From: terry@skatter.USask.Ca (Terry Pilling)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Hyperspace (2)
Date: Sun Jun 19 18:14:55 1994


You wanted my theory (or should I say thoughts) on Hyperspace..
Here it is:

I find the idea that 'higher dimensions are curled up into little
balls, very appalling, why can't they stretch infinitly into space
as our other dimensions do?

The small argument made by Kaku in his book (pg74) is not a good
one in my opinion, yet it seems to be accepted by many "3-d" minded
physicists. How con smoke travel into the 4th dimension? It is a
3-d object and can not 'Push` from anything (as explained in
previous article).

eg.    (>)       ^          2-d guy with rock in path
        |       / \         he can push from it in these
       / \     /   \        directions: ^ < > v but not
                            into the 3rd dimension.

His 2-d world is simply a crossection of our 3-d world and he would 
need help from an object in 3-dimensions to get out of the X-section.
We need to remember also that he only 'sees' 2-d so even once he is out 
in the 3rd dim., he will continue to see only 2-d X-sections. Currently
as he looks at the rock, he only sees a line of a certain height..
but when he ventures into the 3rd dim. and looks at the same rock it
will look like the line has become a different length.

eg. Sees now:  |            sees later .  . 

the two dots are the sides of the rock above as he sees it from 3-d.
basically it is as if the observer carries with him a plane (for the
2-d case) and he can see and interact with anything that is inside,
or crosses through this plane.
We of course would carry a 3-d plane into the 4th dim. with us.
So if we were pushed in the e(4) direction then we could look back
at our friends but they would look entirely different.

Since we can only visualize 3 mutually perpendicular directions, We
are always loosing one (assuming only 4-d for simplicity).
so we will always see in one of the 4 possible combinations of
e(1),e(2),e(3),e(4). taken 3 at a time.

Now here is where the interesting part comes in:

We define types of particles by their energy, and then use other
properties to differentiate between particles of similar energies.
In that if we were trying to produce (for example) pions (E=145-149 MeV) 
we would need around 150 MeV.

What if the energy of a particle corresponded to the dimensionality of 
the particle? eg. size in multidimensional space.
So that particles are 'naturally` higher dimensional objects and different
3-d crossections determine different particles.

Then massless particles could be defined as two dimensional crossections.
Because we cannot measure mass of 2-d objects as they have no volume.

Let me clarify my idea using photons as an example: Lets say that the 
photon is actually a massive 3-d object living in 4-space. Now there
is 3-dimensions to a coordinate system centred on the photon but these
dimensions are made up of the 4 mutually perpendicular dimensions of 
4-space and therefore what we see of a photon will most likely be 2-d
3 out of 4 times and the 4th time it will have mass and therefore we wouldn't
call it a photon. These 2-d representations will have different 'looks'
to them. They can be in the x-y plane, the y-z plane or the x-z plane,
all massless but of different 'polarization'. 

Other particles can easily be explained by introducing a few more dimensions
and their differences can be attributed to differing X-sections
in other dimensions. for example assume 5-d space. and say that the 
electron and positron are the same particle but one has length
in the e(4) direction and the other has length in the e(5) direction
instead, both having e(1,2,3) dimensions (just very small)

I am by all means saying that this is the correct way to look at these
particles, or that I even believe it, but instead I am saying that 
we could look into dimensionality a little more closely to see what it 
could explain. 

Just an alternative to spending decades trying to solve the Quantum
Field Equations. But I had better leave it for now and see if 
anybody likes what I have said so far??

-Terry-
__________________________________________________________________________
Saskatchewan Accelerator Lab                I DON'T speak for my 
Canada                                      Colleagues.
terry@skatter.usask.ca                      (they speak for themselves)
__________________________________________________________________________