Is empty space made of 1-dimensional strings?

Which is something someone with a brain might know about, you think?
That a model and a theory are the same thing, as you generally learn, you know, in school.

So if the big guy asks: "what's the difference", the answer is: "there isn't any".
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
Spacetime is a field. EM is a quantised, or quantisable field (quantum field for short), which is part of spacetime.
The Higgs field is presumed to be the part that mass quanta come from, since mass and charge appear together, they must both be integral parts of spacetime.

What dimensions does spacetime have?
Click to expand...

Apparently, at least 10 under string theory.
 
Quantum mechanics and physics is defined as the relation of all parts of science.

x, y, z, a, b, c, d, e = energy, time and matter. Matter has been proven that if its resonance changes it too changes the density of the matter. There are 10 demensions. The variables are represented into the configuration of sphereical arrangement. I have no clue how else this may be figured for even a string can rap into a ball.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Apparently, at least 10 under string theory.
Click to expand...
Ok, but under normal conditions, we see three dimensions (not one or two) spatially, and one of time? That looks like 3 + 1 dimensions.
The other 6 (or 3 + 3) aren't seen because they are short-range - only seen at a fundamental level (like the Planck level).

So Einsteinian spacetime has 3 + 1 dimensions, In GR, the time dimension can swap places with a spatial dimension (time and space are indistinguishable, or generally relative). At the anthropic scale (non-relativistic), time and space are definitely distinguishable. Aren't they?
 
They are different from each other but affect each other, the same as acceleration affects your speed. They too are different but coordinate with each other. Space's relativity is directly up to your coordinates, but time is determined by the celestial masses in your coordinates.
 
Vkothii said:
Ok, but under normal conditions, we see three dimensions (not one or two) spatially, and one of time? That looks like 3 + 1 dimensions.
The other 6 (or 3 + 3) aren't seen because they are short-range - only seen at a fundamental level (like the Planck level).

So Einsteinian spacetime has 3 + 1 dimensions, In GR, the time dimension can swap places with a spatial dimension (time and space are indistinguishable, or generally relative). At the anthropic scale (non-relativistic), time and space are definitely distinguishable. Aren't they?
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. But, back to my question. Why do physicists distinguish between dimension and quantum fields? Are there fewer dimensions? Can dimensions be finite in size, whereas quantum fields are infinite in size?
 
Ah, good question sir. the size of everything is finite, therefore even quantum fields are finite. Can you imagine a string of the smallest size dubbed epsilon with having only distance. But even this string can make shapes. As said, even a string may wrap into a sphere.

A quantum field must take into consideration ALL aspects of science not just physics, but thermodynamics, magnetics, ect. as said by the definition of quantum.

The human mind can barely imagine the fourth, what makes you or any other think we can go further? We will understand one, two, three and four, but five and so on are yet not ours.
 
John J. B said:
Can dimensions be finite in size, whereas quantum fields are infinite in size?
Click to expand...
There are two fields we know about with infinite extent, or range (in which interactions occur). There are also two more we know about with finite range (the scale of nuclei).

The first two have been introduced already, and are explained classically with special and general relativity. The other two are the weak and the strong force - the weak force is actually the electroweak interaction, which includes the infinite-range electromagnetic interaction.
Or one of these fields has two kinds of interaction, a very short-range, and a very long-range interaction, at different energies.

Or another way to say that is the symmetry of the electroweak force is broken, at the current energy density (evolution) of the cosmos.
 
Vkothii said:
There are two fields we know about with infinite extent, or range (in which interactions occur). There are also two more we know about with finite range (the scale of nuclei).

The first two have been introduced already, and are explained classically with special and general relativity. The other two are the weak and the strong force - the weak force is actually the electroweak interaction, which includes the infinite-range electromagnetic interaction.
Or one of these fields has two kinds of interaction, a very short-range, and a very long-range interaction, at different energies.

Or another way to say that is the symmetry of the electroweak force is broken, at the current energy density (evolution) of the cosmos.
Click to expand...

Is there a separate dimension housing the finite quantum fields, such that you could say the dimension is finite, or are these finite quantum fields contained in an infinite dimension?
 
Now there is a possibility. The space that has not been expanded too still exists, does it not? It must or it could not expand. Therefor the expansion of the quantum field aka resonance of the big bang is still expanding into infinity. There could be high energy dimensions that we are not taking into consideration. As such if the sun were converted into pure gamma energy, would it not still warp the space around it? I believe so.
 
Cannon said:
Now there is a possibility. The space that has not been expanded too still exists, does it not? It must or it could not expand. Therefor the expansion of the quantum field aka resonance of the big bang is still expanding into infinity. There could be high energy dimensions that we are not taking into consideration. As such if the sun were converted into pure gamma energy, would it not still warp the space around it? I believe so.
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting question. However, there appears to be finite quantum fields responsible for the weak and strong forces within a larger (infinite?) quantum field responsible for gravity. How do you know which field is responsible for the expansion of space? Perhaps even a higher dimensional field. It may be a mistake to assume that because the Big Bang began as a finite size, then the quantum field responsible for the expansion of the universe is a finite size. It may also be a mistake to assume that field is an infinite size. I don't know. I know virtually nothing about quantum fields and that's why I am asking these questions, in order to learn more about them.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that Bannan and Canon are the same person, except one is posting from WI and one from PA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top