What about elementary particles? Does an electron have depth? — ucarr
What about them? What are you asking? proton's and neutrons are not fundamentals, Electrons are, as are quarks and gluons.What about quarks and gluons, mere fractional parts of elementary particles, with fractional charges? — ucarr
Why? In what way does such as quantum entanglement, superposition or tunnelling, clash with 3d?At the sub-atomic scale it’s probably hard to talk about the three spatial dimensions of the human-scale of experience, given the unusual and startling attributes of quantum mechanical physics. — ucarr
No (Imo) but it's very useful in mathematical modelling.If we imagine an authentically 1D or 2D object in our 3D world, can it have any workable reality? — ucarr
In flat land (2D) you cannot move up or down.How could you move a 1D or 2D object absent the third dimension of depth? — ucarr
You couldn't, (EDIT: apart from squishing it, ultimately into a pointlike configuration,) just like we cant project a 3D object into a 4th dimension, regardless of whether or not a 4th dimension is macro, or is wrapped around every set of 3D spacetime coordinates.Likewise, how could you bend or reconfigure such a physical object without the third dimension of depth? — ucarr
You could use the very overburdened label 'metaphysical,' for such, imo, if you want to, but you invite the supernatural woo woo, associated with the term, if you do.Given our apparent human entrapment within an empirical experience of 3D, does that entrapment render the first two spatial dimensions of our real world as metaphysical objects? — ucarr
What about quarks and gluons, mere fractional parts of elementary particles, with fractional charges? — ucarr
What about them? What are you asking? proton's and neutrons are not fundamentals, Electrons are, as are quarks and gluons. — universeness
Given our apparent human entrapment within an empirical experience of 3D, does that entrapment render the first two spatial dimensions of our real world as metaphysical objects? — ucarr
You could use the very overburdened label 'metaphysical,' for such, imo, if you want to, but you invite the supernatural woo woo, associated with the term, if you do. — universeness
:up:You've answered my questions with useful info. Thank-you. — ucarr
I don't know what you mean by these words.I'm asking whether these existentially -- right? — ucarr
I don't know what you mean by 'fractional quarks,' a quark is not 'fractional' unless you simply mean that they combine to make a proton or a neutron an in that sense they are 'part' of a hadron structure.fractional quarks and gluons are expanded into three spatial dimensions. Is the answer similar to your answer re: the 3D shape of the electron? — ucarr
What do you say to the following reformulation: Given our apparent human entrapment within an empirical experience of 3D, does that entrapment render the first two spatial dimensions of our real world as abstract objects known solely a priori? — ucarr
I'm asking whether these existentially -- right? — ucarr
I don't know what you mean by these words. — universeness
I'm asking whether these existentially -- right? -- fractional quarks... — ucarr
Yes, quarks are 3D field excitations. A proton is made of 3 quarks, 2 'up' quarks and 1 down quark. Held together by gluons. There are no free quarks, all quarks are 'bound up.' — universeness
Well, I would ask, why you are differentiating is any sense between the 3 dimensions we 'empirically experience?' Why would 'two' spatial dimensions be abstract and another real? All three have equal 'significance of presence' and all three are experienced equally by humans (although up/down could be considered a different experience to forwards/backwards and side to side, I suppose).
I don't see how you can connect a dimension of space with the concept of an 'object'. An object can have dimensions but I don't see how it can be posited AS a dimension. Perhaps I am missing your main 'philosophical' point here. Can you exemplify further? — universeness
Why would 'two' spatial dimensions be abstract and another real? — universeness
Do the fractional charges of quarks play an essential role in the outer boundary of a quark's field excitations? — ucarr
No, because I think Gell-Mann is wrong.Does Gell-Mann answer my question by identifying quarks as purely mathematical entities? — ucarr
Only imaginary realms or mathematical realms not 'real' ones, imo. Such realms can be modelled but not realised within our universe. If string theory is correct and we have more that 3 dimensions in THIS universe then none of those extra dimensions are macro (or extended dimensions.) They are all posited are dimensions which are all wrapped around every 3D coordinate in our universe. The calibi-yau manifolds are an attempt to display a 2D representation of a multi-dimensional space. The following is a 2D representation of a 6D space (that I admit, means nothing to me, as it just looks like an interesting shape, that I don't understand, at all!)Does the material universe have a one-dimensional realm? Does it have a two-dimensional realm? — ucarr
For three-dimensional humans, are these realms, if extant, inaccessible? — ucarr
Yes, I think so. It's similar to the current debate on exactly what 'virtual particles' are. Some very learned people say they are 'real' (kinda makes the word 'virtual' confusing) and others say they are only mathematical (I would agree). I think vp's really help in explaining what is going on at a quantum level.then do we have reason to see that Gell-Mann, by characterizing quarks as purely mathematical entities, creates some distortion of truth via simplification for the sake of clarity? — ucarr
By definition, elementary particles cannot have parts.mere fractional parts of elementary particles — ucarr
I don't know in what way you might consider a quark to be fractional (or worse, 'ontically fractional;) other than it being a part of something non-fundamental like a proton. I also don't know what you're trying to convey with the phrase "expanding into .. dimensions". You seem to be trying to apply classic properties to quantum entities, which doesn't make sense. A quark doesn't have meaningful size, but a pair of them might have a meaningful separation.fractional quarks and gluons are expanded into three spatial dimensions — ucarr
It is meaningful to talk about fractional charge, like a helium nucleus has 2/3 the charge of a lithium nucleus. Again, I don't know what you mean by boundaries of a field excitation. A field is arguably 4D, so the title of this topic might be about being trapped in a 4D world. I don't think an excitation has anything that can meaningfully be considered a boundary. An electron for instance might be measured anywhere with finite probability.Do the fractional charges of quarks play an essential role in the outer boundary of a quark's field excitations? — ucarr
mere fractional parts of elementary particles — ucarr
By definition, elementary particles cannot have parts. — noAxioms
fractional quarks and gluons are expanded into three spatial dimensions — ucarr
I don't know in what way you might consider a quark to be fractional (or worse, 'ontically fractional;) other than it being a part of something non-fundamental like a proton. — noAxioms
Do the fractional charges of quarks play an essential role in the outer boundary of a quark's field excitations? — ucarr
It is meaningful to talk about fractional charge, like a helium nucleus has 2/3 the charge of a lithium nucleus. — noAxioms
...I don't know what you mean by boundaries of a field excitation. A field is arguably 4D, so the title of this topic might be about being trapped in a 4D world. I don't think an excitation has anything that can meaningfully be considered a boundary. An electron for instance might be measured anywhere with finite probability. — noAxioms
A field is arguably 4D, so the title of this topic might be about being trapped in a 4D world. I don't think an excitation has anything that can meaningfully be considered a boundary. An electron for instance might be measured anywhere with finite probability. — noAxioms
An electron for instance might be measured anywhere with finite probability. — noAxioms
What entrapment? — Zettel
..."metaphysical objects" is an oxymoron — Zettel
You still haven't defined what you mean by 'ontically fractional', so the question is unanswerable. The numbers assigned to the charges of various things are just conventions. They could just as easily have assigned charges of -7, +14 +21 and -21 to down and up quarks, protons and electrons respectively. There's nothing special about where they assigned '1'.Does this tell me that a charge can be considered fractional in a ratio with another charge but not ontically fractional in of itself? — ucarr
Fields are 'the value of something at various points in space (or spacetime)'. Since a field by definition covers all of space, it would not seem to have a boundary. The EM field for instance cannot just stop somewhere, beyond which there are no EM effects. I think you're talking about not the field, but a given quantum excitation of one, but then the word 'boundary' only has classical meaning and I cannot figure out how to apply it to a quantum entity.I've been assuming energy fields have some type of physically real boundary. Am I wrong about this?
Spacetime has a time dimension, not a 4th spatial one. Certain higher theories like string theory posit more spatial dimensions, but they're not macroscopic like the three we know.We humans have reason to believe our world includes a fourth spatial dimension
Doesn't have to be just like the 3 you know don't need to be orthogonal. Making them so just makes the mathematics far simpler. The time dimension is perpendicular to the spatial axes, but the specific direction it goes is an abstract choice. Once 3 dimensions are defined, the 4th no- longer has any choice if they're all to be orthogonal.I've heard a claim the fourth spatial dimension is perpendicular to the other three spatial dimensions.
Didn't understand any of that. Work from the back: what theories, how are they evolving, and in what way is that relevant to the rest of this?I can now explain that the root of my inquiry pertains to the whereness -- I hope you can tolerate the neo-logism -- of material objects and how the perception of whereness is being modified by evolving theories.
Does this tell me that a charge can be considered fractional in a ratio with another charge but not ontically fractional in of itself? — ucarr
You still haven't defined what you mean by 'ontically fractional', so the question is unanswerable. — noAxioms
The numbers assigned to the charges of various things are just conventions. — noAxioms
Since a field by definition covers all of space, it would not seem to have a boundary. — noAxioms
I've not heard any suggestion of a 4th macroscopic spatial dimension. It only takes 3 coordinates to define any point in space, so you'd have to demonstrate that to be incorrect. — noAxioms
But I did it with integers, so I guess it's not 'ontically fractional'.An ontically fractional electric charge is my attempt to describe an energy field that can only be accurately mathematically modeled to experimental observation by assignment of a fraction, and not by an integer. — ucarr
I don't see elementary particles with charges with those ratios, so no.Given this convention, could someone, by convention alone, assign -1/2, -1/3, -1/4... as numbers assigned to the charges of various elementary particles?
Yes, they are. Both moon and Earth contribute to the gravitational field, and their influence is not bounded, just like a = GM/r² never falls to zero regardless of how distant (r) you get from it.Does it follow from this that what we call the gravitational field of the earth and the gravitational field of its moon are really one gravitational field?
Depends on your definition of being real. I certainly don't see any hypercubes in this universe, but it indeed would take 4 coordinates to define a point within one.Does this tell me the hypercube is not a real entity, just an imaginary object of science fiction?
Evaporation of a black hole doesn't contradict energy conservation. It all comes back as radiation.Susskind's debate with Hawking re: the conservation of energy of material objects consumed by a black hole and the claims black holes are animate and eventually evaporate add complexity to the facts about where things are ultimately within spacetime.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.