Fractatious
Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006
|
Hello, Avocationist.
Below is the chronology of our discussion (if it can be called that):
Found here is: "Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?"
My response here is: "Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?"
Followed here with your: "could you clarify your question?"
Followed with my: "I honestly have forgotten what it specifically related too except some vague memory of "beyond quantum". That being said (and my being rather lazy at the moment to go back through the thread to recheck) - is there anything smaller than quanta?"
Which has eventually lead us to this:
| Quote | You do love to talk over my head. I never said that science would accept other dimensions without proof, or at least clues to their existence. I merely mentioned other dimensions for reasons I have long since forgotten, and got a response from somebody, as though it were a silly or magical idea. And my point was that IF there are other dimensions, they will be just as real and just as much part of our reality as the three or four we currently approve of. And they came back with the problem that we can't see them. So then my point was, don't let that be such a barrier, in light of what we have already discovered that was unseen or dreamt of a mere 2 or 3 or so hundred years ago.
As to whether there is anything smaller than quanta, I am not sure. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy? If it is the smallest unit, then by definition there is nothing smaller. Where do the proposed strings fit into this picture? By the way, the book I mentioned reading is called Beyond The Big Bang.
At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it? If I would look for ancient wisdom as regards cosmology or human history, I'd probably look at Hindu sources.
I find the Biblical Genesis creation mythos rather nice, and reasonably compatible with science, and open to many different possible interpretations. |
You are obviously confusing discussions. I answered a post made about Superstrings - but it was not in this direct dialogue (view above). You mentioned sub-quanta and sub-Planck So I suppose we should look at what "sub" means in this context:
| Quote | sub-
pref.
Below; under; beneath: subcutaneous.
Subordinate; secondary: subinfection.
Subdivision: subkingdom.
Less than completely or normally; nearly; almost: subfertility.
sub. (n.d.). The American HeritageŽ Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved February 03, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sub |
What is below or beneath quanta and planck?
That would be the easiest way of of addressing that.
|
