Physics Help Forum Are we past due to declare EM/Light/Waves its own dimension?

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

 May 20th 2019, 07:36 AM #1 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 Are we past due to declare EM/Light/Waves its own dimension? If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small. 3D + Time + Waves When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit. If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.
May 20th 2019, 08:35 AM   #2

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,781
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe If we set a dimension for the unobservable, we may stumble on a unifying theory for the large and small. 3D + Time + Waves When I say Waves, I'm talking about the waves a particle becomes when it is unobserved and going through the double slit. If waves only exist as math, observation pulls them out of out of that dimension and gives them real world 3D structure (wave collapse). When light is pulled out, it becomes photons.
How can waves become a dimension? Shouldn't what you are saying be something more along the lines that you are refering to the dimension the waves are in? (Not that I'm supporting the idea, but if you are going to make the argument it sounds better to me this way.)

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 May 20th 2019, 08:43 AM #3 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 Waves are the unobservable math in your equations. If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension. Do you want a unifying theory or not?
 May 20th 2019, 09:35 AM #4 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 964 Definition of Dimension There seems to be a laxness in the definition of dimension, There are distinct differences depending on the context. The "dimension" used when describing Time & Space is not a directly interchangeable term with the "dimension" as used to describe a property, quantity or quality, that a thing has (e.g. the wavelength of a photon, the mass of a proton etc.). topsquark likes this. __________________ ~\o/~
 May 20th 2019, 10:19 AM #5 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 The laxness is there on purpose. The 3D we know and love being tossed into an unnamed new dimension that is unobservable. I'm not 100% on the object being tossed in loses a physical dimension or not.
May 20th 2019, 10:20 AM   #6

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,781
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe Waves are the unobservable math in your equations. If we have a tiny 3d object and allow it to go into superposition. Not being able to see that object says the object is either losing a dimension itself or is going into another dimension. Do you want a unifying theory or not?
Yes, a unified theory is something to work toward. In fact many many Physicists are investigating just that. However there is nothing in Nature to tell us that it is necessary. It is Physicists that want a unification but it's up to experiment to see if there actually is one. (Though it does seem likely based on the possible GUT theories.)

Note also that all objects have 4 spatial dimensions, the familiar 3D Euclidean space along with a time dimension, which makes a 3 + 1 Lorentz space-time, aka Minkowsi space-time. But the superposition you are refering to does not exist in this space...There are many "internal" spaces that systems have that are not space-time dimensions. Spin for example. So superposition cannot have an effect on how many space-time dimensions we are observing.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 May 20th 2019, 11:37 AM #7 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 so it's a negative dimension spooooooky
May 20th 2019, 12:14 PM   #8

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,781
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe so it's a negative dimension spooooooky
How is what I posted telling you about a "negative dimension?"

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 May 20th 2019, 12:44 PM #9 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 You didn't want a new dimension to exist anywhere else
 May 20th 2019, 01:38 PM #10 Banned   Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 63 Could you say anything there would only look like math to us? Maybe anything that can be more easily described when there becomes fuzzy to us. Could observation pull it out from such a place? maybe antimatter lives there?

 Tags declare, dimension, due, em or light or waves, past

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post avito009 Physics 4 Oct 12th 2017 08:30 AM pittsburghjoe Philosophy of Physics 12 Jan 17th 2017 08:53 AM Nwobuseffect General Physics 18 Dec 28th 2015 11:01 AM MBW General Physics 4 Nov 2nd 2014 05:04 AM mars shaw Special and General Relativity 1 Sep 14th 2009 10:08 PM