Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 116
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Why we need a 5th dimension to undestand the shape of the Universe?

  1. #1 Why we need a 5th dimension to undestand the shape of the Universe? 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    We know and live in 4 dimensions (3 spacial + 1 time).

    When we talk about the shape of the Universe we talk about the curvature of space and its three shapes (Ω = 1, Ω < 1 & Ω > 1) depending of the quantity of energy and mass we consider within the Universe).

    Why it imply that will be a 5th dimension (4th spacial) to explain the shape of the Universe?

    Why we cannot consider it only in 3D?


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    It is actually the curvature of space-time, not just space.

    But it still doesn't require a 5th dimension. It is what is known as "intrinsic curvature".


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Why it imply that will be a 5th dimension (4th spacial) to explain the shape of the Universe?
    It does not imply a 5th dimension, the curvature is intrinsic to the manifold.

    Why we cannot consider it only in 3D?
    Because you need 4 coordinates to unique identify an event in our universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK...we need 4 coordinates (X-Y.Z and Time?) to unique identify an event in our universe... but why we cannot represent the Universe shape only in 3D. Pe. a Esphera,....? ...Why we talk about Spherical , Hyperbolic or Flat Universe?....it only says if the universe is infinite expanding or will stop (and Crunch).

    Do you mean that you are representing also the time?...It is not possible to fix one time.....and shape only the space (X-Y-Z)?

    What do you mean with MANIFOLD ?... a toroidal shape?
    Last edited by dapifo; July 29th, 2012 at 01:03 PM.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you mean that you are representing also the time?...It is not possible to fix one time.....and shape only the space (X-Y-Z)?
    Yes, it is possible to do that. But why would you want to omit time ?

    What do you mean with MANIFOLD ?... a toroidal shape?
    No, it's a type of topological space. See here :

    Manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you mean that you are representing also the time?...It is not possible to fix one time.....and shape only the space (X-Y-Z)?
    Yes, it is possible to do that. But why would you want to omit time ?
    Because I would like to know only the space (X-Y-Z) shape or form of the Universe...(spherical ??),...Is it possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What do you mean with MANIFOLD ?... a toroidal shape?
    No, it's a type of topological space. See here :

    Manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    WOW !!!!!..
    If the shape of the universe is like a MANIFOLD.... we can forget to go out sometime...It is like a labyrinth !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    I think dapifo is asking if the concept of a manifold implies the existence of a higher dimension for it to exist in, not that the universe itself is higher-dimensional. Doesn't a sphere need 3 dimensions to exist? Likewise, this subject sounds like it's saying our universe must exist inside a greater, higher-dimension. At least, that's what it sounds like to a layman like me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Because I would like to know only the space (X-Y-Z) shape or form of the Universe...(spherical ??),...Is it possible?
    Yes, it is possible to consider just the geometry of the spatial dimensions alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    I think dapifo is asking if the concept of a manifold implies the existence of a higher dimension for it to exist in
    No, it doesn't.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Because I would like to know only the space (X-Y-Z) shape or form of the Universe...(spherical ??),...Is it possible?
    Yes, it is possible to consider the geometry of the spatial dimensions alone.
    OK....Then if we consider only the spacial geometry... what geometry has the Universe?....Does we know it?...is it spherical ?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    I think dapifo is asking if the concept of a manifold implies the existence of a higher dimension for it to exist in, not that the universe itself is higher-dimensional. Doesn't a sphere need 3 dimensions to exist? Likewise, this subject sounds like it's saying our universe must exist inside a greater, higher-dimension. At least, that's what it sounds like to a layman like me.
    Yes...I am asking more of less that !!!...You are right but just in part!!!....But I donīt mean that "our universe must exist inside a greater".

    IīLL try to explain it again:

    Why we always consider the Shape of the Universe in a so complex forms: manifold, toroidal, saddle,.... Just because we try to show a 4th dimension function (X-Y-Z-?)...and ... Which is this 4th variable? ....is it time? ...or is it speed of expansion?...

    But if we whants to know only the space (X-Y.Z) the shape/form of the Universe... it is only 3D !!!...Then...Which 3D shape has de Universe if we fix the other variables?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why we always consider the Shape of the Universe in a so complex forms: manifold, toroidal, saddle,....
    Why? Because gravity is explained by the curvature of space time; this curvature is influenced by the presence of mass, energy (including gravity). Defining this curvature in such a way that the laws of physics are the same even if you move to a different location, or are moving, or are in a gravitational field, etc. and so that things like conservation laws are preserved is ... well, quite hard.

    Which is this 4th variable? ....is it time?
    Yes, the fourth dimension is time. Which is why Einstein's equations describe the curvature of space-time.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK....Then if we consider only the spacial geometry... what geometry has the Universe?....Does we know it?...is it spherical ?
    We don't really know for sure. At the moment, at least within the part of the universe which we can observe, it appears to be globally flat to a very high degree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why we always consider the Shape of the Universe in a so complex forms: manifold, toroidal, saddle, ....
    Why? Because gravity is explained by the curvature of space time; this curvature is influenced by the presence of mass, energy (including gravity). Defining this curvature in such a way that the laws of physics are the same even if you move to a different location, or are moving, or are in a gravitational field, etc. and so that things like conservation laws are preserved is ... well, quite hard.
    If we consider only the spacial dimensions (X-Y-Z) ... Which shape do you think/know has the Universe?


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Which is this 4th variable? ....is it time?
    Yes, the fourth dimension is time. Which is why Einstein's equations describe the curvature of space-time.

    When we consider the Shape of the Universe like complex forms as manifold, toroidal, saddle,.. so we are always trying to represent the Universe in 4 Dimensions (X-Y-Z and Time)..and those are different posibilities?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    When we consider the Shape of the Universe like complex forms as manifold, toroidal, saddle,.. so we are always trying to represent the Universe in 4 Dimensions (X-Y-Z and Time)..and those are different posibilities?
    Yes, because the Einstein Field Equations, which is what those models are based on, are tensor equations in 4 dimensions.
    You can, however, just look at the spatial part of the solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK....Then if we consider only the spacial geometry... what geometry has the Universe?....Does we know it?...is it spherical ?
    We don't really know for sure. At the moment, at least within the part of the universe which we can observe, it appears to be globally flat to a very high degree.
    Another time you are talking about 4th dimension shape !!!... what do you mean by flat (Ω = 1?).

    Please, somebody can tell to me the shape of the Universe in 3D !!!...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Another time you are talking about 4th dimension shape !!!... what do you mean by flat (Ω = 1?).
    Please, somebody can tell to me the shape of the Universe in 3D !!!...
    We don't know the shape of the universe for sure. All we know is that, as far out as we can observe it, the universe appears to be flat ( = no detectable curvature ).
    You asked me if it was possible to consider just the spatial part - the answer is yes. I did not say that the universe only has 3 dimensions ! It doesn't, it is in fact a 4-dimensional manifold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Another time you are talking about 4th dimension shape !!!... what do you mean by flat (Ω = 1?).
    Think of it this way. The (2D) surface of a sphere is curved: if you draw a triangle on the surface of the sphere, the angles will add up to more than 180°. If the sphere is large enough (or the triangle small enough) the surface will appear to be flat. On the other hand, if the triangle is on a differently curved surface then it may have fewer than 180° (saddle) or exactly 180° (torus).

    Now you need to extend this idea to 3D. So you can imagine the (3D) universe is like the surface of a 4D sphere or torus - except there is no fourth (spatial) dimension. Either the "sphere" is very large or we are curved like a torus.

    [Before any mathematicians turn up: I know that is only a poor analogy, but it seems appropriate]

    Please, somebody can tell to me the shape of the Universe in 3D !!!...
    No. We don't know.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    I think dapifo is asking if the concept of a manifold implies the existence of a higher dimension for it to exist in
    No, it doesn't.
    Okay, then I must be misunderstanding the idea. What is a manifold? Aren't ellipsoids, cylinders, cones, etc. 2-manifolds existing in 3 spatial dimensions? Maybe the problem is in me assuming that our universe being a 3-manifold requires a 4th spatial. Again, I'm a layman; I'm just trying to understand this confusing subject, as both the mathematics and the physics aspect are way above me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    Maybe the problem is in me assuming that our universe being a 3-manifold requires a 4th spatial.
    The universe is actually a 4-manifold, and no, it doesn't need to be embedded in any higher dimensional manifolds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    I camnnot understand why is so difficult to think on a 3D Universe !!!...Why you always talk about so strnage forms... in 4D (???)

    The Universe start in the Big-Bang 13.700 millions years ago from a singularity...and since then it is expanding "isotrotically"... So it has to have a very clear 3D form !!! ... although we didnīt know which one !!!... Just possible like a irregular and multiform Cloud (??).

    Other thing could be if we whant to introduce other variables (time, speed, energy,...) to understand better its functioning of the expanding of the Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Think of it this way. The (2D) surface of a sphere is curved: if you draw a triangle on the surface of the sphere, the angles will add up to more than 180°. If the sphere is large enough (or the triangle small enough) the surface will appear to be flat. On the other hand, if the triangle is on a differently curved surface then it may have fewer than 180° (saddle) or exactly 180° (torus).

    Now you need to extend this idea to 3D. So you can imagine the (3D) universe is like the surface of a 4D sphere or torus - except there is no fourth (spatial) dimension. Either the "sphere" is very large or we are curved like a torus.
    I have read this explamation several times (Wikipedia,..) and I can understand ... but I cannot understand why it is applicable to the form of the Universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    Maybe the problem is in me assuming that our universe being a 3-manifold requires a 4th spatial.
    The universe is actually a 4-manifold, and no, it doesn't need to be embedded in any higher dimensional manifolds.
    ??????

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    We don't know the shape of the universe for sure. All we know is that, as far out as we can observe it, the universe appears to be flat ( = no detectable curvature ).
    You asked me if it was possible to consider just the spatial part - the answer is yes. I did not say that the universe only has 3 dimensions ! It doesn't, it is in fact a 4-dimensional manifold.
    ??????

    When do you say "non detectable curvature"...what do you mean?...in easy words?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The universe is actually a 4-manifold, and no, it doesn't need to be embedded in any higher dimensional manifolds.
    This idea of intrinsic curvature is pretty hard to get your head round (if you don't understand the math - which I only partly do).

    The trouble is that everything we think of as curved is embedded in a higher dimension: a curved line (1D) on a piece of paper (2D); the surface of a sphere (2D) in (3D) space, etc. So we think of "curvature" as the "shape" in a higher dimension.

    But there are ways of thinking about curvature. So, for example, we can consider just the surface normal (the lines pointing out perpendicular to the surface).

    For a flat surface, all the surface normals will be parallel and n a curved surface they won't be (see first two drawings in the attached image).
    curve.jpg
    That curved line requires two dimensions to show it. But the last line has the same change in surface normals (so by this simplistic definition has the same curvature) but doesn't curve in the 2D space: it has intrinsic curvature. (Actually, I think you can only have intrinsic curvature in 3 or more dimensions, but this is just an analogy.)

    Now differential geometry is somewhat (i.e. a lot) more complicated than that but it might give you a feeling for what is going on. The various metrics that are talked about are ways of relating values at one point on a surface to others when some sort of transformation is performed; e.g. you rotate, move from one place to another, etc.

    [I hope that is helpful and at least vaguely accurate]
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    The Universe start in the Big-Bang 13.700 millions years ago from a singularity...and since then it is expanding "isotrotically"... So it has to have a very clear 3D form !!! ... although we didnīt know which one !!!
    You seem to be thinking that the big bang was like an explosion and the universe must be preading out like an expanding beach ball. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

    When do you say "non detectable curvature"...what do you mean?...in easy words?
    If the universe is curved (on large scales) then it is too small for us to detect; it looks flat. This limits the range of options for the size and topology of the universe.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Ok..thanks strange for your explanations about "intrinsic curvature· ... but I repeat to you.... What has it to do with the form of the Universe???


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You seem to be thinking that the big bang was like an explosion and the universe must be preading out like an expanding beach ball. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
    Ok...than please, do you know how?....can you tell me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If the universe is curved (on large scales) then it is too small for us to detect; it looks flat. This limits the range of options for the size and topology of the universe.
    Strange....All the while we stumbled thereupon mathematical concepts (which I understand) ... but you donīt clarify to me the basic question:What it is the 3D form of the Universe???... and if there is not a 3D form or shape..why?.

    I see that seams to be something difficult to explain....but I think that more than 99% of people has the same problem than me...and it is not enough to say that it is a maths problem...there must be a concept basis there !!!
    Last edited by dapifo; July 30th, 2012 at 04:36 PM.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Ok..thanks strange for your explanations about "intrinsic curvature· ... but I repeat to you.... [U][B]What has it to do with the form of the Universe???
    It is how the universe is described; in terms of the curvature of space time.

    Ok...than please, do you know how?....can you tell me?
    General relativity (which describes the universe) is one of the most thoroughly, and most accurately, tested theories we have.

    Strange....All the while we stumbled thereupon mathematical concepts (which I understand) ... but I do not you clarify to me the basic question:What it is the 3D form of the Universe???... and if there is not a 3D form or shape..why?
    How many more times: we don't know (yet). It appears to be flat; that limits the range of possible topologies. It could be finite (but with no boundary) or it could be infinite. We don't know.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is how the universe is described; in terms of the curvature of space time.
    Do you really understand it clearly?...or you only explain what you read and study?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    General relativity (which describes the universe) is one of the most thoroughly, and most accurately, tested theories we have.
    I do not deny it !!!!.... I know General relativity very well...but I canīt understant why you apply it to the Universe shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How many more times: we don't know (yet). It appears to be flat; that limits the range of possible topologies. It could be finite (but with no boundary) or it could be infinite. We don't know.
    All time we are stumbling thereupon about the same concepts... without understanding clearly what they really mean.

    The only thing that I have very clear is that for these large scales (10^+25 to 10^+35 meters) the things and effects (and dominant laws) are some different that those we can see at Ours scale (10^-10 to 10^20 meters)... and they are difficult for realize for us and for our brain... only theoretical maths functions could give to us a idea.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    I do not deny it !!!!.... I know General relativity very well...but I canīt understant why you apply it to the Universe shape.
    You seem to be looking for a Euclidean description of the universe. But relativity tells us it isn't like that.

    All time we are stumbling thereupon about the same concepts... without understanding clear what they really mean.
    You mean you are stumbling around and not understanding?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You seem to be looking for a Euclidean description of the universe. But relativity tells us it isn't like that.
    Why The Euclidean description of the universe is not valid at these scales?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You mean you are stumbling around and not understanding?
    Escuse me for being so insistent...but I would like to understand it... and I can sure you that I am a very clever man.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Why it imply that will be a 5th dimension (4th spacial) to explain the shape of the Universe?
    It does not imply a 5th dimension, the curvature is intrinsic to the manifold.

    Why we cannot consider it only in 3D?
    Because you need 4 coordinates to unique identify an event in our universe.
    Does that mean there is so much to see but we can only recognise the three dimensions. How do we regongnise the 10th demension as humans? Even if we could recognise ten dimentions as humans could we do that in a three dimensional body?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Does that mean there is so much to see but we can only recognise the three dimensions. How do we regongnise the 10th demension as humans? Even if we could recognise ten dimentions as humans could we do that in a three dimensional body?
    Hy...did you read all the thread?... Do you understand its contents.... and concepts?

    Then please, could you explain to me in clear words... Why The Euclidean description of the universe is not valid to explain it 3D Shape?

    Do you think that the Universe has an clear 3D shape?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Another time you are talking about 4th dimension shape !!!... what do you mean by flat (Ω = 1?).
    Please, somebody can tell to me the shape of the Universe in 3D !!!...
    We don't know the shape of the universe for sure. All we know is that, as far out as we can observe it, the universe appears to be flat ( = no detectable curvature ).
    You asked me if it was possible to consider just the spatial part - the answer is yes. I did not say that the universe only has 3 dimensions ! It doesn't, it is in fact a 4-dimensional manifold.
    Do I understand you to be saying that the four dimensions is the part that we can identify in space? Logics is wispering to me that there has to be something outside of that in order for the four demensions can be detected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Do I understand you to be saying that the four dimensions is the part that we can identify in space? Logics is wispering to me that there has to be something outside of that in order for the four demensions can be detected.
    Total .... you do not understand it either .... What must have this theory that no one understands?

    I can imagine our ancestors 1000 years ago, in a discussion like this, trying to explain why it is done day and night every 24 hours.... And just having a globe and rise up 100 km and they would have understood everything easier......(???)

    We have to look for a "globe" to understand better Our Universe....and to be able to puzzle out better the current laws and models !!!!!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Then please, could you explain to me in clear words... Why The Euclidean description of the universe is not valid to explain it 3D Shape?
    The universe is (currently) best described by General Relativity. This means that Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry are not appropriate.

    Do you think that the Universe has an clear 3D shape?
    I'm sure it does. But we don't know what it is.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why The Euclidean description of the universe is not valid to explain it 3D Shape?
    Euclidean geometry is valid only for spaces which do not possess curvature. For example, a flat piece of paper can be described by Euclidean geometry, but the surface of the Earth cannot, because it is curved.
    The same applies to the universe as a whole. If it turns out that it has global curvature then Euclidean geometry cannot be used, but Riemann geometry is applicable.

    Riemann geometry is the more general description, because it can handle both flat and curved manifolds.

    Do you think that the Universe has an clear 3D shape?
    Yes it does, it is just that we do not at the moment know which one. There are several valid possibilities, e.g. spherical, saddle-shaped, hypertorus etc. We know which possibilities exist, but we do not yet know which is the correct one.

    When do you say "non detectable curvature"...what do you mean?...in easy words?
    What I mean is that when we look out into the universe we do not see any curvature...it appears to be flat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    We have to look for a "globe" to understand better Our Universe....and to be able to puzzle out better the current laws and models !!!!!!
    By "globe" I assume you are looking for a guidebook or atlas to help you understand? In which case, general relativity is the map you need: Introduction to general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Does that mean there is so much to see but we can only recognise the three dimensions.
    Well, I would say we can recognise all four dimensions. We perceive the time dimension as being very different from the spatial dimensions (which it is) and so don't think of it as just another dimension.

    How do we regongnise the 10th demension as humans?
    If string theory turned out to be correct and there were 10 (or 11) dimensions then we still wouldn't be aware of them or have any direct way to perceive them.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Does that mean there is so much to see but we can only recognise the three dimensions.
    Well, I would say we can recognise all four dimensions. We perceive the time dimension as being very different from the spatial dimensions (which it is) and so don't think of it as just another dimension.

    How do we regongnise the 10th demension as humans?
    If string theory turned out to be correct and there were 10 (or 11) dimensions then we still wouldn't be aware of them or have any direct way to perceive them.
    Does that mean anything over the 3D+ t dimention could not be identified with our 3D bodies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    We have to look for a "globe" to understand better Our Universe....and to be able to puzzle out better the current laws and models !!!!!!
    By "globe" I assume you are looking for a guidebook or atlas to help you understand? In which case, general relativity is the map you need: Introduction to general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    OK....finally, readiing "The theory of every thing (Stephen Hawking. 2007)"...I undrestood that what makes it so difficult to represent a 3D shape of the universe is that the force of gravity is so strong that causes the space to curve in on itself (effect of curvature of spacetime) (??)

    Donīt you have the feeling that the Universe around us is easily understood for those scales closest to us (10 ^-10 to 10^+10 meters)?: Classical Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, Determinism, ...

    But that it becomes more complicated as we move away from these scales?. And in a different way as we move towards negative or positive scales?:

    -Negatives scales: Quantum Mechanics, Dirac-Newmann Geometry, Uncertainty Principle, ...
    -Positive scales: General Relativity, Riemann Geometry, Space-Time Curvature, ...

    It seams like we are in an virtual Universe and its limits are broadcast or difused !!!... Like if they were the limits of a software program ("The Thirteenth Floor" film, 1999).

    Please, have a look to the following slide, and give to me your opinion:

    Attachment 924
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    [Donīt you have the feeling that the Universe around us is easily understood for those scales closest to us (10 ^-10 to 10^+10 meters)?: Classical Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, Determinism, ...
    Those approximations are only valid over a much smaller range than you think. For example, GPS satellites are only a few thousand metres away, travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light and provide an accuracy of centimetres but they still have to take relativity into account. Similarly quantum effects are important at all scales.

    But that it becomes more complicated as we move away from these scales?
    Inevitably, things get more complex when you can no longer use crude approximations. That is true in all areas of life.

    Please, have a look to the following slide, and give to me your opinion:
    The scales at which these theories have to be used overlap significantly. Black holes can only be fully described by combining quantum theory with general relativity. Quantum electrodynamics, which very accurately describes photons and the electromagnetic interaction, combines relativity and quantum mechanics.

    So basically, your diagram is nonsense.
    Last edited by Strange; August 1st, 2012 at 09:27 AM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Those approximations are only valid over a much smaller range than you think. For example, GPS satellites are only a few thousand metres away, travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light and provide an accuracy of centimetres but they still have to take relativity into account. Similarly quantum effects are important at all scales.
    Yes, I know that the light of the sun takes 8 minutes to arrive to the Earth....But pay no attention to the details ... try to understand the general concept ....


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Inevitably, things get more complex when you can no longer use crude approximations. That is true in all areas of life.
    Please, give me another example...

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The scales at which these theories have to be used overlap significantly. Black holes can only be fully described by combining quantum theory with general relativity. Quantum electrodynamics, which very accurately describes photons and the electromagnetic interaction, combines relativity and quantum mechanics.
    So basically, your diagram is nonsense.
    Take this diagram as an open table work ... that can be improved.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Yes, I know that the light of the sun takes 8 minutes to arrive to the Earth
    I don't understand why you think that is relevant.

    But pay no attention to the details
    Details are important. GPS wouldn't work if it didn't take relativity into account. And that is at the scale of the Earth and fairly slow speeds.

    try to understand the general concept
    What general concept?

    Please, give me another example...
    Example of what? Quantum field theory is used in all sorts of applications from designing the transistors in your computer to MRI scanners. It combines quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I don't understand why you think that is relevant.

    Details are important. GPS wouldn't work if it didn't take relativity into account. And that is at the scale of the Earth and fairly slow speeds.

    What general concept?
    Just trying to abstract the concept....giving to details a relative importance.....It is like you see the earth continents in a map...And you say that America and Europe wasnīt together many years ago, because its frames are not exactly equals !!!...but if you see to teh general/main coast line....you could see that is very similar.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Example of what?
    Example of "things get more complex when you can no longer use crude approximations".
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Example of what?
    Example of "things get more complex when you can no longer use crude approximations".
    All science and engineering relies on abstraction: the ability to use simplified models when they are relevant. (This also means it is essential known when these models are appropriate.)

    To take a couple examples from my background.

    When designing low performance logic circuits, you can usually just ignore timing, voltage, current and just consider 0, 1 and the logic function. When you design a high performance integrated circuit, you have worry about the transistor drive strength, the length of wires, the input load of the gates, noise, temperature, clock variation, electromigration and so on.

    Similarly, a few decades ago, someone designing transistors for a new semiconductor manufacturing would just have to consider "bulk" characteristics (things like resistance, capacitance, carrier mobility, etc). With increasing performance, etc. they had to start worrying more about leakage, parasitic components, etc. Now, they have to think about possible quantum effects (tunneling, etc.). These might stop things working or they may open up new possibilities.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Hi, I don't understand your question and know nothing about the shape of space... if it has one.

    However I have heard there are considerably more than 4 dimensions that can be measured. Some say 10, some say 12, some say seven, etc.etc.

    First you have linear (1D), then circular (2D), the spereichal (3D), Then time/motion (4D), then there is etheric energy known as life energy (5D) and Magnetic energy know as primal energy (6D) and electric energy (7D).... These are 7 of the variables which exist and can be measured within all things.
    Some include 'thought motion' (thought) and emotional motion (feelings) which would make 9Dimensions to be measured.
    Others go further and include the 'mother principle' (female consciousness) 10D, 'father principle' (male consciousness) 11D, and finally the conscious template for all of creation which is a mix of femal and male consciousness 12D.

    I think you will agree there is more than 5 dimensions or variables to this existance that can be measured and considered a dimension...

    I have to admit this kinda stuff is probably a bt high brow for me to understand properly so i look forward to hearing from anybody who can explain this all a bit better than i can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    First you have linear (1D), then circular (2D), the spereichal (3D), Then time/motion (4D), then there is etheric energy known as life energy (5D) and Magnetic energy know as primal energy (6D) and electric energy (7D).... These are 7 of the variables which exist and can be measured within all things.
    Err, no. It stops at 4 dimensions, the rest is just pseudoscience & crank nonsense.

    What you are referring to is probably String theory, which is ( in its most common form ) only self-consistent in 11 dimensions, but those extra dimensions would be curled up into tiny manifolds which aren't directly observable with present day technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    First you have linear (1D), then circular (2D), the spereichal (3D), Then time/motion (4D), then there is etheric energy known as life energy (5D) and Magnetic energy know as primal energy (6D) and electric energy (7D).... These are 7 of the variables which exist and can be measured within all things.
    Err, no. It stops at 4 dimensions, the rest is just pseudoscience & crank nonsense.

    What you are referring to is probably String theory, which is ( in its most common form ) only self-consistent in 11 dimensions, but those extra dimensions would be curled up into tiny manifolds which aren't directly observable with present day technology.
    Is that so? well... take electric energy... that exists in everything right? in all matter. It also varies and is in different quantities in everything, ok? so therefore it seems to me that it could be considered a dimension or a variable which could be measured.
    It's all very well you telling us that its spuedo science and crack nonsense but unless you can even begin to explain why that is the case, then you do nothing to add to the debate.

    it makes more sense to me than when i hear people talking about parralel dimensions where alternate universes exist at the same time as ours. a dimension is a measurement of something and most of those things listed above can be measured and observed such as electricity... so then, why is it that you say it is not a 'dimension'?

    please explain why you say its spuedo science for the benefit of the class... or maybe just for the benefit of me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    so therefore it seems to me that it could be considered a dimension or a variable which could be measured.
    A variable and a space-time dimension are two very different things. 'Electric Energy' is not a dimension. Refer here for the exact definition of the term 'dimension' :

    Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's all very well you telling us that its spuedo science and crack nonsense but unless you can even begin to explain why that is the case, then you do nothing to add to the debate.
    See above. Because energy is not a dimension.

    it makes more sense to me than when i hear people talking about parralel dimensions where alternate universes exist at the same time as ours.
    What makes sense to you and what doesn't is pretty irrelevant, and does not necessarily tally with physical and mathematical facts. It's a common mistake many people make if they don't really understand a subject matter, yet try to get involved in a discussion about it. The "makes more sense to me than..." argument is an old one, and implies that somehow the universe cares about your personal opinions. It's a classic fallacy.

    a dimension is a measurement of something and most of those things listed above can be measured and observed such as electricity... so then, why is it that you say it is not a 'dimension'?
    Again - see above.

    please explain why you say its spuedo science for the benefit of the class... or maybe just for the benefit of me.
    See above. It's because you seem to be inventing your own definition of the term "dimension".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    A variable and a space-time dimension are two very different things. 'Electric Energy' is not a dimension. Refer here for the exact definition of the term 'dimension' :

    Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ok... it's klinda difficult for me to argue as I don't know much about this subject. However, I will try my best: Dimension is a word that originates from the latin language and it mean 'measurement'. there is no such thing as a 'space time dimension', there is spatial dimensions and there is also a time dimension... all afore mentioned dimensions are variable. Without an element of variability, what is the point in taking a measurement or a dimension? it would be a fixed thing whose measurements never change.
    Electricity is a form of matter, maybe science doesnt know much about electricity... I don't know, but it is possible that electricity or electrons can vary in charge or force as well as the over all quantities of electrons varying within matter. Therefor this variation can be measured and that measurement is called a dimension.
    P.S I read the link on wiki just for the sake of it and It bored the hell out of me... I don't need you to paste links at me... if you can express it in your own words then then at least give me a better and more robust link than wiki.
    Here is a link for you that actually does give an exact difinition of the word dimension: Definition of dimension - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English) you will find, as i have stated, that a dimension is a measurement.

    'See above. Because energy is not a dimension.'

    Energy itself might not be a dimension... but the amount of energy present in a given thing can be measured and that is a dimension of the thing in question.



    'What makes sense to you and what doesn't is pretty irrelevant, and does not necessarily tally with physical and mathematical facts. It's a common mistake many people make if they don't really understand a subject matter, yet try to get involved in a discussion about it. The "makes more sense to me than..." argument is an old one, and implies that somehow the universe cares about your personal opinions. It's a classic fallacy.'

    What makes sense to mme may be irrelevant to you but it most certainly is not irrelevant to me... its all I have and i most certainly would not adopt a new piont of view or idea unless it were to make sense to me. However if you can provide physichal or mathmatical evidence that there is a parralel universe existing at the same time as ours but somehow unable to ever come into contact with us or be detected by us in our realm of existence... then it may make sense to me and i may go along with it. Theres nothing wrong with trying to get into a disscussion about something just because we do not understand it, to learn or to teach are the reasons for getting into a disscussion. How ever I will try to avoid such expressions as 'makes more sense to me' if this conjures in your mind some image of me being an ignoramous who thinks the universe cares about my opinions.



    please explain why you say its spuedo science for the benefit of the class... or maybe just for the benefit of me.
    See above. It's because you seem to be inventing your own definition of the term "dimension".[/QUOTE]

    It seems to me that my difinition of the word dimension is acurate accoring to the oxford dictionary (see link above) and that my difinition is the same as the ORIGINAL definition of the word which has been passed on to us from the latin language. Your definition, (exactly the same as) the wikipedia definition is the definition which has adopted new meanings and definitions for the 'word' dimension. That wiki page has added a whole load of new dimensions to the word, I prefer to keep the original essence in the forefront of my mind when dealing with words. Which is that a dimension is a measurement.
    Also... why does my 'my definition of the term dimension' have any bearing on weather the theory on the 12 dimensions that i posted is spuedo science or not? my definition is irrelevant. If you state it is spuedo science you should be able to justify that comment in your own words using your own mind and intelligence rather than reffering me to a wiki page that doesnt explain why its spuedo science! it just gives a list of the various interpretations of the word dimension without even clearly including its simple meaning: measurment.

    I'm not an accademic, I don't like reading wiki pages that use a lot of terms and symbols that i am unfamilliar with, if however, you were to say somthing to me in plain english, i would understand it without difficulties. I don't know about 'fractals', i dont know about 'non interger real values'... but what i do know is that a dimension is a measurement. Variables are measurables... weather scienctific practices and technologies permit that yet or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    The word dimension might be used, in some contexts, in the very general sense of a measurement.

    In physics it has a very specific meaning. This can be simply thought of as the number of independent pieces of information to specify an event. For example (and Markus might be typing the same thing right now), imagine you want to meet someone for a meal. You need to specify three spatial dimensions (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) but you also need to specify the time, which is why it is considered a dimension in physics.

    But you don't need to consider everything that could be measured. It doesn't matter what the colour of the wallpaper is or the voltage of the electricity supply. Just the three spatial dimensions and the time.

    In summary, it is always risky to assume that words used in a specific engineering or scientific discipline mean the same thing as they do in "real life".

    Hope that helps...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The word dimension might be used, in some contexts, in the very general sense of a measurement.

    In physics it has a very specific meaning. This can be simply thought of as the number of independent pieces of information to specify an event. For example (and Markus might be typing the same thing right now), imagine you want to meet someone for a meal. You need to specify three spatial dimensions (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) but you also need to specify the time, which is why it is considered a dimension in physics.

    But you don't need to consider everything that could be measured. It doesn't matter what the colour of the wallpaper is or the voltage of the electricity supply. Just the three spatial dimensions and the time.

    In summary, it is always risky to assume that words used in a specific engineering or scientific discipline mean the same thing as they do in "real life".

    Hope that helps...
    Hello strange, im sorry to say... that doesnt help. But i thank you for trying!
    I would consider 'the number of individual pieces of information to specify an event' to be the same as the number of individual measurements to specify an event, and i dont see how that means the word has a different meaning or definition when used in connection to physics than it does when used in connection with 'real life'.

    Going back to your dinner date example... you may want to discuss the amount of power going to the light bulb when, after all it may be considered important towards setting the mood. You may also be interested in the colour of the walls and the position of the table in relation to a window. you will also be interested in the type of food on offer.... these are all just as relevant as the spatial dimensions of the event.

    Thanks for trying strange
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Going back to your dinner date example... you may want to discuss the amount of power going to the light bulb when, after all it may be considered important towards setting the mood. You may also be interested in the colour of the walls and the position of the table in relation to a window. you will also be interested in the type of food on offer.... these are all just as relevant as the spatial dimensions of the event.
    Those things might be important characteristics of the event, but they won't prevent you and your dining partner meeting up at the same place and time in order to share the meal.

    You don't see people saying:
    "Where were you?"
    "I was there at the time and place you said."
    "But what about the colour?"

    Or party invites saying, "Our house, 8pm, green, 5 volts" ("oh no, I can't make it, I only have a 9V battery")
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I take your point strange,

    I'd like to add that altitude is not essential when arranging a diner date... and the only dimension needed really is a postoce.

    Or party invites saying, "Our house, 8pm, green, 5 volts" ("oh no, I can't make it, I only have a 9V battery")- as for this piece of cantankerous sarcasm I'd like to say : 'our house, 8pm, thai food (oh no I don't like thai food)' therefor in this example the dimension that is not spatial or time related... is very important.

    But what does any of this mean in relation to the debate on the amount of dimensions in physichal reality? If a measurable dimension exists then it exists... doesnt matter how relevant it is to us in everyday life, a lot of science if not nearly all is irrelevant to everyday life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'd like to add that altitude is not essential when arranging a diner date... and the only dimension needed really is a postoce.
    The postcode is shorthand for a position in two dimensions. "The bar on the 38th floor" might be an example where altitude is important. But think of the more general case, such as an aeroplane.

    as for this piece of cantankerous sarcasm I'd like to say
    You say cantankerous sarcasm, I say amusing analogy. Oh well, never mind.

    our house, 8pm, thai food (oh no I don't like thai food)' therefor in this example the dimension that is not spatial or time related... is very important.
    I may be important, but it won't stop you getting there. Omitting the latitude, longitude, time and possibly altitude) will make it impossible for you to meet.

    a lot of science if not nearly all is irrelevant to everyday life.
    Most science is very relevant: how do you think your computer, the Internet, etc were created?
    And if you think science is irrelevant, why a science forum?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'd like to add that altitude is not essential when arranging a diner date... and the only dimension needed really is a postoce.
    The postcode is shorthand for a position in two dimensions. "The bar on the 38th floor" might be an example where altitude is important. But think of the more general case, such as an aeroplane.

    as for this piece of cantankerous sarcasm I'd like to say
    You say cantankerous sarcasm, I say amusing analogy. Oh well, never mind.

    our house, 8pm, thai food (oh no I don't like thai food)' therefor in this example the dimension that is not spatial or time related... is very important.
    I may be important, but it won't stop you getting there. Omitting the latitude, longitude, time and possibly altitude) will make it impossible for you to meet.

    a lot of science if not nearly all is irrelevant to everyday life.
    Most science is very relevant: how do you think your computer, the Internet, etc were created?
    And if you think science is irrelevant, why a science forum?
    The amount of dimensions of creation or physical existence is irrelevent to my everyday existence... yet i enjoy thinking about it. Science is not irrelevant, I didnt mean that.

    I said cantankerous sarcasm but really i also meant amusing analogy... just couldnt think of the words! And amusing as it was, it didnt really explain why the other dimensions do not count...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Ok... it's klinda difficult for me to argue as I don't know much about this subject.
    Yes. It shows.

    However, I will try my best: Dimension is a word that originates from the latin language and it mean 'measurement'. there is no such thing as a 'space time dimension', there is spatial dimensions and there is also a time dimension... all afore mentioned dimensions are variable. Without an element of variability, what is the point in taking a measurement or a dimension? it would be a fixed thing whose measurements never change.
    Completely meaningless word salad. It's sad to see that you do not understand anything of what is written in the link I provided.

    Electricity is a form of matter, maybe science doesnt know much about electricity...
    Oh good grief

    I don't know, but it is possible that electricity or electrons can vary in charge or force as well as the over all quantities of electrons varying within matter. Therefor this variation can be measured and that measurement is called a dimension.
    It is also possible that they are pink unicorns. In fact, that possibility seems far more likely than your ramblings.

    Here is a link for you that actually does give an exact difinition of the word dimension: Definition of dimension - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English) you will find, as i have stated, that a dimension is a measurement.
    That is a dictionary, it is not the scientific definition for the term dimension as used in physics - which is what the thread is about.

    its all I have and i most certainly would not adopt a new piont of view or idea unless it were to make sense to me.
    Then you are wasting your time on a science forum. A lot of things in science don't make intuitive sense, but that doesn't make them any less right. Learn to accept that.

    It seems to me that my difinition of the word dimension is acurate accoring to the oxford dictionary (see link above) and that my difinition is the same as the ORIGINAL definition of the word which has been passed on to us from the latin language.
    This is a physics forum. As such the word is used in the context of physics and maths, where it has a very specific meaning and definition.

    If you state it is spuedo science you should be able to justify that comment in your own words using your own mind and intelligence rather than reffering me to a wiki page that doesnt explain why its spuedo science!
    I have already done that by explaining that energy is not a dimension. It's really as simple as that. Once again, if you have such a problem with the way science uses the term then you should not have got involved in this thread, but started your own where you can discuss your own ideas at length.
    Halliday likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Ok... it's klinda difficult for me to argue as I don't know much about this subject.
    Yes. It shows.

    However, I will try my best: Dimension is a word that originates from the latin language and it mean 'measurement'. there is no such thing as a 'space time dimension', there is spatial dimensions and there is also a time dimension... all afore mentioned dimensions are variable. Without an element of variability, what is the point in taking a measurement or a dimension? it would be a fixed thing whose measurements never change.
    Completely meaningless word salad. It's sad to see that you do not understand anything of what is written in the link I provided.

    Electricity is a form of matter, maybe science doesnt know much about electricity...
    Oh good grief

    I don't know, but it is possible that electricity or electrons can vary in charge or force as well as the over all quantities of electrons varying within matter. Therefor this variation can be measured and that measurement is called a dimension.
    It is also possible that they are pink unicorns. In fact, that possibility seems far more likely than your ramblings.

    Here is a link for you that actually does give an exact difinition of the word dimension: Definition of dimension - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English) you will find, as i have stated, that a dimension is a measurement.
    That is a dictionary, it is not the scientific definition for the term dimension as used in physics - which is what the thread is about.

    its all I have and i most certainly would not adopt a new piont of view or idea unless it were to make sense to me.
    Then you are wasting your time on a science forum. A lot of things in science don't make intuitive sense, but that doesn't make them any less right. Learn to accept that.

    It seems to me that my difinition of the word dimension is acurate accoring to the oxford dictionary (see link above) and that my difinition is the same as the ORIGINAL definition of the word which has been passed on to us from the latin language.
    This is a physics forum. As such the word is used in the context of physics and maths, where it has a very specific meaning and definition.

    If you state it is spuedo science you should be able to justify that comment in your own words using your own mind and intelligence rather than reffering me to a wiki page that doesnt explain why its spuedo science!
    I have already done that by explaining that energy is not a dimension. It's really as simple as that. Once again, if you have such a problem with the way science uses the term then you should not have got involved in this thread, but started your own where you can discuss your own ideas at length.
    I do not think you are saying electricity is a dimension are you? and it seems to me the definition of dimension is not explained in the way you are giving it back. How can we talk about higher dimensions if we cannot measure it in a three dimentional body? I think I am understanding A Question For you a little better than I am understanding you Markus.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The word dimension might be used, in some contexts, in the very general sense of a measurement.

    In physics it has a very specific meaning. This can be simply thought of as the number of independent pieces of information to specify an event. For example (and Markus might be typing the same thing right now), imagine you want to meet someone for a meal. You need to specify three spatial dimensions (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) but you also need to specify the time, which is why it is considered a dimension in physics.

    But you don't need to consider everything that could be measured. It doesn't matter what the colour of the wallpaper is or the voltage of the electricity supply. Just the three spatial dimensions and the time.

    In summary, it is always risky to assume that words used in a specific engineering or scientific discipline mean the same thing as they do in "real life".

    Hope that helps...
    Strange, it seems Markus lead and you follow, maybe if I was reading the same book I would follow too. Just an observation.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Well, people who actually understand physics tend to explain things in much the same way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I do not think you are saying electricity is a dimension are you? and it seems to me the definition of dimension is not explained in the way you are giving it back. How can we talk about higher dimensions if we cannot measure it in a three dimentional body? I think I am understanding A Question For you a little better than I am understanding you Markus.
    I do not quite understand your comment.
    The assertion that electric energy is a dimension is not mine, but the one of 'question for you'. I am replying to it.
    General relativity and differential geometry is a bit of s 'pet discipline' of mine, so I have a pretty good understand of manifolds and the concept of dimensions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Well, people who actually understand physics tend to explain things in much the same way.
    Some are hiding and some want to be noticed and recognised. I am not saying you are. I think Markus is always up front although, I think he is a book worm. Strange answers my questions or tries to but never fails to call me a fool. You on the other hand always demand and threaten. Ha, Ha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I think Markus is always up front although, I think he is a book worm.
    Ha ! You know what ? You are absolutely right !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Wikipedia says that the unique requiriment to be a new Dimension is a new independent degree of freedom.

    A degree of freedom is an independent physical parameter, often called a dimension, in the formal description of the state of a physical system.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/redir...ki%2FDimension


    PD: I didnīt know it two months ago...Iīm improving !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Wikipedia says that the unique requiriment to be a new Dimension is a new independent degree of freedom.

    A degree of freedom is an independent physical parameter, often called a dimension, in the formal description of the state of a physical system.

    Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    PD: I didnīt know it two months ago...Iīm improving !!!
    Just be careful here - a degree of freedom is not the same as a spatial or temporal dimension. You can regard degrees of freedom to be dimensions in a construct called phase space, which is, to make this simple, an abstract vector space where each point represents a specific state some system can be in. This isn't the same as geometrical space time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just be careful here - a degree of freedom is not the same as a spatial or temporal dimension. You can regard degrees of freedom to be dimensions in a construct called phase space, which is, to make this simple, an abstract vector space where each point represents a specific state some system can be in. This isn't the same as geometrical space time.
    I donīt understand (??)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    I donīt understand (??)
    To be honest, I don't really know how to explain it without having to write half a textbook about it. It's kind of difficult.
    Basically it comes down to the difference between phase space and topological space. The former is only a mathematical construct to aid in the calculation of behaviours of systems, it is not "real" as in "physically real", but more of an abstract tool.
    A topological space on the other hand is a "real" physical space, like the space we see around us, and in which we live. Degrees of freedom are not geometric dimensions in a real space, but rather mathematical dimensions in a phase space - the Wikipedia article says as much also ( quote, highlights my own ) :

    "A degree of freedom is an independent physical parameter, often called a dimension, in the formal description of the state of a physical system. The set of all dimensions of a system is known as a phase space."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    It is possible to have more of both. It is just that our universe appears to be 3+1.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    You can have a different number of both, but then your laws of physics will change, most notably the way gravity works. From what we can observe about gravity we know that the universe has 3+1 dimensions ( macroscopically anyway ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    It is the first time I hear about the possibility of having 2 or more Time dimensions !!! (???)... It will mean that there will be two different way of time to go on?...a bifurcation in time?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    It is possible to have more of both. It is just that our universe appears to be 3+1.
    Interesting Strange please explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    It is possible to have more of both. It is just that our universe appears to be 3+1.
    Interesting Strange please explain.
    IF the universe was not like it is, then there is no reason, in principle, (as far as we know) that it couldn't have 7 spatial and 3 time dimensions.

    It doesn't, though. As far as we can tell, it has 3 spatial and 1 time.

    Do I need to make it any simpler?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It is the first time I hear about the possibility of having 2 or more Time dimensions !!! (???)... It will mean that there will be two different way of time to go on?...a bifurcation in time?
    But there aren't 2 time dimensions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    It is possible to have more of both. It is just that our universe appears to be 3+1.
    Interesting Strange please explain.
    IF the universe was not like it is, then there is no reason, in principle, (as far as we know) that it couldn't have 7 spatial and 3 time dimensions.

    It doesn't, though. As far as we can tell, it has 3 spatial and 1 time.

    Do I need to make it any simpler?
    The posibility always exsist, however I have to leave you there not enough brain matter to comprehend what you are suggesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK...

    It is possible to have more than 3 Space Dimensions...but it is not possible to have more than 1 Time Dimension....Why?
    It is possible to have more of both. It is just that our universe appears to be 3+1.
    Interesting Strange please explain.
    IF the universe was not like it is, then there is no reason, in principle, (as far as we know) that it couldn't have 7 spatial and 3 time dimensions.

    It doesn't, though. As far as we can tell, it has 3 spatial and 1 time.

    Do I need to make it any simpler?

    IF
    the universe was not like it is, then there is no reason, in principle, (as far as we know) that it couldn't have 7 spatial and 3 time dimensions.

    Strange you lost me there my man, I am sure the universe is like it is and has all the spatial dimentions and time dimentions. I am thinking if it is not posible to define higher dimentions in a three dimentional body the solution would be to change our bodies. Don't laugh, as you say every thing is posible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dundalk, MD
    Posts
    1
    We do not know the end of space therefor we do not know the beginning. Time is abstract. If we do not have an origin or termination, we can not make a graphic representation of it.
    One professor told me once, that space is like silly putty. It is constantly stretching in all directions without pattern or a purpose we can understand.
    Another told me to draw a circle. Then asked where the beginning was. I knew because I drew it. He drew one and asked the same question. And I did not know.

    In terms of adding dimensions. I think it is like being a politician, if you keep adding stuff and believing what is there, you will assume it is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post

    I do not think you are saying electricity is a dimension are you? and it seems to me the definition of dimension is not explained in the way you are giving it back. How can we talk about higher dimensions if we cannot measure it in a three dimentional body? I think I am understanding A Question For you a little better than I am understanding you Markus.
    Thanks mother, I think some of them like to turn things into a competition on here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    A dimension is just a direction of movement. We have three large, observable dimensions. There is no reason that dimension have to be large enough to be observed. If the dimension is small enough, we would be movine through it constantly and never know.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Thanks mother, I think some of them like to turn things into a competition on here.
    No, it's just that some of us like to keep things scientifically accurate.
    Specifically the term 'dimension' has always been subject to a lot of crackpottery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Thanks mother, I think some of them like to turn things into a competition on here.
    No, it's just that some of us like to keep things scientifically accurate.
    Specifically the term 'dimension' has always been subject to a lot of crackpottery.
    Specifically people who like to think of themselves as 'scientifically acurate' are prone to crackpottery I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    A dimension is just a direction of movement. We have three large, observable dimensions. There is no reason that dimension have to be large enough to be observed. If the dimension is small enough, we would be movine through it constantly and never know.
    So let me get this straight... "we have 3 large, observable directions of movement. There is no reason that directions of movement have to be large enough to be observed. if a direction of movement is small enough, we would be moving through it constantly and never know" - Thanks for your input Alex but this does nothing for me. This triangle on my desk has three dimentions, and yet it has no direction of movement, its sitting exactly still....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    moving through a direction of movement.... hmmmm. that doesnt sound quite right
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Thanks for your input Alex but this does nothing for me
    That's pretty much as I expected. You seem to be the kind of person who rejects information they don't understand, which is most of what you encounter.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Thanks for your input Alex but this does nothing for me
    That's pretty much as I expected. You seem to be the kind of person who rejects information they don't understand, which is most of what you encounter.
    I wouldn't say I reject it... but obviously I would hope to not accept information i didnt understand (unless I had to)

    I will try to tell you why your information did nothing for me. You posted this:

    Originally Posted by AlexGA dimension is just a direction of movement. We have three large, observable dimensions. There is no reason that dimension have to be large enough to be observed. If the dimension is small enough, we would be movine through it constantly and never know.

    you say a dimension is a direction of movement (but you offer nothing to qualify this statement). Then you say "If a dimension is small enough, we would be moving through it..."

    Something there doesn't seem quite right... If a direction of movement (a dimension) is small enough we would be moving through it? we would be moving through a direction of movement? how can you move through a direction of movement? to me, and forgive my ignorance, but to me that's not even correct use of english (scientific definition or otherwise)

    That's pretty much why I don't get what you were saying. I don't want to seem off but I can't even begin to consider this concept becuase to me, moving through a direction of movement is impossible.

    All you have to do is explain to me how it is possible to "move through a direction of movement"? thats the only answer i need at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    All you have to do is explain to me how it is possible to "move through a direction of movement"? thats the only answer i need at the moment.
    Ok. One possible shape of the three dimensional spatial universe is one that is finite and yet unbounded. An analogy, AND IT'S ONLY AN ANALOGY, is that the surface of a sphere is the universe. No matter what direction you travel in, if you travel in a straight line, you will never find a boundary, and you will return to the place you started from, having moved completely through a direction of movement.

    Now the additional dimensions, instead of being however many light years across, are microscopic, beyond our current technological ability to probe, (or prove). So when you move through BIG space, you move completely through the other small spaces trillions of times.

    A dimension, and we are speaking of it's scientific meaning, not it's Star Trek meaning, is a degree of freedom. Which is another way of saying available direction of movement.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    All you have to do is explain to me how it is possible to "move through a direction of movement"? thats the only answer i need at the moment.
    Ok. One possible shape of the three dimensional spatial universe is one that is finite and yet unbounded. An analogy, AND IT'S ONLY AN ANALOGY, is that the surface of a sphere is the universe. No matter what direction you travel in, if you travel in a straight line, you will never find a boundary, and you will return to the place you started from, having moved completely through a direction of movement.

    Now the additional dimensions, instead of being however many light years across, are microscopic, beyond our current technological ability to probe, (or prove). So when you move through BIG space, you move completely through the other small spaces trillions of times.

    A dimension, and we are speaking of it's scientific meaning, not it's Star Trek meaning, is a degree of freedom. Which is another way of saying available direction of movement.

    This is bassically fantasy is it not? I love it, I love your possible shape of the 3d spatial universe. I love the analogy...but whats it an analogy of? why give me a likeness if you understand the real thing? What reason is there to think that as we walk through space we also walk through trillions of little microscopic dimensions aka directions of movement aka degrees of freedom?
    what reason to think there are additional dimensions aka degrees of movement aka directional movements such as these?
    As we simultaneously pass through trillions of microscopic degrees of freedom, are we passing through in our entirety, like our whole body is scaled down so that dimension is like a universe to us? I don't beleive im engaging in this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I didn't think you'd understand. You've made it pretty obvious that you know nothing about physcis or cosmology. Or for that matter, science in general.

    You're just basically trolling.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I didn't think you'd understand. You've made it pretty obvious that you know nothing about physcis or cosmology. Or for that matter, science in general.

    You're just basically trolling.
    I read some of these things you are saying AlexG, and I think you really need a hit. Try moving back to the center, we over here are living on planet earth. I think there is a specific book you should stop reading. I need to ask you where do you get all of that stuff you are saying?

    Your quotes from 84# needs your review as soon as possible, I might have a problem in explaining myself but you have a problem in identifying your self.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by sylent1 View Post
    We do not know the end of space therefor we do not know the beginning. Time is abstract. If we do not have an origin or termination, we can not make a graphic representation of it.
    One professor told me once, that space is like silly putty. It is constantly stretching in all directions without pattern or a purpose we can understand.
    Another told me to draw a circle. Then asked where the beginning was. I knew because I drew it. He drew one and asked the same question. And I did not know.

    In terms of adding dimensions. I think it is like being a politician, if you keep adding stuff and believing what is there, you will assume it is true.
    You could have placed a point in the middle of the circle, I wonder what he would have said. It is important on this forum not to equate science with human observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I didn't think you'd understand. You've made it pretty obvious that you know nothing about physcis or cosmology. Or for that matter, science in general.

    You're just basically trolling.
    you didnt even have the decency or courage to quote me so that i know this post is linked to me.

    you fail to answer any of my questions let alone all, instead you insult me. your the biggest most ignorant 'troll' i've met online.

    your opinion that you understand things is all the evidence I need to present to other reasonable people and rational thinker, for them to agree your a fool.

    I'd be quite content if you never responded to any of my posts again as quite simply, i have learnt nothing from you except crackpot theories. On top of that I find you rude and unreasonable.

    Good day to you sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    This is bassically fantasy is it not? I love it, I love your possible shape of the 3d spatial universe. I love the analogy...but whats it an analogy of? why give me a likeness if you understand the real thing? What reason is there to think that as we walk through space we also walk through trillions of little microscopic dimensions aka directions of movement aka degrees of freedom?
    what reason to think there are additional dimensions aka degrees of movement aka directional movements such as these?
    Actually QFY, AlexG is quite correct in what he was saying.
    You must also understand however that String theory with its extra dimensions is not yet given fact, it is only a hypothetical model. We do not at the moment have any empirical evidence to suggest that any dimensions other than our 3+1 do in fact exist. But AlexG is right, if these extra dimensions do exist and are curled up into manifolds with small enough radii we would simply not be able to detect them - see Calabi.

    As for the universe - the surface of the earth is a good analogue. It is finite ( you can measure its surface area easily ), yet unbounded ( no matter how far you walk, you will never find a boundary where the earth just "stops" ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Between M/F and QFY we are being overwhelmed with ignorance fertalized by stupidity.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    This is bassically fantasy is it not? I love it, I love your possible shape of the 3d spatial universe. I love the analogy...but whats it an analogy of? why give me a likeness if you understand the real thing? What reason is there to think that as we walk through space we also walk through trillions of little microscopic dimensions aka directions of movement aka degrees of freedom?
    what reason to think there are additional dimensions aka degrees of movement aka directional movements such as these?
    Actually QFY, AlexG is quite correct in what he was saying.
    You must also understand however that String theory with its extra dimensions is not yet given fact, it is only a hypothetical model. We do not at the moment have any empirical evidence to suggest that any dimensions other than our 3+1 do in fact exist. But AlexG is right, if these extra dimensions do exist and are curled up into manifolds with small enough radii we would simply not be able to detect them - see Calabi.

    As for the universe - the surface of the earth is a good analogue. It is finite ( you can measure its surface area easily ), yet unbounded ( no matter how far you walk, you will never find a boundary where the earth just "stops" ).
    Ok what QFY?

    how can you say alex is correct if there is no imperical data? more to the point why do you say alex is correct? I didnt disagree that if they exist, we wouldn't be able to detect them. Thats fine to me. But we don't have data, so alex cannot be said to be correct.

    I don't like speaking with alex, I find him to be arrogant and rude. If he tells about a hypothosys for example, and i question what he said, he will insult me for not being able to understand him. Also he has this habit of completelly ignoring what i say and questions i ask, again prefering the insult route. I have no time to continue discussing stuff with alex right now. Don't get me wrong, i found some of the stuff he has said very interesting, it's just a shame he has to resort to petty insults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Ok what QFY?
    I'm guessing it stands for Question For You.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Ok what QFY?
    I'm guessing it stands for Question For You.
    Beleive it or not I realised this when i noticed QFY being used in other threads ... Now I need to think of a names which 'acronyms' a bit better.

    Many thanks Speedfreak
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    We know and live in 4 dimensions (3 spacial + 1 time).

    When we talk about the shape of the Universe we talk about the curvature of space and its three shapes (Ω = 1, Ω < 1 & Ω > 1) depending of the quantity of energy and mass we consider within the Universe).
    Why (does) it imply that (there) be a 5th dimension (4th spacial) to explain the shape of the Universe? Why (can't) we consider it (the universe) only in 3D? (parenthesis added)
    A good and simple question but maybe not so simple an answer according to the standard cosmological model. As to your question, yes space could appear to us as a three dimensional spherical shape, for instance, but like 2D mythical "flatland," that may not be all there is to it.

    There are many types of symmetries allowed in Einstein's cosmological equations based upon General Relativity (GR), which could lead to different 3D perspectives and physical shapes of the universe. These cosmological equations do not imply or require a 4th physical dimension, as you seem to believe based upon your question, since there is no "W" variable in the equations for the expression of a 4th physical dimension. In GR and these cosmological equations time "T" is the 4th dimension. But some believe that Einstein's cosmological equation (and GR) can allow for a 4th physical dimension and would be better explained by it.

    http://www.scientificexploration.org...3_beichler.pdf

    We invented/ discovered the basic Cartesian concept (length, width, height) which can mathematically be designated X,Y, & Z coordinates. This invention has led to analytic geometry that can define relative positions in space via dimensional coordinates. But how do we determine the 0,0,0 origin for the coordinate system? It was understood that one could designate any of a number of possible positions in space that could be a convenient origin point for most any desired calculations.

    Minkowski proposed that for celestial mechanics or cosmology, that if we knew the approximate motion of the stars within constellations, then we could make more accurate geometric calculations over longer periods of time with the addition of time and motion into related equations. So his coordinate system was 3 physical dimensions with the addition of time -- having the ability to better calculate/ approximate a particular distant point in space at a particular point in time. Most realized the usefulness of this mathematical system and Einstein saw the advantages of this system for his future equations of General Relativity. In General Relativity he asserted that there was no absolute location in space or time, and that all points were only relative to moving physical entities. So he called his location concept "spacetime" as did Minkowski, but added the concept that space and time (and gravity) were matter dependent to define their existence, and were relative to matter's mass, dimensions, location, and relative motion. This later also applied to his cosmological equations.

    Hermann Minkowski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Pseudo-Riemannian manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Along with the addition of time, Einstein also added a type of non-linear geometry to his equations of GR and Cosmological equations, which was later called Pseudo-Riemann geometry:

    A principal assumption of General Relativity is that spacetime can be modeled as a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold of signature (3, 1) or, equivalently, (1, 3). Unlike Riemannian manifolds with positive-definite metrics, a signature of (p, 1) or (1, q) allows tangent vectors to be classified into timelike, null or spacelike.
    (above quote from this link, bold added)

    http://www.emis.de/journals/UIAM/PDF/40-207-214.pdf

    If GR is correct, and also if space curves around upon itself somehow, one of the possibilities is that there may be no center to the universe as there could be for a 3D Euclidean universe. In Einstein's cosmological equations it is possible for one to travel seemingly in a straight line but eventually end up where one started.

    If GR is wrong (and therefore Einstein's cosmological equations) then the universe may simply be 3D and Euclidean, but Minkowski's "Time" addendum would seemingly still be a necessary mathematical addendum for any new model. If so simpler replacement theories would be needed to otherwise explain both gravity and cosmology.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 11th, 2012 at 02:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post

    I read some of these things you are saying AlexG, and I think you really need a hit. Try moving back to the center, we over here are living on planet earth. I think there is a specific book you should stop reading. I need to ask you where do you get all of that stuff you are saying?

    Your quotes from 84# needs your review as soon as possible, I might have a problem in explaining myself but you have a problem in identifying your self.
    Stop lecturing individuals who know a lot more about science than you.
    We could do with at least one more hitman. Come back DrRocket!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post

    I read some of these things you are saying AlexG, and I think you really need a hit. Try moving back to the center, we over here are living on planet earth. I think there is a specific book you should stop reading. I need to ask you where do you get all of that stuff you are saying?

    Your quotes from 84# needs your review as soon as possible, I might have a problem in explaining myself but you have a problem in identifying your self.
    Stop lecturing individuals who know a lot more about science than you.
    We could do with at least one more hitman. Come back DrRocket!
    First, I am not lecturing anyone, and second, you have not been following the whole thread if you were you would have understood why I said what I did about AlexG.

    I would like to take you up on the point of you knowing more than me in science. What do you know more than me? On what planet did you get your knowledge?
    And where did you swallow the books on science to make such a statement? Please come and lecture me on your achievements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    This is bassically fantasy is it not? I love it, I love your possible shape of the 3d spatial universe. I love the analogy...but whats it an analogy of? why give me a likeness if you understand the real thing? What reason is there to think that as we walk through space we also walk through trillions of little microscopic dimensions aka directions of movement aka degrees of freedom?
    what reason to think there are additional dimensions aka degrees of movement aka directional movements such as these?
    Actually QFY, AlexG is quite correct in what he was saying.
    You must also understand however that String theory with its extra dimensions is not yet given fact, it is only a hypothetical model. We do not at the moment have any empirical evidence to suggest that any dimensions other than our 3+1 do in fact exist. But AlexG is right, if these extra dimensions do exist and are curled up into manifolds with small enough radii we would simply not be able to detect them - see Calabi.

    As for the universe - the surface of the earth is a good analogue. It is finite ( you can measure its surface area easily ), yet unbounded ( no matter how far you walk, you will never find a boundary where the earth just "stops" ).
    Your last statement makes sense to me Markus, I find myself gussing when I try to imagine things. When I reach a point where I do not have proof but start making projections and assumtions it seems irelivant to any result not based on reality. I still want to ask you, is it at all possible to identify any higher dimensions in a three dimentional body? Would we not have to change bodies to do that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Between M/F and QFY we are being overwhelmed with ignorance fertalized by stupidity.
    I think you are overwhelmed because we do not buy your type of ignorance and stupidity. As for me I accept my ignorance and stupidity, but I have disiplin and respect for people. You may have some brain matter but you lack a sense of pride. I am sorry AlexG, but you make it no fun to participate on the forum, I wish you could get off the self hate and enjoy yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    First, I am not lecturing anyone, and second, you have not been following the whole thread if you were you would have understood why I said what I did about AlexG.

    I would like to take you up on the point of you knowing more than me in science. What do you know more than me? On what planet did you get your knowledge?
    And where did you swallow the books on science to make such a statement? Please come and lecture me on your achievements.
    I didn't say I knew more than you about science altho' it would be a major achievement for anyone to know less!
    I am certainly not an expert, but I know enough to be absolutely sure you were arguing with individuals who have a much deeper knowledge of maths/physics than you.
    Sometimes (in politics, or even philosophy, for example) it is possible to have debates where different points of view may be considered to be of equal value. That could only ever be the case, in this type of thread, if the posters had roughly the same level of technical expertise in the hard sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dark Matter and the 5th Dimension
    By miomaz in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: July 29th, 2012, 05:02 AM
  2. "Shape" of the Universe
    By halorealm in forum Physics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 14th, 2012, 11:16 AM
  3. The shape of the universe
    By ray in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 30th, 2011, 12:57 PM
  4. The shape of our universe..
    By xspike in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 17th, 2011, 12:26 AM
  5. The shape ot the universe
    By wandrug in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 20th, 2008, 09:01 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •