From: Artillo5@cs.com
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 07:34:11 MST
In a message dated 01/27/2003 10:34:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paatschb@ocean.com.au writes:
<< Then I try and imagine something like Hawkings objects with 10 or 11
dimensions and the wheels are way off. Best I can do is imagine three
axis with six or seven very small balloons attached to the origin. These
balloon dimensions would always be there but only kick in and have an
impact when the length of the rays from the x, y and z axis are shortened
way way down. >>
The way I look at it, all a "dimension" is really just an additional
parameter for describing anything. "Dimension" as most people think of the
term really only relates to the filling of space, the basic x,y,z cartesian
coordinates (or polar systems for some of you! :) ) that everyone is familiar
with. I have read some scifi books that play with the idea that there are
"spatial" dimensions 90 degrees off axis from our standard coordinate system,
and that seems similar in many ways to what a "tesseract" is... it has been a
looong time since I have looked into that sort of thing though so I may be
wrong. But if you extend the usage of the term "dimension" to describe *any*
parameter describing something, then you can see where things like charge,
spin, time, etc. come in to play as "dimensions" to describe stuff.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST