Quantum Probability

[MigL]

The fact that my post doesn't make sense to you has very little to do with actual physics and more to do with your lack of understanding.

Do some research before putting your ignorance on display for all to see.

[SamBridge]

The fact that my post doesn't make sense to you has very little to do with actual physics and more to do with your lack of understanding.

Do some research before putting your ignorance on display for all to see.

Or instead of being pompous you could just be logical and try explain in greater detail with a higher clarity what you meant in your post

[MigL]

Sorry I apologise for being pompous ( not the word I would have used but... ).

 

I suppose the simplest way to see it is to imagine a sphere and extend angles from the origin to the surface so that an area on the surface of the sphere is defined. If we now extend the radius of the sphere to twice the original, we find the area subtended by the same angles is now four times larger. In effect any field density will now be spread over a four times larger area. It will be four times weaker than at the original ( half ) radius. This is the three dimensional case.

 

We can repeat it in two dimensions with a circle, where we find the arc length subtended by a given angle increases linearly with radius of the circle. The field density in the 2d case falls off with the radius, ie ( n-1 ).

 

This can also be shown in 4, 5, 6... dimensions, but is a lot harder to explain without math, or to visualise.

 

This is accepted physics and can be easily looked up, that is what I meant by ignorance. I meant no disrespect.

And the first line of my pompous post was just a 'play' on your dismissal of my previous post. You have earned my respect by asking for more detail and clarity, not just escalating the argument.

Edited January 22, 2013 by MigL

[Gen1GT]

The fact that my post doesn't make sense to you has very little to do with actual physics and more to do with your lack of understanding.

Do some research before putting your ignorance on display for all to see.

 

Isn't this very topic the essense of internet messageboards? The whole point is that I don't understand and am happy for the many here whom are willing to explain it for me. Just because you were apparently born with this knowledge ingrained in your brain, it doesn't mean I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

[SamBridge]

Sorry I apologise for being pompous ( not the word I would have used but... ).

 

I suppose the simplest way to see it is to imagine a sphere and extend angles from the origin to the surface so that an area on the surface of the sphere is defined. If we now extend the radius of the sphere to twice the original, we find the area subtended by the same angles is now four times larger. In effect any field density will now be spread over a four times larger area. It will be four times weaker than at the original ( half ) radius. This is the three dimensional case.

 

We can repeat it in two dimensions with a circle, where we find the arc length subtended by a given angle increases linearly with radius of the circle. The field density in the 2d case falls off with the radius, ie ( n-1 ).

 

This can also be shown in 4, 5, 6... dimensions, but is a lot harder to explain without math, or to visualise.

 

This is accepted physics and can be easily looked up, that is what I meant by ignorance. I meant no disrespect.

And the first line of my pompous post was just a 'play' on your dismissal of my previous post. You have earned my respect by asking for more detail and clarity, not just escalating the argument.

What you're saying can make sense based on the context, the probability distribution of a particle in a particle location approaches 0 as the multiple of planks constant for the frequency approaches infinity, but of course at nodal surfaces themselves the probability actually is 0, and such mathematics could be applied to gauge bosons or higg's bosons (but not in exactly the same way), but based on my knowledge there is no consequence of gravity's field strength with distance by adding another dimension. All a dimension is, is a geometrical way to describe the location of something, the correlation of gravity and distance will be true in d dimension space even if you had 100 dimensions. I could be wrong about that though, but I haven't heard of anything like that. Perhaps different dimensions at some point would have to imply a change on the locations of other dimensions that would cause measurements to differ, but as far as I know, gravity is still gravity, as long as 4 dimensions are in consideration, gravity will still do whatever it does with those 4 dimensions.

But perhaps there is something I don't understand, I'm pretty sure I"m right, but perhaps adding dimensions can change on the coordinates of particles can change when traveling through "n" dimensional space.

I think what it more has do to is with what will make the mathematics work. All you need for the mathematics of gravity to work is 4 coordinates to describe how space-time warps at any specific point, so it shouldn't matter if there are more dimensions.

You should look into it more though, because perhaps there have been more recent theories that predict that gravity needs more than 4 coordinates to describe how space-time warps in order for it to work the way it currently works, but that's really the only time I can think of where what you're saying would be a valid point in any way.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[MigL]

Agreed. My mistake Gen1GT,

Edited January 22, 2013 by MigL

[MigL]

Sorry it took so long to get back, Sam, but a simple google search along the lines of " how do dimensions affect gravity" will bring up current ideas and research into compactified extra dimensions and the possible resultant increase in gravitational strength at small distances ( Planck scale ). Other ideas involve gravity 'leaking' between branes due to some possible peculiarities of gravitons compared to other bosons in various string theory 'versions'.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Sorry it took so long to get back, , but ..........

 

 

Have you got your head around the probability issue with your research ? If so, can you share it , as it is a fascinating subject, which I think, but I am not sure, may have some connections with the idea of REALITY.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SamBridge]

Sorry it took so long to get back, Sam, but a simple google search along the lines of " how do dimensions affect gravity" will bring up current ideas and research into compactified extra dimensions and the possible resultant increase in gravitational strength at small distances ( Planck scale ). Other ideas involve gravity 'leaking' between branes due to some possible peculiarities of gravitons compared to other bosons in various string theory 'versions'.

Yeah there's all sorts of fringe theories and things like string theories that use membranes, with plank distances at that scale gravity still acts how it acts its just that the chaotic nature of the complex manifolds in multi-dimensional space may cause slight variances at that scale, but that variance could only be measured from what would be a normal strength.