4 ms·
> There are features of our universe that make sense if we think about the universe as a 3D shadow of a higher dimension system. Which one would this be?
by moehm 6y ago
> There are features of our universe that make sense if we think about the universe as a 3D shadow of a higher dimension system.
Which one would this be?
- monkeycantype 5y agofair call, I was trying to make it clear that my comments were 'how is understood the article and vid' and not my Wolfram/Weinstein 'physics is wrong I'm going to fix it' manifesto. So let me try improve that line: <strike>There are features of our universe that make sense if we think about the</strike> <i>Kaluza-Klein theory proposed that electromagnetism could be modelled using an additional closed fourth dimension. Kerner generalised this approach to model gravity, time, electromagnetism and the strong and week forces using a total of 11 dimensions. I have understood these models as describing our experience of the </I>universe as a 3D <strike>shadow</strike> <i>projection</i> of a higher dimension system. Kaluza-Klein was the exact point at which I lost interest in pursuing university physics, so the sentence is marks the point at which the ship of my knowledge hits the rocks. I loved first year physics, but in my second year at university a tutor convinced that physicists now worked exclusively on string theory, which he explained beginning with Kaluza-Klein theory. What he described reminded me of Copernican epicycles, and I felt so little enthusiasm for it, and was deeply disappointed after having loved first year physics and it was the end of my imagining I might be a physicist. Much later I discovered he was suicidally depressed the dry bloodless descriptions he gave were him trying to hang on and keep himself together while describing a subject he had come to hate.
- moehm 5y agoThank you for answering.