On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Shachar Shemesh<[email protected]> wrote:
> I read the link you gave, but have not found why it does not prove it. You will, I hope, agree with me that the fact that you have not found it there does not actually mean that R^-2 => N=3... ;-) All I said was that if you assume N=3 then you get R^-2, but this does not mean that the reverse is also true. > The closest I got (which was not stated) is that if N>3 for our universe, then > the laws of physics are much more complex than what we know. Complexity would not be a truly compelling argument. Correspondence to experimental results, on the other hand, is convincing. Ehrenfest showed that for N>3 planetary systems and galaxies could not be stable. Later the same was shown for electron orbits in nuclei. In an N>3 world none of these systems could exist (for experimentally observed times). Electrodynamics works (i.e., is consistent with experiment on the basic level, e.g., no pulse distortions in vacuum) only for N=3. All that is stated, admittedly very laconically. The physics/math is highly non-trivial, so you can't expect to get it from a Wikipedia article. Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily from flux considerations. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [email protected] _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
