0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
er, well [] it's probably baloney, but, if time were to be jittery at subatomic scales, it might account for the uncertainty we observe in the position of subatomic particles. For example, electrons might have quite specific positions relative to the time frame of an atom, but because we can't properly "synchronize" with that time frame, we can can only assign a probability of an electron being at a position.That's about as far as this "theory" goes []
Surely movement in one spatial dimension can avoid any movement in another spatial dimension - we can move on the x axis and have y and z stay as zero. to me this is fairly axiomatic for spatial dimensions. you cannot give a value of x in terms of the y unit vector etc - but for every movement in the x axis there must be uncertainty (which is quantifiable). it still strikes me that uncertainty is much clearer and works as a mathematical tool when considered within the standard 3 spatial dimensions.
Greetings again Peppercorn, Null hypotheses: 1. Everything in your life today is certain. 2. So is everything in the life of everyone you know. 3. The future is entirely certain.Regards, Sandstone.
So what evidence is there for a macroscopic fifth dimension, ie. not one wrapped up to a sub-atomic diameter?And what has this theoretical additional dimension got to do with understanding the reasons behind the uncertainty principle? Are you saying that we would loose all the fuzziness of individual particles if we were 'standing' in four dims of space?If so I would say the idea has some aesthetic merit, but it would need a mathematically-consistent theory that could be tested against observations.
Peppercorn,Thank you for persevering. ....[followed by a lot of avoidance and irrelevance]
Dynamic systems require five measures in order to provide adequate description.
The point is science is already using a five-dimensional paradigm, but is refusing to admit that it is.
The fifth [dimensional space-time] is a concept in denial, which you have demonstrated with great vigour.
You say that we need to embrace 5 dimension of space-time-uncertainty but you are yet to explain why; we need one unexplained observation that is understandable through the new theory.