Space Advances

< Who's afraid of additional dimensions? >
Ten dimensions! We've already troubles with 3 of them, not to speak of 4. But 10 seem quite exaggerated to most of us. As I learn from the internet, this number simply results from the attempt to form all known particle types by specific vibrations of a tiny string. If you slightly change the wording of such a search you are informed, that only by assuming the ten of those you get mathematically rid of anomalies and impossibilities.
Be it as it may. Space and time alone just set the stage for reality. To make something happen requires more than that. Schon vor über 100 Jahren schrieb Wittgenstein von Tatsachen, nicht von Dingen. Zu einer solchen gehören mehr als nur die 4 Dimensionen von Einsteins Raumzeit. Raum und Zeit kann man sich vielleicht vorstellen, aber ohne etwas drin? An was sollte man dann denken?
Wann beginnt etwas, real zu sein? Solange nichts geschieht, spielt sich nichts ab. Als ich vor einem halben Jahrhundert im Rahmen meines Studiums auch so manche Vorlesung über Philosophie hörte, fühlte ich mich verunsichert von der hin und wieder aufgeschnappten Behauptung, ein Weltall ohne Beobachter könne es nicht geben. I still have my troubles with this point of view.
No reality without realization? Most of us will agree with Heisenberg's insight, that information about reality can only be obtained by entering into (influencial) interaction with it. But denying reality without observation? Observation is a two-sided coin: you either will end up with the notice 'Yes, there is something', or 'No, there is nothing'. Before such a test, you cannot exclude either, neither the assertion nor the rejection of the hypothesis. You simply don't know.
Rejecting the existence of the universe simply because there is no observer puts more weight on the negative result. To be fair, we just can say: 'We don't know.' But exploring the properties of our objects of interest has to take into account the act of observation. We know the world around us just thanks to observation. We are quite sure about them thanks to multiple observers exchanging and discussing their impressions.
In that respect we really have to admit: to the very day, most objects in the world still have never been observed. They cannot exist in our actual representation of reality. For our humankind, having been observed and documented in a reliable way is a necessary pre-condition for objects to be accepted as real. As long as such condition is not fulfilled, they are pure fantasy like unicorns.
So, an essential property of all real objects is to have been 'object' to observation at any time. Why not calling this fact a 'dimension' in addition to the 4 ground dimensions? Taking into account that one single observation by one single subject  will not be enough to convince the public, you easily end up not only with one, but with two or even three additional dimensions. In fact, our society deals with such processes all the time.
We create reality each day and night and permanently modify and extend our creations.The world today looks different from the world hundred years ago. Along such lines of thinking, we may start to doubt that additional dimensions should be curled up to indiscernable size. We deal with them without noticing it. They have always contributed to our reality.
7/26 <          MLB (7/26)          > 7/26
Die ganze Welt im Zeh (MB 12/24)
Sean Stoker's blog: An Idiot's Guide
to Superstring Theory (7/18)
  Cosmic Feelings? (MB 7/26)