particles (helium nuclei) off gold atoms in a thin foil. Instead of the "mushy" scattering that his "plum pudding" model of the atom suggested, he found that some of the alpha particles scattered backwards, more appropriate for "hard" elastic scattering. This indicated that the positively-charged part of the atom was not "mushy" at the scale of atomic distances.

Similar scattering experiments have shown that at some energy level, even the nucleus appears mushy and so do the individual nucleons. We can speak of measuring its size.

Well, what about the electron? We can bounce electrons of ever-higher energies off it and measure scattering according to the Klein-Nishina formula for energies up to a certain point. We can also bounce photons off it according to the Compton scattering formula, again up to a point. This indicates that the electron is point-like up to a certain energy. What energy is this? About 1 MeV, the point at which we are adding enough energy to create an electron-positron pair. This is the point at which I have to say the electron is no longer point-like. From this energy on I have to be concerned with structure functions of the electron.

Notice that this notion of size is not like the notion of size of an atom, nucleus or nucleon. The size of a nucleon is determined by wavefunctions of the components. The "size" of the electron is determined by the length scale at which quantum mechanical effects appear and prevent us from making any more precise measurements of size.

Eta C, please feel free to correct this as necessary.

3. I know! We'll fill a tub with water right to the brim, then put in an electron and... uh.. measure the... uh...

Never mind. :wink:

4. The standard model of QM is an incomplete theory. For all practical purposes, it serves us very well, until we get down to the Planck length. The still evolving M-theory, which needs verfication, shows promise of being another step ahead. It is another chinese box we have opened, and is most probably not the last one. Both QM and M-theory model particles in a abstract, mathematical fashion. Sure we could say the models represent reality since the theories work so well in most cases. But it would be evading the question.

Why does a particle have to be 3D? We live in a 3D universe. Matter and energy are interchangeable. They must occupy space in our universe. Why would we even need space if particles and energy were 0 dimensionall? Does not make sense to me.

5. Originally Posted by Donnie B.
I know! We'll fill a tub with water right to the brim, then put in an electron and... uh.. measure the... uh...

Never mind. :wink:
This only demonstrates our limitations, but the idea in principle is correct. 8)

6. hummm

I would put it to all of you, that scientists... are the most arrogant and big headed people on earth... why??
because they specialise in their education, which justifys their behavior generally.. which in case none of you have noticed is generally mean.

As theorists, you just love crushing other peoples stupid ideas..
come on, admit it. its part of the kick that knowledge brings.

but... im sorry... i quess in truth... what i propose as a unifying field theory is anything but "proven" truth...

its just an idea. an idea, i came up with after over 7 years of study, while wired out of my mind, and getting little sleep.

take it as you will... its a story of a progressive pattern.
one that is so simple i have truoble explaining it... so it seems.

first of all... an electron must be three dimensional, otherwise it could not interact with three dimensional things...

i.e.. a 2 dimensional object can cut threw the entire planet and leave no trace of its passing... an electron cannot do that.

i do propose however that all matter is made up of spatial tension.

i.e.. for so long people have wondered at the fundamental particle..

when if you think about it... science began with the study of static phenomena....

we know for a fact that electostatic fields exist, and they are one dimensional.... it has no mass;.... it is pure energy.

nothing can be smaller than an electrostatic tension, unless it is a fragment of a line of tension.

thus i propose that the fourth dimension formed both time, as a spatial constant of motion, and the fundametal partical as spatial tension.

can anyone else explain the 4th dimension? other than me?

-MT

7. well, according to everything I've ever read, it's time.

8. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
As theorists, you just love crushing other peoples stupid ideas..
come on, admit it. its part of the kick that knowledge brings.
You're still confusing criticism with abuse. No one's trying to be mean to you Mosheh.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
its a story of a progressive pattern.
one that is so simple i have truoble explaining it... so it seems.
That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? Now's your chance to shine, but you keep saying it's simple without ever explaining...

Pretend for a moment that we just don't follow you, and explain. (That goes for the pictures too, because to me they are just lines and squiggles with no explanation attached. I thought they were part of your signature at first!).

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
first of all... an electron must be three dimensional, otherwise it could not interact with three dimensional things...
Did you read the posts above? A point-electron can still interact electrostatically with the rest of the universe.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
i.e.. a 2 dimensional object can cut threw the entire planet and leave no trace of its passing...
You have some evidence of this? I didn't know that 2D objects had even been shown to exist!

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
we know for a fact that electostatic fields exist, and they are one dimensional.... it has no mass;.... it is pure energy.
Since where are electrostatic fields 1D? They were defintely 3D last time I looked.

9. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I would put it to all of you, that scientists... are the most arrogant and big headed people on earth...
Whoa!

Y'mean scientists beat out politicians, actors and televangelists!?!

Aw'right! =D>

10. Re: Mosheh Thezion's cosmology

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
 but... im sorry... i quess in truth... what i propose as a unifying field theory is anything but "proven" truth...
What you've presented so far would indicate that this statement is correct.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
its just an idea. an idea, i came up with after over 7 years of study, while wired out of my mind, and getting little sleep.
This sounds more like a good way to experience hallucinations and delusions, and less like a good way to perform scientific research.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
take it as you will... its a story of a progressive pattern.
one that is so simple i have truoble explaining it... so it seems.
See the prior quote for reasons why this may be so.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
first of all... an electron must be three dimensional, otherwise it could not interact with three dimensional things...

i.e.. a 2 dimensional object can cut threw the entire planet and leave no trace of its passing... an electron cannot do that.

i do propose however that all matter is made up of spatial tension.

i.e.. for so long people have wondered at the fundamental particle..

when if you think about it... science began with the study of static phenomena....

we know for a fact that electostatic fields exist, and they are one dimensional.... it has no mass;.... it is pure energy.

nothing can be smaller than an electrostatic tension, unless it is a fragment of a line of tension.
Lots of speculation, mostly conflicting with current Physics, but no evidence to support these claims has been provided.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
thus i propose that the fourth dimension formed both time, as a spatial constant of motion, and the fundametal partical as spatial tension.

can anyone else explain the 4th dimension? other than me?

-MT
Lots of physicists and mathematicians have explained the fourth dimension, not only quite satisfactorily but with theories that have stood up when tested. Here's a simple example. Re "other than me?", well, despite your apparent claim to have some kind of special insight into the workings of the universe, we have yet to see anything in the way of objective evidence supporting this claim. You have explained nothing.

In general, these threads remind me of the main tune to Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie. As Arlo would say, if you wait, the tune will come around again eventually. Just wait 'til it comes around again. Ah, here we go

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant.

BTW, that "hummm" seems to be getting more prevalent, MT. Checkup highly recommended.

11. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Why does a particle have to be 3D? We live in a 3D universe. Matter and energy are interchangeable. They must occupy space in our universe. Why would we even need space if particles and energy were 0 dimensionall? Does not make sense to me.
The discussion of estimates on the electrons size based on it's wavelength is interesting, but I'm more interested in this argument of logical necessity. What does matter and energy being interchangeable have to do with whether the electron is three dimensional? Energy doesn't seem to have any dimensionality of its own. Why is it logically necessary that objects within space are of the same dimensionality as space itself? Space having more than zero dimensions just seems to allow objects to not all be in the same spot.

Originally Posted by Donnie B.
I know! We'll fill a tub with water right to the brim, then put in an electron and... uh.. measure the... uh...

Never mind. :wink:
Originally Posted by gzhpcu
This only demonstrates our limitations, but the idea in principle is correct. 8)
But of course, as far as we can tell, the only limit to the number of electrons I could squeeze into one place is the amount of energy I need to apply to keep them there. For particles which are bosons and not electrically charged, this is even easier, since we seem to be able to squeeze as many as we want into one place without limit.

I believe, though, that you still haven't really answered my question about why a particle would logically need to be three dimensional to interact with another particle.

12. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,539
The energy and particles could be a deformation of the space. In this case the space should be something substantives, If the space would be deformed (warped) , we can easy explain why the velocity of the light (information) is constant . The high energy space has just more shorter elements.
It is my private idea only.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2004
Posts
880

Re: hummm

Mosheh, Maksutov has done a fine job of critiquing your most recent posting, but I'd like to comment further on this:
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I would put it to all of you, that scientists... are the most arrogant and big headed people on earth... why??
because they specialise in their education, which justifys their behavior generally.. which in case none of you have noticed is generally mean.
Mosheh, I'm guessing you've never submitted papers for peer review. I have. It can be very, very ugly. Any weak points in one's argument get pounced on, and the process can feel like a mugging. And that's the positive reviews.

But the point is that it's the arguments which are attacked, not the authors. I think that's what we've done here - if you feel you've been personally attacked, show us where, and I'm sure the person responsible will apologise.

Furthermore, the best response to criticism of your ideas isn't to complain about how horrible everyone is (at least not in public). You should either produce additional evidence to support your argument, or withdraw it.

Remember, it's nothing personal.

14. I have taken the liberty of editing and cleaning up MT's comments in order to make them more readable and to make them look better than they are.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I would put it to all of you, that scientists are the most arrogant and big-headed people on Earth. Why?? Because of their specialized education, which justifies their behavior generally--which in case none of you have noticed is generally mean.
Mosheh, I am going to say a few things that need to be said. If you think that that is "being mean", then so be it.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
As theorists, you just love crushing other people's stupid ideas. Come on, admit it. It's part of the kick that knowledge brings.
Yes, I do love crushing stupid ideas. And there are plenty of stupid ideas out there that deserve crushing! Astrology, UFO "abductions", Creationism, Solid Solar Surface, Tired Light, Pushing Gravity, Eugenics, ... So much stupidity, so little time! Let me suggest that if you don't want to see your "stupid ideas" "crushed" maybe you should try coming up with some intelligent ones. It couldn't hurt!

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
But I'm sorry, I guess in truth what I propose as a unifying field theory is anything but "proven" truth. It's just an idea that I came up with after over seven years of study, while wired out of my mind, and getting little sleep.
Right there is one of the biggest objections that we have to your so-called "theory"--it is an incoherent product of a drug-addled mind. Those of us with any experience with drugs, whether personal or those of friends/family/acquaintances knows that nothing of any intellectual value comes from drugs. Any "insights" gained under the influence of drugs are just illusions--powerful, but still illusions. Whatever you do, DO NOT go back to the bong/pill/crack-pipe/whatever. Continue to rehabilitate yourself, and in particular start getting some good (non-drug-induced) SLEEP! After a year or two your brain will start repairing itself, and you can start reading some real physics.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
First of all, an electron must be three-dimensional, [snip!]
I'm not so sure, even though I have indicated in my reply to gzhpcu that quantum effects appear to give an electron a size. My own thinking on this is somewhat cloudy and subject to change. Oddly enough, something that most pseudo-scientists believe scientists incapable of. 8)

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I do propose however that all matter is made up of spatial tension.
One problem with your writing is that you use terms in non-standard ways without giving your definitions. The main examples I have are of "applied energy" and "quality of applied energy". Now in real physics we have kinetic energy and potential energy, and you will see energy identified as to its source such as gravititational energy and electromagnetic energy and rest mass energy, but nothing called "applied energy". Applied to what? And similarly with "quality" of energy. What is this "quality" that energy has? Is there only one "quality"? How do we measure it?

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
[Snip!]We know for a fact that electrostatic fields exist and they are one dimensional ...
How do we know that it is one-dimensional? For reasons that I have indicated assigning dimensionality to fundamental objects is a bit dicey.

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
... it has no mass, it is pure energy.
This is something that has always irritated me, and that is how so many people hear the word "energy" and their eyes glaze over and their minds turn to mystical mush. "Ooh, ooh, energy! Aum!" Spare me please. There is nothing mystical about energy. To me it is just the time-like component of the energy-momentum four-vector, and I don't ever see any New Age types going ga-ga over momentum!

I'm not going to critique your comment further. Please think about what I've written and don't go away from BABB in disgust. Stay around (remember that there is a website attached to this board, BTW) and resume learning.

15. Originally Posted by Grey
I believe, though, that you still haven't really answered my question about why a particle would logically need to be three dimensional to interact with another particle.
I am trying to actually. I can only give an answer that seems logical to me, that is: 0-,1- or 2-dimensional objects are only mathematical constructs. None have ever been detected. The current theories of physics model particles with 0 or 1 dimensions, but this is essentially etheral. It is nothing. If QM were right, for example, and the fundamental particles are 0-dimensional, they would occupy no 3D space. 0 dimensional space would be sufficient it seems to me.

IMHO: logic dictates that fundamental particles must have 3 dimensions. Matter has three dimensions. Where is the phase transition from 0 dimensional particles to matter as we know it?

16. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
I am trying to actually. I can only give an answer that seems logical to me, that is: 0-,1- or 2-dimensional objects are only mathematical constructs. None have ever been detected.
Are you sure? I would say that the elementary particles are all too small to say conclusively whether they are three dimensional solids, zero dimensional points, one dimensional strings, or something else entirely. So I think that you're assuming that they must be three dimensional, but I'd claim that you don't really have any data to back that assumption up.

Originally Posted by gzhpcu
If QM were right, for example, and the fundamental particles are 0-dimensional, they would occupy no 3D space. 0 dimensional space would be sufficient it seems to me.
It would be sufficient, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. For example, it would seem possible to me to have a universe that has five dimensional space filled with three dimensional objects. It doesn't look like that's the universe we live in, but there's no logical reason that such a universe is impossible, is there?

Originally Posted by gzhpcu
IMHO: logic dictates that fundamental particles must have 3 dimensions. Matter has three dimensions. Where is the phase transition from 0 dimensional particles to matter as we know it?
But we already know that what seems to be "solid" matter actually consists of very tiny particles, separated by a really large amount of empty space. So that would seem to be sufficient for the "phase transition" that you're talking about, regardless of the dimensionality of the fundamental particles.

17. once again MT...WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TRYING TO EXPLAIN??

I'm getting serious mrguitardeath flashbacks.

18. hummm

So, assuming we have lines of spatial tension which we know we do.

what if we roled one up?? like into a knot of some kind?

thus, my proposal for what electrons are.. made in the 12TH dimension.

i cant prove anything guys, and gals.. but if you'll sit back.. you'll hear a fanciful tale tale full of assumption and delusion but in the end it explains the universe and maybe along the way you will find a reason to smile.. or maybe two.

A roled up ball of tension.... dimensionally energized tension. get it?

-MT

19. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
A roled up ball of tension.... dimensionally energized tension. get it?
No!

20. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
[snip]... and maybe along the way you will find a reason to smile.. or maybe two.

Smile? Your last post has me doing a little more than just smiling.
A roled up ball of tension.... dimensionally energized tension. get it?
(Bold mine)

[Inigo Montoya voice]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo Montoya voice]

21. Originally Posted by Grey
Are you sure? I would say that the elementary particles are all too small to say conclusively whether they are three dimensional solids, zero dimensional points, one dimensional strings, or something else entirely. So I think that you're assuming that they must be three dimensional, but I'd claim that you don't really have any data to back that assumption up. [

It would be sufficient, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. For example, it would seem possible to me to have a universe that has five dimensional space filled with three dimensional objects. It doesn't look like that's the universe we live in, but there's no logical reason that such a universe is impossible, is there?

But we already know that what seems to be "solid" matter actually consists of very tiny particles, separated by a really large amount of empty space. So that would seem to be sufficient for the "phase transition" that you're talking about, regardless of the dimensionality of the fundamental particles.
The evidence I see, is that we have never physically detected zero dimensional points or one dimensional strings.

I have also never seen any evidence that we really have more than 3 physical dimensions. IMHO extra dimensions are also mathematical constructs. Nothing against mathematical constructs, mind you, as they are very helpful in providing working models of the universe.

The phase transition you mention is not what I am looking for. Since matter many orders of magnitude larger than the fundamental particles, the sheer number of particles will give an illusion of solid matter. But if the particles were 0 dimensional, no number of such particles would. Multiply any number by 0 and you still get zero.

22. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Laser Jock
[Inigo Montoya voice]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo Montoya voice]
the best part of that is that I'm listening to Sondheim selections right now. (including Sunday in the Park with George, starring Mandy Patinkin, now sadly reduced to cholesterol medication commercials.)

23. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
So, assuming we have lines of spatial tension which we know we do.
Of course we don't get it! On the very first line of your post you assume lines of spatial tension, which I/we don't, and I don't even know what a line of spatial tension is!

Please stop posting unannotated squiggles and explain just that first line to me....

24. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Gillianren
Originally Posted by Laser Jock
[Inigo Montoya voice]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo Montoya voice]
the best part of that is that I'm listening to Sondheim selections right now. (including Sunday in the Park with George, starring Mandy Patinkin, now sadly reduced to cholesterol medication commercials.)
Not for long!!
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/criminal_minds/

25. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
The evidence I see, is that we have never physically detected zero dimensional points or one dimensional strings.

I have also never seen any evidence that we really have more than 3 physical dimensions. ...
Just to jump in with a quick comment...

I'm not convinced we can detect any dimensions beyond ours.

Could a two-dimensionsal creature detect a third dimension? How, as it "doesn't exist except as a mathematical construct" in his/her/its realm? That doesn't mean it cannot exist, only that it cannot be detected. (Take a cube. Limit yourself to measuring width and length only, and tell me how you measure the cube's height except as a mathematical construct.)

Logically, furthermore, 0, 1, and 2 dimensions must exist because our realm has them, even if we are not able to detect their particles directly. (The cube exists in our realm. We can measure length, width and height, so they must exist; the third dimension is composed of the previous dimensions plus one.)

So far as electrons being 3 or something else dimensional, would it be possible for a 0, 1 or 2 dimensional particle to interact with a 3 dimensional one? (Open question, all responses appreciated.)

26. First, I probably shouldn't have taken this tangent, since I knew it might be an extended discussion. Since JohnW was kind enough to create a thread dedicated to discussing Mosheh's ideas, we should respect that. I'm taking this to a separate thread, if that's alright. I'm not sure where to put it, so I'll leave it in Against the Mainstream. You can find it here. Apologies to both JohnW and Mosheh Thezion.

27. Originally Posted by Jim
Originally Posted by gzhpcu
The evidence I see, is that we have never physically detected zero dimensional points or one dimensional strings.

I have also never seen any evidence that we really have more than 3 physical dimensions. ...
Just to jump in with a quick comment...

I'm not convinced we can detect any dimensions beyond ours.

Could a two-dimensionsal creature detect a third dimension? How, as it "doesn't exist except as a mathematical construct" in his/her/its realm? That doesn't mean it cannot exist, only that it cannot be detected. (Take a cube. Limit yourself to measuring width and length only, and tell me how you measure the cube's height except as a mathematical construct.)

Logically, furthermore, 0, 1, and 2 dimensions must exist because our realm has them, even if we are not able to detect their particles directly. (The cube exists in our realm. We can measure length, width and height, so they must exist; the third dimension is composed of the previous dimensions plus one.)

So far as electrons being 3 or something else dimensional, would it be possible for a 0, 1 or 2 dimensional particle to interact with a 3 dimensional one? (Open question, all responses appreciated.)
One of the cosmological models based on M-theory speculates that all fundamental particles (except the graviton, which is a closed string) have their end points attached to our 3D brane (universe), and as such can not detect other dimensions. But this is pure speculation.

But how can we really speak of 0, 1 or 2 dimensional particles? These have never been detected. In our physical world, we have 3 spatial dimensions as coordinates.

28. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
But how can we really speak of 0, 1 or 2 dimensional particles? These have never been detected. In our physical world, we have 3 spatial dimensions as coordinates.
Responded to here.

29. Thank you Grey for moving this discussion on to another thread.

30. Re: hummm

Originally Posted by Jim
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I would put it to all of you, that scientists... are the most arrogant and big headed people on earth...
Whoa!

Y'mean scientists beat out politicians, actors and televangelists!?!

Aw'right! =D>
Of course.. a scientists ego is justified... he has real power.. knowledge.
politicians, actors and especially tele-evangelists.. live, and make their entire career based on lieing.....
politicians lie.. we all know that.
Actors, are real good liers.. And get paid to do so.. better lies = more \$
Teleevangelists.. spin tales and misery and Jesus and anything else they need to, to convince you to give them money.

Scientists are not like any of those... scientists are cool.

and as such... tend to get full of themselves...
the more you think you know what you believe, the more you are blindly believing.

-MT

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•