4 ms·
It seems that this paper assumes all the dimensions are flat. I believe that most current theories assume the higher dimensions are folded. https://en.wikiped
by anonymousiam 3y ago
It seems that this paper assumes all the dimensions are flat. I believe that most current theories assume the higher dimensions are folded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_dimensions
- i_k_k 3y agoSee the footnote on page 1: “Hereafter, we let n and m refer to the number of non-compactified space and time dimensions, or more generally to the effective spacetime dimensionality that is relevant to the low-energy physics we will be discussing later.”
- trhway 3y agoFor example, in 2 dimensions embedded in our 3 the force potential decreasing with square distance would have given a hint to the 2-dim occupants that they are embedded in 3. We don't see the decreasing with cube, so we don't seems to be embedded in full-flat 4+. (even more - the force falls off linear with distance in galactics, i.e. "dark force"/MOND, which seems to be another indication of some holograghy-like "folding" 3->2 (the other being is the black hole holography))