Posted: Oct 09, 2011 6:41 pm
by twistor59
Teuton wrote:
twistor59 wrote:
Teuton wrote:
I'm sure it is mathematically very practical to model particles and strings as 0D or 1D objects, but the question is whether or not these are only mathematically idealized models, i.e. whether or not particles and strings are really 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional (if they exist).

Emphasis mine. You need to say exactly what you mean by "are".


It's the is/are of predication. "Particles are 0-dimensional" means "particles have the property of being 0-dimensional".

twistor59 wrote:
How would you determine if the statement was true or false ?


I don't know how the question could be decided experimentally, but there are conceptual a priori reasons against the view that 0D, 1D, and 2D things can adequately be called physical objects or substances rather than (geometrically ideal, abstracted) boundaries of those. And there are metaphysical/ontological a priori reasons for doubting or even denying that particles and strings can have less than 3 spatial dimensions.


But those conceptual reasons can't carry much weight because according to some formulations of the holographic principle, space may be essentially two dimensional and the 3rd dimension may not be fundamental. If space is two dimensional then objects which occupy it may be at most two dimensional.