This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness
Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension — Hillary
Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles? — Hillary
Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer — Hillary
If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right. — universeness
Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? — Hillary
I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet.We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings. — Hillary
As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real — universeness
But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. — Hillary
I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet. — universeness
Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions — universeness
No. You said undetectable means not real. — Hillary
What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies. — Hillary
Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory. — Hillary
The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy. — universeness
From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things — universeness
It's no torus, by the way... — Hillary
As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts — universeness
Motion is the fundamental process. There is no past or future, only now. We remember events and record them. — val p miranda
We remember events and record them. — val p miranda
re-
word-forming element meaning "back, back from, back to the original place;" also "again, anew, once more," also conveying the notion of "undoing" or "backward," etc. (see sense evolution below), c. 1200, from Old French re- and directly from Latin re- an inseparable prefix meaning "again; back; anew, against."
The many meanings in the notion of "back" give re- its broad sense-range: "a turning back; opposition; restoration to a former state; "transition to an opposite state." From the extended senses in "again," re- becomes "repetition of an action," and in this sense it is extremely common as a formative element in English, applicable to any verb.
Sorry universeness, but here you are parroting the so-called experts. Not observable doesn’t mean virtual. We can imagine them. — Hillary
The moment you try to observe them, they become one of the external legs in Feynman diagrams and then they are not virtual anymore. So in a sense, the assumption that they are virtual is a hallucination, a dogma — Hillary
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.