multi-dimensions.com

   
HOME | ABSTRACT | ARTIST | SCIENTIST | E-MAIL INDEX


Dialog Summary

Excerpts from our E-mail Correspondence

Each quote is linked to the e-mail from which it was excerpted so that you can read the entire dialog at any point.



Mathematics, I'm told, recognizes multiple dimensions, and some physicists, I understand, have theories involving multiple dimensions of space. Why not also regard mass, charge, light, magnetism, etc. as dimensions? We take measurements in these units, why not regard those as measurements through dimensions, just as measurements through space and time are regarded as dimensions?

Flash Light 5-16-2002



I think the simple answer to your question . . . is that physics divides its math into a conceptual entity called matter which is treated as if it has no extent, and a framework entity called space-time, which has no matter. Charge and mass are examples of the former, and duration and size are examples of the latter. . . . I think your suggestion of equivalencing matter and extent is fascinating,

Dr. Carl Weiman 5-16-2002



One way I've found to proceed with such an artistic investigation is to set up a website and invite scientists to enter an art-science dialog. Would you give me permission to publish the e-mail you sent me on such a site?

Flash Light 5-19-2002



Good idea for the website; it would be interesting to get some discussion from the Santa Fe Institute people on these topics (quantum mechanics intersects relativity, two areas of Einstein's greatest contributions and deepest disappointments, (e.g. "does God play dice with the Universe?").

Dr. Carl Weiman 5-20-2002



God is the dice.

Flash Light 5-21-2002
   


Your website is an excellent forum and I hope to be able to contribute as my obligations here drop from "frantic" down to merely "heavy". . . .

Dr. Carl Weiman 6-12-2002



I would initially draw the duality you propose thus: everything is both a wave-particle, and a multi-dimension. . . .

Thinking about space, the Casimir effect occurs to me: sub-atomic particles have been verified as popping in an out of existence. (Dr. Steve K. Lamoreaux, "Demonstration of the Casimir Force," The Journal of Physical Review Letters, Volume 78, No. 1, 6 January 1997.) Thus it appears to me that space does have a wave-particle nature. . . and that this manifests itself in the Casimir effect.

Thinking about time, the data which seems relevant are cosmic observations which Drs. William G Tifft and William J. Cocke, et al. have been trying to develop a theory of "Quantum Time" to explain. (If you're not familiar with their work, a good starting point is "Quantum Cosmology," by W. Tifft, Cocke, De Vito, 1996, Astrophysics and Space Science, 238, 247.) They established the Joint Center for the Study of Time out of the University of Arizona to study such phenomenon . . .

Thus, at first brush, it seems to me it is worth sketching the view that everything is both a wave-particle and a multi-dimension. . .

Flash Light 6-14-2002



Resonating with your ideas . . . on duality, there is a direct relation between mass and the space-time dimensions in the de Broglie wave model of matter: Fundamental particles are assigned a wavelength inversely proportional to momentum (mass times velocity). The wave has length and time (frequency) descriptors. The duration of the existence of virtual particles (e.g. mesons) is proportional to the time period of the wave. . . .

Dr. Carl Weiman 6-14-2002



De Broglie's wave model seems an appropriate point to begin sketching the ideas about multi-dimensions. I found an interesting, albeit misleading, graphic which I've posted on the illustration page as a starting point. . . .

Flash Light 6-17-2002



I'm reminded of Gamow's orders of infinity: the infinity of points in a line is less than the infinity of points in a plane, which is less than the infinity of points in a cube. Perhaps I've drawn the order of infinity of points on the surface of a black hole. (Sketch 3.0)

Flash Light 6-24-2002



Your takes below are extremely good. To clarify my point about plausible numbers I did not mean mechanical nor perspective drawings. I meant to establish some range of plausibility for an abstraction or impressionistic image. For example, the fleeting atomic particles (e.g. muons) which emerge from nuclear reactions exist only as long as one cycle of their wave representation. Thus, in representing them as waves, it would be misleading in a conceptual model to depict multiple ripples. A cycle of a wave can be rendered as a circle, a spinning arrow, a closed path, the wave amplitude. Or none of the above, some inspired construct that resonates conceptually with the underlying principle.

Dr. Carl Weiman 6-28-2002



I just got this e-mail from Cynthia suggesting we invite Sidney Perkowitz to participate.

Flash Light 6-28-2002



I think this is a great idea. I looked him up at Emory and found:

http://www.physics.emory.edu/faculty/perkowitz/

Dr. Carl Weiman 6-28-2002


This page will be updated periodically. If you want to follow our discussion, please bookmark it. If you want to participate, please see our contact information.

HOME | ABSTRACT | ARTIST | SCIENTIST | E-MAIL INDEX

An art & science collaboration.