Mini Good News | July 28, 2009 | 16 comments

Multi-dimensional Sphere Problem from 1950s Solved.

Image
Sam_the_Wizer
When mathematicians talk about higher-dimensional spaces, they are referring to the number of variables, or dimensions, needed to locate a point in such a space. The surface of the earth is two-dimensional because two coordinates—latitude and longitude—are needed to specify any point on it. In more formal terms, the standard two-dimensional sphere is the set of points equidistant from a point in 2 + 1 = 3 dimensions. More generally, the standard n-dimensional sphere, or n-sphere for short, is the set of points that are at the same distance from a center point in a space of n + 1 dimensions. Spheres are among the most basic spaces in topology, the branch of mathematics that studies which properties are unchanged when an object is deformed without crushing or ripping it. Topology comes up in many studies, including those trying to determine the shape of our universe.

In recent years mathematicians have completed the classification of 3-D spaces that are “compact,” meaning that they are finite and with no edges [see “The Shapes of Space,” by Graham P. Collins; Scientific American, July 2004]. (A sphere is compact, but an infinite plane is not.) Thus, they have figured out the topologies of all possible universes, as long as those universes are compact and three-dimensional. In more than three dimensions, however, the complete classification has turned out to be intractable and even logically impossible. Topologists had hoped at least that spaces as simple as spheres would be easy enough.

John Milnor, now at Stony Brook University, complicated matters somewhat in the 1950s, when he discovered the first “exotic” 7-sphere. An exotic n-sphere is a sphere from the point of view of topology. But it is not equivalent to a standard n-sphere from the point of view of differential calculus, the language in which physics theories are formulated. The discrepancy has consequences for equations such as those that describe the motion of particles or the propagation of waves. It means that solutions to such equations (or even their formulation) on one space cannot be mapped onto the other without developing kinks, or “singularities.” Physically, the two spheres are different, incompatible worlds.

In 1963 Milnor and his colleague Michel Kervaire calculated the number of exotic 7-spheres and found that there were exactly 27 different ones. In fact, they calculated the number of n-spheres for any n from five up. Their counts, however, had an ambiguity—a possible factor of two—when n is an even number. William Browder of Princeton University later removed that ambiguity, except for dimensions of the type n = 2k - 2, starting with k = 7—specifically, 126, 254, 510, and so on. In other words, mathematicians could only guess the number of exotic spheres in these dimensions to within a factor of two, known as the Kervaire invariant because of its relation to an earlier concept invented by Kervaire.
  1. groups:
    Science,   News and Information,   Mini Good News,   Mathematics
  2. tags:
    Mathematics String Theory Topology Higher Dimensions 1 more
  3.     
    |

16 comments // Multi-dimensional Sphere Problem from 1950s Solved.

  • versasrev
    • 0
      versasrev  
    • Realizing that less than 10 - 5% of American can really understand what is happening here, especially when coupled with the mind boggling nature of topology, I just don't think this article is done justice.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
    • 0
      Sam_the_Wizer  
    • Image
    • I'm surprised this article wasn't picked for a top story instead. It has implications that more people can grasp, but admittedly the graphic isn't as sweet.

    • 2 years ago
  • sk8bs55
  • forcis12
  • arkansasrednck
    • 0
      arkansasrednck  
    • Its a crappy article, they can't even describe it so that someone can even see the use in solving it. As I see it with my limited understanding, it doesn't even further the modern understanding of the universe. They talk about how the earth is a sphere with 2 dimensions, so if we want to think of spheres with additional dimensions we can talk about the slight bulge the planet gets as an effect of gravity of the moon, then our sphere becomes 3 dimensions. To me that type of multi-dimensional thinking is more handy for furthering science.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
  • 02
    • 0
      02  
    • arkansasrednck:

      String Theory is definitely 'just a bunch of math'

      It could be thought of as having several math guys devising myriad ways to say a girl's phone number.

      But look out, the girl doesn't have a phone.

      It's just people having fun with number systems.

    • 2 years ago
  • Frameshift13v4
  • 02
    • 0
      02  
    • outtheinside, exactly right.
      It is boring so because it is endless, abstract and seemingly pointless. Whenever pointless, boredom.
      But calculus itself is ascribing grids, sequence and number fields which are inherently false. Fictitious.

      Utter abstraction. If it were but one, they'd throw him (or her) in a padded cell. Their reasoning for the loony-bin toss would be sound.

      Intellectually intriguing - but tittley-winks. Abstract artifacts of the mind that are found no where in reality.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
    • 0
      Sam_the_Wizer  
    • 02:

      It's not the job of mathematicians to find uses for their discoveries. The beauty in math is not what it can do. It's like a symphony, the beauty is the reason. In mathematics is a beauty more pure than any we can ever know because it is completely abstract.

    • 2 years ago
  • TReaper405
    • 0
      TReaper405  
    • 02:

      You make it sound like it's just inherently boring. It's not boring to everyone. Some people actually enjoy working with numbers and large problems like this. Just because you don't doesn't mean you need to try and discredit it so.

      Also you'd be surprised how many unexpected and wonderful uses have been found for what you call useless equations.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • 0
      02  
    • 02:

      There are manifold uses. Within perimeters, it all seems so perfect. Like 2+2=4.
      And then if you really come up with some new method which proves out, everybody says "see, look how smart we are" - And if it becomes an honored tool, it helps further.
      But here's the deal: All rules are beginner's rules.
      Rules help you not to think - and their use can provide a stable pall of no-thought and non-thought.

      As long as a rule happens to work and be comfortably safe, the results won't trip you up. And that can be so deceiving.
      In fact, the point is exactly what keeps progress and science generally, stuck.

    • 2 years ago
  • outtheinside
  • Biscuit09
  • ras_menelik
  • thecoyote23
more from Mini Good News:

top videos