Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks?

Posted by rtharbaugh on September 13, 2003 at 17:59:32:

In Reply to: Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks? posted by quantumwhip on September 13, 2003 at 14:11:42:

qw,

I suppose by dwarfed you mean the same thing that most current thinkers seem to refer to as compactified. I am not, myself, much in favor of compactification as a solution to the extra dimensions problem, unless it is possible that compactification can be seen as the same thing as the reduction in size we percieve in objects that are made distant in 3d space. Only in compactification, the distance is in a dimension other than the usual 3. We see it as much smaller, but in its own relitive terms, it is not changed, any more than people on shore are compactified when observed by people on a ship at sea. I object then to the term compactified since it is much too active a term, as one might compactify snow to make a snowball. Unfortunately "dwarfed" may be even further from the mark, as it is already used to indicate genetic mutations that result in smaller than usual sizes of plants and animals. I am almost certain that you do not wish to imply that compactified extra dimensions are the result of changes in genetic structure.

Thanks for being here,

Richard

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :