Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Higher spacial dimensions

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

25 Sep 2010, 7:45 am

visagrunt wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Thanks for the long reply. But as I see it the mathematicians refer to these higher dimensions as being "spatial". So I assume they are taking about space. Do you mean that they could be taking about something other than space? Or in fact do not know what they are talking about?

No wonder I have been getting nowhere with all this superstring theory. :-)


For a pure mathematician it does not matter what higher dimensions represent. It matters only that the model is sound. For the applied mathematician, it matters that the results demonstrate some real world predictability.

But when mathematicians (or physicists) have to persuade a layperson that their research is meaningful, they cannot simply say, "trust us, this is what the universe looks like." (That is the realm of priests!)

Consider this. Can two people occupy the same place on a map? Yes, if they are at different heights. Can two objects occupy the same point in three-dimensional space? Yes, of course they can, if they occupy that position at different times. Can two particles occupy the same point in space-time? If we understand particles to be sums of probabilities, then it may be possible that particles occupy the same position in space-time, but in different probabilities. As you climb into higher and higher dimensions, two particles that have the exact same "location" must, perforce, have some other distinction between them. If that distinction can be generalized, it can take on the characteristic of a dimension.

These higher dimensions are 'spatial' in so far as they speak to the physical characteristics of a given particle. In five dimensions, "how likely (dimension 5) is particle x to be at location y (dimensions 1, 2 and 3) at a given time (dimension 4)."


I see. So the extra dimensions are probabilities of a particle? I don't know if I am thinking correctly but if a particle has a probability of being at any point in the universe at any particular time then it really exists as a permanent feature in the higher dimensions. So a higher dimension creature would see them as permanent and in all places? So a higher dimension creature would not view time in the way we do, they would not see time as having an arrow and would not see time as flowing?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2010, 8:52 am

Robdemanc wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Thanks for the long reply. But as I see it the mathematicians refer to these higher dimensions as being "spatial". So I assume they are taking about space. Do you mean that they could be taking about something other than space? Or in fact do not know what they are talking about?

No wonder I have been getting nowhere with all this superstring theory. :-)


For a pure mathematician it does not matter what higher dimensions represent. It matters only that the model is sound. For the applied mathematician, it matters that the results demonstrate some real world predictability.

But when mathematicians (or physicists) have to persuade a layperson that their research is meaningful, they cannot simply say, "trust us, this is what the universe looks like." (That is the realm of priests!)

Consider this. Can two people occupy the same place on a map? Yes, if they are at different heights. Can two objects occupy the same point in three-dimensional space? Yes, of course they can, if they occupy that position at different times. Can two particles occupy the same point in space-time? If we understand particles to be sums of probabilities, then it may be possible that particles occupy the same position in space-time, but in different probabilities. As you climb into higher and higher dimensions, two particles that have the exact same "location" must, perforce, have some other distinction between them. If that distinction can be generalized, it can take on the characteristic of a dimension.

These higher dimensions are 'spatial' in so far as they speak to the physical characteristics of a given particle. In five dimensions, "how likely (dimension 5) is particle x to be at location y (dimensions 1, 2 and 3) at a given time (dimension 4)."


I see. So the extra dimensions are probabilities of a particle? I don't know if I am thinking correctly but if a particle has a probability of being at any point in the universe at any particular time then it really exists as a permanent feature in the higher dimensions. So a higher dimension creature would see them as permanent and in all places? So a higher dimension creature would not view time in the way we do, they would not see time as having an arrow and would not see time as flowing?


This making a hierarchy of dimensions is invalid. Width is not higher nor lower than depth or height. Time is just another one. And there may exist others, neither higher nor lower. Time works in a special way and that way may hold for any being more dimensionally perceptive than us. I can't say.



rchamberlin
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 83
Location: Rochester, MN

25 Sep 2010, 4:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
rchamberlin wrote:
Thomas Campbell speaks of other realities in his trilogy "My Big TOE", wherein he postulates our physical reality (universe) is a holographic virtual reality, and we are all avatars operating within its constraining rule set.



Is that empirically testable? If it isn't then it is just a speculation.

ruveyn


I had to look up the meaning of Empirical to make sure I was on the same page, hopefully this definition meets your standards:

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

And, yes, it can be observed and experienced via experiment, but all the experiences are subjective.

It comes down to the observability issue. The classic experiment is that which "should" determine if light is a wave or a particle, known as the double-slit experiment.

This is a very good representation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ

So, classical empiricism applies to only the mundane stuff of physics. The very large and very small must be "measured" using quantum empiricism - if such exists.

And, as an afterthought, let me add this link to stir up the mud from the bottom of the pond...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=couVqpuX9CU

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Schrodinger's cat experiment matters not at all to me, but it does to Schrodinger's cat.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2010, 7:23 pm

rchamberlin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
rchamberlin wrote:
Thomas Campbell speaks of other realities in his trilogy "My Big TOE", wherein he postulates our physical reality (universe) is a holographic virtual reality, and we are all avatars operating within its constraining rule set.



Is that empirically testable? If it isn't then it is just a speculation.

ruveyn


I had to look up the meaning of Empirical to make sure I was on the same page, hopefully this definition meets your standards:

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

And, yes, it can be observed and experienced via experiment, but all the experiences are subjective.

It comes down to the observability issue. The classic experiment is that which "should" determine if light is a wave or a particle, known as the double-slit experiment.

This is a very good representation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqtiFX_IQQ

So, classical empiricism applies to only the mundane stuff of physics. The very large and very small must be "measured" using quantum empiricism - if such exists.

And, as an afterthought, let me add this link to stir up the mud from the bottom of the pond...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=couVqpuX9CU



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Schrodinger's cat experiment matters not at all to me, but it does to Schrodinger's cat.


Whether light is a particle or a wave is more a linguistic distinction than a physical one. Since it behaves as each in different situations one should consider it is neither, but something that requires a new name or basic concept. Matter also can behave as either one.



rchamberlin
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 83
Location: Rochester, MN

25 Sep 2010, 10:15 pm

I think (some question that assumption of mine) the difference is more than linguistics, Sand.

It has to do with Quantum Entanglement and observation.

In the case of the dual-slit experiment, an electron may pass through both, neither, the left or the right slit - it is said to be indeterminate. Indeterminate, that is, until observed.

Upon observation, the quantum wavefront is said to collapse, and one is left with one and only one state - which is now reality.

Please bear in mind, I am a retired programmer, and you would need a much younger mind steeped in the new physics of M theory and quantum reality to render a proper example.

I have gone into the new physics about as far as my mind and understanding will allow.
That's my way of saying that my brain is so crammed with useless information like my 1st. grade teachers name (Mrs. Ando) that there is no room for anything new.
So, I have to defer to younger and wiser specialists.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2010, 11:35 pm

rchamberlin wrote:
I think (some question that assumption of mine) the difference is more than linguistics, Sand.

It has to do with Quantum Entanglement and observation.

In the case of the dual-slit experiment, an electron may pass through both, neither, the left or the right slit - it is said to be indeterminate. Indeterminate, that is, until observed.

Upon observation, the quantum wavefront is said to collapse, and one is left with one and only one state - which is now reality.

Please bear in mind, I am a retired programmer, and you would need a much younger mind steeped in the new physics of M theory and quantum reality to render a proper example.

I have gone into the new physics about as far as my mind and understanding will allow.
That's my way of saying that my brain is so crammed with useless information like my 1st. grade teachers name (Mrs. Ando) that there is no room for anything new.
So, I have to defer to younger and wiser specialists.


Whatever works for you.



MrGraphite
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9

29 Sep 2010, 3:41 pm

I once had a dream where an acquaintance of mine told me to go back to
an attic where we had just been. I went back up the stairs and as I reached
the attic it had become my apartment, and I realised I was awake, in my apartment,
and in my bed.There was no clear moment of transfer between dream and non-dream,
like there usually is. That gave me a strong inter-dimensional feeling and an
amazement.

It could be that what people usually regard as paradoxes are in fact just experiences
of spatial dimensions beyond the observers comprehension, sometimes at least.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Sep 2010, 5:21 pm

Sand wrote:
This making a hierarchy of dimensions is invalid. Width is not higher nor lower than depth or height. Time is just another one. And there may exist others, neither higher nor lower. Time works in a special way and that way may hold for any being more dimensionally perceptive than us. I can't say.


It's not hierarchical, so much as it is constructive. We can understand how three dimensions project onto two, and how four proejct into three. So this gives us an opportunity to understand how 5 might project into 4, and so on. It is an illustrative aid, rather than a hierarchy.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Sep 2010, 7:20 pm

Higher dimensions, means dimensions in addition to the three obvious dimensions which we are all familiar with. Anyone who lives in a room with vertical walls and a horizontal floor knows these dimensions quite well.

ruveyn



MrGraphite
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9

12 Nov 2010, 1:39 pm

I didn't mean that I was in any way surprised
that my apartment was 3D.

What I meant was that I had the impression of
a dimension beyond height, width and depth
because I had my eyes open the whole time: the dream
included me walking up the stairs and reaching the attic
which had become my apartment and I noticed that I was
awake and then I went to eat breakfast. Normally when I wake
up I open my eyes and notice that I am awake instead of
feeling like there is no difference between being in a dream
and being awake.

So it was an uninterrupted visual experience from a dream
state to being awake which did not include opening my eyes.
For me such an experience is not normal, and it seemed
like higher dimensions were involved. I did not say that
I have an explanation.