Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc

Posted by ronron on December 11, 19100 at 14:33:49:

In Reply to: Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc posted by phobos on December 07, 19100 at 14:25:24:

i agree that the l^2 is still of infinite dimension. but
would string theory not have to have enough degrees
of freedom to handle the function space of everything
it's trying to enclose ?

otherwise, it seems you would run into the same problem
as if you were trying to formulate GTR in 3 dimensions,
for example.

so you guys are saying that even though standard QM
is based in infinite dimensional l^2 space with
compact closure, you only need 11 of those dimensions
for the self-adjoint operators when you move over to
the string formulation ? i think i see what you mean
now, but i'm not sure.

thanks for the replies. i was a Modern Foreign
Languages major, so my knowledge is limited. fun
and interesting stuff to do when you're not
conjugating verbs. :-)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 12/11/100 (3)
  • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/13/100 (2)
    • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 12/13/100 (1)
      • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/19/100 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :