PREFACE

Why has space three dimensions? What role plays the 3-dimensional nature of space in
the fundamental laws of physics? What does exactly indicate the 3-dimensional nature of
space? What are the possibilities for describing the concept of the dimensionality of space
in mathematics? How did contemporary concepts about dimensionality of space arise in
physics and mathematics? Is it possible to assume that the dimensionality of space is not
simply some well-defined number, but a physical quantity, whose value can differ from three
under extreme conditions?
his boo! is dedicated to all these questions" #irst two of those questions served as the
names of the remar!able wor!s a" of $oincare %&' and p" of (hrenfest %)', from where the
contemporary discussion of dimensionality begins"
In order to understand the contemporary state of the problem of dimensionality more
precisely and more deeply, it is best to examine this problem in its historical development"
he dimensionality of space is one of the most general common properties of space-time, and
the evolution of ideas about the space and the time has a centuries-old history"
However we will call the period from the beginning )*th century the +history of
contemporary concepts about the dimensionality of space," he entire previous period we will
call +prehistory," his separation is to a certain extent deliberate, but nevertheless precise" In
)*th century the most essential elements of contemporary concepts about dimensionality were
elaborated"
In physics these ideas passed their way from a mere number, which characteri-es the
entire material world, to the physical concept, connected with the properties of physical
phenomena and allowing experimental, empirical substantiation" he concepts, have been
generali-ed and formali-ed"
he boo! ta!es into account the contemporary state of the problem of dimensionality and
discusses a possible value of this problem for the future development of physics"
he fact is that the state of physics is at present characteri-ed not only by the massive use of a
concept of dimensionality, but also by the expectation of a more important role, which
dimensionality can play during the construction of the unified theory of fundamental
interactions" However, history always gives the possibility to understand the present more deeply
and more precisely"
In the contemporary science the concept of the dimensionality of space has important
significance in two substantially different areas"
#irst, in physics the 3-dimensional nature of space, or .ta!ing into account the theory of
relativity 3/&0 dimensionality of space-time, as the fundamental property determines the most
general common physical laws"
In the second area, the dimensionality is the central concept of the topological theory and has
been one of the areas of importance of topology and is constructed for arbitrary values of
dimensionality"
he importance of ideas about the dimensionality in physics and topology is determined by
the following circumstances1
2ontemporary concepts about the dimensionality of physical space and the topological concept of
dimensionality arose approximately simultaneously .beginning )*th century0"
$oincare formulated the physical concepts .chapter &0" 3ut the first, really physical analysis of
the fact of the 3-dimensional nature of space was carried out by $aul (hrenfest, who was stimulated
by the development of mathematics" he contemporary concepts about dimensionality are the most
interesting examples of interaction between physics and mathematics .chapter &,40"
he concept of dimensionality in the mathematical models of space is utili-ed by physics" It benefits
from generali-ation within the framewor! of topology .although in mathematics there are geometric
models, in which the dimensionality can not be topological, for example in the so-called final
geometry0"
he analysis of physical ideas about the dimensionality must, it goes without saying, consider
the available mathematical descriptions - 3ut topological dimensional theory did not contribute
to a more fundamental understanding of the physical problem of the dimensionality" #rom the
point of view of the deepest today physical theory of the space-time of - the general theory of
relativity - physical space has a of the so-called four-dimensional pseudo-5iemann structure" In the
small environment of each point, it coincides with the structure of usual (uclidean space"
herefore the topological dimensional theory is rather trivial" 6sually it proves to be a
completely sufficient idea about the space as a set, where each element, is described by numbers
.coordinates0, and to consider the dimensionality as the minimum number of parameters,
necessary for the numeration of the points of space" 7uch ideas correspond to the
mathematical level of past century .&8th century that is0"
#urthermore, topological approach to the dimensionality of physical space-time is
incompatible with the interesting hypotheses of discrete space and fundamental length,
which characteri-es the limit of the applicability of usual ideas about the continuous space-time"
With these ideas, as is !nown, were connected large hopes for the solution of the fundamental
problems of elementary-particles-physics" However, within the framewor! of topological model
of physical space the discrete model .on the microscale0 cannot be reconciled with a continuous
three-dimensional model .on the macroscales0" 9ne-dimensional strings and two-dimensional
bags in the theory of strong interactions are another different manifold of dimensionalities"
In quantum field theory the dimensionality is not equal to three .even nonintegral values of
dimensionality are considered0" In the cosmology of the early universe completely different
considerations lead also to the examination of spaces with a dimensionality, different from three"
:ll these circumstances nourish our interest in the fundamental concept of the dimensionality
of space in contemporary physics"
he author is deeply grateful to ;u-netsov and the university of #ran!furt for help with the
wor! on this boo!"
!"#R$%&C#!$"
'riefly about the (prehistory
he property, which is called the dimensionality in the modern language, or the number of
dimensions, was invented very early" he concept of geometric space began to be formed by
$lato in 4th century 3"2" he establishment of geometric ob<ects of different dimensionality
.point, line, surface, body0 and of connections between these ob<ects goes bac! to $lato and
$ythagoreans"
7uch interrelations of the geometric ob<ects of the different dimensionality were the basis for
one of the first attempts to prove the )*dimensional nature of space" :ctually, the motion of a
point forms line .i"e" one-dimensional figure0" he motion of a line forms the surface of the totality
,of the trac!s= of all points of the moving line .i"e" two-dimensional figure0" he motion of a
surface in the same sense forms a body .i"e" three-dimensional figure0, but the motion of a
body can lead only to the formation of another body" hus, it would seem, 3-dimensional nature
proves to be chosen already for the purely mathematical reasons"
However1 2an this observation of mathematical nature be the substantiation of the 3-
dimensional nature of space or be the answer to the question1 ,Why is space three-dimensional?=
2ertainly, no" It is first of all easy to note an inaccuracy in the given reasoning" >ot any motion
of a line forms a surface, motion of a .straight0 line along itself gives the same line"
If we limit ourself to motions in a certain plane, then let us see, that any motion of a point
as before forms a line, the motion of line can form flat .two-dimensional0 figure, but the motion
of the plane figure cannot already form nothing different from the plane figure .let us recall that
we allow only motions in the fixed plane0"
In this way inhabitants, which dwell on a certain plane could ,prove= the two-dimensional
character of their environment, being incapable to form such phrases as, for example,
perpendicular to this plane, the intersection of two planes, etc"
We see that ,the proof= of this type only indicates the property of 3-dimensional nature and
the way it is separated from the set of other properties of the material world" It is worthwhile to,
however, note that this is fruitful, establishing connection with other concepts1 with line, with
surface .i"e" unidimensionality0 and with the most important concept of motion"
o man of )*th century, who becomes acquainted with many abstract notions even in the
childhood, large efforts would be required to estimate the salient achievements of the ancient
?reece thin!ers, and in particular $lato, who for the first time clearly reali-ed the power of
theoretical thin!ing and special features of such strange ,ob<ects= as ,concept= or ,idea="
Having only recreated for ourself the sensation of that level of culture, which was starting
with $lato and his associates, we can appreciate the <ump in the development of civili-ation,
which occurred in ancient ?reece" 3y the results of that epoch, the concept of point, line, surface
in our days seem trivial for every schoolboy .however, only they seem0"
:ristotle, who was the most outstanding student of $lato elaborated the fact of 3-dimensional
nature" 2ritici-ing correctly the confidence of $lato in the complete independence, and the eternal
existence of ideas .in particular of geometric ideas0 and emphasi-ing the second-rateness of ideas
with respect to the sensually received ob<ects, :ristotle, as this frequently was the case in the
history of developing !nowledge, went to the other extreme, denying independence of ideas
almost completely"
:s far as 3-dimensional nature is concerned, :ristotle considered that the number we ta!e
from nature as one of its laws, and ,assuming nature itself as our leader=, there is no sense
whatever to thin+, why the material world has precisely three dimensions .dimensions0"
3ut the contribution of Aristotle to the history of the concept of dimensionality was not
reduced to this, in a sense tautological position" #irst, it explicitly connected dimensionality
with the continuity, understanding continuity as the infinite divisible1 %4'" :fter mentioning that
already the $ythagoreans attributed special importance to the number 3, :ristotle gives even
the certain philological proof of this assertion1 ,@ about two things or people we spea! of
,both=, but not of ,all=" his term is for the first time utili-ed, when the discussion deals with
three@="
#urthermore, :ristotle first identified lines, surfaces and body with the numbers &, ) and 3 in
spite of the $ythagoreans, who assigned the number & to the point .which is, from their point of
view, the simplest geometric ob<ect0, and ) to lines, etc"
7implifying the situation, it is possible to say that the $ythagoreans simply wrote down ,the
inventory= of qualitatively different geometric ob<ects and numbered them .in the correct order0"
However, :ristotle advanced to a more complete definition1 ,@ body@ is determined by extent
in three directions"
9ther ob<ects are divided in one or two directions depending on the number of directions, by
which their divisibility and continuity is characteri-ed" 9ne is continuous in one direction,
another in two and third in all="
2ontemporary mathematics follows :ristotle, when they call the line one-dimensional, the
plane two-dimensional, and the point -ero-dimensional" However :ristotle did not spea! about the
point" He considered only three-dimensional ob<ects valueable, while for mathematics all values
are equally valuable"
It is here necessary to emphasi-e that to spea! about the ideas of $ythagoras, $lato, :ristotle
and even (uclid, using words li!e ,the number of dimensions= and ,dimensionality=, is not
entirely correct" ?eometric idea of the measurement of length, the metric point of view is of much
later origin" :ristotle spea!s about the values, about the direction, about the continuity and the
divisibility, but not about measurement" 7ince the topology .in more detail see below0, is the
field of mathematics, dedicated to study the different sides of the concept of continuity, it is
possible to say that the Aristotelian definition, based on the concept of continuity, actually
has topological nature" However, the history of science preferred not to consider metric ideas
before )*th century" In the beginning of )*th century the first sprouts of topology were grown
and the present topological definition of dimensionality appeared" 7pecifically topology as the
connection of the concepts of the dimensionality and of continuity obtained the most general
expression"
Aet us move now from :ristotle two thousand years forward, into the middle of &Bth
century", to one of greatest philosophers of all times, to Immanuel ;ant" his does not mean that
between them there was no one, whose name would be worthwhile to mention in connection with
the history of ideas about dimensionality"
(uclid, who summed up the geometric achievements of antiquity and the framewor! of
(uclidean geometry overwhelmed the achievements of the future centuries, up to &8th century
they were ?alileo, >ewton, Aeibnit-, whose wor! mar!ed the beginning physics of new time"
here were other remar!able physics, mathematics, philosophers"
3ut nevertheless precisely to ;ant belongs a really new idea" In the wor! of ;ant the
concept of dimensionality was for the first time connected with the concrete physical law and
proved to be participating to one of the most great ideological opposition in the history of
physics * the rivalry of the concepts of absoluteness and relativity of space"
3riefly spea!ing, the first of them assumes that the space exists somehow absolute, as a
finished scene, on which physical phenomena happen, but which does not depend on these
phenomena"
he idea of the relativity of space means that the three-dimensional relations of space are only
relations between physical bodiesC that if the space can be li!ened to scene, then this scene is
created in the course of play itself" It is created by physical phenomena, interactions between the
bodies" :nd it cannot be of even thought of, as existing independent of interactions"
he concept of absolute space conquered the mechanic of >ewton" It reigned in physics up to
the beginning of )*th century, when the general theory of (instein replaced it with .although
furthermore not completely0 the idea of the relativity of space, the first convinced supporter of
which was Aeibnit-"
,ant was under the influence of -eibnit./s views, when he turned himself to the problem
of the dimensionality of space" :ccurately one should say that ;ant was then not yet the great
?erman philosopher, but only a student at the university in ;oenigsberg" His first published
wor! was called ,thoughts about the true estimation of !inetic energies and the selection of the
proofs, which used Dr" Aeibnit- and other experts of mechanics in this debatable question, and
also some preliminary considerations, which are concerned the force of bodies generally=" It was
dedicated in essence to a question, what value is the true measure for the motion1 mv or mvEF)
.i"e" pulse or !inetic energy0, and is antiquated already at the moment of its publishing, since
the question, which caused heated arguments, was resolved several years earlier"
his boo!, written in clear and energetic language, would preserve the value only as an
interesting biographical document, which vividly demonstrates young fervor and courage of early
;antGs spirit, if not some of its &B* pages were dedicated to the fact of the 3-dimensional natures
of space" hese three pages relate to ,preliminary considerations, which are concerning the force
of the bodies generally=, and the following words are the main topic on these pages1 ,)*
dimensional nature occurs, apparently, because substances in the existing world act on each
other in such a way that the effective force is inversely proportional to the s0uare of
distance= " 3ut the following reasonings led ;ant to the crucial assumption" .It begins with the
idea about relative nature of space according to Aeibnit-01 ,It is easy to prove that there would be
no space and any elongation, if substances possessed no force to act outside" 7ince without this
force it would lac! any connection, without the connection of bodies there is no order and finally
without the order there is no space@ However it is with more difficulty to understand, how from
the law, according to which this force of substances acts outside, follows the plurality of the
dimensions of space="
hen under the title ,the base of the )*dimensional nature of space not yet +nownH ;ant
tells about his one unsuccessful attempt to find this base1 ,7ince in the proof, based on Aeibnit-
in one place of his ,theodicy= on a quantity of lines, which can be carried out from one point
perpendicular to each other, """ I decided to derive the 3-dimensional nature of elongation from
the fact what we observe about the +powers of the numbers," However, the first three powers
of the numbers are completely simple, """ but the fourth, being by the square of square, there is
nothing else but the repetition of the second power=" hen ;ant ac!nowledges that, ,however
useful this property seemed=, it was impossible with its aid to explain the 3-dimensional nature
of space"
:nd only then follow the reasonings, which lead to the assumption about the connection of
the 3-dimensional nature of space and the fact that ,the substances in the existing world act on
each other= with the force, inversely proportional to the square of distance"
he following reasonings are based on the connection of the dimensionality of space on the
law of force1 7pace is ordering, ordering the totality of bodies" 7pace is the relation of bodies"
However, same of these relations are manifested in the forces, which act between the bodies" 3ut
forces .gravitation being the only fundamental force !nown at that time0 change inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies" herefore ,)= in the law of force
and ,3= the dimensionality of the space must be connected somehow .although ;ant does not
spea! about the concrete form of this connection0"
In this reasoning of ;ant the idea of the relative nature of space proved to be fruitful .space
as the relation of bodies originating from Aeibnit-0" : similar reasoning was impossible for
,rigid= supporters of >ewtonian absolute space .not depending on interaction of bodies0"
;ant spea!s in conclusion1 ,hese thoughts can serve as a s!etch for a certain study that I
intend to perform" I cannot, however, deny, that the equality of dimensionality to the maximum
number of the mutually perpendicular lines, drawn from one point, can not explain 3-
dimensional nature to a larger degree, than the earlier ,proof=, based on the interrelation of
geometric figures of different dimensionality" his is simply one additional form of the
statement of the 3-dimensional nature" hese ideas came to my mind, without the required
authenticity of a more detailed study" I will come bac! to them again, as soon as I can remedy
their wea!ness H"
7o it occurred" In the later, so-called critical period, which includes the basic philosophical
wor!s of ;ant, he arrived at the idea about the fact that the space is a priori, i"e" it does not
depend on experience, it precedes any experience and, it goes without saying, it cannot
depend on the concrete law of forces"
7o he came to a ,dogmatic sleep=" he examination of validity of this ideological evolution of
;ant would require too much place and would ta!e us away from the theme of this boo!"
herefore it is necessary to limit us to the observation, that the brilliant thought does not
become less brilliant, if it will subsequently re<ected .by ist author0"
Aet us return now to the very hypothesis of ;ant, which actually posed the problem of
explaining the 3-dimensional nature of the space on the basis of the concrete law of forces
between bodies"
.Aiving in last quarter of )*th century and !nowing that among fundamental interactions
there are such, which are not subordinated to the simple law of inverse s0uare .i"e" strong
and wea! interactions0, it is easy to doubt that this tas! has a solution" In &I4I", which
mar!ed ;antGs boo!, only the gravitational law of interaction was !nown, and there was no
basis for such doubts" ;antGs hypothesis was bac!ed however, in the year &IBJ, when
2oulomb established that the electric charges interact according to the same law. :nd up to
the 3*s of our century, when the short-range fundamental forces were discovered, it remained
that way" 9ne should, however emphasi-e1 If the construction of the unified theory of all
fundamental interactions will be successfully completed, then it is possible that in )&
st
century
;antKs problem will be considered as the correctly formulated problem"0
Aet us assume that this tas! would be solved, would this solution of the problem be recogni-ed
as a satisfactory answer to the question1 ,Why is space three-dimensional?= Hardly many people
would agree" Immediately the new question arises1 ,Why vary forces inversely proportional to
the square of distance?= herefore let us try generally to understand how science answers questions
starting with ,why="
1uestions starting with why in the science
Lue to fundamentality and unusualness of the topic of our boo!, let us examine any
seemingly entirely simple question, for example1 ,Why is there winter and summer?=
his question answers contemporary science approximately thus" +he (arth has ball-
shaped form, it revolves around its axis, inclined toward the plane of its motion around the sun"
:t the different points of orbit solar rays fall on this place for the earthGs surface at different
angles, and the thermal effect of light is the greater, the less the angle, i"e" the nearer the beamGs
direction to the perpendicular" herefore that section of the orbit is most cold .winter0, where
the solar rays fall on the earthGs surface at the greatest angle .relative to the perpendiculat0, and
most warm .summer0 in that section of the orbit, where the angle of incidence is smallest",
his answer to be comprehensive, it is necessary to include in it1 the laws of mechanics and
the law of universal gravitation, controlling motion of (arth around the sun and the motion of
the spin axis of the (arthC the laws of electromagnetic field, which control the propagation of light
and its interaction with the substance" #or these laws it would be required to introduce many
concepts of mechanics, theory of gravity and electromagnetism, including the extensive
mathematical apparatus .derivatives, integrals, vector analysis, tensor analysis, etc, etc0"
It would be necessary to !now the so-called initial conditions .angle of the slope of axis to
the plane of motion, the luminosity of the sun0" 7ome of these initial conditions could depend
on ,fundamental laws=" #or example, the theory of the evolution of stars could explain todayGs
luminosity of the sun, cosmogony the angle of the slope of axis, etc"
#hus, to answer the 0uestion2 why there is winter and summer3 the entire
contemporary physical science and even something from the future are re0uired" 3ut we
obtained an answer not only to the initial question, but at the same time to many othersC and
not only ,why from winter to the winter passes approximately identical time=, ,why on some
planets there can not be the change of winter and summer .if their axes of rotation are not
inclined0H" If we would want to understand the change of the seasons on a planet, which
revolves around a neutron star at small distance, it would be necessary to refine many of the
already used concepts1 the mass of planet would prove to be depending on the speed, its orbit
would prove to be not elliptical, and even the period of the time from the winter to the winter
would prove to be decreasing in the course of time"
he most complete answer, which science can give to a question about some physical
phenomenon, consists of embedding this phenomenon in the physical picture of the world,
which describes the studied phenomenon .together with a set of other phenomena0 on the basis of
the most fundamental elements of the physical picture of the universe"
Datters concerning any other question ,why?= would always go along the same line"
Aet us note now that for entire answer to the question1 ,Why there is winter and summer?=
the fact was implied .tacitly0 that space has a property of dimensionality, be it the theory of
>ewton or that of (instein, which replaced it" However during this replacement the concept of
dimensionality was somehow changed, but as before, it was equal to three"
3ut this only indicates the special fundamentality of the concept of dimensionality and of
its 3-dimensional nature, i"e" the dimensionality of space is located in the foundation of the
building of physical science"
his building, as is !nown, constantly undergoes changes1 ,completions=, ,repairs=, ,re-
plannings= and even radical ,reconstructions=" #oundation, of course, is rarely affected by any
reconstruction of building" 3ut those cases, when changes in the foundation prove to be
necessary, especially large action is involved, both on science itself and on humanity as a
whole"
:nd, it goes without saying, there are no foundations for the concept of dimensionality of
real physical space, not ta!ing into account physical fact"
In connection with all this the question1 ,Why space is three-dimensional?= poses the
following problems1
&" It is necessary to build a mathematical theory of dimensionality, suitable for the use in
the general physical theory" his tas! although ambiguous, is indispensable, because only with
the aid of the mathematical language physics can build its theories and describe nature by
sufficiently specific means"
)" In order to consider the 3-dimensional nature of space as actually physical, it is necessary to
develop the methods of its testing and the methods ,of the measurement= of dimensionality
.testability0"
his is not a simple tas! either" In the course of investigations we come across questions li!e1
,With what accuracy the dimensionality of space is equal to three?=" his .modified0 question
has completely definite meaning, for example, with respect to the equality of gravitational and
inert masses" his fact .equality of of gravitational and inert of masses0, which lies at the basis
of general theory of relativity .in the form the principle of equivalence0, is tested at present with
an accuracy to &*
-&)
"
When it comes to testing, dimensionality d .at least if we proceed from the usual ideas about
the dimensionality0, satisfies an inequality of the type Md N 3M O , where is a certain small
number" he problem of the empirical validity of this assertion against the pure 3-dimensional
nature of space, in spite of its unusualness, is well-defined"
3" :nd finally1 a complete answer to the question1 ,why is space three-dimensional= must be in
one oft two categories1 (ither the concept of dimensionality must be included in a physical
theory, where the fact of 3-dimensional nature .at least with respect to the !nown phenomena,
already studied by physics0 together with other fundamental physical facts will prove to be the
consequence of even more general considerations or it must be proven that the 3-dimensional
nature of space belongs to set of certain initial conditions and cannot be reduced to deeper
rootsC In this case the nature of these initial conditions must be researched"
In the first two directions .mathematical theory and testability0 science moved sufficiently far"
he third direction .which, naturally, must rest on the results the first two0 is yet to be
explored"
Into these three directions our study will go" However, before examining the formation of
contemporary concepts about dimensionality, two expressions need to be explained, which
will be frequently used" It is necessary, in the first place, to refine, how the words ,usual= or
,classical= are to be understood within the model of space, and second, to give a certain
explanation of Ptopology,"
Classical model of the space
his most well-!nown physical model of space is taught in the secondary school, and this
model exhausts all needs of macroscopic physics" Dacroscopic are called those physical
phenomena on ,human= scales .according to the si-es, the energy, the temperature and in terms
of the values of other characteristic parameters0" However, in actuality the classical model of
space is sufficient for describing the much larger scale of phenomena, which includes atomic
spectra, and the motion of planets" :nd this is perhaps one of the most surprising facts in the
history of science"
:ctually the geometric description of this model of space was already contained in (uclidGs
,elements=, which appeared in the 3rd century 3"2" In twenty-three centuries, that passed
prior to the beginning )*
th
century", occurred immense changes in the physical ideas and in the
whole nature of physics as sciences" he ideas of :ristotelian physics about the motion, which
divided into celestial and terrestrial mechanics, were replaced by >ewtonian laws, controlling
the motions of celestial and terrestrial bodies" he :ristotelian ideas, according to which the
motion of a body ceases, when forces cease to act on it, they were substituted with law of inertia1
the body, on which no forces, act preserves the state of uniform and rectilinear motion" he idea
about the visual rays, which emanate from the eye and ,feeling= ob<ects, was replaced by
physical optics" Interaction of the rubbing pieces of amber and magnetic bodies, that was being
explained by the actions of the corresponding soul, was later understood as the manifestation of
DaxwellKs law"
:nd in spite of all this, the geometric model of physical space remained virtually unchanged"
: very outstanding event .especially for the future development0 was creation of analytical
geometry in &Ith of century, usage of coordinate space" 3ut actually this was only a new form of
the same (uclidean model of space"
Here it is worthwhile to emphasi-e that the word combination itself ,the model of space=,
would seem absurd for the mathematicians up to the middle of the &8
th
century .when the of
value of the non-(uclidean of geometry was understood, opened by Aobachevs!y, 3ol<ai and
5iemann0, and it would also seem absurd for the physicists up to the beginning )*
th
century,
when in the special theory of relativity the (uclidean geometry of space was replaced by the
geometry of the Din!ows!i-space-time and then in the general theory of relativity by the general
5iemann-geometry of space-time"
:nd is it not ama-ing" to accept a description as model in spite of the ambiguity of this
description? o this moment the scientists were certain, that the (uclidean geometry was
identical with physical space"
he physical model of space is not reduced to one geometry" Indeed in the geometry nothing is
said how to carry out straight lines etc" herefore the physical interpretations of geometric
concepts must be included into the physical model of space besides underlying geometry" #or
example, +straight line, is compared to the tightly drawn rope or to light beam" he mass-
point, the dimensions of which can be disregarded in comparison with other significant
dimensions does correspond to the theoretical description of reality"
What is now the classical model of space? Aet us define the so*called axes of rectangular
coordinates, i"e" three mutually perpendicular lines, passing through one point, called the origin
of coordinates" Aet us establish a specific unit of length, let us put off on the axes the numbers,
equal to the distances from the origin of coordinates, to one side from the origin of coordinates
with the plus sign, and to the other with the minus sign"
:fter this, it is possible to attribute to each point in space three numbers" Aet us lower from the
selected point three perpendiculars to the coordinate axes, each of them will correspond to a
point on the coordinate-axis, i"e" a certain number of positive or negative value" :s a result each
point of space corresponds now to three numbers, which are called the coordinates of this point"
:nd vice versa, any troi!a of numbers corresponds to one and only one point of space,
coordinates of which are exactly these three numbers"
he possibility of all triples .troi!as0 can be chec!ed experimentally" .his chec!ing for the
regions of space on the order of & m with an accuracy to &Q .i"e" to & cm0 is easily performed
with usual domestic physical instruments" 3ut the issue of verification in the cases, let us say,
of atomic or astronomical phenomena is not so simple"0
hus, the introduction of the coordinate system converts space into the totality of all possible
troi!as of numbers. In this case the (uclidean nature of geometry, as it occurs, it is completely
determined by the fact that the square of the distance between the point $ with the coordinates
.x
&
, x
)
, x
3
0 and the point $K with the coordinates .x
&
K" x
)
K" x
3
K0 is equal to1
.&0 rE R .x
&
-x
&
K0E / .x
)
-x
)
K0E / .x
3
-x
3
K0E
his equality follows from the $ythagorean theorem, and, in turn, the consequence of this
equality delivers the entire (uclidean geometry, each assertion of which can be reformulated,
using only the concept of the distance between two points" #ormula .&0, as they say, assigns the
metric .in this case (uclidean metric0 to the structure of space"
In mathematics (uclidean metric space (
n
is called the totality of all possible collections of n
numbers .x
&
,""",x
n
0" (ach such collection is called a point of space, and the distance between two
points is determined by the equality similar to .&01
.)0 r E R .x
&
- x&G0 E / @""/ .x
n
- x
n
G0 E
hus, from a mathematical point of view the classical model of space coincides with the
three*dimensional Euclidean space E
)
" It is clear that the coordinates, assigned to a certain
point of space, do not have absolute sense, but they depend on how the origin of coordinates
and reference directions are chosen" It is not compulsory to also use an exactly rectangular
coordinate systemC #or other coordinate systems equality .&0, expressing the value of the distance
between two points through their coordinates, will change its form" It should preserve the
$ythagorean theorem" 9therwise we will obtain a non-(uclidean geometry"
However, in any event it is necessary to assign precisely three coordinates in order to cover
all positions of points in the space completely" his circumstance is received as the
manifestation of the fact of 3-dimensional nature" he following discussion will deal with the
insufficiency of this understanding of dimensionality, and thus far let us recall that the
mathematical model of the space (
3
proved to be completely sufficient for the enormous region of
physical phenomena and the value of this simple model will remain for physics, no matter how
ideas about the space changed"
4hat is topology3
It was earlier said that topology is the field of mathematics, which studies the concept of
continuity from different sides" However, this definition is too fu--y" It remains obscure, how
mathematics simulate the general properties of continuity" It is intuitively sufficiently clear, but
we cannot rely on psychological arguments"
(pithet ,topological= is applicable to such mathematical facts, and such properties of the
mathematical ob<ects, which are based only on the contiguity of the points of this ob<ect" In order
to spea! about the topological properties of a certain point set, it is necessary for each point
of this set to !now, how they ad<oin to other points this set" With this !nowledge the topology of
this set is assigned" :ny set with an assigned topological structure is called topological space5
Aet us examine, for example, a number scale axis and certain point set on it" Aet us use the
topological property +connectedness, as an example" : set is called ,connected,, if it cannot
be bro!en into two parts so that any point of each part would not ad<oin to any point of the other
part" :nother example of topological concept is the (boundary of a set, which is called the
totality of all points, ad<oining simultaneously this set and its complement, i"e" the remaining part
of topological space"
9n a number scale axis each of the sets %*, &', .*,&', %*, &0, .*,&0 has a boundary, which
consists of two points1 * and &" It is easy to see that each of the sets is connected, because
they cannot be bro!en into two parts, whose boundaries do not have common points"
9ther topological concepts are closedness and openness" A set is called closed, if it contain alls
points of its boundary, and open if it does not contain any point of its boundary" #rom four the
sets of number-intervals indicated are closed only %*, &', and open is only .*, &0, the remaining
two are neither open nor closed"
In the previous paragraph the relation of contiguity, which is introduced on the numerical
representation of space, was assumed to be intuitively clear" 3ut in the general case the
question arises1 how can topological structure be introduced3 In topology itself this question
boils down to the question, +how it is possible to assign distances for every two points, in
other words how to reach a metric geometry?,"
Detric geometry may be reduced to the definition a certain infinite table, in one column of
which all possible pairs of points are listed, and in one column non-negative numbers representing
the distance between the corresponding two points" In exactly the same manner topology can
proceed from the table, in one column of which all possible pairs are found, belonging to a
certain set of points, but in another column to each pair corresponding words ,it ad<oins= or ,it
does not ad<oin="
In reality other methods are used instead of tables" 9ne of the important and historically the first
method assigns topology with the aid of the formula" :ssume that in a certain set the of metric of
structure is assigned, i"e" for any two points the distance between them is !nown" hen we say that
the point P ad6oins the set 7, if in D there are for each numerical value there are points, which
have a smaller distance from $ than " his topological structure, as they say, is induced by a
mapping" he topological structure on number scale axis, which was being implied above, is
induced by the usual distance, which maps the number scale axis into the one-dimensional
(uclidean space (
&
"
:nother method of the tas! of topological structure consists of the indication of all environments
for each point" $oint $ ad<oins the set D, if any environment of point $ contains at least one point,
which belongs to D. he natural topology on number scale axis can be defined, if we introduce the
environment of a given point $ as the set of intervals .a, e0 with a O $ O e" :s we see, here it is no
longer required to !now the distances between the points"
Aet us recall now :ristotle, who attempted to give .without !nowing about these concepts0 the
topological definition of dimensionality on the basis of the concept of continuity" It would be difficult
to explain what topology understands under the +continuity of space,"
It is ama-ing, but there is no concept ,continuous space= in topology" he intuitive idea about the
continuous space proved to be too capacious, that it it would be possible to personify in one
mathematical concept" !n topology there are several concepts, which reflect different aspects of
continuous space5 he already mentioned connectedness spea!s about sets, which are not
decomposed into several individual parts" he topological concept of dimensionality, at which
$oincare arrived and which will be discussed in chapter &" here are other topological concepts,
which refine the continuities of space"
However, in the topological language there is the concept of continuous mapping of one set onto
another" Dapping is called continuous, if it transfers the ad<acent points into ad<oining points again" If
two figures can be connected with bicontinuous mapping 8or conversion9, then they are
indistinguishable from the point of view of topology" he topological structure is reduced to the
relation of contiguity" If we imagine, that the geometric figure is made from some elastic material, then
any deformation of it without brea!s will prove to be topological conversion"
-et us give two examples of topological theorems5
:ssume that a certain closed surface is given" Aet us isolate a certain quantity of points, let us
connect these points to sections of another set, so that the entire surface would be bro!en into triangles
.curvilinear in the general case0" Aet us denote the total quantity of points by the letter 3, the lines of
points by letter $, the number of triangles by . hen for any topological conversion for a certain
surface the value R3-$/ has one and the same value and is called the (uler characteristic of this
surface" (ulerGs name is here used nonaccidentally" his is one of the first topological theorems and
was proven by (uler in &B
th
century"
he second example is already directly connected with the theme of this boo!" In &8&& it was
proved that there does not exists any topological mapping, which connects two (uclidean spaces of
different dimension"
>ow it is already possible to answer the question what topology does" #opology studies different
types of topological structures and their properties, which are not changed during the
topological mappings5
Chapter !
#:E #$P$-$;!CA- C$"CEP# $F %!7E"<!$"A-!#=
'eginning of the contemporary history of dimensionality
he history of dimensionality of geometric ob<ects and 3-dimensional nature of physical
space includes, as has already been discussed, spans at least )*** years" However, it ma!es
only sense to examine approximately the last one hundred years of this history, after the
beginning of Henri $oincareKs wor! .&BJ4-&8&)0, and history preceding this centuryGs events
can be named ,the prehistory= of dimensionality"
3ase for this can be seen in the following"
he greatest generali-ation of physical ideas today about dimensionality gives topology"
3ut the appearance of topology as an independent field of mathematics, happened in the time
interval in question and it is, in the second place, connected to a high degree with $oincareGs
wor!" He is one of the creators of topology, to him belongs the first, .formally not completely
strict0 topological definition of dimensionality"
$oincare was not only the greatest mathematician of his time, but also an important
physicist" His active role in the creation of the special theory of relativity is well !nown,
which lead to radical changes in the idea about space and time" 3ut independent of this
$oincare, ,repeatedly turned himself to the explanation of the initial beginnings of geometry
and the concept of space= %&'"
he manifold of $oincareGs interests is ama-ing" His deep and bright ideas, the abundance
of which sometimes could barely be managed, ventured practically into all the fields of
mathematics, into celestial mechanics and physics" his physico-mathematical universality of
$oincare was right on target with the examination of the problem of dimensionality which is
a physico-mathematical problem"
$oincare - one of the greatest representatives of classical mathematics and classical physics
lived in the epoch, when in these sciences revolutionary changes occurred, <ust to mention the
appearance of the theory of sets and the theory of relativity"
He contributed much for the victory of both theories" With his aid according to
:le!sandrov, the traditions of classical science ,were exploded from within=" He cooperated
with 2antor .&B4JS&8&B0, fruitfully using set theory" 3y the creation of $oincareGs topology
opened for mathematics ,an entire world of new problems@ inaccessible to classical
mathematics@="
When the paradoxes of set theory were revealed and began its reconstruction on the
axiomatic basis, $oincare re<ected this axiomatic approach, because the theory of sets and
actual infinity are indispensable" In the case of the theory of relativity $oincare created the
mathematical apparatus for the theory and earlier than (instein he analy-ed the concept of
simultaneity" He concludes his last article on this theme by the words1 ,>ow some physics want
to accept a new agreement .that is the association of the concepts of +space= and +time= into the
concept of +space-time=0. his does not mean that they were forced to ma!e this stepC they
consider this new agreement more convenient, and those, who do not adhere to this !ind of
thoughts, can completely lawfully preserve their old habits= %4'"
Why did $oincare turn himself to the problem of dimensionality? Why do we have to call
him the creator of topology? hese questions almost coincide, since for $oincare the most basic
property of space is the topological ,property of continuity of three dimensions= "
3ut can $oincare really be called the creator of topology? Indeed, for example, well-!nown
#rench mathematician >icolas 3ourba!i .under this name an association of the most outstanding
#rench mathematicians wrote several important mathematical boo!s0 calls 5iemann the founder
of topology and convincingly substantiates this" Tes even $oincareGs himself spo!e about 5iemann
as the founder of topology"
If we use the comparison of !nowledge with a torch .unfortunately, worn out0, then the initial
development period of a science can be compared with a relay race, in which this torch is
transferred from hand to hand by participants in the relay race .for the topological dimensional
theory these are 5iemann, 3etty, 2antor, $oincare0"
:nd finally, from this one torch ignites immediately several torches and there is a moment of
transition from ,linear=, ,one-dimensional= development of science into ,multidimensional=
development"
his moment is determined by intra-scientific, and external, socially caused reasons" It is possible
to consider each of the scientists as the creator of a new region, since the participation of each is
vitally important for the fate of this new region" Important is of course, the detection of a new field
of research .in the case of topology his was 5iemann0, and its formation into an independent
science" he merit of $oincare was to reveal the fruitfulness of topological approach in different
fields of mathematics"
(specially great was the advance of $oincare in the explanation of concept of measured space"
3ernhard 5iemann .&B)US&BUU0 also contributed to the concept of dimensionality, in his
famous lecture ,about the hypotheses, which lie at the base of geometry= he was confronted with
the tas! to design the concept of repeatedly extensive value="
We will see soon, how far $oincare got in the definition of the concept of the dimensionality of
space" 3ut what led $oincare to the question1 ,Why space has three dimensions=" :n answer can
be the following" he second half of &8
th
century" from the point of view of the history of
mathematics was the epoch of non-(uclidean geometry" he non-(uclidean geometry obtained
ac!nowledgment in mathematics" #ailure of the a priori uniqueness of (uclidean geometry, the
possibility of several .after the wor! of 5iemann even of an infinite number0 non-(uclidean-
geometries produced huge impression on the mathematicians of that time, and in particular on
$oincare" He repeatedly chose the ideas of non-(uclidean geometry for problems of space"
2reating his non-(uclidean geometry too! some time, and he already could glance ,from the
height of bird flight="
$oincare progressed to the analysis of other, even more fundamental properties of space, which
had ,survived= the transfer from the (uclidean geometry to the non-(uclidean, in particular its
3-dimensional nature"
Poincare/s psychologism
In the survey of his own wor! in &8*& $oincare writes1 ,I dealt@ with the analysis of the
psychological foundations of the concept of space=" he psychological element was the essential
element of his methodological approach and it was extended beyond geometric concepts" hus,
for instance, connecting his failure with the concept of actual infinity with psychological
considerations, he writes1 ,5ussel will undoubtedly say to me that he is not occupied with
psychology, but with logic and theory of !nowledgeC I will answer, that there is no logic and
theory of !nowledge, independent from psychology="
he meaningful result of this analysis is his conclusion about the influence of external world
on the geometric ideas" In his chapter ,space and geometry= in the boo! ,science and
hypothesis= .&8*)0 $oincare writes, ,here is a small paradox, that imaginary creatures - living
in a four-dimensional world - with mind and sensory organs similar to ours, could obtain such
impressions from their external world, that to them it would ma!e sense to build a geometry with
four dimensions="
#rom a materialist point of view in this example there is nothing paradoxical" his is the
starting point of the materialist theory of !nowledge" However, apparently, $oincare considered
it paradoxical to spea! about the non-(uclidean or four-dimensional geometry as real, at least
for the imaginary creatures" $oincare based his conclusion about the influence of the external
world on the detailed psychological examination of visual and tactile spaces5 .represented
spaces0" oo detailed, because his attempt to base the analysis of the influence of external world on
molding of scientific ideas seems somewhat naive"
#or this purpose the concept of practice is more useful, which rises from the theses of
#euerbach and Darx, which includes not only the practice of the individual researcher, but also
social-historical practice" 2ertainly, the problem of formation of three-dimensional idea by an
individual man is important, but nevertheless this problem the essence of psychology"
In ,the paradox=, $oincareGs examined, the assumption about similarity of mind and sensory
organs for imaginary creatures is doubtful" he physical analysis of (hrenfest showed that even
if it is possible to assume the existence of creatures in any four-dimensional world, then their
,devices=, most li!ely, must radically differ from ours"
#urthermore the analysis of represented space, is faulty, the way it was carried out by
$oincare" He begins with ,visual space= and writes that this space ,differs from the tactile
space=, in particular because ,when it is desired to give three dimensions= .two dimensions
correspond to the two-dimensional character of retina, and third - the depth - is given by the
sensation of the angle between the lines of sight from both eyes0, while ,tactile space=, in the
opinion of $oincare, is two-dimensional .since it feels always surfaces0" He raises the question,
,why the geometry of blind is the same as ours= and why combination of visual and tactile spaces
does not give to us J .3/)0 of dimensions" It is difficult to call his analysis completely
convincing" $oincare does not examine, for example, ,auditory space= as very important for the
blind man"
:ll this shows again that the attitude of man toward space is very complex" If psychological
analysis could solve the tas! of molding of ideas about the space, then only for individual persons"
7cience as a whole is a very complex form of culture, corresponding to high levels of the
development of society"
:nd only the concept of practice is capable to solve the problem of molding scientific ideas
about space and the problem of the truth of these ideas" V
$oincareGs analysis leads to the conclusion about the guiding role of experience, and the
second-rateness of geometric ideas, in particular, about the dimensionality of space with respect
to the external world" :nd although the substantiation of dimensionality, li!e1 ,7pace is three-
dimensional, since the elements of our visual sensations are completely determined, if three
dimensions are !nown - the indication of dimensionality is very fruitful",
It seems surprising that $oincare considered it possible to combine the assertion about the
determining influence of external world with the assertion about the great significance of a
priori elements1 ,"" since we have a ability to build continuity both physical and mathematicalC
@ this ability exists in us before any experience, since without it experience in the true sense of
word would be impossible@= %&*'"
#or the history of dimensionality $oincareGs psychologism is very important" hey usually rate
the article of $oincare &8&)" ,why space has three dimensions?= to be the first appearance of the
inductive topological definition of dimensionality .on the basis of this wor! 3rouwer in &8&3
gave the precise inductive definition of dimensionality0"
In reality this idea appeared ten years earlier" :nd it appeared in ,psychological= direction of
the reflections of $oincare, when he attempted to design ,physical continuity of many dimensions=
only on the basis of ,direct data of our sensations=" However, the psychological origin of this idea
prevented $oincareGs from immediately converting it into the precise mathematical formalism"
It would be otherwise incomprehensible, why $oincare for ten years did not tac!le the precise
mathematical formulation of this idea" his question would not arise, if this idea appeared for the
first time in the wor! of &8&), the year of $oincareGs death"
$oincare would not be physicist, if, after being interested in the problem of dimensionality, he
limited himself to the psychological approach and would not as! questions about the physics of
the dimensionality of space"
%imensionality of space and topology
In $oincareKs wor! we find two substantially different approaches to the concept of
dimensionality - parametric and topological" In the first of his boo!s on general questions of science
,science and hypothesis=, that was published in &8*), he presented both approaches"
$arametric dimensionality1 $oincare writes that the complete visual space ,has exactly three
dimensionsC i"e" the elements of our visual sensations@ will be completely determined, when
three of them are !nownC being expressed by mathematical language, they will be the functions
of three independent variables="
: similar approach is based on a parametric ,definition= of dimensionality as the minimal
number of parameters, which are necessary to distinguish the points of space from each other
mathematically" his became clear after ?eorg ;antor
C
.&B4JS&8&B0 created a famous example
of correspondence between sets of points and a sqare"
his example is as simple, as important for the problem of the mathematical description of
dimensionality" he method, by which 2antor arrived at this result, was approximately the
following1 he creation by 2antor utli-ing set theory began with the concept of the cardinal
number as infinite set .generali-ing the concept +quantity of elements, of final sets0" It was
necessary to find infinite sets, between which correspondence could be established, when each
element of one set is corresponding to exactly one element of another set"
he geometric figures of different dimensionality seemed to be suitable candidates for the
role of the infinite sets of different power" In the plane figure, for example a square of points,
it would seem the infinite number is greater than that in a section of a line" 2antor for three
years attempted to prove this intuitively obvious fact" his difference in two infinity, if it
actually existed, could become a basis for determining the dimensionality" However, as a result of
his attempts 2antor surprisingly revealed that these two sets are equally powerful1 he succeeded
in establishing a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of these sets" 5eporting in
&BII his discovery to Ledi!ind, 2antor in the letter wrote ,I see this, but I do not believe it="
2orrespondence itself is arranged simply" Without approaching special strictness, it is possible to
describe it thus" #rom the point of view of mathematics single section can be represented as the
set of all real numbers between * and & while the sqare may be represented as all pairs of real
numbers between * and &" 6sing the decimal representation the pairs of real numbers can be
combined into a singe real number, thus every point of a square maps to a certain point of a
section, moreover different points of section correspond to different points of square .<ust
reverse the process0" hus, it turned out that the sets of different dimensionality have identical
power" his meant that with the aid of the concept of power alone it cannot be defined what
dimensionality is"
However, parametric definition ma!es sense, together with the concept of the number of
degrees of freedom, which is !nown in physics" $oincare in &8*) could not give this intuitively
clear definition" He uses it only for ,complete visual space= and does not attempt to give the
correct mathematical definition, based on this idea"
Parametric representations of dimensionality could satisfy physics, which used sufficiently
simple geometric figures, but not the general geometry, which studies all possible figures" :t
the end of &8
th
century the insufficiency of simple parametric representations was revealed" It
seemed clear, for example, that any line must be one-dimensional" 3ut does that apply to ,any
line=? #or a long time mathematicians were satisfied with this definition1 a line of points is any
figure, which can be obtained by the continuous transformation of the unit line segment" his
definition refines only the ancient idea1 ,he line is the trac! of a moving point="
It turned out that mathematical intuition can ma!e mista!es li!e any another" It was necessary
to search for the replacement of parametric representations of dimensionality"
!nductive topological definition of dimensionality2 he new approach .being radically differed
from the parametric0 of $oincare to the dimensionality of space arose with the analysis of the
concept of continuity, in particular ,physical continuity=" 7pecifically, with the analysis
,physical continuity of many dimensions= appeared the idea, which became the first topological
definition of dimensionality" he definition of ,mathematical continuity of many dimensions=
leaves apparently some uneasinesses in $oincare, because it in &8*) he considers the parametric
definition of this concept to be sufficient1 ,he point of a similar continuity seemed to be defined
with the aid of a system of the separate values, called its coordinates= %&&'"
(ven in &8&) $oincare gives the definition1 ,he continuity of n dimensions is described by a
totality of n coordinates, i"e", the totality of n quantities, which change independently from each
other= %&)'" In this wor! the trac!s of the parametric definition of dimensionality remained, but it is
emphasi-ed that ,the question of the number of dimensions is tightly connected with the concept of
continuity=" :nd really as we will see, $oincare considers multidimensionality as the generali-ation
of the simplest case of continuity, which corresponds to a real axis" he definition given above,
according to $oincare, is flawless from the point of view of mathematics, but not for the
philosopher H, little is left of the intuitive origin of the concept of continuity" :nd therefore
$oincare searches for another definition of dimensionality"
In &8*) $oincare, contemplating the concept of physical continuity as primary, he connects
it with the so-called law of #echner" his law can be illustrated as follows" Aet a certain
,experimenter= estimate the relative length of different sections" Aet us assume that the minimum
difference, which this man can note .when, let us say, the discussion deals with the sections with
a length of from one to two meters0, is equal to &,J cm" >ow to this man there are given three
sections1 :R&** cm, 3R&*& cm and 2R&*) cm" hen our experimenter, examining sections
in pairs, can say that :R3 , 2RL but : O 2" $oincare writes 1 ,he na!ed results of experience
can be, therefore, expressed by the following relationships1 :R3, 3R2 but : O 2, which can be
considered as the formulas of physical continuity= %&3'" He deals with the fact that physically
only those values can be distinguished, which are differed not less than to a certain finite
quantity .threshold of discernability0" It is clear that the discussion deals with the physico
psychological or even .if we are not afraid of long words0 with the physico-psycho-physiological
continuity"
$oincare analy-es the concept ,physical continuity of many dimensions=, and his idea of the
future topological definition of dimensionality appears here" It characteri-es one-dimensional
physical continuity by the fact that it is possible ,to subdivide@ by moving away from it a finite
number of distinguishable elements=" If the subdivision of continuity 2 is reached by the cuts,
which is the limit of one .physical0 measurement, then we will say that it has two dimensions=,
etc %&4'"
In &8*) $oincare does not yet substitute word ,distinguishable elements, by ,points, and
does not transfer this definition to the case of the mathematical continuity of dimensions"
:lthough he writes that the mathematical continuity differs from the concept of physical
continuity, he stated that ,the point of a similar continuity is presented to us by the aid of the
system of n separate values, called its coordinates="
he 3-dimensional nature of $oincareGs space he asserts as follows1 ,When we say that the space
has three dimensions, we want to say simply that the totality of these elements .sensations as
prototypes of points) have for us the characteristic features of the physical continuity of three
dimensions="
In mathematics those properties are called recurrent or inductive .and also proofs, relationships,
etc0, where the property, characteri-ed by the number n, is defined through the property,
characteri-ed by the number n - &" In this case the initial point of the inductive chain, of course,
must be assigned"
$oincareKs initial point was the unidimensionality of the simplest form of continuity" However,
as it was explained more lately, it is more convenient as the initial point of induction to ta!e *,
and so that the definition would preserve its form, to the empty set .i"e" ,the set=, which does
contain no element0 it is necessary to formally assign .minus one0"
#urther $oincare writes that the faith in this definition gave him, .ascending even to
(uclidGs idea about the fact that surfaces are the boundary of bodies, line are the boundary of
surfaces and points are the boundary of lines" hen he emphasi-es the importance of the concept
of the section in topology .,on the section everything based=0 and in connection with this
concept he recalls that, according to 5iemann, a difference from the sphere to the torus is
expressed with the aid of sections1 on the torus .in contrast to the sphere0 not any closed
curve divides it into two parts"
2omparing the definition of $oincare with the contemporary topological definitions of the
dimensionality .see addition0, it is possible to see that the construction of $oincare corresponds
to the so-called large inductive dimensionality1 the dimensionality of the space > is e0ual to n,
if between any two closed dis6oint sets in the > a partition of the dimensionality of n*? is
located, in this case the dimensionality of empty set is counted as n*? .the concept of partition
corresponds to what $oincare calls section0"
hus, we see that the dimensionality of the space as a fundamental concept of topology arose
.even if not directly0 from physics"
%imensionality and the property of #iling@Covering5
It is usually believed, that the idea of the inductive topological definition of dimensionality
first appeared in the wor! of $oincare in &8&)" In reality, as we saw, the idea of this definition
was already conceived in the wor! of $oincare &8*), and, apparently, this idea appears here for
the first time" In any case, in the survey of its own wor!s, which $oincare wrote in &8*& %&U',
there are no trac!s of inductive approach what so ever"
If we turn to one of a great previous wor! of $oincare about the bases of the geometry in his
article from &B8B %&I', we find there no hints for the inductive definition, but in the article of
&B8B there is something not less surprising" $oincare here raises the question about the internal
.topological0 characteristic of n-dimensional space, which is not dealing with the idea of
independently changing values of n coordinates1
,Aet us visuali-e the totality of plane figures, which partially cover one another in such a way
that the plane proves to be completely covered by themC li!e a cabbage soup let us visuali-e
something analogous in the space with three dimensions" If such figures, formed a !ind of
one-dimensional tape, we could recogni-e this, because the connection between these figures
obeys the following law1 if : it is connected simultaneously with 3 and 2 and L, then 2 is
connected with 3" his law would not be valid, if figures, being assigned, covered plane or
spaces with dimension larger than two" $oincare attempts to connect the concept of
dimensionality with the properties of tilings" 2ertainly, there are no final results, and if one-
dimensional ,totality= is described by some means, then about the larger number of dimensions
it is said that ,analogous laws= must be carried out"
hese laws were expressed in &8&& by the remar!able #rench mathematician Aebesgue .&BIJS
&84&0, who revealed the connection between dimensionality and +multiplicity of
tilings@coverings," It spea!s about the greatest number of elements of a tiling, which have at least
one common point" AebesgueGs theorem .german1 +$flastersat- von Aebesgue=0 asserts that
the minimum multiplicity of tiling in n-dimensional (uclidean space is equal to n/&"
7ubsequently this theorem became one more topological definition of the dimensionality1
the dimensionality of a figure is equal to n, if the minimum multiplicity of its tilings is equal to
n/&"
:lthough, as we saw, $oincareGs attempt to connect dimensionality with the properties of
tilings was not successful, but the direction of his reflections could inspire AebesgueGs idea"
%imensionality of space and physics
:lthough $oincare calls experimental facts the results of his psycho-physiological analysis,
he clearly sees the possibility of another point of view1 ,he laws of physics are expressed by
differential equations, these equations use three coordinates for material points" $erhaps it is
possible to express these laws by other equations, with material points, which have four
coordinates .in an imaginary four-dimensional world0?=
Immediately after the formulation of this problem he gave one possible answers1 ,3ut
perhaps if this is possible, those equations will be more complex? 9r finally if they prove to be
as simple, then we do not re<ect them simply because they contradict our mental habits?=
$oincare begins with the analysis of the phrase ,expression of the same laws with other
equations= and writes1 ,We can say that both worlds are subordinated to the same laws= if
there is ,parallelism=, the correspondence between the totalities of all phenomena, possible in
these worlds" $oincare assumes this correspondence to be possible, and even always possibleC
3ut we !now today that parallelism of two ,worlds= of different dimensionality is impossible"
he radical difference of the physical laws in the spaces of different dimensionality
composes the basic result of (hrenfest"
$oincare writes that ,it suffices to examine the simple case of astronomical phenomena and
>ewtonGs law=" :ccording to him, into the laws of celestial mechanics only their relative
distances must enter" hese distances, which are in 3-dimensional space derived from U
. R)W30 coordinates, are substituted under the assumption of a 4-dimensional space with B
. R)W40 coordinates" hen he asserts1 ,It is clear that these equations will be more complex
than our ordinary equations" 2ertainly, the same will occur also with the other laws of
physics=" 2onfident words li!e ,it is clear= and ,certainly= do not compensate the absence of real
arguments"
he general methodological approach of $oincare is reduced to the following1 the geometric
model of reality is ambiguous, since in the experiments we do not deal with the model itself, but
with the combination of a specific geometric model and the specific physical theoryC therefore
the model is selected utili-ing criteria of simplicity and convenience"
:s $oincare attempted to illustrate the possibility to assign numbers of dimensions not
equal to three" his illustration, strictly spea!ing, does not refer to physics, although it is
necessary to discuss such questions as inertial system, principle of Dach and law of relativity
under these conditions" :ctually, $oincare writes1 ,We observe not the coordinates of stars, but
only their relative distancesC the natural image of the laws of their motion must be the
differential equations, which connect these distances to the course of time="
In >ewtonGs dynamics there is besides relative distances both the concept of inertial reference
system and the concept of absolute space" hat these elements of >ewtonian mechanics caused
doubts, beginning with Aeibnit-, in many physicists .including (instein, for whom these doubts
played the constructive role for the creation of 75R special relativity0, does not give the
<ustification for ignoring them"
Here is the simplest counterexample to the assertion of $oincare" Aet us examine two
situations1
&0 two ,stars= are located at a constant distance from each other because of rotation
.relative to inertial reference system0C
)0 let us place the same two stars up to the same distance, let these stars be at rest, and we
will control their motion from the revolving .noninertial0 frame of reference"
Lespite the fact that ,relative distances= and speeds in both cases at first coincide,
subsequently the distance between the stars changes differently1 in the first case it remains the
same, in the second case it decreases" 7o that the laws of motion include not only relative
distances"
3ut $oincare does not consider an even more important circumstance" He actually implies
that upon transfer from the three-dimensional to the four-dimensional space the law of gravity
remains the same .force is proportional to r
-)
, where r is the distance between two points0, since
he spea!s only about substituting r into the formula with .4 W )0 coordinates, i"e" in 4-
dimensional space"
3ut in 4-dimensional space law #X r
-)
is incompatible with the principle of the superposition .i"e"
this law no longer obeys the linear equation of Aaplace0, it is incompatible, in particular with
the fact that gravitational field of a sphere is equivalent to the field of a point located in the
center with a mass, equal to the mass of sphere" hus, the parallelism of the totalities of
phenomena is not achieved, which indicates the failure of the physical case study of
dimensionality, conducted by $oincare" In reality in the n-dimensional space the dependence of
force # from r must be1 #&Fr
n-&
he calculation of this law allowed (hrenfest five years to later achieve the final success in
the case study of the dimensionality of space"
1uanti.ation in 0uantum physics and the concept of the dimensionality of
the space*time
he last &) years of $oincareGs life were also the first &) years of quantum physics" $oincare was
interested in quantum physics only the last two years of his life, nevertheless this interest deeply
penetrated the essence of his ideas" In spite of the primitive state of the quantum theory at that
time .there was not even the atom model of 3ohr0, he reali-ed the impact of quanti-ation the
set of possible magnitudes of a physical quantity and fruitfully participated in the consideration
of quantum ideas"
he wor! of $oincare &8&) dealt with the quantum concept" His ideas are interesting, in the
first place, because here for the first quanti-ation was connected with the question of the number of
dimensions of space, which according to $oincare, ,is tightly connected with the concept of
continuity and loses any meaning if you abandon continuity= %)*'" 3ut in the second place, these
wor!s give the possibility to explain the important question in the history of the special theory
of relativity concerning $oincareGs role in its creation"
he association of the concepts of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into the
concept of the four-dimensional space-time, which will be discussed in more detail in the
following chapter, became one of the most important changes in the physical picture of the
world"
In his article ,hypothesis of quanta=, analy-ing $lanc!Gs way to calculate the spectrum of
thermal radiation, he comes to the conclusion that $lanc!Gs assumption about the possible
states of elementary oscillators could be generali-ed to any physical system1 ,$hysical systems
possess final .discrete0 numbers of different states1 it <umps from one state into another, without
penetrating the continuous row of intermediate states= %)&'"
Aet us see what example is discussed by $oincare1 ,Aet us assume for simplicity, that the
state of a system depends only on three parameters, so that we can present it geometrically by a
point in the space" he ensemble of the points, which depict different possible states, does not
fill space completely or any region of space, as it is usually assumed, but there is only a large
number of points, isolated in the space" rue, these points are distributed so very densely, that
they create the illusion of continuity="
Is this not parametric representation of the dimensionality of space? Lespite the fact that
mathematician $oincare !nows about the insufficience of parametric definition, physicist $oincare
uses parametric language for describing the 3-dimensional nature of state space" He examines the
possibility not only for a ,totally disconnected=, -ero-dimensional set of possible states, but also
one-dimensional or two-dimensional, as before assuming that the state of the physical system
depends only on three parameters"
2an it be, that $oincare did have in mind only state-space, but not physical space? his is a
substantial question, since the rule of physical instruments for measuring the length of a physical
of system, which consists atoms, the set of states of which must be discrete" 3ut more
important is the fact that $oincare approached very closely to the idea about the possible
discretionFquanti-ation of space"
he complexity of this problem is confirmed by the extensiveness of the literature, dedicated to
it %)'" In the wor! of $oincare from &8*U, completely independent from the famous wor! of
(instein &8*J, practically the entire mathematical apparatus is contained" his wor! overlaps, as
it seems from a mathematical point of view with the wor! of (instein, and the wor! of
Din!ows!i &8*IS&8*B, with which the introduction of the four-dimensional space into
physics too! place - also called space of Din!ows!i" he supporters of $oincareGs priority in the
discovery of four-dimensional space-time, leaving to Din!ows!i only large arbitrariness and
enthusiasm in comparison with $oincare, substantiate their point of view by, for example, such
words from the article of $oincare in &8*U1 the conversions of Aoren- ,are the linear
substitutions, which do not change quadratic forms xE/yE/-E-tE" We will examine x,y,-,t-& as
coordinates@ in the space of four dimensions" It is easy to see that the conversion of Aoren-
presents nothing else but turning in this space around the origin of coordinates, @+%)3'"
It seems that commentaries are superfluous" However, let us return to the wor! of $oincare
&8&) ,hypothesis of quanta=" :ssertion about the discretion of the set of the possible states of
any isolated physical system, as $oincare indicates, is applicable also to the universe1
,2onsequently, the universe must abruptly pass from one state to another, but in the spaces
between the <umps it remains constant, and different moments, during which it preserves its
state, could not be already differed from each otherC we come, thus, to the discontinuous
course of time, to the atoms of time=" : certain paragraph concludes with these words, and
$oincare passes to other questions"
Aet us focus attention on conclusion about the discontinuity of time, about the atoms of
time" 3ut why only time? 5elativists are confident about the fact1 ,space and time are not two
completely different essences, which can be represented separately, but the are two parts of the
same whole= %)4'" $oincare does not raise the question about the quanti-ation of space and,
thus he deprives us of the possibility to learn if he considered it impossible to spea! about the 3-
dimensional nature of space, being distracted from its continuity" 3ut we can be convinced of the
fact that $oincareGs position is not completely relativistic"
:ccording to $oincare, ,physics cannot manage without mathematics, which presents to it
the only language, in which it can spea!=" : difference lies in the fact that in the concept of
physical theory these concepts have empirical status and thus have the capability to change with
the refinement of experimentsC all this, of course, does not apply to the mathematical model"
he view on the history of physics from the positions of the developed theory, when the
component of this theory becomes to a certain degree trivial or at least customary, can lead to the
identification of physical theory and its mathematical apparatus"
Chapter !!
#:E$R= $F RE-A#!A!#= A"% %!7E"<!$"A-!#= $F
<PACE*#!7E
Concept of the dimensionality of space and general theory of relativity"
In the contemporary science the deepest physical theory of space and time is the general
theory of relativity, created by :lbert (instein .&BI8 S &8JJ0" 7ince the dimensionality is one of
the most fundamental properties of space-time, it is not possible to in examine the problem of
dimensionality out of its context within the general theory of relativity"
he term ,space-time=, which appeared in the previous paragraph, and expression
,dimensionality of space-time=, that occurs in the name of this chapter, require special
explanation, since the essence of the theory of relativity is connected with them"
7omewhat simplifying the situation, it is possible to say that the space and time in
prerelativistic physics was identified .sometimes unconsciously0 with the three- and one-
dimensional (uclidean spaces of (
3
and (
&
, and only toward the endof the prerelativistic
epoch inside of physics arose .in connection with the discovery of non-(uclidean geometry0 the
need for the substantiation of such ideas" 7pace and time, as it was considered, ma!e absolute
sense separately, i"e" it was considered that for any observer - experimenter - the distance
between two points has one and the same value and time interval between two events it has also
one and the same value" In the space, since it identified with (
3
, the distance between the points p
and pG is expressed by the formula1
.&0
s
E R .x
&
0E / .x
)
0E / .x
3
0E
where x
i
ist the difference of the 2artesian coordinates of the points and the time, understood as
member of (
&
C It would be possible to characteri-e by certain ,formula=1
.)0
t
E R .t0E
where t is the time, which passed from the event p to the event pG, formula .)0 appears, of
course, very artificial, but it will be <ustified by the following presentation"
In classical physics the description of any physical phenomenon or physical process had to
include a three-dimensional and a time characteristics" herefore the concept ,event= as the
ideali-ation of the physical phenomenon, proceeding in the very small region of space and
being lasted very small time interval .flash of light0, would be completely natural to the
theory of relativity" 3ut in prerelativistic physics it was possible to get along without the
concept ,event=, since it was split by single-valued and absolute means into concepts
,position= and ,moment of time="
7pace and time in nonrelativistic physics could be combined formally into 4-dimensional space
(
4
" his it repeatedly emphasi-ed by (instein, stating that 4-dimensionality was not connected
solely with the theory of relativity1 ,How the relationship of the special theory of relativity to
the problem of space? #irst of all we must warn against the opinion that the for numbers for the
discription of reality were introduced for the first time by this theory" (ven in the classical
mechanics ,the position= of an event is determined by four numbers1 by three space coordinates
even one time coordinatesC hus, physical ,events= were always thought of as being
embedded in the four-dimensional continuous manifold@= %&'" :ctually, the space (
3
with
formula .&0 and (
&
with formula .)0 could be combined into the time-spatial manifold, which
has the structure (
4
with the formula
.30 .0E R .x
&
0E / .x
)
0E / .x
3
0E / aE.t0E
where a is a certain parameter, as can easily be seen, with the dimensionality of speed"
his association, although it did not have application in physics, was formally possible" he
question about the sense of that formula arose, but in any case the topologies, generated by
formula .30 with different a were equivalent"
However, in history of science the concept ,space-time= appeared entirely differently" :t the
beginning )*
th
century as the result of a number of experimental and theoretical wor!s it was
explained, that the !nown classical mechanics law of addition of velocities is only approximate"
he deviation from this law is the greater, the nearer the velocity to the speed of light c.
In physics the idea about existence of a fundamental constant with the dimensionality of speed for
the metric association of space and time seems unfamiliar" However, in this case it was
simultaneously revealed that it is not possible to attach absolute values to quantities .&0 and .)0C
for example, the results of measuring the distance between the ends of a certain rod or measurement
during the time interval between the flashes of a certain lamp depend on the speed of observer
relative to rod and lamp" :nd, as it seemed, all these .and other0 changes in physics can be reduced
to the invariance of the new fundamental value of the interval between two events $ and $K1
.40 .$,$K0E R .x
&
0E / .x
)
0E / .x
3
0E / -cE.t0E
with differences in the 2artesian coordinates and time interval t" he invariance of intervals means
that any observers, who calculated intervals on the basis of their dimensions value .40 for one and
the same pair of events $ and $G, will obtain one and the same value, although the -values will
be different"
:n (vent, or world point, in this case is characteri-ed by four numbers .for each observer of three
space coordinates and the moment of the time" Yalue .40 is differenct from .30 only by one minus
sign before cEtE" 3ut this small difference mar!ed the rise of new physics and the theory of
relativity, and a new interrelation between the metric and topological properties, which will be
discussed below"
he critically thin!ing reader, who for the first time becomes acquainted with the theory of
relativity in the geometric appearance and who !nows about this theory only by hearsay, will feel an
increasing distrust in proportion to his acquaintance with geometry" he reader will possibly
transfer this distrust also to theory of relativity" he author must recogni-e that the few
previous pages barely prevent the appearance of this distrust" In the boo!s, intended, as now
sometimes called, for ,the pedestrians= and specially dedicated to the theory of relativity,
there is the possibility, examining concrete physical experiments, to convincingly show the
degree of the validity of the special theory of relativity,and to show, why physics are assured
in the theory of relativity not less than, let us say, in the sphericity of the (arth"
In this boo! we can only attempt to understand, why the theory of relativity is so
incomprehensible for ,the pedestrians= and why, in particular, some ,pedestrians=, until now,
underta!e desperate efforts to refute this theory"
#or this let us continue the comparison of the special theory of relativity with the theory of
the sphericity of the (arth, which once caused stormy disputes" o most ,pedestrians= it is
frequently incomprehensibe because the predicted effects are un!nown in every dayKs
experience" o each of the compared theories correspond certain characteristical values1 the
radius of the (arth .U4** !m0 and speed of light .3**"*** !mFh0"
3oth values are enormous compared to the human scales values, this determines the
incomprehensibility" he physical scales, which characteri-e the life experience ,of
pedestrians= are about J !mFh and ) m" It is possible to say that incomprehensibility of
relativity more incomprehensible than sphericity of (arth by one hundred times"
In our time these theories become more intelligible" he fact is that now the life experience ,of
pedestrians= includes round-the-world <ourneys, straight telecasts from space and much other"
here is a theory, saying the theories become intelligible, if the ratio of its characteristic
parameter to the value I, which corresponds to the life experience of man, becomes the
order of one or less than one" In history the life experience of very few people the distances
close to the radius of (arth occured, among them were astronomers, travellers, geographers,
and to these people the theory of sphericity was intelligible
:nalogously now the life experience of physicists includes such phenomena as the motion
of elementary particles in the synchrotron, the penetrating power of the muons, which reach the
earthGs surface, although according to ,the rules= .according to the >ewtonian rules0 they must
be decomposed in the upper air" hese and many other phenomena, which are obeyed the law
of special relativity .750, ma!e this theory intelligible to physicists"
It is difficult to say, when 75 will become intelligible all people" $ossibly, they will begin to
find the universal understanding when interplanetary telephone conversations are normal and it
is necessary to wait several minutes or even hours for the answers of the telephone partner" 3ut
so far it is only the physicists, whose experience .in the region of physical phenomena0 exceeds
the experience ,of pedestrians="
he paragraphs, which preceded this small retreat, of course, cannot give authentic idea about
this immense upheaval created by special theory of relativity, in which participated the following
physics and mathematicians1 Aoren-, $oincare, (instein and Din!ows!i %)'"
In particular, the geometric four*dimensional point of view, which is most convenient
for our purposes .and without which it is not possible to present the general theory of
relativity0, it arose in essence in the wor! of Din!ows!i" he mathematical model of space-time in
the special theory of relativity is called Din!ows!iGs space-time and is designated D
3/&
" :s it is
already clear from previous, D
3/&
is this the totality of all possible quadruple of numbers, called
events, or world points, and for any pair of world points according to formula .40 the number,
called the interval between these points, is assigned"
In classical physics and in 75 there is the possibility to determine the dimensionality of space and
space-time, without the aid of topology" here are !nown even several such methods" he
construction of the 2artesian coordinate system in classical physics and the inertial 2artesian
coordinate systems in 75 are well-defined and feasible tas!s" herefore it is possible to name the
quantity of such coordinates dimensionality, necessary and sufficient for the tas! of specifying
the position of point in the space or the event in space-time of 75" his is the same number,
tal!ed about by ?alileo and Aeibnit-, when they defined dimensionality as the maximum
number of the mutually perpendicular straight lines, passing through one point of space"
(ddington, as we remember, doubted that this determination can explain, why
dimensionality must be e0ual to three, but it is possible to learn empirically, what
dimensionality space posesses, with the aid of this definition"
:nother way to spea! about the dimensionality, other than topology, is with the concept of
vector" In ?5, as in classical physics, it is possible to spea! about the vectors, which connect
one point of space .or space-time0 with another, it is possible to spea! about the vector addition
and about the multiplication of vector by the number, moreover these operations are
subordinated to all usual rules of vector algebra" #hen we can identify dimensionality with
the maximum number of independent vectors, in any set of vectors, one of which cannot
be represented as the sum of remaining vectors with some coefficients5
(xistence of the class of inertial reference systems is a fundamental physical fact for 75"
his fact in the geometric language is described by the fact that expression .40 in 75 ta!es
one and the same form independent of the differences of the time-spatial coordinates for any
two world points and independent of the choice of origin" (xpression for distance .&0 in
classical physics possesses the same property" his circumstance made it possible to spea!
about the 3-dimensional nature of space in the classical mechanics and about 3/&-dimensions
of space-time in 75, without using topological concepts"
he form of formula .&0 expresses the 3-dimensional nature .three terms0, and formula .40
3/&-dimensionality" 2ertainly, the form of formulas .&0 and .40 depends on the use of
2artesian coordinates" It is possible to use many others .spherical, cylindrical and, etc0, but since
the structure of space-time is considered (uclidean, it is possible to switch over to the 2artesian
coordinate system, or into D
3/&
2artesian inertial reference system"
9nly ten years after the article of (instein &8*J creation of general theory of relativity was
completed", which was derived from 75 as physical theory" However, for the concept of the
dimensionality of the space these ten years brought more changes, than two and one-half
centuries, which separate >ewtonian mechanics from the special theory of relativity"
It will not be described, how (instein began to wor! at the construction of the theory of
gravity, coordinated with 75C as he saw in the equality of gravitational and inert masses the
!ey principle of equivalenceC as (instein recogni-ed the geometric nature of gravitational field
and understood that it must be described not by one value of the >ewtonian potential, but ten
values, which simultaneously describe the metric structure of space-time %)'" here are
numerous good boo!s, which present the basic ideas of general theory of relativity"
#or us in ?5 the metric properties of space-time are important, as to 75, they are described by
the interval, whose value is determined by differences in the coordinates of two world points1
.J0 sE X g
i!
.x0 x
i
x
!
Lifference between .J0 and .40, i"e" from 75, consists, in the first place, in the fact that the
formula .J0 gives the value of the interval between two world points with differences in the
coordinates only approximately .X0, and that it is the more precise, the nearer the coordinates
of these points are to each other" In the second place, the value of the interval is determined
not only by values of the distances, but also by the coefficients which depend on the four
coordinates of the world point, near which formula .J0 is examined" Yalues g
i!
are symmetrical
on their indices, therefore in reality there are only ten .and not &UR4W40 different values" he
fact that formula .J0 will be precise only in the case of infinitely close points, is written
symbolically thus1
.U0 dsE R g
i!
.x0 x
i
x
!
with the aid of the equations obtained by (instein
.I0 (.g
i!
0 R ?FcE
which includes the values g
i!
Rmetric tensor, and ?R>ewtonian gravitational constant, cRspeed of
light"
Aet us tal! about the innovation of (instein" In the geometry of multidimensional spaces and
generally in those the fields of mathematics, where it is necessary to use many uniform values,
expressions, similar .U0 are frequently encountered .being sums of equally arranged terms0" #or
the record of such sums of mathematics since old times was used the symbol " he summing
up conditions were written under and above this symbol" If we loo! at the mathematical texts,
written up to &8&U, the symbol was repeated in one formula so many times, it hurts in the
eyes" 5emar!able mathematicians .being always worried about convenience in the designations0
were not bothered by this" 3ut here physicist (instein, mastering new for himself and for
physics the apparatus of 5iemann geometry, found an ingenious way out" However, in the first
systematic account of ?5 he preliminary lay down expressions of the type .U0 to write
simply1
.UK0 dsE R g
i!
.x0 x
i
x
!
in this case for the indices, which are repeated in the formula twice, the summing up is implied,
and indices pass all possible values, for example, in the formula .U0 i,!R&, ), 3, 4" his ,summing
convention of (instein= was very rapidly accepted - not only by physicists, but also
mathematicians, even wor!ers in the fields, not wor!ing directly with 5iemann geometry"
#acilitating perception and ,the carrying out= of physico mathematical constructions, this
convention, dividing the fate of other salient inventions in the region of designations, rapidly
became conventional and anonymous" here are almost no cases, when (insteinGs convention
proves to be inconvenient" his boo! being one of these very few exceptions, since in the record
.UG0 in contrast to .U0 it is not indicated clearly, how many values assume indices i and !.
3ut now let us find out, how in the general theory of relativity it is possible to understand
the dimensionality of space" It would seem, the answer is to call dimensionality a quantity of
coordinates, utili-ed in the mathematical model of space, i"e" a quantity of of indices in .U0"
However, what coordinates? In the general case there is no established concept of inertial-
frame of reference" It is not possible to establish coordinates so that the expression for the
interval would ta!e on the standard form, independent from the choice of the origin, similar to
.40 N because the g
i!
depend on x" he special features of the mathematical model of space*
time in ?5 is called 5iemann manifold and designated 5
3/&
is radically different from the
previous models (
3
and D
3/&
" In ?5 it is not the model of space-time itself, but only the
principle of the construction of this model depending on how space-time ,is filled="
herefore the geometric properties of space-time in ?5 at different world points are different"
Aet us say, the sum of the angles of triangle in one place can be more than &B*, in other it is less,
etc" his means that the space-time in ?5 is bent, the nature of bend in each place depending on
the physical processes" 9n other hand, the curvature of space-time influences the physical
processes" :ccording to the descriptive expression of well-!nown physicist Zohn :rchibald
Wheeler1 ,7pace tells substance how to move, and substance tells space how to be bent="
hus, the number of indices are not of the same quality as in (
3
and D
3/&
"
7ince the space-time in ?5 can be bent in an arbitrary manner, among the coordinate systems
there are no preferred ones" herefore if we identify dimensionality with the number of
coordinates, then this number must exist in any possible coordinate system" 3ut what are these
,any coordinate system=? In 75 and even more in classical physics it was possible to indicate
the physically well-defined methods for the establishment of the coordinate system, e"g" with the
aid of the solid rods with chronometers and light beams" In ?5 there is no such possibility"
he ideas of (instein about the dimensionality of space are tightly connected with the
introduction of coordinates, but his attitude toward the role of coordinates considerably
changed upon transfer from 75 to ?5"
In the special theory of relativity, it is possible to say, it began with giving real physical meaning
to time coordinates .from the explanation of the concept ,absolute simultaneity= being
meaningless0 and refining the physical sense of space coordinates with the definition of the
procedure of the measurement1 ,7eparate coordinates relate to the measurement of the position
of solid bodies= %3'"
In the general theory of relativity the final success, in the opinion of (instein, became possible
only after the ac!nowledgment of the equivalence of ,arbitrary= coordinate systems1 ,he postulate
of relativity in its most common format, which deprives the time-spatial coordinates of physical
sense, lead with to the well-defined theory of gravity, which explains the perihelion motions of
mercury= %4' "
his alone shows, what difficult way it was, to go for (instein1 success arrived after the
refinement of the concrete physical sense of coordinates by comparison with the specific procedure
of measurement"
his is how (instein he wrote about the coordinates in ?51 ,#or describing the time-spatial
regions of final extension the arbitrary coordinates of the four-dimensional manifold are
necessary, which ensure the single-valued designation of each of the points of space-time with
numbers=, or1 ,(ach point of continuum we arbitrarily place in the correspondence of the
numbers, which are called ,coordinates=" :d<acent points correspond to the ad<acent values of
coordinates= %U'" hus before introducing coordinates, it is necessary to !now ,the continuity=
of time-spatial manifold, it is necessary to !now, what points are ad<acent, i"e" to !now the
topological structure of space-time" :ccording to (instein, ,coordinates express only order or
degree ,of proximity= and, consequently, also the dimensionality of space= %I'"
herefore in ?5 topological dimensionality of space for the first time proved to be
inevitable"
7etric and topological properties of space*time5
Ideas of (instein about the dimensionality of the space1
In the special theory of relativity the metric properties of space-time were described by
formula .40, which gives the value of the interval for any pair of world points" In ?5 the
parent element of the metric description become the purely local values of g
i !
.x0, which give
the value of interval only for the infinitely close world points" However, if time-spatial model
is
the result of solving the equation of (instein .I0" he values gi!.x0 must be !nown for each
point W, then it is possible in ?5 to introduce the concept of interval for remote points"
It is necessary to examine the shortest, so called geodetic lines, which connect points $ and $G"
?eodetic lines in 5
3/&
determine the motion of material point in ?5" It is more conveniently
not to use not the interval itself, the square of it, because that is always a real value, which we
call for the brevity also the interval between the world points $ and $G"
.B0 I.$,$K0 R .x
&
0 E / .x
)
0E / .x
3
0E - .t0 E
he characteristic properties of the interrelation of metric and topological properties are
manifested already in the case of flat space-time" We get the picture, after limiting to a &/&-
dimensinal space-time" his space-time can be presented graphically on the two-dimensional
sheet of paper" In this case the interval
.80 I.$,$K0 R .x0E - .t0E
.he units of the measurement of length and time they are selected in a way, that the speed of
light it is equal to one0" his two-dimensional space-time we will compare with the usual
two-dimensional (uclidean space (
B
, i"e" with the plane geometry, the square of distance on
which is given by the formula
.&*0 ;.$,$K0 R .r.$,$K00E R .x0E / .y0E
In order to graphically represent what the values !.$, $G0 and I.$,$G0 in the general case of
the bent space would be, considering that between two points $, $G on the bent surface .let us
say, on the sphere0 a ,rope= stretches so that each of ist points fits closely to the surfaceC the
minimum length of this ,rope= will give the un!nown value" It is necessary to only remember
that in the case of the interval I the ,rope= is the time-spatial tra<ectory of the motion of a point"
I can be said, that function I.$,$G0 and function !.$,$G0 determine a metric structure in a certain
meaning, since in both cases to each pair of points is a certain number is assigned" However,
these two types of metric structures are of different !ind" 9ne difference stri!es immediately1
before .t0E in .B0 and .80 stands a minus sign" Interval I.$,$G0 can ta!e on positve and
negative values in contrast to the formula of type .&*0" herefore we will say1 [metric and
/metric" 6sual intuitive ideas about the distance correspond precisely to the /metric" However
the / metric has the important advantage that it reflects the most important physical laws
governing the theory of relativity"
It is possible to show that interval .B0 is compatible with the geometry of Din!ows!iGs space-
time and the relativistic law of addition of velocities, and a change in the values of distance and
time interval for the moving observer, and even laws of the electromagnetism of of DaxwellGs
equation" 3ut we will be concentrated on the relationship of the metric and topological
properties of space*time"
(instein spo!e about ,?aussian= generali-ation of the geometry .this generali-ation is more
frequently called ,5iemann=0 as sufficient for ?51 ,?auss proposed the method of the
mathematical description of any continuum, in which metric relationships are defined
.,distance= between the ad<acent points0" o each point of the continuum as many the numbers
.?aussian coordinates0 are assigned, as the dimensions of that continuum demand" he method
of distance-calculation is selected in a way, that it would be single-valued and that to ad<acent
points would correspond numbers, which are also +ad<acent," he ?aussian coordinate system
is the logical generali-ation of 2artesian" It is applicable also to non-(uclidean continua, but if
and only if the part of the continuum in question is small %B'"
However, ?auss and 5iemann considered only /metric, similar to formula .&*0" his formula
generates a topological structure and point p ad<oins the set D, if it is located at -ero distance
from this set, i"e" if within D for each value of distance there are points, which are located on a
distance smaller than from p" : completely definite meaning acquire words li!e,small parts of
continuum=1 the si.e of a region of space can be characteri-ed with the greatest distance between
the points, which belong to this region" $assage to [metric of space-time in the theories of
relativity principally changes situation" >ow the proximity of two world points cannot be connected
directly with the value of the interval between them, since the e0uality to .ero intervals
indicates no longer the agreement of points, but only the possibility to connect these two
point events with a light signal"
he difference between the two types of the formulas can be demonstrated graphically in the two-
dimensional case"
#ig" )" Lifference in the two types of formulas
In the case of [metric .#ig" ), b0 the set of points, removed from the point * less or equal to are
limited by a hyperbola" With the decrease of that hyperbola increasingly is more forcing against
the straight line I .formed by the world points, which they can be connected with the point * by light
signals0" his difference is a reason that /metric does not assign topological structure in the
manner that the /metric does" herefore with general theory of relativity the topological structure
of space*time is considered to be given before the introduction of the interval, i5e5, metric
structure" 7uch a situation is never completely satisfactory, since to physics is nearer to the
metric structure .which can be reduced to dimensions0 than to topological structure, which is
mathematical"
$erhaps, a very clear examples of this situation is absolute space and absolute time in the
mechanic >ewton" hese concepts by no means interfered with the development of physics for
two centuries, despite the fact that Aeibni- .contemporary of >ewton0 critici-ed deficiencies in
these concepts, and despite the fact that the reali-ation of these deficiencies stimulated (insteinKs
revolutionary conversion of physical ideas about the space and the time"
he words ,It stimulated=, of course, does not mean ,completely determined=" he appearance
of the special theory of relativity is obliged to the first of all in-depth analysis of the laws of the
electromagnetism of Daxwell and experiments, most !nown of which was DichaelsonGs
experience" he fact of the equality of gravitational and inert masses was extremely important
for generating the general theory of relativity" However, understanding the logical imperfection of
the classical concepts of absolute space and time facilitated for (instein the critical revision of these
concepts"
5eturning to the topological structure of space-time in 75, it should be noted that (instein
himself did not discuss the relationship of the metric and topological properties of space-time in
his theory of relativity and it was, apparently, limited to intuitive idea about space relations existing
in the proximity of points and the li!e - for this was an intelligible reason"
he fact is that, although the relationship of metric structure and topology in ?5 are
sufficiently complex, the mathematical apparatus of the theory, which describes the local
curvature of space-time with the aid of (insteins equation, does not depend essentially on the
nature of the formula" he theory assumes that in the space-time the coordinates are already
assigned" :t the same time, according to (instein, the sole limitation to the introduction of
coordinates of is the compatibility of coordinates with the topological structure of space-time"
:nd nevertheless it cannot be said that (instein did not have doubts about the relationship of
the metric and topological properties of space-time, about the role of interval in the structure of
theory" he geometri-ation of gravitational field was inseparably connected with the idea about the
fundamental role of interval" However, in the first wor!, dedicated to geometric approach to the
gravity .&8&30, (instein it proceeded from the fact that ,the interval must be the absolute
invariant=, which ,should be understood as the invariant measure for the distance between two
ad<acent time-spatial points" herefore the interval must also ma!e physical sense independent
from the selected frame of reference
hus, ,ds is the distance between two time-spatial points= %8'" #rom the positions of the
developed (insteinGs theory he emphasi-ed the fundamental position, which occupies interval
in the theory of relativity, and he indicated that ,there are physical ob<ects, which@ measure
the invariant ds= %&*'" #inally, in &8J) (instein wrote that ,the functions g
i!
.x0 describe not only
a field, but at the same time topological and metric structural properties of space1 +he concrete
methods of the generation of the topological structure of space-time were found with its
formula=%&&'" #or example, in the so-called A topology .called on the name of well-!nown
7oviet mathematician :le!sandrov0 it is not necessary to !now the entire metric structure, it
suffices to !now for what pairs of points the interval is equal to -ero"
3ut if in ?5 the formula .let us recall that the discussion does not deal with [metric, but
with the interval0 is capable of generating topological structure and thus1 2an we spea! about
the dimensionality directly in the metric language, without reference to the topological level?
9bviously this is possible" :ny definition of dimensionality must ,calibrate= with the aid of the
selected standard of 4-dimensionality, i"e" it must be selected a certain mathematical ob<ect, whose
dimensionality is equal to the general definition of dimensionality" #rom the point of view of
physics this standard is Din!ows!iGs space"
7ince it would be desirable to find the definition of dimensionality, based only on the
concept of distance between two points, it is necessary to lean on any property of
Din!ows!iKs space, which would separate the number n by calculations" It is not difficult to
find this property" Aet us examine for the beginning the two-dimensional case" If we choose a
certain point on the plane (
)
.or D
)
0, then the distance .interval0 determines the position of the
infinite number of points, generating a circle with the center at point $ .hyperbola in the case
D
)
0" 3ut if we chose two points $
&
and $
)
, then the calculation of two distances to these
reference points will determine the position ot only a finite number of points, not greater than
two, since two circles can not be crossed not more than at two points" It is not difficult to see that
the three-dimensional space possesses a similar property, if we select three points" he same
property possess the n-dimensional spaces (
n
and D
n
" In each of them it is possible to fix n of
basic points so that the distances .or intervals0 to all n of these points of would determine the
position of any point of space" In this case a smaller number of basic points is, generally spea!ing,
insufficient, and larger is excess" his can be transferred also to the case of the bent space 5
n
"
hus, in the general case of space-time dimensionality can be understood as the minimum
number of world points, such, that the values of intervals to these points can assign the position of
any event" his means parametric representation of the dimensionality .point of space are
parametri-ed by their distances to the reference points0" he method of parametri-ation has been
assumed to be arbitrary, being based on the metric structure of space itself" hus, the
dimensionality of space-time can be expressed in the metric concepts"
(insteinGs approach to the dimensionality can be described thus1 there is a standard of the 4-
dimensionality of (
n
and, establishing the defined connection with this standard, it is possible to
spea! about the dimensionality of space as ,a quantity of coordinates=" his is the most general
common approach to the dimensionality of space, but it is necessary to remember that even in
mathematics the more general common approach to toplogical dimenion was created by 6ryson
and Denger in &8))S&8)3", seven years after completion of ?5 and several years afterof its
experimental confirmation"
3ut the fact that the creation of the relativistic theory of gravity did not require the more
common mathematical models of space, and no other ideas about the dimensionality, than
coordinate" (ven the subsequent development of physics did not advance past coordinate
description"
(instein considered 4-dimensionality the fundamental property, inseparably belonging to the
continuity of space, i"e" the fact that space-time is ,continuum=" (instein explains +continuum, as
follows1 ,I can switch over from any point of a manifold to any other point, passing from one
point to the next without ,the <umps= .only passing ad<acent point0" he reader hopefully clearly
understands, what the concepts ,ad<acent= and ,<umps= mean" We express the same thought,
asserting that the surface is continuum= %&)'" 3ut it is difficult to understand this description
precisely" It is not clear, for example, is it possible to consider as continuum the set, which
consists of all rational points on the straight line represented by (
&
" or (instein the concepts of
,continuity= of space and ,continuum= did not cause the need to deeply analy-e them, although
these concepts are not more physically trivial, than, for example, the concept ,absolute
simultaneity=, so important for 75"
Zust as $oincare, (instein connected the concept of dimensionality with the continuity" he
examination of quantum phenomena gave rise for doubts about the continuity of space-time"
(instein as!s1 ,How can \D be reconciled with continuity?= %&B'"
#rom these words it is possible to understand the fundamental value of 4-dimensionality,
which he connected with the continuity because ,he could not devise= another concept of
dimensionality"
here is no evidence, that (instein attempted to comprehend 4-dimensionality of space-time
at the physical level" Limensionality for (instein is the most important physical property of
material world" In the preface to the boo! ,the concepts of space= (instein considers the history
of the concept of space as development and interaction of two substantially different concepts1
absolute space and ,space as the properties of material ob<ects=" He connects this victory of the
second concept above the concept of absolute space with the introduction of the concept of field"
(instein concludes with the words, which refer straight to the problem of the dimensionality of
the space1 ,@ entire physical reality can be represented in the form of the field, whose
components depend on four time-spatial parameters" he case of ,empty= spaces, i"e", of space
without the field, does not exist= %&4'" (instein attempts to present dimensionality as the
property of the physical field"
Is there besides the four dimensons of physical space-time a fifth dimension? 7everal wor!s
introduce the fifth dimension in connection with the electromagnetic field"
9ther wor!s, beginning from the articles of ;lein and ;alu-a &8)U, tried to describe ?5 with
the aid of the five-dimensional classical geometry quantum phenomena" $aul 3ergmann wrote that
,the description of a five-dimensional world with the aid of the four-dimensional formalism is
incomplete=, and ,@ quantum phenomena finally can be explained by field theory= %&J'"
he uncertainty, which appears with the four-dimensional description of five-dimensional wold, can
be explained as follows" Aet us visuali-e the moderni-ed version of the $latonian cave - the name of
the movie ,the $latonian physics= %&U', but the Pmovie, is not demonstrated on the illuminated
screen, but are moved shadows of spheres, which move in the hall in the rays of a pro<ector" Aet
us assume that for physicists it is possible to observe all events, happening in .three-dimensional0
hall, only the shadows on .two-dimensional0 screen" hus, to describe the events they can only use
the values, which characteri-e arrangement and displacement of shadows on the screen" Aet us
assume further that the spheres interact with each other .in the three-dimensional hall0 according
to the laws of elastic impact" hen as a result their two-dimensional studies the physicists
unavoidably encounter with the fact that ,the same= .two-dimensional0 conditions lead to
substantially different results1 in some cases .two-dimensional0 collision of spheres leads to a change
in their motion, and in other cases spheres without difficulty pass through each other" he uncertainty
of the result of interaction of spheres could be described with the three-dimensional point of view"
he ratio of the diameter of spheres to the depth can not be observed by our physicists" his same type
of uncertainty, the probabilistic nature of laws it would create, if it turned out that our world is J-
dimensional - and we see only the space-time on a 4- dimensional screen,
#ive-dimensional theories, as they were customary to assume until recently, did not leave any
trac! in contemporary physics" It is not possible to publish this opinion in recent yearss
opinon without massice criticism" he intensive wor! on the development of unified theories
in physics of elementary particles led to the unexpected revival of ;alu-a-;lein ideas"
2ertainly, this revival occurs at an entirely new level1 excess dimensions no longer limited to
one, but several" he purpose is not obtaining quantum laws on classical geometric basis, but
general idea" :ny final results in this direction could not yet be obtained, but :" 7alam, the
laureate of the first >obel $ri-e for the achievements in the region of unified theories .&8I80,
mentions ,;alu-a-;lein= as a hope for the construction of the unified theory of fundamental,
interactions %&I'"
However, in any case for the historian of physics, five-dimensional theories present an
extremely interesting ob<ect" 3eginning with the wor! of ;alu-a &8)&, for a period of several
decades large efforts of theoretical physicists were applied in this direction" ;alu-a
succeeded in part to embed electromagnetism in the geometric structure of five-dimensional
space, equivalent to usual Daxwellian electrodynamics within the framewor! of 75"
$assage to the five-dimensional space was a radical step, comparable with passage from
space and time of nonrelativistic physics to space-time of ?5"
3ergmann wrote1 ,;alu-a introduced the fifth dimension exclusively with the purpose of an
increase in the number of components of metric tensor, assigning to it no real meaning=" he
efforts of theorists subsequently were directed toward giving physical sense to the fifth
measurement" he vulnerable point of five-dimensional theories was the fifth dimension could not
be observed" 9n the other hand in the wor! of (instein according to the five-dimensional theory
ithe following problem exists1 ,o explain, why the continuum is limited to four dimensions=
%&B'"
3ergmann mentioned about the similarity of the incompleteness .and hopefully probabilistic
nature0 of the description of five-dimensional world on the one side, and the quantum
description on the other side" his incompleteness was the manifestation of the so-called idea of
the concealed parameters" he supporters of the hypothesis of the concealed parameters strove for
the classical interpretation of quantum theory, assuming that the physical reality is governed by
classical laws, but it is characteri-ed by a large quantity of dynamic variables how it is usually
considered .coordinate, pulses, the tension of electromagnetic field0" ,(xcess= variables
.concealed parameters0 are not observed by themselves, and therefore the results of physical
experiments ,are spread= throughout the entire region of the possible values of the concealed
parameters .as in the picture of movie auditorium in the example given above0" 3ut for the idea of
the concealed parameters there were no other clues, except nostalgia related to the loss of
customary classical description" In the case of five-dimensional theory it was not clear, why it is
necessary to limit precisely to one concealed parameter, and not to examine 4/!-dimensional
theory"
In the beginning of the article of (instein &844, for the first time he declared the failure of
the pro<ect .three years after the last wor! of (instein, dedicated to a five-dimensional theory0"
his was a welcome argument ,for others=" 5ather should be accepted another explanation of
(instein, which declares that the five-dimensional theory could not explain, why continuum is
in an obvious manner limited by four by dimensions"
However, it is possible that the ideas, which lie at the basis of five-dimensional approach,
some day will play their role in physics" his would confirm the widely !nown ,theorem= that
any beautiful mathematical idea sooner or later finds physical use"
1uanti.ation and the four*dimensional space*time continuum
,he concepts, which prove to be useful@ easily conquer such authority, that we forget
their terrestrial origin and accept them as something invariable" hey call this ,logically
necessary=, ,a priori given=, etc@" the analysis of the concepts long ago utili-ed by us and the
development of the circumstances, on which depend their validity and how they are derived
from experimental data" he superfluously great authority of these concepts ma!es it possible
to blow up this analysis" hey will be re<ected, if they cannot be legali-ed properly, they are
corrected, if they do not completely correspond to given things, they are substituted with others, if
it is necessary to create any new more preferable system H" his statement of (instein summed
up his methodology and s!epticism toward the steady ideas, his tendency toward the analysis of
their real physical status" he value of (insteinKs methodology for the science of )*
th
century is
enormous" With his creation of the theory of relativity this methodological position proved to be
decisive" .:lthough, of course, precisely appearance 75 and ?5 as the result of this position
made possible its mastering, in particular, by the creators of quantum mechanics, for whom this
position was even more fruitful"
With respect to the three-dimensional concepts most vividly (instein expressed his position as
follows1 ,What is a priori undoubted, or necessary, respectively in the geometry .doctrine of
space0 or in its bases? 3efore we thought - everything, now we thin! - nothing" :lready the
concept ,section= is logically arbitrary1 things are not obligated to exist, which correspond to it
even approximately" :nalogous observation can be made about the concepts of straight line,
plane, about the 3-dimensional nature of space and about the validity of the $ythagorean theorem"
(ven the doctrine of continuum is by no means given to us in the nature of human thin!ing, so
that from the point of view of the theory of !nowledge it is not possible to attach great
significance to purely topological relationships more than to other relationships, %&8'"
9ther statements of (instein are !nown, expressing doubts about the absolute applicability of the
usual three-dimensional ideasC moreover these doubts are clearly connected with the special
features of the quantum phenomena1 ,he proposed physical interpretation of geometry cannot be
directly applied to the regions of the space of sub-molecular si-es@ it can only serve as the
<ustification for the attempt to assign physical reality to the basic concepts of 5iemannian geometry
out of the field of their physical bac!ground" H %)*'"
#or a physical theory it is insufficient to have some doubts, and in connection with this
(instein writes1 ,@ the introduction of space-time continuum can be considered unnatural in the
microcosm" hey assert that the success of HeisenbergGs method can be attributed to the purely
algebraic method of describing nature, i"e" to eliminating from physics all continuous functions"
3ut then it will be necessary in principle to abandon the space-time continuum" It is possible to
thin! that the human resourcefulness will finally find the methods, which will ma!e it possible to
follow this way" 3ut at present this program whis!s away to the attempt to breathe in the
vacuum= %)&'"
In his last wor!s (instein recogni-ed the victory of the quantum ideas1 ,It is possible to
convincingly prove that the reality can not be continuous field" It follows from the quantum
phenomena that the final system with the final energy can be described completely by the final
collection of the numbers .quantum numbers0" his cannot be combined with the theory of
continuum" It requires for ist description purely algebraic theory" 3ut today no one !nows how
to find basis for this theory= %))'"
$erhaps most vividly (insteinGs position is visible in the answer to well-!nown
mathematician Denger, who expressed doubts about the physical space as a continuum" (instein
writes1
,#or constructing the contemporary theory of relativity1
&" $hysical ob<ects are described by the continuous functions and fields, which depend on four
coordinates" If topological connectedness remains, then the selection of these coordinates is
arbitrary"
)" Yariable fields are the components of tensor" :mong these tensors there is a symmetrical
tensor of gravitational field"
@ (xamining quantum phenomena, we begin to suspect, that doubts can appear about the
final expedience of the program, briefly characteri-ed"""
:s yet there are no new concepts, which possess a sufficient creative force" 7uch, is
unfortunately, my position" I adhere to ideas about the continuum not because I proceed from a
certain pre<udice, but because I cannot devise anything, which could for replace these ideas .of
continuity0," %)3'"
He places the well-defined problem before mathematics and theoretical physics1 to learn to
describe the discrete structures, would it be possible to give four-dimensional some definite
meaning" .Aet us note that Denger one of the creators of the topological dimensional theory did not
propose in his article any concrete construction0" We still wait for the future synthesis of
relativistic quantum theory and (instein theory of gravity"
Chapter !!!
#:E )*%!7E"<!$"A- "A#&RE $F P:=<!C<
,How in the fundamental laws of physics it is manifested, that the space has three dimensions? ,
he article of $aul (hrenfest .&BB*S&8330 with this name was printed in &8&I in ,the
wor!s of :msterdam academy=%&'" 9nly after this article the real foundations for considering
the dimensionality of space as physical concept was established, and the 3-dimensional nature a
physical fact"
Aet us begin from the brief account of the wor! itself"
Introduction to the article consists in several phrases, in which (hrenfest emphasi-es the
unusualness of the question, carried out into the title, and refines it1
+Why has our space three dimensions? or, in other words, what special features distinguish
geometry and physics in the .(uclidean0 space 5
3
from the geometry and physics in 5
n
?" In this
form these questions, possibly, have no sense" $robably, they are sub<ected to the <ustified
criticism" Is it really clear, whether the space of physical reality is three-dimensional? Why not
5
4
or 5
I
?
I will not attempt to find the best form for these questions" $ossibly, others will succeed in
the indication of some more singular properties of 5
3
, and then it will become clear, such are +the
correct H questions, for which our examinations are the suitable answers H"
his last phrase spea!s, that itself (hrenfest not only did not consider it a question depleted,
but even he did not consider as the his completely satisfactory means set" :nd actually, from a
contemporary point of view the question1 ,Why space has three dimensions?= S can be
understood in two substantially different senses"
#irst, it is possible to attempt to explain the 3-dimensional nature of space on the basis of the
deeper properties of the material world from within the framewor! as a certain fundamental
theoryC in this case the discussion must deal with the theory, incomparable with the existing
physical theories, since in them the 3-dimensional nature of space is ta!en as the initial assumption,
the postulate" he answer, for example, to the question1 ,Why the electromagnetic radiation of
atoms is characteri-ed by discrete frequencies?= S became the construction of the fundamental
theory .quantum mechanics0, which explained, on the basis of one and the same fundamental
principles, not only the nature of atomic spectra, but also the set of other phenomena"
he second sense, which can be put in the question1 ,Why space does have three dimensions?= S
no longer is connected directly with such immense concepts" : question can be refined thus1 ,Why
are physicists assured in the fact that the space has three dimensions?= or1 ,What bases determine
the confidence of physicists in the 3-dimensional nature of space?= his question can seemtrivial
with respect to the area of the macroscopic phenomena, when 3-dimensional nature is received
,directly= by sensory organs"
3ut the same question loses any triviality, if one considers that the range of the phenomena, studied
by contemporary physics, left far beyond the limits of macroscopic scales and that the study of
phenomena, for example, in physics of elementary particles and in cosmology is only possible by
indirect methods" herefore a question about the dimensionality of space in these regions is the
completely <ustified and nontrivial tas!" In this case it should not be supposed, that the
dimensionality of the space is only one of many properties, whose extrapolation to the substantially
new phenomena requires special substantiation" he fact is that the dimensionality is the most general
quantitatively expressed property of space-timeC at present any physical theory, which claims to
the time*spatial description of reality, ta+es dimensionality value as the initial postulate" .#or a
while in physics of elementary particles the ideal of theory was popular, which is circumvented
without the concepts of space and timeC however, at present in connection with the successes of
the theory of calibration pour on hopes these concepts are connected in essence with the field-theory
description %)', which essentially assumes the time-spatial picture of phenomena"0
Aet us return now to the wor! of (hrenfest, which corresponds exactly to the second sense of a
question about the dimensionality of space, and let us loo!, how in its wor! 3-dimensional
nature was substantiated in the range physical phenomena from the atomic to the astronomical
scales"
(hrenfest examines ,physics= m in (uclidean space (
n
" In this case he derives the law of
interaction with the point center .analogously with the three-dimensional case0 from differential
$oissonGs equation in (
n
for the potential, which determines this interaction" $oissonGs equation is
equivalent to the law of ?auss, which asserts that the flow of the field strength through an arbitrary
closed surface is equal to the summary charge .or mass in the case of gravity0, which is located
inside this surface" :s we remember, $oincare acted completely differently1 he proceeded from the
law of interaction in the particular case of two point particles" However, (hrenfest proceeds
from the invariability of the general law of interaction, from which it is possible to obtain the
law of interaction not only for two point particles, but also any system of bodies of arbitrary
form and distribution of density"
In order to have the capability to pose the loc!ed physical problems, (hrenfest also
subordinates motion to the >ewtonian laws of dynamics, more precisely telling, their natural
generali-ation to the case of (
n
"
9n the basis of such laws of interaction and motion, (hrenfest examines, in particular, the
following concrete consequences of these laws1 closure and the stability of orbits into the field
of the gravitating center .,planetary system=0, and the 3ohr spectrum of hydrogen atom" It
turned out that1 only in the space (
3
both steady finite .in this case always with the loc!ed
tra<ectories0 and infinite motion are possibleC
In the space (
)
finite motion is possible but is restricted to circular pathsC
In the space (
n
n]3 finite motion corresponds only to circular paths, also, moreover always
unstably, i"e" any slight disturbance leads either to the drop in the center or to the removal
into infinity"
In the spherically symmetric case in (
n
from $oissonGs equation for the potential or from
the law of ?auss for the tension follows the expression for the potential energy .in the
designations, (hrenfest0
.&0 Y
n
. r 0 R - ! DmF..n-)0r
n-)
0 f^r n ]R 3
Y
)
. r 0 R ! Dm ln r and Y
&
. r 0 R ! Dm r
where the constants D and m are the mass of star and planet .or nuclear charges and electron0,
and ! is the coupling constant"
(xpression for the force of interaction corresponds to these expressions for the potential
energy
.)0 #
n
. r 0 R ! Dm r
&-n
.30 # R ma
which are the equations of motion .n dimensional second >ewtonGs law0" In the case of central
field it leads to two preserved values1 energy and moment of momentum" It is not difficult to
understand that in the central field in (
n
the motion is always flat .two-dimensional0" :ctually,
the plane, determined by velocity vector and by radius-vector, which connects the moving
point with the center of field, does not change its position, since velocity change occurs only
along a radius, i"e" in the same plane"
3y the he properties of the electric field, which is subordinated to AaplaceGs equation in (
n
the
special features of the spectrum ,of hydrogen= in this space are determined also" (hrenfest
obtains this spectrum with the aid of the quanti-ation of 3ohr"
'ut at first let us recall briefly what is 'ohr atom model is2 9ne of the most mysterious
facts for classical physics was the fact that the atoms of this substance emit the light not with
any wavelengths, but well-defined, always one and the same" Aet us say, sodium-atoms .for
example in the usual common salt0, at a high temperature emit yellow light" Without !nowing
the explanation of this fact, physics and chemists nevertheless very successfully and fruitfully
used this property for the recognition and identifications of substances .spectral analysis0" #or
physicists it was necessary to be reconciled with the fact that they they did not !now for
nearly a half century, why determined spectral ,are the passport= of different substances"
3ut after the famous experiences of 5utherford and after appearence in &8&& of the 5utherford
planetary atom model the position became entirely unbearable" Indeed according to the classical theory
of electromagnetic field the electron, which revolves around the atom, in the first place, can, and
even it must, emit the light of all wavelengths, and, in the second place, an electron, constantly
emitting energy, it must within very short time fall into the nucleus"
3oth these difficulties were solved by 3ohr in &8&3 with his atom model" :ccording to this
model the electron motion along the orbit around the nucleus is determined by the laws of classical
mechanics, but orbits themselves can not be any, but only such, for which the following condition is
obeyed1
Dvr R nhF)
Where D and v are the electron mass and the electron velocityC r is the radius of the orbit .by assumed
for simplicity circular0C n is any positive integer1 nRR&, ), 3, @ and h is the constant, which was
introduced in &B88 by D" $lanc! .and with the aid of which hesolved not less serious difficulty
of the explanation of thermal electromagnetic radiation0 ,according to 3ohrGs model, being
found in one and the same orbit, electron does not emit, but passage from the orbit, in which
the energy of electron is equal to
!
, into an orbit with the energy
n
it corresponds to the
emission frequency
!n
R.
!
-
n
0Fh analogously (hrenfest obtains the spectrum of hydrogen in the
n-dimensional space (
n
,with the circular electron-motion with the charge e and a mass m
around the fixed proton with the charge e and second >ewtonGs law together with the law for
the force, analogous .)0"
he radiated frequencies are defined from the condition with
!n
R.
!
-
n
0Fh"
#or nR4 the singular result .,in particular remar!able with respect to the quantum theory=,
as (hrenfest mentions0 mrERem
&F)
i"e" the moment of momentum, can have only one specific
value" he condition of quanti-ation leads to the stiffening <oint em
&F)R
!hF)
With n]4 we obtain ,the series in the spectrum, which with the constantFcontain lines into
ultraviolet, ever more and more distant from each other=" 3ut more importantly there can be
the fact that with n]4 the electron must pass into ever more distant orbits, which correspond to
smaller energy, i"e" the atom spontaneously ioni-es"
he results of the analysis of the properties of the n-dimensional ,atom= ma!e it possible to
draw the conclusion that the 3-dimensional nature of space in the atomic phenomena is
completely substantiated, since the difference from the 3-dimensional nature would bring, as
showed (hrenfest, a radical difference in the spectrum from that observed"
\uantum-mechanical solution of the problem about the spectrum of n-dimensional atom %3'
.on the basis of the 7chroedinger equation0, although it is distinguished substantially .with nR30
from the results of the 3ohr quanti-ation, used by (hrenfest, also it leads to ,the super-
instability= of atom with n]R4 .the electron spontaneously must fall on the nucleus0 and to
,the super-stability= of the atom with nOR)"
3esides the properties of planetary system and atom of hydrogen in (
n
(hrenfest examines
also the properties of wave process and some geometric properties of the space (
n
" :s a result he
comes to the conclusion about a qualitative difference in the case of nR3 from other values of
different dimensionality %4'"
wo years after his article in &8&I (hrenfest directs into the periodical ,:nnalen der
$hysi!= a somewhat changed version of this article %J'" :s the occasion for this publication
he mentions WeylGs observation about space-time" Weyl in connection with his version of the
unified field theory, in which the vector potential of electromagnetic field obtained geometric
interpretation, and only in the four-dimensional world the equation for the electromagnetic
field possess the special property of conformal invariance, which in WeylGs theory substituted
usual covariance of 75, i"e" the independence of the form of fundamental equations from the
transformation of coordinates"
In the final observations to the article of &8)* (hrenfest emphasi-es that the dimensionality
of space is manifested practically in entire physics"
4hat is physics in n*dimensional space3
However, what did (hrenfest really do? With the eyes of physics he loo!ed to the totality of
the spaces (
n
, which are characteri-ed by one parameter of dimensionality" 2ertainly, this totality
did not exhaust all possible geometric structure, claiming the name +space, to certain
mathematical models,describing the properties of real physical space" 7ufficient are 5iemann
spaces, without spea!ing about the general metric and topological spaces"
he equations, which are used for the writing of basic physical laws, easily allow
generali-ation from (
3
to (
n
" #or this it suffices in the appropriate sums the number of terms to
replace 3 by n .for example, in the expression for the radius-vector, etc0" However, the form of
fundamental equations which fall into this category are the equation of $oisson .law of
?auss0, the wave equation, >ewtonGs law, the quantum postulate of 3ohr, the equation of
7chroedinger, etc"
he fundamental physical laws of interactions are now assigned usually in the so-called
variation form" In this case it proves to be sufficient to indicate one function from the values,
which characteri-e this field .this function it is called Aagrangian0, in order to obtain all
equations, which describe the laws of this field" #or example, he Aagrangian for the simplest
case of scalar mass-free field ta!es the form
.I0 A RFt x
!
or in the briefer record A R
!

!
his Aagrangian reduces to $oissonGs equation and, therefore, to the field of the point i"e"
to expressions .&0" he dimensionality of space is considered in the expression .I0 only in the
form of condition to the set of the values, which can assume indexes" in 3/&- dimensional case
of !R*, &, ), 3" hus, the expression for Aagrangian .I0 given above ma!es it possible to obtain
the counterpart of physics .physics of scalar mass-free field0 in the space of any
dimensionality, more precisely saying, in the (uclidean and in the 5iemann the spaces of any
dimensionality"
$oissonGs equation is mathematically equivalent to the Aagrangian" he simplest extrapolation of .I0
is1
.IK0 A R .
!

!
0
>-3
.dg" of S the diensionality of space-time0, also passing into usual Aagrangian in the case of 4-
dimensional space-time"
In response to this it must be noted, that (hrenfest did not simply devise some physics in
some space - such a physics would be completely arbitrary" He placed the problem otherwise,
explaining, on what was based the confidence of physicists in the fact that the real physical space
is really three-dimensional, i"e" that entirethe set of phenomena .including the phenomena !nown to
physics, which far fall outside the limits of the ordinary, macroscopic experience, in which the 3-
dimensional nature was obvious0 in the best way is described with the aid of the model of the space
(
3
" 3ut once speech goes about the totality of !nown phenomena, the possibility of the selection of
Aagrangian is, it goes without saying, severely limited" 7uch limitations are, in particular, the
properties of physical phenomena, which do not require for their formulation the specific value of the
dimensionality of space" hus, for instance, th principle of superposition, !nown in the theory of
electromagnetism testifies about the linearity of equations .and, that means without the squareness of
Aagrangian0" 3ut the fact that for the tas! of the motion of system it is sufficient to !now only
initial position and speed .this it relates not only to the mechanics, but also to the field theory0,
he says, that the differential equations, which describe this system, they must be not higher than the
second order .i"e" into Aagrangian they must enter derived not higher than the first order0" hese
limitations lead exactly to usual Aagrangian .I0"
rue, with these limitations it would be possible to say that they cannot be the complete and
absolutely strict substantiation of the form of Aagrangian, since they are connected with the
specific range of phenomena, limited, in particular, to the characteristic time-spatial scales" 'ut the
limitedness of empirical basis is at the given moment the usual situation for the science"
It is mportant that in this usual situation with the aid of the wor! of (hrenfest proved to be
implicated the fundamental concept of the dimensionality of space, before it had been in the state of
apriority" In (hrenfestGs article there is no analysis of epistemological status of the concept of the
dimensionality of space, there are no methodological observations whatever about this concept"
However, if physicists wanted to answer a question, which physically indicates the 3-dimensional
nature of real space, then they must begin with an analysis, similar to that of (hrenfest"
: difference in the approaches of (hrenfest and $oincare to the physical understanding of
dimensionality is completely obvious" In $oincare the tendency toward convetionalism made him
show the physical equivalence of the spaces of any dimensionality and three-dimensional space" :s a
result the simplistic and physically unfounded analysis of the law of universal gravitation on the
assumption, that the dimensionality of space is different from three" he initial and constant fact for
$oincare is the inverse proportionality for the square of distance in the law of gravity, and passage to
the space of another dimensionality only substitutes the expression of scattering between the bodies
through the coordinates" He does not see that the law of #r
-)
in (
n
with n3 is incompatible with
entire remaining .even only gravitational0 physics1 with the principle of superposition, with the
equivalence of the field of the spherical mass distribution and field of material point with the mass,
equal to the total mass of distribution and which is located in the distribution center, etc"
$oincare did not consider that physics cannot supplement any geometry so that their
combination would correctly describe real world" :lthough his observation about the fact that on
the experience is chec!ed only the sum ,of physics and geometry=, correctly and, therefore, certain
conventional element always exists in physics, the comparison of positions and results of (hrenfest
and $oincare very clearly demonstrates, that there is no complete conventionalism in reality" 7till
more graphic this would be evidently, if $oincare examined not 4-, but )- or &- dimensional
space as the permissible model of reality" What physics in the sum with the one-dimensional
geometry would be equal to the sum of usual physics with the three-dimensional geometry?
(hrenfestGs analysis is not based on this preconceived position" :nd if (hrenfest revealed
that the spectrum of hydrogen in the space of another dimensionality more precisely will agree
with the experimental data than three-dimensional spectrum, then this could give the
foundation for assuming another dimensionality of space on atomic scales" 2ertainly, this
assumption would require first of all an answer to the question1 how to coordinate other ,this=
dimensionality with the undoubted 3-dimensional nature of space on macroscopic scales? :
study of (hrenfest does not affect this question, which is equivalent to the implicit assumption1
and without the concrete reali-ation of this agreement has sense to examine the specific,
internal properties of the physical systems .similar to the spectrum of atom and stability of
planetary system0 under the assumption of a difference in the dimensionality from three" 3ut
the validity of a similar !ind of studies assumes the idea about how a three*dimensional
observer could obtain information about the physical phenomena, characteri.ed by the
dimensionality of space, different from three"
he historic importance of the wor! of (hrenfest lies in the fact that, after raising the
question about the sense of 3-dimensional nature and after correlating it with the concrete
physical phenomena, (hrenfest established the boundaries, in which the 3-dimensional nature
has real physical substantiation and out of which it is only assumption" In (hrenfestGs analysis
these boundaries were on top determined by the scales of the solar system, and from below by
atomic scales" 9ut of these boundaries a question remained open" hus, the dimensionality of
space because of the wor! of (hrenfest became physical concept"
:t the same time it should be noted that the wor! of (hrenfest unconditionally outdistanced
his time until now, in physics practically it is not perceived the hardness of the framewor! of
absolute 3-dimensional nature" However, if physicists will come up with the question about
empirical status of the fact of the 3-dimensional nature of space, then they will have to recall
that for the first time way to the establishment of this empirical status, he saw the correct way
to the interpretation, the transfer of the concept of the 3-dimensional nature of space into the
language physicists"
(hrenfestGs analysis was disseminated subsequently, in the first place, to 5iemann
geometry .motion ,of planet= m dimensional generali-ation ?50 %I', and, in the second place,
as has already been said, 3ohr quanti-ation was substituted with the analysis of the n-
dimensional 7chroedinger equation"
Prere0uisites of the wor+ of Ehrenfest
:bout the 3-dimensional nature of space the historians of the science, until now, did not pay
adequate consideration to (hrenfestGs article" :nd this not by chance" :t first glance it seems
that to the wor! &8&I can be attributed of (hrenfestGs word from his letters, addressed to a" #"
Zoffe in &8&31 ,@ everything, that I, until now, !new how to ma!e, was based on the love for
the pu--les, the interest in any paradoxes, but not on the tendency to ma!e anything
+significant=C @ in contrast to you, 5it-, (instein and even Lebye, I do not have main and solid
ideological directions, there are no + problems of my own=, and so, only +amusing
problems=@= %B'" In these words, repeatedly expressed by (hrenfest .and not substantiated0
dissatisfaction with himself and insufficient fundamentality of his studies %8'"
However, the wor! of &8&I" is not nevertheless by chanceC it is not by chance both for the
general state of physics of that time and in the individual creation of (hrenfest"
It goes without saying, the wor! of (hrenfest on very posing of problems considerably
outdistanced his time" However, it should not be supposed, that this wor! was isolated from
the contemporary state of physics"
9ne of the most important features of the development of physico mathematical sciences at
the beginning of )*
th
century" became the destruction of the ruled ideas about the (uclidean
three-dimensional space as the only possible mathematical description of the properties of real
physical space" 3y the manifestation of these previous ideas was the apriority of geometric
concepts and identification of physical space with its mathematical model of (uclidean three-
dimensional space" However, in connection with the creation of non-(uclidean geometry as a
result of the wor! of Aobachevs!y, 3ol<ai, ?auss and 5iemann mathematics of &8
th
century" the
(uclidean geometry would be only one of the logically possible geometric systems" his great
reaching of mathematics became !nown to the physicists as a result of populari-ation as well
by mathematicians, as by physicists, especially sensitive to the problem of the empirical
substantiation of the conceptual apparatus for physics %&*'"
his atmosphere, the sensation of the need to select and to physically base geometric
description, undoubtedly, facilitated (insteinGs way to the creation of special and in particular
general theory of relativity, although, of course, the creation of these theories would be completely
unthin!ably without the physical causes" 9ne of the starting points for (instein became the
analysis of empirical, physical status of >ewtonian three-dimensional and temporary concepts"
In turn, revolutionary changes in the ideas about the space and the time, connected with the
theory of relativity, only a short time after ,the first defense line= of classical ideas was
destroyed, they brought to the extremely large readiness of physicists new, even more profound
alterations in the time-spatial ideas" It suffices to recall the extraordinary activity in this direction
of those days1 WeylGs theory, which geometrically unites gravity and electromagnetismC five-
dimensional theoryC the searches for unified field theories" 7omewhat later this disposition
appeared, for example, under the assumptions that the problem of nucleus can be solved only by
radical changes in the geometry .discrete space0 %&&'" he relativistic quantum field theory cannot
exist without radical changes in the concept of space-time %&)'"
In this geometric ,fermentation of minds= the dimensionality of space did not remain
untouched" It has already been discussed the five-dimensional direction" It is possible to note
also the curious observation of $lanc! in his answer to the opening academic address of
(instein in &8&41 ,We most all see in this circumstance .second degree in the law of universal
gravitation0 the natural consequence of 3-dimensionality of our space, which we assume as fact
and being reasonable physicists we must not be worried why space does not possess four or even
larger number of dimensions= %&3'" It is possible not to agree with $lanc! that any reasonable
physicist must receive 3-dimensional nature as fact, without attempting to analy-e, what bases
force physicists to consider space three-dimensional as the only one" here do not exist
boundaries in the region of the validity of this assertion" However, it is interesting that a question
about the dimensionality of space proved to be significant even for $lanc!, in general not
inclined to radical changes in the physical picture of the world"
hus, the trends of the wor! of (hrenfest can be considered in a certain sense characteristic
for physics of that time"
he wor! of (hrenfest was not random, also, in his own creation" It completely corresponded
to its tastes and aspirations in theoretical physics" #urthermore, in the scientific biography of
(hrenfest it is possible to find such episodes, which ma!e his turning to a question about the
dimensionality of space more intelligible"
he concept of the dimensionality of space even is more fundamental than idea about the
metric structure of space-time" he basic result of the theory of relativity consisted of the
establishment of precisely metric structureC in this case fact 3/&-dimensionality of space-time
was considered as the initial, sub<ect to analysis" he fundamentality of the problem raised by
(hrenfest completely corresponded to his aspirations, which, however, more often can be
revealed in his letters, than in his laconic, clear wor!s, devoid of all methodological
observations, intended for others" 9ne observation of this type nevertheless can be faound, and it
occurs in a connected curious manner with the problem of the dimensionality of space"
In &8&& in the abstract ,Dagniton= (hrenfest very clearly expresses his taste, calling true
physics the introduction of order into chaos of phenomena with the aid of the fundamental,
,illuminating= ideas"
In the ,physical dictionary= of Zesuit $oliana .&IU&01 ,$HT7I27" his science has by ob<ect
a body in its natural state, i"e" substance long, wide and deep" o examine, can being omnipotent
he body, deprived of its three dimensions and the requirement of extent only, would be rather
the ob<ect of metaphysics, than physics= %&J'" :s we see, in this uncommon determination the 3-
dimensional nature it is considered as the most important sign of reality" >ot this whether
arbitrariness, can be subconsious, it did lead to the fact that (hrenfest did thin! above a
question about the dimensionality of space?
3ut there can be someone who did influence more actually to the appearance of a article about
the 3-dimensional nature of space? (hrenfest writes nothing either about the reasons, which
impelled him to study or which wor!s ideologically influenced it" he wor!s, to which refers
(hrenfest, could not lead to the posing of problems"
9f the histories of science is !nown only one preceding to the wor! of (hrenfest the attempt to
connect the 3-dimensional nature of space with physics" hese is ;antGs hypothesis, which has
already been discussed in the introductory chapter1 ,3-dimensional nature occurs, apparently,
because substance in the existing world they act on each other in such a way that the effective
force is inversely proportional to the square of distance="
:pparently, this assumption of ;ant in no way directly acted on (hrenfest" 3esides the fact
that in the wor! of (hrenfest there are no indications of this influence, should be noted the
sufficiently careless attitude of (hrenfest to the classical philosophy generally" In its
correspondence and articles the names of philosophers or any references to their wor!s barely
are encountered" (xception is made for Dach" In DachKs boo!s, which attentively read
(hrenfest %&U', in connection with the critical analysis of basic physical ideas actively
populari-ed the achievements of mathematicians in the region of non-(uclidean and
multidimensional geometry %&I'" : question about the dimensionality of space was not central in
the wor! of Dach, but nevertheless in it appeared, in particular, the question1 ,Why space is three-
dimensional?=" Dach even assumed that in atomic physics the turning to multidimensional spaces
is completely possible" It would be perhaps tempting consider the wor! of (hrenfest as concrete
.negative0 answer to this pre<udice, but there are no straight bases for this hypothesis" It should be
noted that general philosophical position of Dach did not cause (hrenfestGs sympathy, who wrote to
Zoffe1 ,(specially interested me the criticism of idealistic philosophy .which, from my point of
view, personifies Dach0= %&B'"
Was there not some more direct occasion for the reflections of (hrenfest above a question
about the dimensionality of space? 3ut how to search for this occasion? he origin of thought,
as a rule, occurs not in the official situation, and often the scientist himself does not reali-e
completely, which occurred" 9nly after it nurtures, rears this thought to the viable state, the
corresponding publication can appear as the evidence about the generation" In no article of
(hrenfest in &8&I there are no signs of his reflections about the dimensionality of space"
herefore it is necessary to turn to the letters" :mong the published correspondence of (hrenfest
(hrenfestGs correspondence is of greatest interest with Zoffe, first of all because of its volume
and, in the second place, because (hrenfest considered Zoffe one of the nearest friends" However,
in this correspondence there was interruption from &8&4 through &8)* N but one phrase in a
letter from &8&)" ma!es it necessary to be on guard"
his letter (hrenfest wrote on 4 >ovember &8&) several wee!s after he arrived into Holland
at Aoren-Gs invitation, in order to engage his department at the Aeyden university %&8'" he first
wee!s of (hrenfest in Holland were occupied besides device at the new place with official visits
and acquaintances with the Lutch scientists" :mong others1 ,#riday of visit with the expression of
than!s to Yan der Waals .trustee of university_0 S old man .far beyond I*0, and is it seems more
than nothing" hen Waals low-order S of approximately 4* S of 4J years" ?m@ yes" With it it
dashed to 3rouwer assistant professor of mathematics in :msterdam of S now to only
mathematician in Holland, S is entirely young S pupil ?etting- on S axiomatics, the theory of
functions, set theory" 9n the whole this of men, to whom I should thoroughly be introduced"
(verything, including Aoren-, spea! with special ponderability about his salient endowment= %)*'"
hus, in (hrenfestGs letter the discussion deals with l" 3rouwer, one of the outstanding
mathematicians WW v", and, which for us is especially important, about one of the creators of
topology, the author of the salient wor!s, connected with the topological concept of
dimensionality" Doreover for years its greatest activity in this direction they were exactly of
&8&&-&8&3_
3rouwer was located under the effect of a" $oincare" his influence was manifested also
with respect to the philosophy of mathematics and, which is especially substantial, in
connection with the problem of the topological determination of dimensionality" In &8&&
3rouwer proved the topological nonequivalence of (
n
with different n in &8&3 he found the
correct mathematical definition belonging to $oincareKs idea of the inductive topological
definition of dimensionality"
:nd here in the period between these two remar!able results of 3rouwer in the topological
dimensional theory he becomes acquainted with (hrenfest" We assume that the ob<ect of their
conversation was, in particular, occupying then 3rouwer the problem of the dimensionality of
space" his assumption is even more plausible, if (hrenfest succeeded in carrying out the
intention thoroughly to be introduced to 3rouwer" 3ut ta!ing into account (hrenfestGs
sociability, his greediness to the new, it is difficult to doubt the reali-ation of this intention"
hus, pulse for the reflections of (hrenfest above the concept of the dimensionality of
space could arrive from the topology with the aid of l" of 3rouwer .and thus and a" $oincare0"
3ut are five years not a too large interval between the initial pulse and the publication of wor!?
he record, which (hrenfest made in &8&) g" in the noteboo!, can be answer to this question1
,:ny question, which you are encountered during the reflection, either during reading or
finally in the conversation, it is must be brief and clear to fix" #rom time to time similar
questions it follows to examine, trying to somehow systemati-e them" It is first of all, pleasant to
reali-e that you !new how to solve some of them, although initially hardly only could
formulate them, S to say nothing of that, in order to develop_ In the second place, we thus learn
something misty and obscure to gradually convert into the clearly formulated questionsH
%)&'" '
hese statements illuminate his style of wor!" he long period becomes thus intellegible"
7easure of the hardness of the mathematical model of space*time5
Aalue of wor+s about physics of the dimensionality of the space
:ssertion about the 3-dimensional nature of space with the aid of the conceptual apparatus
of contemporary science is trivial in the sense that already :ristotle reali-ed the fact of the 3-
dimensional nature of space and expressed it correspondingly" 3ut practically this fundamental
property of space was !nown to the distant ancestors of man"
he millenia, which separate the twentieth century from the time of :ristotle, by no means
made fact of 3-dimensional nature less !nown and clear" In this sense the proof of the 3-
dimensional nature of space is superfluous" However, one should thin! that the 3-dimensional
nature is obvious for the man on the basis of his macro-experience, i"e" the totality of the
phenomena, with which it it is necessary to contend in the daily life"
he sense of the wor! of (hrenfest consists of the indication of the need for rechec!ing the
fact of the 3-dimensional nature of space with the expansion of the region of the phenomena being
investigated on ,superhuman= scales" :tomic and astronomical phenomena exceed the limits of
macro-experience, and the result of the investigations of (hrenfest is the confirmation of the fact of
the 3-dimensional nature of space in these phenomena" It could seem that the assumption about
another dimensionality would lead only to quantitative changes, and then it would be necessary
to compare the more thoroughly different cases" However, (hrenfest established that difference
in the cases in question are qualitative, and this facilitated the selection between the models of
the space of different dimensionality"
he discussion deals with the measure of the hardness of the mathematical model of space-
time, utili-ed in physics" :doption of the model of three-dimensional (uclidean space by
>ewtonian physics is the result of macro-experience" his 3-dimensional nature practically
without change moved to 3/&-dimensional pseudo-(uclidean model of the space in 75 and
quantum theory and into 3/&- dimensional pseudo-5iemann model in ?5" \uestion naturally
arises, will the assumption about the 3-dimensional nature .or the generally specific
dimensionality0 with a sufficient ,removal= from the region of macroscopic phenomena prove to
bee too rigid for physics?
:fter putting off to the chapter J the more detailed examination of possible answers to this
question in contemporary physics, let us note now that some symptoms of this superfluous
hardness are located" 9f course the attempts was made to ma!e bended time-spatial model
appear from the concrete problematic .or paradoxical0 situations" With this it should not be
supposed, that all these problems arose recently" 9ne of them was reali-ed in the beginning of
)*
th
century during the combination of classical electrodynamics and 75" hese are the problems
,of the self-energy of electron=, or, in the language of field theory, the problem of ultraviolet
divergences" 9ther problems arose very recently in connection with the description of strong
interactions at high energies, with ,the retention= of quar!s and the li!e although with respect to
the problems of cosmology .or physics in the mega-scales0 there is no such flow of experimental
information as in physics of elementary particles, also here the main problem of cosmology is the
problem of the initial state of the universe .beginning of expansion, initial singularity0 which leads to an
attempt to doubt the absolute nature of property 3/&-dimensionality and to reali-e these doubts
about the concrete models"
It is interesting to compare the attitude of physicists toward 3-dimensional nature as the fundamental
property of space, which is manifested, as showed (hrenfest, in the fundamental physical laws, with
the laws of conservation - two of the most effective tools of theoretical physics" Limensionality is
in a sense more fundamental than the laws of conservation" In the latter is ,placed= the determinate
structure of space-time, in particular, its symmetry and dimensionality" It is !nown that in
physicists repeatedly appeared the assumptions about the disturbance of the law of conservation
of energy-momentum .for example, in 3ohr0, to say nothing of the less fundamental laws of
conservation, whose disturbance .under specific conditions0 is already included in theory, for
example parity nonconservation"
In physics there is for a long time a direction, connected with the ideas ,discrete space= and
,fundamental lengths= %))'" his direction attempts to find such time-spatial description of reality,
which would not assume the continuous structure of space-time .more precisely saying, the local
structure of (
4
0" his direction is, generally spea!ing, not equivalent to failure of the absolute nature
of the number of dimensions as one parameter, characteristic for all physical phenomena, and the
concept of si-e" It is usually implicitly assumed that model, the locally (uclidean 3/&-dimensional
model of space, are completely discrete, point, -ero-dimensional, or, in the more physical language,
the completely quanti-ed model of space" However, it is possible that in proportion to deepening into
the microcosm of the dimensionality of space will ,step bac!= gradually and that for some physical
situations will prove to be )/&- dimensional or &/&-dimensional model of space-time to be
appropriate" his change .decrease0 in the dimensionality of space upon transfer to the micro- scales
could become the consequence of the reali-ation of the general idea of fundamental length and
discrete space"
However, one main difficulty remains - the absence of the mathematical model of space-time,
which possesses, from one side, a sufficient flexibility in order to describe possible changes and,
from the other side that it would be possible to include the extensive apparatus for contemporary
physics in the framewor! of this model .i"e" the region of the studied phenomena0 "
With this difficulty is connected that (hrenfest could not examine all possible p dimensional
spaces, but he examined only simplest (uclidean spaces" He could not examine the mathematical
model of space-time, in which the dimensionality would depend on the scales of phenomena"
However, all this does not at all decreases the value of the (hrenfestian analysis, after which
physics was obtained the possibility to loo! at the dimensionality of space as a physical concept"
Chapter !A
APPEARA"CE $F #$P$-$;!CA- %!7E"<!$"A-
#:E$R= A"% P:=<!C<
Prehistory of topological dimensional theory 8Poincare, 'rouwer, -ebesgue9
In the history of topological dimensional theory usually is separated the initial period, to
which they carry the published into &8&&-&8&3 of the wor! of $oincare, 3rouwer and Aebesgue"
In these wor!s the topological concept of the dimensionality was formed1 the idea of the
inductive definition of $oincareGs dimensionality, converted into the mathematical definition
by 3rouwerC the remar!able idea of Aebesgue S the prototype of the definition of
dimensionality with the aid of the tilingC proof by 3rouwer the topological >-dimensionality of
the space of (
n
.
However, the chronological framewor! of the first period".&8&&S&8&30 one should move to
the beginning of century in order to include the first appearance of the idea of the inductive
topological definition of dimensionality and the physico psychological generation of the very
concept of topological dimensionality .&8*& S of &8*)%gg'"0" :ctually, if we consider as
usually %&', the beginning of dimensional theory the article of $oincare &8&) ,why space has
three dimensions?= .in this wor! is contained the inductive definition of dimensionality,
expressed in the mathematical language0, then a question about the origin of basic idea, remains
without an answer, since in this wor! definition of dimensionality is given immediately in the
finished form, while in the wor! &8*) this generation occurs almost in front of the eyes of the
reader"
It was in the second place, thus far considered that the idea of the topological definition of
dimensionality was un!nown to $oincare &8&) .year of his death0, the question did not arise,
why this idea did not convert into the correct mathematical definition - he simply did not have
time to ma!e this" However, the same question is not so easy to answer, if one considers that
$oincare wor!ed on the appropriate geometric idea of at least &* years" he possible answer to
this question is connected with the absence of the vital mathematical need for a similar definition"
he mathematical ob<ects .geometric figures, spaces0 in question, as a rule, could be sufficiently
simply assigned" his noted $oincareGs himself, indicating that the topological approach to the
dimensionality is dictated in essence by philosophical and physico psychological needs"
3efore passing to the analysis of further development of $oincareGs ideas, most clearly
presented in his article &8&), one should return a little bac!, to the extremely important wor!
of 3rouwer and Aebesgue for the history of topological dimensional theory, published in &8&&"
In 3rouwerGs article ,proof of the invariance of the number of dimensions= was for the first
time proven the general case of the topological nonequivalence of the (uclidean spaces of different
dimensionality" his wor!, in the first place, completed a whole series of the studies, which
contain either special cases .(
n
with nO30, or only approaches to the solution of problem"
3rouwer in this connection mentions the wor! of several mathematicians"
In the second place, 3rouwerGs article, dedicated to a completely special question, was strong
point not only for constructing the topological dimensional theory, but in a certain sense and for
the topology as a whole" If it turned out that during the topological mapping the dimensionality
can not remain .understood, for example, as linear dimensionality0 of geometric ob<ects in (
n
,
then this would indicate that the class of topological .homeomorphous0 conversions is too wide in
order to have meaningful geometric applications" Indeed (
n
and the figures in it are some of the
most usual ob<ects in mathematics"
In this connection it is possible to recall the remar!able result of 2antor - the proof of the set-
theoretical equivalence of the set of points of square .or generally cube in (
n
0 and set of points of
a section" his result meant that it is not possible to determine the concept of dimensionality only
in the set-theoretical language"
he wor! of Aebesgue was published in the same number of the same periodical as
3rouwerGs article, and immediately after it" : fragment from AebesgueGs letter to one of the
publishers of this periodical" his three-page note begins with the words1 ,5ecently, when you
told me about the proof of the impossibility to establish single-valued and the discontinuous
correspondence between the points of two spaces of dimensions n and n/p, the proof, which
belongs to 3rouwer, I indicated to you the principle of some proofs of this theorem" I will
demonstrate to you simplest of these proofs=" his theorem, as Aebesgue writes, it follows
from the generali-ation of one proposal of Zordan and formulates the remar!able theorem1 ,If
each point of n-dimensional region L belongs at least to one of the closed sets (
&
, @, (
p
and if
these sets are sufficiently low, then common points are had at least n/& from these sets="
rue, the initial proof of Aebesgue proved to be unsatisfactory, and for the first time this
theorem was completely proven in the wor! of 3rouwer &8&3 ,about the natural concept of
dimensionality=" In this wor!, which completes the first period of the history of topological
dimensional theory, 3rouwer turns himself to definition of the dimensionality created by
$oincare1 ,2ontinuum is called n-dimensional, if with the aid of one or several n-&-dimensional
continua it is possible to decompose it into separate parts=" He shows the impossibility to use this
definition directly in the given form and refines it in two directions" #irst, he refines the concept
,continuum= and, in the second place, refines the words ,with the aid of one or several=" In this
case he gives a simple example .double cone0, when a set can be divided by one point, but it is
clearly not one-dimensional"
he definition of dimensionality in 3rouwer is such1 7pace is n-dimensional if it can be
separated by a n"&-dimensional subset, but not by any subset of lower dimension" 3rouwer
calls the space, which contains no continuum, -ero-dimensional" his is the initial point of
inductive chain" hen 3rouwer sollves the deficiencies in AebesgueGs proof for the theorems
about the multiplicity of tiling of cube in (
n
, and proves this theorem, also"
he first period in the history of topological dimensional theory was completed by this wor!
of 3rouwer &8&3" In connection with this the questions arise1 why 3rouwer did not pose the
problem of constructing the general dimensional theory after solving the problem of
dimensionality in (
n
? Why did the following essential advance occur in &8)&? Why did 6ryson
and Denger carry out this advance? Liscussion of these questions is naturally connected with
the examination of the role of 6ryson and Denger in the creation of principles of dimensional
theory"
&ryson C 7enger * the creators of phonological dimensional theory
6ryson .&B8B-&8)40 and Denger .&8*)-&8BJ0 - the creators of the first mathematical theory,
based on the concept of the dimensionality of space" hey revealed the possibility to extend the
concept of dimensionality to the broad class of geometric ob<ects and ,they <ustified the new
concept, after ma!ing its cornerstone of the extremely beautiful and fruitful theory, which
introduced unity and order into the large region of geometry= %3'"
he definition of dimensionality, whose idea arose in $oincare and which acquired present
mathematical form from 3rouwer, is called at present the definition of the large inductive
dimensionality" 9nce in this name there is a word large, it is reasonable to assume that there is
also small inductive dimensionality, and since into name enters also word inductive, we
assume that there is a not-inductive dimensionality" 7o it is in reality" o ,noninductive=
dimensionality we were introduced in the first chapter" his the dimensionality, which ascends to
AebesgueGs theorem and is defined as minimum multiplicity of sufficiently small tiling"
However, 6ryson and Denger as the basis of topological dimensional theory placed such
definition, which is now called the definition of small inductive dimensionality1 the space W
is called n-dimensional at point p, if the point p has small environments, whose boundaries
have a dimensionality, not more than n-&, but there are no small environments, whose
boundaries have a dimensionality less than n-&" he initial point of inductive chain forms the
empty set, to which is assigned the dimensionality N&"
6ryson and Denger at first did not consider that there are three different definitions of
dimensionality" It was considered that there is a definition of dimensionality and its two
properties, whose existence was proven for the sufficiently broad class of topological spaces"
:ctually this indicated .and it was one of the most important first results of topological
dimensional theory0 that for the broad class of the topological spaces W coincide three invariants"
%ra-mernostny!h' invariants1 IndWRindWRdimW" 9nly subsequently these three values were
considered as equalC bases for this appeared at the end of the fourties, when the first examples
were built with the noncoincident values of the dimensionality"
he surprising situation arose1 to one, it would seem, the concept of dimensionality could be
defined by three different, generally spea!ing, values" :lready this alone it could cause doubt
about the fitness of topological language for describing the physical concept of dimensionality"
However, we already met with a similar situation of N one concept of the continuity of space is
described by mathematically different methods"
However, in the twenties during the construction by 6ryson and Denger in topological
dimensional theory this ambiguity was not yet !nown, and the topological concept of
dimensionality could seem to be the natural mathematical refinement of the physical idea about
the dimensionality" his observation is appropriate because when you become acquainted with
the biographies of the remar!able mathematicians 6ryson and Denger, special attention draws
their completely uncommon interest in physics"
he first scientific publication of outstanding mathematician 6ryson was dedicated to physics,
and, which is especially interesting, to experimental physics" In &8&J in ,the periodical of 5ussian
physico chemical society= was published summer 6rysonGs article &I- ,W-ray radiation of
2oolidge tube= %U'" In the article on seven pages the results of a experimental study of the
dependence of the frequency of W-radiation on the stress, applied to the electrodes of 2oolidge
tube are presented and are discussed .type of W-ray tube0" In the beginning article the author
mentions several wor! of different authors, then in detail he describes the experiment itself and
presents the obtained results .with the aid of figures and the tables0" hat he will be an
outstanding mathematician in the future is almost impossiblyC we would rather predict the
future of thorough, accurate experimenter, so thoroughly he described the components of
experiment"
However, one should nevertheless note that there is no evidence about any strictly mathematical
interests of 6ryson before his entering in &8&J to physico mathematical department of Doscow
6niversity" Doreover, according to the evidence of :le!sandrov, 6ryson at first intended to
become physicist and only under the effect of the lectures of Tegorov and Au-ina occurred the
turning of his scientific interests to the side of mathematics" 6ryson entered into the graduate
study under his management in &8&8 at the proposal of Au-ina" #rom the diary of 6ryson %I' it
is evident, he mastered the new mathematical material" He mastered actively, revealing errors
and wea! places in the wor! of venerable authors" he exceptionally fruitful period of the
mathematical creation of 6ryson began from this" his period, one of highest achievements of
which became the dimensional theory constructed into &8)&-&8)) , continued only four years
and was bro!en on &I :ugust of &8)4 of as a result of an accident 6ryson perished"
he not completed by 6ryson wor!s, many of which existed only in the form rough drafts or
even only in the oral form, were prepared to the press by :le!sandrov" 7ubsequently wor!s of
6ryson with the extensive notes were assembled and published in &8J& ,wor!s on the topology
and other the fields of mathematics="
l" 3rouwer participated in the preparation of 6rysonGs manuscripts for the publication by, who,
in spite of s!eptical relation to the point-set topology generally, very highly valued 6ryson .this is,
however, not surprising, since the wor! of 6ryson were pierced by remar!able geometric ideas
and they are by no means reduced only to the axiomatic side of general topology0" In
connection with the tragic loss p" s" 6ryson 3rouwer wrote his father1 ,I fell in love with your
highly talented and amiable son, that easily I can understand your loss is heavy" #or the
mathematicians his death is a unique loss" He would be the most outstanding mathematician of
our time" I survive this loss together with you="
he first wor! of Denger he deposited in the Yiennese academy of sciences" It relates to the
autumn of &8)&, when its author was &8 years old"
What could stimulate searches by 6ryson and Denger dimensional theory? What did help
them to see naturalness and need for the stated goalS to determine the concept of dimensionality
for the broadest possible class of the mathematical models of space? o these questions it is
possible to propose the answer, connected with the examination of interaction of physics and
mathematics"
Role of physics in the mathematical creation of &ryson and 7enger
It is important to note that in winter &8))F)3 6ryson thoroughly and with the large
enthusiasm studied the theory of relativity" He obtains means for the mission by :le!sandrov
abroad together with after reading a cycle of four public lectures by the name ,about the
mathematical !nowledge of the world in light of the theory of relativity= during Zanuary &8)3"
In the autumnal semester the course was called ,the mathematical bases of the law of
relativity=, in the the spring of S ,the mathematical bases of the theory of relativity= %8'" he
large volume of this course .on 4 hours every wee!0 gives grounds to thin! that in the
course the general theory of relativity was included" his confirms also the well-!nown
7oviet mathematician Denshov"
:s is !nown, the theory of relativity examines the structure of physical space-time in connection
with the physical processes" It is possible to thin! that for 6ryson word space in his wor!s on the
topology and the word space in the physical theory of relativity they were not altogether only
homonyms" :lthough in the wor! of 6ryson according to the dimensional theory there are no
direct indications of the possible connection of this theory with physics, his separate observations,
apparently, testify about this" Aet us examine several such places in the basic wor! of 6ryson
according to the dimensional theory ,memoirs about the 2antorian manifolds" Limensionality="
:le!sandrov writes that 6rysonGs way to the dimensional theory began from the fact that
Tegorov in &8)& placed before him the tas! of the internal definition of the total sets, which it
would be possible to name lines or surfaces"
6ryson calls the n-dimensional <ordan manifold the set, topologically equivalent to n-
dimensional cube in (
n
" :t the very beginning memoirs 6ryson formulates the problem1 ,o give
the purely geometric definition of n-dimensional <ordan manifolds=, i"e" the definition, which is not
reduced simply to the possibility of a certain mapping" He writes that ,the purely mathematical
interest of these problems is considerably less than their philosophical interest .which is
completely significant0@=" It is possible to thin! that here the sense of word ,philosophical= is
close to the sense which was pac!ed into this word by $oincare, spea!ing about the
dissatisfaction of philosophers with ,arithmetical= definitions of dimensionality" he
dimensionality of a manifold is reduced to the need for explaining the internal reasons for the
possibility of corresponding topological mapping onto (
n
"
hen 6ryson approaches the problem ;
n
.,to indicate the total sets, which can still be
named lines, surfaces, etc=0, noting that in this case there is no ,poor= definition" His entire
memoirs is dedicated to problem ;
n
. 9ne should emphasi-e that to contemporary physics .both
in &8)& and in &8B) 0 much larger relation has exactly the problem Z
n
, or more precisely Z
3
and
Z
4
, since 5iemann the manifold of the general theory of relativity one of the deepest today theory
of the physical space-time is locally is Z
4
"
7umming up the sum to the description of the obtained by the results in our introductory
chapter, 6ryson writes1 ,@ the obtained results ma!e it possible for the first time to spill a certain
light to the not explained question, what is this number of dimensions" It seems to me that the
answer, which I propose, is completely suitable to the concept of $oincare=" 6ryson refers to the
wor! of $oincare &8&), in which the problem of the number of dimensions is placed not as
purely mathematical problem, but as physico mathematical"
6ryson called the n-dimensional ;antorian manifold n-dimensional continuum, which remains
connected after the removal from it of any set of a dimensionality less than n-), i"e" to a high degree
topologically uniform space"
In the introductory chapter 6ryson indicates ,there is a difference between the integral definitions
.being concerned with the integral properties, i"e", of the properties of set as a whole0 and the local
definitions .relating to the properties of a set in environment of one of its points0=and we give
preference to the local definitions1 ," his escapes from the following obvious observation1 the
concept .until now, definition0 behind the number of dimensions is the <ordan manifold .i"e" the
topological means of cube into (
n
0, whose definition would ma!e it possible to recogni-e lines,
surfaces, bodies, etc" is the integral concept of local origin"
Words ,obvious= and ,as easily to consider= do not have, of course, evidential effect, and for the
more general common class of topological spaces, then examined by 6ryson, primary meaning has the
nonlocal definition of dimensionality with the aid of the tiling .not coinciding, generally spea!ing, with
the inductive dimensionality0" hus, the discussion deals with the sub<ective limitation, whose origin
can be connected the with the fact that fundamental language of physics up to the present time, and
already in any case and the language of classical physics, is the language of differential e0uations5
In the first wor!s of Denger according to the dimensional theory distinct physical undercurrent
does not succeed in revealing" $ossibly, partly this is connected with the fact that these wor!s are small
notes in contrast to the main wor! of 6ryson, in which there is the extensive introductory part,
which contains observations, in particular, extra-mathematical and autobiographical nature"
However, at least in the later wor! of Denger one cannot fail to note sufficiently the distinctly
expressed interest in physics"
In this sense the article of Denger is characteristic1 ,theory of relativity and the geometry= in
the volume, dedicated to the I*-anniversary of (instein" In it Denger discusses, in particular, the
possibility of use in physics instead of is 5iemann the manifold of more general common spacesC in
this case special doubt causes the properties of continuity" In the article is evident if not the profound
!nowledge by Denger of the vital problems of physics, then the completely physical motivation of
his mathematical creation" :s an example it is possible DengerGs acquaintance with the famous article
of Din!ows!i &8*B 1 ,@ I dare to develop Din!ows!iGs idea about the fact that the laws of nature
can find their most perfect expression in the establishment of the relations between the world lines=
%&*'"
he concept of statistical metric space Denger introduced in &84) so he named the set, for any
pair of elements of which was assigned the distribution function, which generates ,the distance=
of the random variable satisfying the conditions, which generali-e the usual postulates of the metric
space1 nonnegativity, symmetry, nondegeneracy and triangular inequality" :s one of the possible
applications of this concept Denger directly indicates physical microcosm" $hysics noted wor!
on the statistical metric spaces, although no real physical theories were based on this idea, until
now"
Why was ist possible for 6ryson and Denger to build the first dimensional theory? Without
diminishing the value strictly of the mathematical stimuli of creation the, it can be assumed that
natural-science, physical interests of 6ryson and Denger could help them during the construction
of dimensional theory" his aid as the reali-ation of naturalness and need for the stated goal of the
construction of the general dimensional theory could be achieved, for example, as follows"
;nowing much the more common mathematical models of space, than (uclidean, it was easy
to see the specific arbitrariness of assumption about the (uclidean three-dimensional .or even
pseudo-5iemann four-dimensional0 structure of physical space .space-time0" his insufficiency of
the (uclidean model of physical space was more evident after the failure of (insteinKs 75 with its
(uclidean structure of physical space .true, only in the global, but not on a local scale0" It was
possible to consider the also general fact of the limitedness of physical information the properties
of space, obtained from the %ogragshchennogo' .in particular, to the three-dimensional scales0
range of physical phenomena" herefore natural could be the tendency to build a maximally
common .or at least more general common than (
3
or 5
3/&
0 mathematical model of real physical
space" he tas! hence emerges1 to build the sufficiently common mathematical model of space,
in which the concept of dimensionality preserves sense"
he perhaps, proposed hypothesis is formulated too rectilinearly" 3ut, on the other side, it
is untypical for the mathematicians of )*
th
century, who are occupied by this abstract field of
mathematics as topology, natural-science interests of 6ryson and Denger"
In this connection one cannot fail to recall also mathematical creation of one of the greatest
mathematicians of &8
th
century1 5iemannGs, which he received to the, apparently, subordinate
physical purposes %&&'" he action of the physical attitude of 5iemann on his mathematical
creation did not become less fruitful because he could not build united physical theory"
It is !nown that the stimulating idea is not entirely ,obligated= to be correct in narrow the
practical, immediate sense of word" In this case, in spite of half century intensive development of
most topological dimensional theory, it is necessary to establish that the physicist of space-
time these theories directly in no way proved useful, until now" his brings us close to the more
general common problem, examined in the following chapter"
Chapter Y
%!7E"<!$"A-!#= A"% C$"#E7P$RAR= P:=<!C<
!n what sense is isolated dimensionality of space*time, e0ual to )D?3
he fact 3/&-dimensionality of physical space-time was established after (hrenfest with
relation to the concrete physical phenomena, it arose in one row with many other physical facts
according to the degree of validity, but, of course, not according to the degree of
fundamentality" However, dimensionality of space proved to be substantiated by different
phenomena1 the spectrum of atom, the propagation of electromagnetic waves, motion"
It is not surprising therefore the striving to reduce dimensionality to the deeper properties
of real world, i"e" to find such a property, which .within the framewor! specific theory0 would
give 3/&-dimensionality and other fundamental physical positions, which are considered now
independent variables"
: similar tendency ,to derive 3-dimensional nature=, as we saw in the introductory chapter,
was even found in ;antKs wor!" 6sually the attention is not turned to this attemptC however with
the young ;ant began his analysis" He attempted, as we remember, to connect the 3-
dimensional nature of space with the fact that 3 is the smallest number, which precedes composite
4R)`)"
:fter the theory of relativity brought idea about 4-dimensional space-time, number 4 became
the ob<ect of analogous reflections" In particular, about this number reflected (nglish
astrophysicist (ddington .&BB)-&8440, to him belong not only the first experimental
confirmation of ?5 in &8&8, but also numbers of fundamental theoretical results" #urthermore, he
wrote several remar!able scientific popular boo!s"
In one of them (ddington attempted to establish fact of 4-dimensionality with the following
observation .of humorous nature0" He focused attention %&' to the fact that any measurement of
length assumes the presence of two extensive ob<ects, for example two measuring rods" 3ut
since, as is !nown, each stic! has two ends, we obtain, that the total number of ends is equal to
number 4" 9f no more intelligible ,dimensional theory= (ddington succeeded in devising,
although this theory it greatly required"
:nother example gives the wor! of the contemporary :merican physicist L" #in!elstein
%)', in which the attempt is made to build the model of quantum space, which passes within
classical limit into the space-time of ?5" In this wor! a certain binary code and dimensionality of
space-time are somehow connected" If this approach led to the viable physical theory, then the
trivial relationship of )W) R 4 would prove to be the connected with the fundamental property
of the material world and dimensionality of space-time, brought to the quantum properties of
microcosm" 9ne should emphasi-e that the wor! #in!elstein is not aimed at obtaining the
value of dimensionality" Here 3/&-dimensionality is only one of the consequences of the
assumed theory" :nd this is, apparently, the only possible approach to ,the conclusion= of
dimensionality, what cannot be said about the concrete specific reali-ation of this approach"
his cannot be said at least because there are !nown many other hypotheses and preliminary
constructions, which have analogous purposes and also did not come to the state, which would
ma!e it possible to raise the question about their experimental chec!"
However, regardless of the fact, if it will be possible to reali-e the conclusion of
dimensionality or not, the attempts are underta!en to comprehend isolation 3/&-dimensionality"
It is clear that the substantiation of this isolation by purely mathematical means is completely
hopeless" :nd not because there are no mathematical facts, which release the number 3 .or 3/&0"
here are too many such facts on the contrary" he mathematical property, to which ;ant
focused attention .that 4 is the first composite number0 is not the only, and not most interesting
property of this type" here is a entire collection of mathematical assertions, which release not
only number 3, but even a dimensionality of space, equal to three"
3ut it is possible to indicate such mathematical assertions, which separate other values of
dimensionality" herefore up to the appearance of the physical theory, in which some one of
these mathematical facts will become the physically intelligible assertions, it will not be,
apparently, the foundations for replacing the straight statement of the 3-dimensional nature of
space by some mathematical circumstance, which releases the number 3" 3ut also this, inevitable
now postulative nature of assertion about the 3-dimensional nature of space leaves possibility
for the analysis"
In this case the dimensionality of space appears in the form of specific parameter, which
characteri-es .together with other cosmological parameters and fundamental physical
constants0 our metagalaxy" he fact of the 3-dimensional nature of space is connected with the
fundamental properties of the material world" However, these connections remain implicit to
those times, where three-dimensional, physics is examined itself, but not against the
bac!ground of others n-dimensional ,physics=" 9nly examination of 3-dimensional nature as one
of the possible assumptions about the dimensionality of space ma!es it possible to reveal the
deep connections of 3-dimensional nature with other most important structures of physical
world %3'"
6nderstanding dimensionality as a certain cosmological parameter leads also to the !nown
problem of the uniqueness of the model of the universe" his problem, not solved within the
framewor! of 75, can be formulated as the problem of the selection of initial conditions for
(insteinGs equations in the cosmological tas!" he usual formulation of the physical problems
assumes the possibility of the tas! of arbitrary initial conditions, and these different initial
conditions can be reali-ed in actuality" However, the universe exists ,in one copy=, and
therefore the arbitrariness of initial conditions in cosmology loses usual meaning"
his situation led, in particular, to the assumption that the set of the parameters .including the
dimensionality of space and value of fundamental constants0, which can be considered as initial
conditions, does not characteri-e the entire universe as a whole, but only one of its many parts N a
metagalaxyC in this case the set of the parameters .and, in particular, 3-dimensional nature0 is
declared random%4'"
:ttempts were made to solve the problem of cosmological initial conditions .but also of todayGs
cosmological parameters0 with the aid of the <oint calculation of 75 and the quantum regularities
.,the principle of ignoranceH %J'0" 3y this method it is intended to obtain as the most probable
real cosmological parameters, in particular the proximity of the critical value and the thermal
nature of cosmological bac!ground-radiation" It is possible to attempt even 3/&-dimensionality
of space-time to also obtain as the most probable value"
7ince here the discussion deals only with the most probable .but not unambiguously specific0
value, the question seems legitimate1 why nevertheless our space-time is 3/&- dimensional? he
most attractive answer to this question now is, apparently, such1 space-time is 3/&-dimensional
because this same question can naturally arise only in this space-time" In this case those giving this
answer assume that the system, compared with the complexity of man, who poses to himself
similar questions, can arise only in 3/&-dimensional world" &- and )nd dimensionality of space
are excluded as insufficient for any complicatedly arranged nervous system, and more than 3-
dimensional leaves no room for the biological evolution on a planet, which stably moves around
the star %U'" :s showed already (hrenfest, the stable motion of planet is possible only in the
three-dimensional space"
In other words, it is proposed to consider that the searches for answer to a question, why our
space is three-dimensional, not are more than .but also not less0 %osmyslenny' than the searches
for answer to a question, why our sun of S precisely such type star .but not white dwarf or the
red giant, for example0" :nswer to the second question, obviously, consists in the fact that the
white dwarf or the red giant would not ensure the conditions, necessary for the appearance of the
civili-ation, in which could arise question itself" his substantiation is advanced apropos and
other cosmological parameters and relationships %I'"
However, as far as dimensionality is concerned, it is difficult to recogni-e not only the answer,
but also the formulation of a question as completely satisfactory" In particular, the assertions
about the fact that in the space of another dimensionality the atoms would be unstable and the
appearance of life and reason is impossible, acquire some sense only during the fixation of the
nature of physical laws .principle of superposition, the form of dynamic equations, etc0" 3ut
indeed if the discussion does not deal with the real observed physical space, but only with the
possible, but it is not possible to say anything about ,possible= physics" It is this qualitative
difference from the (herenfestian posing of the question about the dimensionality of the observed
real physical space under different physical conditions"
Physical space*time and the topology
Aet us turn now to the question, which in explicit or implicit form appeared in the previous
chapters"
Why did topological dimensional theory not Hprove useful= to physics? Indeed the greatest
generali-ation of the ideas about the dimensionality of space, utili-ed in physics, gives topology"
his, it would seem, must lead automatically to the fact that a question about the
dimensionality of space must be assigned to nature in the topological language" his is
assumed in some wor!s, dedicated to this problem %B'" In this case the topological properties
of physical space are discussed, the topological definition of dimensionality, etc"
his position simplifies and distorts real situation, since at present no methods are !nown for
constructing physics, which preserves .in the sense of the correspondence principle0 at least
the elements of usual physics in the space more general common than the so-called manifold"
3ut manifold is locally arranged exactly as (uclidean space" herefore from the point of view
of contemporary physics it is not possible even to formulate a question about the
dimensionality of space, concerning the generality being differed significantly from (hrenfest
approach" In this approach, let us recall, were used only (uclidean spaces of different
dimensionality, but not more general topological spaces"
:nother, more essential circumstance lies in the fact that the concept of topological space, which
was appeared .in practice in contemporary form0 in &8&4, is not used for describing the real
physical space" It will poorly agree with the relativistic quantum theory" he concept of
topological space implies as the primary concept +point," 3ut the concept of point, which ascends
even to the (uclidean ,that what does not have length=, seems incompatible with the language of
the relativistic quantum theory, in which the uncertainty principle together with the relativistic
possibility of particle production limits the absolute accuracy of the definition of time-spatial si-es"
#rom similar considerations arose the hypothesis of minimum, or fundamental, length %8'" his
hypothesis caused the appearance of an entire direction in theoretical physics, which includes the
following pproaches and some concrete models1 ,discrete space=, ,quanti-ed space=, ,length
element=" he first wor!s of this direction appeared in the thirties, through several years after the
construction of quantum mechanics, and they had a purpose to solve the problem of infinity of
the electromagnetic mass of electron and even problem of the structure of atomic nucleus" he
problem of nucleus was solved, as is !nown, by more traditional .from a present point of view0
meansC however, the idea of discrete space repeatedly was renewed in the different forms up to the
last time %&*
,
&&'"
his direction is most naturally called the problem of fundamental length, since the
introduction of certain fundamental value with the dimensionality of length into physics was the
general element of all attempts" :t the same time concrete methods of the introduction of this
value are essentially different and each is individually vulnerable for criticism"
It is easy to understand, even without examining concrete models, that assumption about
existence of a fundamental length will not be coordinated with the idea about the
fundamentality of the topological model of space" #irst, the usual concept of the point proves
physically to be senseless - and, in the second place, the introduction of fundamental length is
possible only in the metric language, which in the usual mathematical hierarchy of structures is
less fundamental than topological"
3ut metric language is not obligated to be reduced to the usual concept of the metric space .this,
however, follows already from the fact that the time-spatial structure, examined by the theory of
relativity, is not metric space, since in 75 naturally appears only distance as two-point function0"
It is possible to assume that this new metric language must somehow generali-e the concept of
interval in 75" In the spirit of quantum ideas metric function can become an operator, and then,
possibly, topology will arise after the operation of the corresponding averaging or it will arise
immediately from the spectrum of topologies"
he indirect illustration of these statistical metric spaces, is considerably later introduced into
mathematics than the usual metric spaces .Denger, &84)0" opology in this space can be
introduced by several nonequivalent ways, i"e" with one and the same metric structure
.understood already in the generali-ed sense0 it is possible to coordinate nonequivalent
topologies" hus, the traditional hierarchy of topological and metric properties is disrupted in
mathematics" 7o why should one insist on it in physics?
here are doubt about the feasability to solve the problem of the dimensionality of real
physical space by the analysis of its topological properties" When they spea! about the
topological structure of real space, they do not identify physical space and certain .inaccurate0
connections with its model?
In connection with this one should remember that the !nown hierarchy of ,spaceli!e=
properties .in which in a specific manner the described metric properties are less fundamental than
topological0 it arose in the beginning century without !nowledge for the domain of quantum
phenomena"
Is it possible to be confident that the mathematical concepts, which are not influenced by
quantum physics, can satisfy all needs of a new theory? o hope for this corresponding attempts
were made possible,.the general theory of relativity, in which the concept of 5iemann space is
used, an example of the success of a similar attempt0, but it cannot be considered that
mathematics deliberately contains all concepts, necessary for contemporary physics"
>onconformity between the topological ideas about the dimensionality of space and the needs of
physics can be illustrated as follows" In physics there are foundations for considering the
following assertion for the phenomena of sufficiently large time-spatial scales space-time is 3/&-
dimensional and at the same time for sufficiently small scales it is discrete %&&'" :nother
discussed possibility lies in the fact that at short distances it is not possible to generally introduce the
specific dimensionality %&)'"
However, within the framewor! of topological ideas about the dimensionality of space it is
not possible even to simulate a similar situation, i"e" to agree on 3/&-dimensional space .,in the
large=0 and possible discrete .,in the small=0 structure of space and to consider the possibility
of dimensionality changes with a change in the scale of phenomenon"
In order to explain the aforesaid, let us examine a simple example" Aet the set L
*
3
.a0 of infinite
cubic lattice with the step a in the three-dimensional (uclidean space (
3
, i"e" the point set with
the coordinates .!
&
a, !
)
a, !
3
a0 where the !Ks ar integers" It would be possible to expect that ,the
space=, with the sufficiently small a would approach sufficiently well to the properties .and, in
particular, on the dimensionality0 (
3
" However, a similar assertion is meaningless from the point
of view of topology, since in view of topological definitions the dimensionality ,of the space=
L
*
3
.a0 is equal to -ero - independently from the values a. the topological definition of
dimensionality is local, and cannot ,note= the passage through some chosen scale a moreover,
even space, which consists of all rational points of (
3
.i"e" the points, which have all
coordinates with rational numbers0, it is topologically -ero-dimensional, although this space
seems generally physically indistinguishable from (
3
"
he example examined testifies about the impossibility to give sense to topological ideas li!e
the assertion about the dependence of dimensionality on the scales of phenomenon from
within the framewor!"
3ut perhaps not only topological, but also any other mathematical formulation of the concept of
dimensionality generally .as the saying goes, by nature0 cannot reali-e the above-indicated
wish of the common sense? Aet us examine ideas about the number of dimensions which are
correlated with the topological approach to the dimensionality"
he creation of the general theory of relativity - one of the deepest physical theory of the space-
time today - did not require the mathematical models of space, more general than manifold, and
ideas about the dimensionality, more general than a quantity of coordinates" (ven in contemporary
physics there are no real alternatives to the coordinate description, which ma!es it possible to
examine the behavior of any physical system" :lthough the concept of the dimensionality of
manifold has topological nature, there is no need for the general topological definitions of
dimensionality in the case of manifold, since the very structure of manifold automatically
assumes the specific dimensionality"
opological approach to the dimensionality would be promising, if the development of
physics .and first of all reali-ing of complete synthesis of 75 an quantum theory0 led to the
failure of the examination of the metric structure of space and adoption as the basic ob<ect the
study of its topological propertiesC in this case the turning to the topological definitions of
dimensionality would be unavoidably" However, at present this course of events seems
improbableC in particular, evidently the values, which could play the role of the dynamic
variables, which describe state must somehow resemble space-time" herefore for the
development the theory of space-time it seems desirable the generali-ation of the concept of
manifold, the generali-ation of metric, the coordinate structure of space .concept of interval and
metric tensor g
i!
0 with the failure of the the local structure of space, identical to the structure of
(
4
, then the concept of dimensionality could remain connected with the concept of a quantity of
coordinates, since only coordinates have been understood in the generali-ed sense"
$hysics actually ties us to parametric representation about the dimensionality of space"
,Wor!ing= physical concepts of the number of degrees of freedom, a quantity of dynamic
variables in the equations of motion, a quantity of components of physical field, prompt the need
for the reali-ation of parametric representation of dimensionality, or, it is better to say, about
the number of dimensions of space" his idea would be actually connected with ,the number of
dimensions= - necessary for the description states of physical system"
:s 2antor already showed, if we limit the method of parametri-ation in no way, then to
reali-e parametric approach to the dimensionality is impossible" opology .in connection
with manifold0 limits the method of parametri-ation by the requirements of one-to-one
correspondence and continuity" 3ut this is the only possible type of limitation" If we consider the
metric structure of space as the given one, then the method of the parametri-ation of the points
of space can be limited by requirement so that parameters themselves would ma!e metric sense"
In order to specifically formulate this limitation, let us focus attention on the following
property of the n-dimensional (uclidean space (
n
1 in order to assign the position of point into
(
n
with the aid of its distances from the collection .basis0 of some fixed points, it is necessary
that in this collection there would be exactly n points" : smaller number of points in the basis is
insufficient, since the set of the corresponding distances separates in the general case an
infinite quantity of points .for example, into (
3
any set of two distances gives a circle N which
is the intersection of two spheres0C any larger number of points in the basis is excess" he n-
dimensional pseudo-(uclidean space .Din!ows!iGs space-time0 possesses the same propertyC in
this case the role of distance plays interval"
:s a result we obtain the possibility to limit the method of parametri-ation to the fact that
it is permitted to use its distances from other points only as the parameters of point"
?enerali-ing this construction, it is possible to introduce the following concept of
dimensionality1 I will name a region in the space n-dimensional, if for its parametri-ation in
the above-indicated sense are necessary bases of n points"
hus, the calculation of the metric structure of space gives the possibility to introduce the
concept of dimensionality, more flexible than topological" 3ut, it goes without saying,
mathematical reali-ability alone of the complex structure of space does not ma!e it physically
meaningful" 7imilar attempts are physically <ustified, if the signs of the superfluous hardness of
the usual mathematical model of physical space would be revealed"
3/&-dimensionality of the space of time is reliably substantiated not only in the region of
macro- scopic phenomena .,ordinary= experience,0, but accrording to the (hrenfestian analysis
and in the much broader band of the physical phenomena1 from the atomic to the astronomical
scales" herefore deviation from 3/&-dimensionality can be discussed only with respect to the
phenomena out of this range, to the extreme states of substance" 7uch states are examined in
physics of elementary particles and in cosmology" :ttention deserve only such outputs ,beyond
the framewor!=, which are connected with the unresolved physical problems"
3efore we examine from this point of view the situation in physics of elementary particles
and in cosmology, it is worth to contemplate the question1 are there limits of the geometric
description of physical reality?
Physics and the geometry
Limensionality is a geometric concept" If it is permitted to doubt the absoluteness of the fact of
the 3-dimensional nature of space with the expansion of the range of the phenomena studied
by physics, then indeed it is possible to doubt also the applicability of geometric concepts
generally for describing the physical reality with a sufficient removal from the region of
macroscopic phenomena" What is possible to say about the interrelations of physics and
geometry?
(xamining the history of these interrelations, it is possible to come to two conclusions"
here is no doubt that in geometric description always limits were revealed" :nd, in the
second place, <ust as there is no doubt that the geometric description did not have no limitC
always after exclamation ,the !ing died_= it was heard ,yes the !ing is in good health_=, and
to the throne was raised new geometry"
he geometric description of >ewtonian physics, in which it is possible to wor! with (
3
,
stumbled on the limits during the sufficiently deep penetration into the region of
electromagnetic phenomena" Doreover, despite the fact that the theory of electromagnetic
field was created actually in the sixties of &8th century, the reali-ation of the need for
replacing >ewtonian ideas about the space and the time was achieved only in the first decade
of )*th century" 3ut even after the creation of the theory of relativity and the concept of
Din!ows!i space-time D
3/&
the revolution was not universally recogni-ed" (ven (instein at
first underestimated Din!ows!iGs geometry, considering it only as a formal method" 9nly
when (instein began to wor! at the construction of the theory of gravity, matched with the
theory of relativity, he revealed that the point of view of Din!ows!i ma!es advance possible"
rue, this advance led to the detection of the limits of geometric description by the force of its
own logic soon" :s it proved to be, sufficiently deep penetration into the region of
gravitational phenomena requires the replacement of Din!ows!iGs geometry D
3/&
to 5iemann
geometry ;
3/&
"
Who could see in &BUJ anything about the future geometric revolution, connected with the
special theory of relativity .implicitly hidden0 in DaxwellGs equations? Who could see, that
the fact, !nown already by ?alileo, that in the gravitational field the motion of bodies does
not depend on their properties, created the need for passage to 5iemann geometry of the bent
space-time? >o one could see in the ambiguity of the value of electromagnetic potential the
hint to the change in the geometric component of physical theory"
:s it was explained relatively recently, all four fundamental interactions .strong, wea!,
electromagnetic and gravitational0 possess the general property of the so-called calibration
symmetryC the first manifestation of this property was the possibility to describe electromagnetic
potentials, without changing the observed characteristics of field .tension0" his generality of all
fundamental interactions greatly strengthened the hope in physicists for the construction of the
unified theory of all interactions"
he 7tory about the theory of calibration would ta!e us away us from our main theme"
herefore let us limit to the most necessary" he geometry of space stratification, which
composes the mathematical language of the theory of calibration, ta!es for the basis
Din!ows!i space-time D
3/&
, but the concept of world point, or event changes" (ach event now
is characteri-ed not only three-dimensional and time coordinates, but also by additional >
values" .> can be different in different variations of the theory0" $oint now no longer is ,that
that it does not have parts=, but the entire world, arranged by the well-defined meansC it is
possible to say that the role of each point now fulfills certain >- dimensional .internal0 space
7
.>0
" (xactly as passage from one coordinate system to another in the (uclidean space does not
change the geometric interrelations of different figures, so a change in the coordinate system,
or gauge transformation, in each internal space there must not change physical situation"
he geometry of space stratification we will designate by the symbol D
3/&
7
.>0
C the sign of
wor! here ma!es much the same sense as in the designation of >ewtonian space-time (
3
"
9n the basis of the geometry of space stratification it was possible to build the satisfactory
and even honoured by the >obel $ri-e .Weinberg, 7alam, &8I80 theory, which unites
electromagnetic and wea! interactions" he calibration theory is developed from the strong
interaction of so-called quantum-chromodynamics" :nd finally even now the outlines of a new
theory are planned, which unites all four interaction modes" :s the basis of this theory, called
super-gravity, there is a geometric description, which unites the features of geometry ?5 i"e"
5
3/&
and the geometry of space statifications"
he discussion deals with ideas, which are in the stage of development" he discussion
deals not only with the super-space, but also with the super-immense purposes" Indeed
together with the construction of the unified theory of all interactions must be solved the
problem of the quanti-ation of gravity, since association must be achieved on the quantum
basis"
#rom the numerous physical constants .including, in of particular, the of mass of of numerous of
elementary of particles, the of value of of elementary of charge, etc0 we see only three
constants1 the of speed of of light, the gravitational constant, and planc!Gs constant" hese the
three constants which occupy special position in physics"
hen there is so-called ,cube of theories=, along the axes of which of there are plotted the
coordinates of the three constants"
Aet us give examples1 theory with the coordinates .*,*,h0 these are quantum mechanics, .*, ?, *0
S the >ewtonian theory of gravity, .c
-&
, *, *0R75, .c
-&
, ?, *0 ?5, etc, or, somewhat otherwise,
quantum mechanics can be called h-theory, the >ewtonian theory of gravity ?- theory, 75 c-
theory, ?5 c?-theory, the relativistic quantum theory of gravity c?h-theory" In this three-
dimensional cube of theories the idea of the space of physical theories it is not difficult to see the
interesting schematic of the changed geometric modelsC they represent the edges of cube"
Aet us contemplate again the question about the limits of geometric description" he
discussion deals with the incompatibility of the 5iemann structure of space-time and quantum
ideas, i"e" about the quantum limits of the applicability of the general theory of relativity, or
relativistic theory of gravity, and at the same time with the gravitational limits of the
applicability of relativistic quantum theory" (xistence of such boundaries, which correspond,
as we will see, to the specific values of characteristic physical quantities, it undermines the
hopes for reaching the synthesis of general relativistic and quantum ideas with the aid of the
already !nown theoretical constructions only"
#or the first time a question about the compatability of 75 and quantum theory arose in
(instein himself" o him physics is obliged, as is !nown, not only for the general theory of
relativity, but also for the fundamental development of quantum theory" In &8&U, in several
months after creation of ?5, (instein examined a question about the gravity waves, whose
existence followed from the equations of ?5" He derived the formula for the intensity of
gravitational radiation and unexpectedly .in any case, for the reader0 noted the following1 ,@
atom, as a result of the intra-atomic electron motion, must emit not only electromagnetic, but
also gravitational energy, although in the minute quantity" hen, apparently, quantum theory
must modify not only Daxwellian electrodynamics, but also new theory of gravity H %&J'"
(instein has formulated the insoluble problem of the stability of atom" :s is !nown, it
consisted in the fact that according to the laws of classical .Daxwellian0 electrodynamics the
electron motion around the nucleus must be accompanied by continuous emission" :s a result
of energy losses the electron must approach a nucleus in the spiral tra<ectory" If we calculate
the emission of electromagnetic energy by the electron from the same formulas, as the
emission of the radio station .there are no other formulas in the classical electrodynamics0,
then we will obtain the absurd result1 the electron must fall into the nucleus in the time of the
order of &*
-&*
s_ 3ut the atom for the important reasons was the most stable physical
structure" 2lassical physics could not manage this difficulty" he problem ,of the
luminiscence= of atom was solved, as has already been said, only in the atom model of 3ohr,
in which central place occupied the constant h.
However, the analogy of gravity and electromagnetism, which had been formulated by (instein,
is far from obvious" If we use (insteinGs formula for the intensity of gravitational radiation,
then it will seem that ,the luminiscence= of energy of the atom of in the form of gravity waves
occurs in characteristic time of &*
)8
years" 7o that there is no direct contradiction with empirical
data" :nd nevertheless the effect of the gravitational instability of atoms has consequences" his
is, apparently, connected with its cosmological ideas" In the wor! of (instein &8&I, in which was
born relativistic cosmology, the static character of the picture of the universe was assumed" 3ut
in the static universe, which exists eternally, the effect of the instability of atoms is not admitted
independent of the magnitude of effect itself" It is interesting to compare this position,
completely <ustified for the state of astronomy of that time, with the fact that in our time the
possible instability of proton .characteri-ed, by the way, with the close value of the lifetime0 is
mentioned in the >obel lectures &8I8 even as preferable %&U'"
he fates of quantum gravity and cosmology thus interlaced" 3ut in actuality, we will soon see
these fates are interlaced still closer, and the deepest questions of cosmology cannot be
answered, without !nowing that it is located in the apex c?h of our cube, outermost from the
origin of coordinates, i"e" in the apex with the coordinates .c
-&
,?,h0"
3ut the way to this apex .they approach both senses of word0 is barred, as already is
!nown to us, a question about the compatability of 75 and the quantum theory" #or the first
time in the precise physical language this question was examined by remar!able 7oviet
physicist 3ronstein .&8*U-&83B0 %&I'" In &83J 3ronstein carried out the first in-depth
research, dedicated to the quanti-ation of gravitational field" In essence his wor! was
dedicated to the case of wea! gravitational field, which gives the possibility not to consider
the geometric nature of gravity, i"e" the curvature of space-time"
However, this wor! contains also the very important analysis, which showed that if we are
not limited to the condition for wea!ness and gravitational field, then it will be revealed that the
usual approach to the quanti-ation and the concepts of 5iemann geometry are insufficient for
the creation of the complete quantum gravitational-field theory"
7imultaneously were revealed the boundaries of the region of the substantially quantum-
gravitational phenomena" :s a result 3ronstein came to the fundamental conclusion that the
authentic quanti-ation of gravity ,requires radical reconstruction of theory and, in particular,
failure of 5iemann geometry, which operates, as write 3ronstein, with principally not observed
values="
Lespite the fact that from the time, when these words were written, almost half a century ago
.from &8B)0, they not only did not lose force, but are even more urgent for contemporary
physics of elementary particles and cosmology"
o reproduce 3ronsteinGs reasonings without the attraction of complex physical concepts is
sufficiently difficult" herefore we will select the lighter way, which will lead to the boundaries
of the region of the quantum gravitational phenomena" In order to pass this way, it is not
compulsory to !now these complex (insteinGs equations" (verything that will be necessary, the
>ewtonian law of gravityC the position of the theory of relativity about the fact that the speed of
the light is the maximum possible speed of bodyC the atom model of 3ohr .in examination they
are thus included respectively constants c, ?, h. In &8&3 appeared 3ohrKs quantum atom
model" #or eight years was the maximality of the speed of light was already !nown and during
several centuries >ewtonianKs law of gravity"
3ut thus far we will visit &B88 in those Day days, when at the session of the academy of
sciences in 3erlin report of D" $lanc! , was delivered about the irreversible processes of
emission=" In this report it was for the first time the existence of a new universal physical
constant was prolaimed, which was subsequently named $lanc!Gs constant i" in the same report
appeared the values, which in &8JI :merican physicist Wheeler named $lanc!Ks values and
which refer most direct to quantum gravity"
Planc+ian values and their relation to the the 0uantum gravity
$lanc! himself did not introduced these values in relation with quanti-ation of gravity"
Doreover, in the report &B88 even constant h did not have an even quantum sense .there were no
ideas about the quanta of energy (Rh0" he introduction of this constant allowed $lanc! at first
only to write the formula for the spectrum of thermal radiation to agree with the experimental
data" o $lanc!, for five years was attempting himself to solve the problem of thermal
radiation, was the fundamentality of the new constant clear" :pparently the universality of new
constant impelled him in the same report of &B88 to turn to the question, not in general
connected with the basic theme, about the natural units of measurement" :t the end of his
report $lanc! focused attention on the fact that the selection of normally utili-ed systems of
units ,was not made on the basis of the common point of sight, it is compulsory acceptable for
all places and times, but it is exclusive on the basis of the needs of our terrestrial culture=, and, as
he writes, ,it is not difficult to visuali-e that in another time, with the confined external
circumstances, any of the systems of units, used up to now would partially or completely lose
its initial natural value H"
In connection with this $lanc! notes that, relying on the new constant and, and also to the
speed of light in the vacuum and the gravitational constant ?, ,we obtain the possibility to
establish the units of length, mass, time and temperature, which would not depend on the
selection of any bodies or substances and they would compulsorily preserve their value for all
times and for all cultures, including extraterrestrial superhuman and therefore it would be
possible to introduce them as ,natural units of dimensions="
>ew .natural0 units are selected so that in the new system of units each of the constants
indicated would be turned into one" hus $lanc! obtains the units of length, mass, time1
lR.h?Fca0
&F)
R&"U &*
-33
cm
mR.hcF?0
&F)
R) &*
-J
eY
tR.h?Fc
J
0
&F)
RJ &*
-44
s
.here they are used contemporary designations and values of constants0" It is not difficult to
understand that analogously it is possible to obtain ,natural unit=, also, for any other physical
quantity" he purpose to introduce the natural units of measurement, suitable ,for all times and
peoples=, did not find support" In particular because the collection did not have the essential
advantages .at least in &B880 over other collections" #urthermore, one view on the values of
$lanc!ian units repulses any desire to call them natural" If the values of l and t are located
monstrously far from the field of the reach of contemporary physics then the values are entirely
aw!ward"
:nd even $lanc! himself ceased to recall about his natural units after a certain time"
he deep physical sense of those values became clear only after many decades, when it
was explained that the $lanc!ian values define the quantum limits of the applicability of
general theory of relativity and at the same time gravitational boundaries of relativistic
quantum theory %&B'"
he generation of quantum theory was caused by the fact that in the classical theory of
electromagnetic field there were serious difficulties, one of which was even called a
catastrophe .moreover of ultraviolet0" :nd quantum theory overcame these difficulties, it is
possible to say, it became soon clear with the aid of the new constant h" that a similar ,aid=
will be required also the gravitational-field theory" o this circumstance, (instein focused
attention in &8&U, as has already been said" Aong time the association of gravity and quantum
theory did not draw the attention of physicists .partly, possibly, because of the abundance of
more vital tas!s, connected with nuclear physics0"
he wor! of 3ronstein in &83U was only published, after it became clear that the authentic
association of the theory of gravity and quantum theory is a complex problem, which cannot
be solved, using simple analogies with the electrodynamics"
:nd $lanc!ian values indicate that the field of physical phenomena, in which !nown methods
cannot give even the approximate description" he difficulty of constructing the theory of
quantum gravity is already visible from the fact that this theory, in spite of numerous
ingenious attempts, is not created, until now, UJ years after (instein reali-ed the need for such
theory and 4J years after 3ronstein explained essential features, which it must possess" hus,
at present in physics there are two general theories of ?5, which can be named c?-theory and
ch-theory, since in it these constants are considered, and the quantum theory, but no as yet a
c?h-theory, from which would follow both the c?-theory and the ch-theory"
How it is possible to understand the fact that the field of the physical phenomena, for
describing which is necessary the c?h-theory, it is limited by the $lanc!ian parameters?
Aet us examine the simple system, which consist of two identical point particles of the
mass of m, connected with gravitational interaction and which revolve along the circular
orbit of a radiu r with the spee v .this system would be possible to name ,the molecule of
gravitation=0" How do we describe the state of this system? It is clear that the parameter m
and r can be selected so that the dual stellar system will come out, for which >ewtonian law
of gravity is sufficient" However, in the general case one must ta!e into account the existence
of constant h andC it is most simple to ma!e this with the aid of the main element of the 3ohr
atom model - the requirement that the moment of momentum of system would be integral
multiple of h"
Aet us thus, subordinate our system to classical mechanics and >ewtonian law of gravity
DaRmvEFrR?mEF.)r0E .)0
and also to the quantum postulate of 3ohr
)mvrRnh .nR&,),3,""0 .30
With the aid of equation .)0 it is possible to express v through m and r" herefore the nature
of system is completely determined by two parameters m and r. the field of all possible values
is divided by the parameters m and r on the parts, in which the system can be described only
with the >ewtonian theory of gravity plus the quantum theory and also the theory of relativity"
We obtain some inequalities":fter some calculations we come to the $lanc!ian values" 9f
course we cannot relate completely seriously to the obtained results1 with the aid of the
concepts and laws of classical physics we came into the region, where they are deliberately
not applied" 3ut to now we easily believe, that the more serious analysis also leads to the the
$lanc!ian values as the boundaries of the region of the quantum-gravitational phenomena"
4hy is c;h*theory necessary3
We said much about future of c?h-theory, or about the theory of quantum gravity, 3ut is it
necessary? :re now any phenomena, processes etc" !nown, which cannot be managed without
the c?h-theory? 9r does the monstrous difference in $lanc!ian values .&0 from the values,
accessible to contemporary experimental physics, mean that this theory will be required not
earlier than several centuries ahead?
>o, such phenomena are !nown even now" 9ne of the interesting phenomena relates to
cosmology and consists of the following" :s is !nown, th universe e surrounding us consists
of the galaxies .more precisely saying, from the clusters of galaxies0, one of which the Dil!y
Way or the galaxy .from the capital letter0 enters together with hundred of billions of other
stars and our sun" 9ne of the most important values in cosmology is the average density of
substance in the universe " his value is obtained, if the mass, which is contained in the
volume, whose dimensions are much greater the average distance between the galaxies, are
divided into this volume" #undamental observant fact is that wherever we select this volume,
the value of density is approximately one and the same .this property indicates the uniformity
of the universe0" he dependence of on the time is determined by the equations of the
general theory of relativity of (instein"
:ccording to observations the average distance between the galaxies in the course of time
increases" his means that in the past the density was more than the present, moreover
according to ?5 a while bac! .appr" &* billion years ago0 density was equal to infinity" >ow
it is time to recall that ?5 this altogether only the c?-theory, which does not consider the
existence of constant h" hus, developing the history of the universe according to the laws
?5, or c?-theory, we unavoidably come to such a stage, which may be described by c?h-
theory"
3ut perhaps if the discussion does deal with the events of billion years remoteness, is our
interest in the c?h-theory only idle curiosity? >o, not only" he fact is that the theory of
gravity of (instein, which has been the basis of contemporary cosmology, ma!es it possible
to predict the course of events when a situation is !nown at a certain moment" herefore it is
important to !now, what inheritance the universe obtained from the epoch of its development"
In this epoch the answers to the questions are hidden, which are concerned with the formation
of galaxies, the values of their mass and other physical parameters %&8'" 3ut indeed without
the answers to such questions the most important questions, which are concerned the origin of
the solar system, lives and finally man remain obscure"
In light of the c?h-theory can explain not only cosmological problems, but also
astrophysical, the final stage of the evolution of the stars, the so-called gravitational collapse"
#urthermore, one should not forget that the new theory always not only answers old
questions, but it also leads to the numerous, frequently unexpected consequences"
#rom the point of view of contemporary physics, as has already been said, most the
construction of c?h-theoryis probable within the framewor! of the unified theory of
fundamental interactions on the basis of the synthesis of the ideas of the (instein theory of
gravity and principle of calibration symmetry, which from a mathematical point of view is
expressed by the geometry of space stratifications"
Aet us return now to a question about the limits of geometric description generally and to a
question about the dimensionality of space-time in particular" he examination of the
geometric descriptions and the physical space-time ma!es it necessary to believe, that the
physical geometry, given by general theory of relativity, is not the truth in the last instance
.this becomes especially clear, if we loo! at the history of physics not through the prism of
experiment, but through the cube of theories0" 3ut, besides this, the surprising vitality of the
geometry produces impression1 the detection of the limits of one geometric description was
overcome in other, more general, or the deeper geometric description of physical reality" his
ma!es it possible to hope that also the c?h-theory will be built on the basis of geometry"
How is this power of geometry explained? his question is, of course, only the part of a
wider question about ,incomprehensibility of the effectiveness mathematics= in physics %)*'"
It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the power of geometry in physics reflects the
certain ob<ective special feature of the device of material world, the time-spatial nature of its
structure" However, the interrelation of geometry and physics, is seen now with the
examination ,the space of the ideas= of theoretical physics proves not to be simple"
Is it possible to assert that the role of geometry in physics grows constantly? Tes and no" Tes,
because in history we find the use of ever more complex geometric models" >o, because this
assertion inadequately describes the real situation, and with a broad base it is possible to say
that the role of physics in the geometry constantly grows .in the form of physical geometry0"
:ctually, physical geometry ever more Eabsorbs physics" Din!ows!iGs geometry, which
absorbed into itself the purely physical fact of the constancy of the speed of light, already
could be examined at least as the geometric part of physical reality"
$assage to 5iemann geometry in ?5, that absorbed into itself one additional physical fact .in
the form the principle of equivalence0, deprived the possibility to consider geometry the
individual part of physical reality, geometry rather was the specific pro<ection of the physical
reality" In this case geometric concepts themselves could not even be physically
comprehended separately from the corresponding component of theory"
$assage from Din!ows!iGs space to the space stratification of calibration theories replaced the
concept of the point of space-time .,not having parts according to (uclid=0 with the internal
space, which describes the state of the physical field, whose dynamics against the
bac!ground of D
3/&
must give physics"
:nd finally if super-gravity actually is able to become a c?h-theory, then, most li!ely, the
concept of time-spatial coordinates and physical add-on will cease to be characteri-ed by such
fundamental means, and then it would be possible to say that the geometric description has
physical limits only because the physical description has geometric limits"
his forecast of the development of interrelations between physics and geometry possesses
only one deficiency it is too single-valued" 3ut indeed the history of physics with the greatest
available accuracy attests to the fact that in the science the smallest chances possess the single-
valued forecasts"
4hat role can play the concept of dimensionality in the forthcoming immense changes
in the physical picture of world? :bout the importance of this concept spea!s already the
fact that 3-dimensionality survived all radical reconstructions of physical geometry" However,
this does not mean that dimensionality is to remain at the unattainable height" Dany signs in
the contemporary physical situation spea!, that the dimensionality can play the constructive
role in the development of physical theory" (ven with the quic! survey of the indexes of
contemporary physical periodicals one cannot fail to note, how more frequently than recently,
there is the word the dimensionality encountered1 the model variations of the theory of field
the space of different dimensionality and the dependence of the properties of these models on
dimensionality value, the concept of strings .i"e" &-dimensional ob<ects0 in the theory of strong
interactions, dimensional regulari-ation, etc exists"
he start into the geometry of internal space .thus far well-defined dimensionality0, the
indissoluble connection of four time-spatial coordinates and > coordinates of the space of the
internal of symmetry in the super-gravity not only raises the question about the connection of
the numbers > and 3/&" he difference between the time-spatial degrees of freedom and the
degrees of freedom of field is erasedC thus it is possible to expect the dynamically nontrivial
behavior of the dimensionality of physical space-time" Indeed for the calibration theories this
nontrivial behavior is characteristic1 spontaneous asymmetry can supply originally mass-free
fields with mass, the intensity of interaction can diminish with the rapprochement of particles,
etc" but will not attempt to guess those answers, which can be obtained only by heavy
,physical= labor, and let us loo! to the situation from another point of view" What !ind of new
possibilities could deliver the nontrivial structure of space-time for physics of elementary
particles and cosmology?
%imensionality of space*time and physics of the elementary particles
:s has already been said in chapter 3, the problem of the dimensionality of physical space,
connected with the concrete regions of physical phenomena, unavoidably leads to a question
about the measure of the hardness of the mathematical model of real physical space"
#rom the point of view of the deepest physical theory of space-time ?5 about the local
structure of space, up to the arbitrarily small distances, everything is !nown" :nd this
structure coincides with the structure of pseudo-(uclidean 4-dimensional space" However, in
this description it is assumed too detailed information, incompatible even with the ideali-ed
experiment, and therefore is physically senseless %)&'" :ssumption about the fact that the
local structure of space coincides with the structure of (uclidean space, can be compared
with the requirement to describe particle spin elementary as the usual rotation of ball" In the
latter case in physics it was necessary to foreget about the excess .and incorrect0 information"
he failure of some elements of a theory never solves any problem" he design replacement
of old concepts by new ones is necessary"
:t the basis of one of the deepest problems of the relativistic quantum field theory of lies
the problem of the divergences, because of too distant extrapolation of the properties of the
existing mathematical model of physical space %))'"
#or the first time the physicists encountered the problem of divergence even in the classical
theory of the electromagnetic field, when they attempted to consider from the theory of
relativity the pointli!e nature of the electron in the tas! to calculate its self-energy, or about
the electromagnetic nature of its mass" his led to the divergence of the self*energy of point
electron" In the quantum electrodynamics this divergence assumed the form of the divergence
of the mass of electron, but quantitatively, in other words, it did not changeC all this relates
not only to the electron, but also to other particles"
In the forties the methods ,of fight= with these divergences were proposed .methods of
renormali.ation0, which ma!e it possible to obtain the specific quantitative predictions in the
theory" Lespite the fact that these predictions could be coordinated with the experiment with
unpreceded accuracy, the procedure of renormali-ation had more the nature of a prescription or
tric!, than that of theory, It did not satisfy even its authors" 7ubsequently the method of
renormali-ation was improvedC it was also explained that besides electrodynamics there exist
other renormali-able field theories"
:t present in connection with the successes of the theory of calibration the opinion is popular
that for all physically add-ons the method of renormali-ation is applicable" 9ne way or
another, but the problem of divergence is extremely important for physics of the elementary
particles"
here are different relations to the method of renormali-ation" 7ome physics assert that this is
simply one of the methods of derivation of the empirically chec!ed effects of the theory, is not
better and not worse than others" 9thers consider the real success of the method of
renormali-ation evidence only of the fact that this is the indication of some deep property of true
theory .perhaps, calibration invariance0, which will prove to be understood properly and
mathematically in the future theory"
How could the problem of divergence refer to the nontrivial structure of space? Within the
framewor! of classical field theory it is possible to give the illustration, connected with the
divergence which demonstrates the consequences of passage to the smaller dimensionality of
space at short distances" :s has already been said, in the classical electrodynamics point
electron possesses infinite self-energy %B&0"
In contemporary theoretical physics the concept of dimensionality is by no means centralC and
nevertheless one cannot fail to note the large number of wor!s, in which the number of
dimensions of space undergoes active and even completely free rotation" In these wor!s physico
mathematical constructions are examined in the space-time with the dimensionality, not equal to
four, in essence with two purposes"
#irst, for construction and analysis of the model versions of the theories in question some
characteristic of 4-dimensional case the difficulties .in particular, the mentioned problem of
divergence0 are solved more easily if we assume smaller dimensionality"
In the second place, different dimensionality is considerd for giving sense to the results,
senseless in the usual mathematical understanding" (ven non-integer values of dimensionality
are used" hey propose, for example, in the general formulas .obtained, naturally, for (
n
, i"e" for
the integer values of dimensionality0 that the dimensionality of 3 is considered as too low a
valueC M
9n the other side, revived at the new level the attempts to use models with the space of the
large number of dimensions .]3/&0C in this case the agreement with the macroscopic 3-
dimensional nature is achieved by the fact that ,excess= dimensions are compactified" hese
attempts have large historical tradition, going bac! even to the five-dimensional field theories, in
development of which participated, in particular (instein and $auli" It is not possible to
completely exclude the possibility of the fact that attempts at the solution of some problems
in microphysics on the basis of geometric models with the dimensionality, not equal to three,
are not simply systematic exercises, but they ma!e physical sense" With these ideas, in
particular, are connected the hopes for the solution of the problem of electric charge %)4'"
If the theoretical models, which use space with the dimensionality, not equal to three, they do
actually possess remar!able properties" :s is !nown, $lanc!, introducing his constant was using
the purely technical method, with the aid of which it is possible to describe the spectrum of thermal
radiation" 7ubsequently, when it was explained that the quantum postulate is a new law of nature,
for physicists it was necessary to include this law in physical theory,
5elativistic strings .&-dimensional ob<ects0 in the theory of strong interactions %)J', the model
of the field theory and retention of quar!s in the space with the dimensionality, not equal to
three, are examined now, as a rule, as the technical methods, which do not have physical
sense %)U'" 3ut perhaps these are not simply technical methods, but hints to the complex
structure of space-time? If the problems of divergences are removed in the case of smaller
dimensionality and it is possible to isolate quar!s, then perhaps it is necessary to consider as
evidence the dimensionality of space at short distances smaller than 3? Indeed in exactly the
same manner the stability of planetary orbits and the spectrum of hydrogen were connected by
(hrenfest with the 3-dimensional nature of space in the appropriate range of distances"
9pinion about the prematurity of cardinal changes in the time-spatial description is supported
also by the following considerations" Whatever form the generali-ation of time-spatial
description would have, a certain characteristic value, which corresponds to boundary, must
exist" .It is convenient this characteristic value to consider lengthC any other value of mass,
energy can be correlated with a certain length"0 at present the most natural length of this type does
seem the quantum-gravitational $lanc!ian length,
We see, since gravity and geometry of space-time are described by the general theory of relativity,
the value corresponds to the region, where the geometry must acquire substantially quantum
properties and, in particular, the classical concept of of manifold will become unfit"
Problem of the dimensionality of space and cosmology of the early universe
he validity of fact 3/&- of dimensionality as any physical fact, is connected with the
specific .and by necessity for those limited at the given moment0 range of physical phenomena"
he at the same time deepest problems of contemporary cosmology one way or another deals
with the limits of the applicability of the existing theories" 7uch problems include, in particular,
the problem of initial cosmological singularity, initial cosmological conditions, the problem of the
description of the physical processes, which occurred in the initial expansion period of the
universe"
he fact of cosmological expansion spea!s, that the in the past average density of substance
in the universe was extremely .but formally, even unlimited0 large" his, in turn, means that in
the initial period of cosmological expansion the quantum-gravitational phenomena were
determining, i"e" the phenomena, for describing which were essential the values and by $lanc!Gs
constant h .quantum mechanics0 and the gravitational constant ? .gravity0, and the speed of
light .relativity0" Lensity in the expanding universe was in the past exceeding any limit" he
$lanc!ian parameters differed by many orders from the values, accessible to the experimental study
of contemporary physics" :nd nevertheless there are serious foundations for considering that the
authentic solution of such problems of cosmology as large-scale isotropy and the galactic
structure of the universe, the origin of cosmic bac!graound-radiation and specific enthropy, can be
achieved only upon consideration of initial cosmological conditions" :t present there is no
theory, in which would be reali-ed the complete synthesis of the theory of gravity and
quantum theory, but from the general considerations it is clear that the state of material, space
and time in the qunatum-gravitaional significantly differed from usual"
However, under the conditions of quantum-gravitational cosmology gravitational field and
together with it space-time must acquire quantum properties and therefore the normal
description of the structure of space-time becomes unfit"
: similar attempt undertoo! (nglish astrophysicist 7aslo, who proposed the uncommon
solution of the !nown problem of the hori-on, connected with the interpretation of the observed
large-scale uniformity of the universe" .his attempt at least clearly illustrates the importance
of a question about the dimensionality of space for cosmology of the early universeC therefore
let us examine it in more detail0"
#irst about the problem itself, which appears, when they attempt to agree on two most important
observant facts of cosmologyC the uniformity of the universe and the extremity of the time of its
expansion"
he uniformity of the universe is understood as the identity of its properties in the different
places of space" It is clear that the discussion can deal only with the large-scale uniformity, i"e" it
is necessary to compare the regions of the universe, whose si-es are much more than the
average distance between the galaxies" 3efore the discovery of cosmic electromagnetic
radiation about the uniformity could testify only the calculations of the number of galaxies in
different sections of the firmamentC this was a labor-consuming and inaccurate method" he
discovery of relict cosmic bac!ground radiation in &8UJ principally enlarged the observant
possibilities of cosmology"
he name ,relict= spea!s, that composing this emission photons were preserved in the
protoplastic form from the very old time from the so-called moment of separation of emission
from the substance" :ccording to contemporary cosmology a sufficient removal into the past of
our universe must lead not only to an increase in the average density of substance .about which
spea!s the fact of expansion of universe0, but also to a increase in the temperature" 9nce the
entire universe was filled with the hot plasma of the mixture of the actively interacting elementary
particles1 protons, electrons, photons and the li!e" In proportion to expansion of universe its
temperature fell, until the finally medium energy of photons became less than the typical
excitation energy of hydrogen atoms, which by that time could stably exist" his moment is
called the moment of separation of emission from the substance, since from those burrows the
photons of cosmological origin ceased to interact with the substance" :ccording to contemporary
data, the detachment of emission occurred only approximately ten thousand years after the
beginning of expansion and for many billion years ,to our era=" hus, the relict photons, which
are recorded by instruments now, passed way into billions light years and are a stored memory
about the state, in which the universe was billions years ago"
:nd here, that is most surprising, the photons, which came from the opposite ends of the
observed universe, testify about the identity of the properties of the regions of the universe, by
the divided billion light years" 3ut perhaps in this high uniformity there is nothing surprising?
(ven without examining those processes of the mixing, which could occur in the early
universe, it is possible to assert that the theory of relativity allows the establishment of
uniformity in the regions, whose si-es not are greater than several ten thousand light years"
he previous reasonings contain a essential inaccuracy they do not consider the fact of
expansion of universe" his expansion is described by the so-called scale factor that depend
on the time and showing the change with the time of the distance between the galaxies" 7cale
factor enters into the formula, which describes cosmological model, and it is determined by
(insteinGs equations, which connects the geometric properties of space-time with the
properties of substance"
Luring the construction of cosmological models they use several types of assumptions about
the substance of the universe" In the simplest case each such assumption is characteri-ed by
only one number, which connects energy density with the pressure in the so-called equation of
state of the substance"
7pecial importance in cosmology have two equations of state" he first applicably in our era,
when separate galaxies are located at large distances from each other and practically they do not
interact as separate spec!sC the corresponding equation of state so is called the equation of state of
dust, it is reduced to the equality to -ero pressures"
he second, so-called ultrarelativistic, equation of state is applicable to that epoch, when .if we
loo! cosmological film to the reverse side0 galaxies so drew together and their substance was
mixed and was heated so, that it became the very hot plasma of the mixture of all possible
particles, which move with near-light speeds"
However, (nglish astrophysicist %7aslo' %)8' approached the problem of the hori-on
entirely otherwise" He turned to the fact that if the universe in the initial stage of expansion
was )/&-dimensional and substance was subordinated to the equation of state of dust then
the dependence of scale factor word be proportional to time. this law which follows from
(insteinGs equations in )/& dimensional space-time, it means that problem of the hori-on
disappears"
he idea of 7aslo is not placed into the framewor! of contemporary theoretical physics" here
is no answer to the main question appearing in connection with it1 how it would be possible to
understand and to describe passage from )" to 3-dimensional space in the process of the
evolution of the universe? he result of 7aslo about the two-dimensional character of the early
universe rests on the vulnerable assumption about dust-picture of substance in the early
universe" his assumption seems the incompatible with the model of a hot universe" Dore
natural is ultrarelativistic equation of state in it gives a )-dimensional space no longer
sufficiently rapid initial expansion"
he nontrivial behavior of the dimensionality of space-time in the course of cosmological
evolution would refer, it goes without saying, also to other cosmological problems, in
particular to the problem of the initial disturbances, which lead to the observed large-scale
structure of the universe"
2ertainly, given considerations are not more than the illustration, which indicates the
importance of the concept of dimensionality for cosmology, and they are located thus far
beyond the framewor! of physics" 3ut once we went beyond the framewor! of contemporary
physics, it is possible to attempt to ma!e several scientific fantastic steps"
In the cosmological tas!, first of all, it should be explained, how it would be possible to
coordinate the change of dimensionality with (insteinGs equations on the basis of relativistic
cosmology" In this case a vital difference in (insteinGs equations from the equations of field in
the space of Din!ows!i should be considered .for example, DaxwellGs equations0, in the
space-time with the fixed .flat0 geometry" In DaxwellGs equations, for example, the solution of
a problem with the flat .two-dimensional0 symmetry is exactly equivalent to the solution of
the two-dimensional equations of Daxwell" #or (insteinGs equations, which define geometry
itself, this is not so, and the behavior of scale factor in anisotropic three-dimensional
cosmology is not the same as in two-dimensional isotropic cosmology"
However, in (insteinGs equations the dimensionality of space-time is considered by the
number of coordinates" herefore one should loo! at the concept of coordinates in 75 again"
Aying at the basis ?5 is the geometric model of the arbitrarily bent space-time " his includes
assumption the permissibility of the arbitrary coordinate systems" In 75 this understanding
of the word arbitrary is impossible, and with this are connected several complex problems of
?5, in particular the description of frames of reference, and the laws of conservation"
he role of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in physics, and also the
concepts of energy and pulse is well !nown" here are other laws of conservation of
momentum of pulse and speed of the center of masses" :ll these laws of conservation, as it
occurs, are tightly connected with the properties of space-time" 7uch laws are only ten
.energy and three components of the pulse, moment of momentum and speed of the center
of masses0"
>umber &* is very simple it is connected with dimensionality value of the space-time" In the
general theory of relativity the space-time can be bent in an arbitrary manner, so that in the
general case there is neither uniformity nor isotropism of space-time" he observercan be
moved in the space-time as before ,in different directions=" If we use in this case not
,arbitrary= coordinates, but the frame of references of coordinates, built with the aid of the
interval %34'"
he nonphysical nature ,of the arbitrariness of coordinates= did not completely satisfy (instein
himself" He attempted to reduce the three-dimensional structure of physical reality to the
properties of physical field%3*'" : similar thought expressed e" Wigner %3&'" hus, the role of
coordinates charges thus to the fields, which enter into the right side of the equations of
(instein .equation I chapter )0 and the geometry of space-time"
>ow came time to recall the remar!able innovation in the contemporary quantum field theory,
with which to the high degree was connected the success of calibration field theories" he
discussion deals with the phenomena, which very recently were considered relating only to
macroscopic physics, about the spontaneous asymmetry and about the phase transitions in the
field theory %3)'" hese phenomena in the contemporary unified theories are critical for the
fact that the particles, mass-free in their essence, at a sufficiently low temperature can acquire
mass and become similar to those actually observed" his acquisition of mass occurs because
the field, ,acting li!e= mass, at a sufficiently low temperature can ,free-e= and become a
classical field" he phase transformations of this type already found their place and in
cosmology of the early universe must be built upon consideration of the theory of the
elementary particles %33', where, in particular, is explained the concept of spontaneous
asymmetry"
3ut what relation can have similar phase transformations to our field- coordinates? 7ince the
scale factor of the macroscopic .more precise, even megascopic0 parameter and the equations of
(instein have classical, macroscopic nature, the time-spatial coordinates, which participate in these
equations, must be classical values" 7uch coordinates must be no longer v .quantum0 fields" >ow
let us assume that the right side of (insteinGs equations .or the structure of interaction0 is
arranged so that at a sufficiently low temperature as a result of spontaneous asymmetry
occurs"s" #his phase transition would indicate the decrease of the number of classical
8macroscopic9 degrees of freedom or the decrease of dimensionality" $assage from the 3-
dimensional nature to the two-dimensional character, for example would be possible to
understand that one measurement no longer can be described classical, macroscopically, i"e"
with the aid of the usual equations of (instein, and ,it is turned off=" : similar passage would
appear as phase transition in the structure of space"
he simplest model of this passage of mechanical oscillatory system with two degrees of freedom
of with two springs, characteri-ed by two coefficients, one of which goes to infinity with a
temperature decrease to a certain critical value .one spring ,it free-es=0"
It can seem that it is thoughtless to tell about low temperatures with respect to the early .and
very hot, as it is now !nown0 universe" However, one should consider that the critical
temperature, which separates sufficiently low temperatures from the sufficiently high, depends on
the density of the substance and other factors" herefore the early universe could ,free-e=,
also, at very high .from a terrestrial point of view0 temperatures"
It is possible to differently relate to the possibility of changing the dimensionality of space in
the extreme physical situations" 7imilar studies can, of course, lead to the expansion of the
range of phenomena, in which the 3-dimensional nature of space will be substantiated, and
this will be not bad replacement of thoughtless extrapolation .by macroscopically undoubted0 3-
dimensionality immediately to all phenomena" 2onvincing bases for the assumption about the
variability of the dimensionality of space can also be revealed" hen the construction of the
corresponding theory would become answer to the question, similar to (insteinGs question1 ,How
it is possible to preserve essential features 3/&- of dimensionality, if we forego ourselves the
usual ideas about the dimensionality?=