SciForums.com > Science > Physics & Math > The Lego Theory PDA View Full Version : The Lego Theory Post ReplyCreate New Thread Joeblow9313201-04-02, 06:39 PMThe Lego Theory: What if subatomic particles exist in 5 to 10 dimensions, but for some unknown reason, the can only stack themselves in three dimensions. The complex world(atoms, molecules, etc) would be much simpler than the subatomic world since it would have fewer dimensions. In other words, classical physics would be a sub-union of quantum physics. Heres an analogy that describes it better: Imagine if you had a box of Lego blocks. Each block has six sides, but it only has connectors on four sides. In other words, you couldn't stack one block on top of another, but you can stack them sideways. Now, if you connect them all together, you just created a two dimensional world out of three dimensional blocks. If these blocks were subatomic particles, and you gave them billions of years, they might create a lifeform. This lifeform would be two dimensional and it wouldn't be able to perceive the third dimension. It would find it easy to understand it's two dimensional world(classical physics), but would find it hard to understand the three dimensional particles(quantum physics) that make up it's two dimensional world. Tom John Devers01-05-02, 07:52 AMHi Joe, I have been told that dimensions as science defines them must have direction and distance. That means a particle must be able to move in any extra dimensions you describe in a certain direction and for a distance. Joeblow9313201-05-02, 09:21 AMJohn, By dimension I mean a characteristic of a particle that is independent of any other characteristic of that same particle. For example, the x spatial dimension is completely unrelated to the y spatial dimension. There would be no way to calculate x from y, or y from x, therefore both x and y are dimensions. Tom Toolie01-07-02, 06:56 AMYes, but why is their a limit to the amount of dimensions? As with almost everything else mathematical, it should be infinite. If I define point (3,0,-5,3,2,-1,4,6,1,5,-4,2,5), thats a 13 dimensional point. Why can't we do that? Other than that though, I agree that subatomic particles are extradimensional objects. Like if a 2D being saw a square base "pyramid" pass through its plane, it would see nothing more than a point apear out of nowhere and expand into larger squares and suddenly dissapear. Maybe a 4D sphere enters our 3D plane and gives us the illusion of some strange particles. Joeblow9313201-07-02, 02:39 PMToolie, That was a brilliant example you provided regarding a three dimensional pyramid passing through a two dimensional plain. I believe that there are a finite amount of dimensions. If there were an infinite number of dimensions, everything would be random and there wouldn't be any complex structure in the universe. I hate the word "infinity" anyway cause it screws up all the formulas it's in. As long as you have an infinite factor in a formula, the result of that formula is always 0, 1, or infinity. Tom Elmo02-08-02, 04:50 AMIf I define point (3,0,-5,3,2,-1,4,6,1,5,-4,2,5), thats a 13 dimensional point. Why can't we do that? Because you haven't defined where all your 13 dimensions are going. If I asked you that you could only define them in terms of the three we know. Therefore your point is only an intersect of 13 vectors in 3 dimensions.:rolleyes: Post ReplyCreate New Thread