Political Crossfire Forums

[Towie]

I believe that this is the perfect time to banter about higher dimensions, and our own existence as semi-pandimentional beings.

I suggest a simple backround reading through Dr. Michio Kaku's Hyperspace since I think many simple questions will be answered without wasted time and energy.

Let the debates over Life, the Universe, and Everything begin.

Also I must point out that The Answer is 42.


--Towie

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: I believe that this is the perfect time to banter about higher dimensions, and our own existence as semi-pandimentional beings.

I suggest a simple backround reading through Dr. Michio Kaku's Hyperspace since I think many simple questions will be answered without wasted time and energy.

Let the debates over Life, the Universe, and Everything begin.

Also I must point out that The Answer is 42.


--Towie

The only problem with these higher dimensional theories is that nowadays it relies on M-theory to see it through. M-theory has no real bases now except that the math is perfect. I, however, do see M-theory working, and the super particle collider being built at CERN might just prove M-theory by catching glimpses of subatomic particles that this theory predicts. I think that there may very well be an 11 dimensional hyperspace, but we may never me able to know for sure.

[Towie]

I have to agree that there will always be those who doubt it and that it will always remain a theory, only because the human brain is, unfortuanately, unable to visualize higher dimentions.

Dr. Michio Kaku wrote: To understand these higher dimensions, we remember that it takes three numbers to locate every object in the universe, from the tip of your nose to the ends of the world.

For example, if you want to meet some friends in Manhattan, you tell them to meet you at the building at the corner of 42nd street and 5th avenue, on the 37th floor. It takes two numbers to locate your position on a map, and one number to specify the distance above the map. It thus takes three numbers to specify the location of your lunch. (If we meet our friends at noon, then it takes four numbers to specify the space and time of the meeting.)

However, try as we may, it is impossible for our brains to visualize the fourth spatial dimension. Computers, of course, have no problem working in N dimensional space, but spatial dimensions beyond three simply cannot be conceptualized by our feeble brains. (The reason for this unfortunate accident has to do with biology, rather than physics. Human evolution put a premium on being able to visualize objects moving in three dimensions. There was a selection pressure placed on humans who could dodge lunging saber tooth tigers or hurl a spear at a charging mammoth. Since tigers do not attack us in the fourth spatial dimension, there simply was no advantage in developing a brain with the ability to visualize objects moving in four dimensions.)


But I do believe that we can at least observe the effects of other dimentions on us. Time for example (4D) and even Energy (5D). Though these are arguable. 6D through ?D are completely beyond my current understanding, though I do have ideas about them.


--Towie

[Aim-64C]

The concept of multiple dimentions is easy to grasp - but, yes, visualizing this is much harder. This is because we have trouble figuring out which 'direction' the fourth dimention should go. If we look at one dimention - we can logically see where the second dimention should go.... and from there where the third...... but where in the WORLD does this 4th dimention go? I think if we could get our minds around that - it would be easier to view an object traveling through an additional dimention. It also doesn't have to be a 'physical' dimention - since a dimention is only an application of measurement - so we could apply time as a fourth dimention. If we view an object visually passing through time as though it were spatially, then the issue becomes a little easier. However, since 4 dimentions also has to include the 'lesser' 3 - we need to do this while percieiving the current state of the other three dimentions at the same time.

I think an even more interesting concept is what happens to an object that originates in a three dimentional world that crosses over into an 11 dimentional world? Then what about getting back? Would the action of traveling to this dimention affect the means of getting back?

What about contact between dimentions? What do dimentions offer for parallel universes - or the string theory?

All interesting questions that almost make one's brain hurt trying to visualize the entirity of it all.

[cap'n queasy]

One way to imagine or visualize how this might work is to try to apply it to less dimensions instead of more. It is simpler to imagine in this way.

You might be familiar with a book called "Flatland"?

Imagine a 2 dimensional plane of existence, if a three dimensional being stuck part of itself, say a finger, in into this two dimensional reality what would the the inhabititants see this as?

Likely just a flat circular object that appears and then disappears, because they could only perceive a two dimensional spatiality.

Or if you threw a ball through this two dimensional plane of existence and observed it in slow motion, if you were a inhabitant of this plane, it would appear as a tiny circle that appears, gets larger, and then smaller, and then disappears.

You would not perceive any quality other than that of two dimensions.

(actually a being living in a two dimensional plane of existence would not perceive motion, as motion is a function of time and thus four dimensional, but ignore that for a minute)

Now transpose this idea to our four dimensional existence perceiving, or otherwise relating with in some manner, objects or beings that exist in a hyperdimensional (higher than four dimensional) plane of existence.

If we interacted with a being or object from a higher dimensionality it would move in a manner that would we consider impossible, it would appear as something that we could not understand the function of, and it would have other baffling qualities as well.

There are sightings of objects with similiar qualities reported all the time.

They very well might be hyperdimensional beings or objects.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: crosses over into an 11 dimentional world

The medieval rabbi, Nachmonides, recognized the existence of up to ten dimensions, through study of the Torah.

Later science recognized the existence of this many dimensions. It is known as Hilliard space, if I remember correctly.

Apparently, this is the plane of existence that YHWH resides in according to these rabbis. Where time is not linear, and many other things we think are concrete facts of existence have no reality.

Perhaps we exist in a mere shadow world as flat and motionless to hyperdimensional beings as a two dimensional plane of existence seems to us.

And quantum physics is finding out that what we think of as reality has more in common, on a quantum level, with a holographic projection.

Our existence is within a field of charged electromagnetic particles.

[Towie]

All good points... I especially like the reference to flatland... Kaku has a whole section in Hyperspace on flatland alone which he uses to show how we would see higher dimentional beings. They would be masses that are constantly changing in shape and make-up. It would be fairly odd to see, don't you think?. They would also be able to see us from all angles at once, as we are able to see flatlanders. The big question though, is if time has a rippling affect on flatland too. Does time pass for them? Then we are with answering the question as to energy for them. As I see it, taking Kaku's theorys a step further: The first five dimentions affect all lower dimentions. It's the next five that are still unaccounted for. We need more information, specifically on the strong and weak forces before we can determine what the other dimentions are. I do, though, find that Kaku's ideas about the 5th dimention being the split in our 10 or 11 dimentional universe. It's quite a brain teaser...


--Towie

[cap'n queasy]

Time or movement could not exist in a two dimensional plane of existence.

They are products of fourth dimensional physics. Our physics. Time is literally a product of an object's movement within three dimensional space.

Quote: It would be fairly odd to see, don't you think?.
There are supposedly odd sightings of this character quite often. Objects that change shape and color, and which move in defiance of what we know of physical reality.

I've never witnessed the phenomena myself, though, so I couldn't say.

[cap'n queasy]

And I suspect that in hyperspatial planes of existence time is not experienced as a linear progression.

[bla bla]

Time is the measure of energy transfer, when particles cease changing
form time stops.

I do not see time as a dimension unto itself. Its a perceptual sense of
matter changing states, and/or position.

If dimensions exist other than physical matter they could very well be
without energy transfer, thus outside the realm of time perception, or
relevance.

[Towie]

bla bla wrote: Time is the measure of energy transfer, when particles cease changing
form time stops.

I do not see time as a dimension unto itself. Its a perceptual sense of
matter changing states, and/or position.

If dimensions exist other than physical matter they could very well be
without energy transfer, thus outside the realm of time perception, or
relevance.

interesting theory... i will definately think about that one for a while... let it mull over



--towie

[cap'n queasy]

bla bla wrote: Time is the measure of energy transfer, when particles cease changing
form time stops.

I do not see time as a dimension unto itself. Its a perceptual sense of
matter changing states, and/or position.

If dimensions exist other than physical matter they could very well be
without energy transfer, thus outside the realm of time perception, or
relevance.

Time nothing more than the movement of matter through three dimensional space. It has little to do with energy tranference, other than it being a byproduct of movement.

[bla bla]

cap'n queasy wrote: bla bla wrote: Time is the measure of energy transfer, when particles cease changing
form time stops.

I do not see time as a dimension unto itself. Its a perceptual sense of
matter changing states, and/or position.

If dimensions exist other than physical matter they could very well be
without energy transfer, thus outside the realm of time perception, or
relevance.

Time nothing more than the movement of matter through three dimensional space. It has little to do with energy tranference, other than it being a byproduct of movement.

Matter changes states, releases energy- movement is achieved.
No transfer of energy from the hand to the rock, no tossed rock.
So movement is the byproduct of energy transfer.

[cap'n queasy]

Energy transfer is obviously the byproduct of movement.

The energy transfer doesn't cause the rock to jump through the air by itself does it?

No, energy is expended (transferred) when it is moved.

[bla bla]

cap'n queasy wrote: The energy transfer doesn't cause the rock to jump through the air by itself does it?

Your body has to burn calories to move muscles that throw rocks.
It's chemical potential energy being transferred to the rock, becoming
kinetic energy.

[cap'n queasy]

Still a byproduct of movement.

You do not burn calories unless you move. Even the movement of breathing and your heart action burns calories.

Energy transfer does not cause things to move, it is a result of them moving.

[bla bla]

cap'n queasy wrote: Energy transfer does not cause things to move...

Tell that to a bullet.

[cap'n queasy]

Well, upon reflection I'll have to concede that my statement was somewhat incorrect, although movement does tranfer energy and this energy transfer can be seen as a byproduct of movement, energy can also generate movement.

It is not such a simple thing. Allow me to elaborate a bit.

Time, Space, and Energy are inextricably linked, each has it's own distinct properties, but none can exist without the other.

Theoretically they are one entity. One cannot rightfully say that any of the three media "cause" the other two.

Energy does not cause time, and time does not cause energy.

[bla bla]

You were talking about kinetic energy, like the energy stored in a ball
as it rolls down hill. The ball can release the energy to continue rolling
up the next hill until its store is spent fighting resistance and gravity.

I was talking about potential energy. Energy released by chemical or
atomic reactions, or particles- compounds- changing state.

There are more energy forms. I can remember kinetic, potential, and
heat.

[cap'n queasy]

Those are subsets of Energy.

And Energy, Time, and Space are one entity.

But yes, potential energy is linked to movement. However, kinetic energy can also become potential energy, as in the case of a generator.

You cause move the rotors within a magnetic field and it stores energy in a battery.

Neither can really be said to cause the other. It's more of a "yin /yang type of thing. Like you could take a see-saw and push down on the left side and the right side will rise, but you could also just as well pull up and the right side and the left side will lower. The two are inextricably linked into one entity.

See what I mean?