Is it possible to picture more than 3 physical dimensions?

[Inspector Jihad]

I know there is no physical way to represent it, but we can "fake" 3-d on paper, so perhaps we can "fake" a fourth dimension in 3-d space.

 

[SampSon]

So you mean a fourth spacial dimension?

 

[Inspector Jihad]

yes

 

[SlitheryDee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

 

[XZeroII]

I can't even picture 3 dimensions!

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

intersting

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

That's not showing 4 dimensions. Even on the file, they say it's 3d.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Is there even any reason to believe that there are more than 3 dimensions?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

That's not showing 4 dimensions. Even on the file, they say it's 3d.

Well the question in the OP was if we could "fake" it.

A tesseract is the closest way I know of although if you know of anything better I'm all ears.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I can't even picture 3 dimensions!

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they made a 3D version of Homer got trapped in our world. There was the scientist explaining to the chief, he drew a Homer's face inside a square, then he draw a few more lines to make the square into a 3-D looking box, and the chief was like "slow down"

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Is there even any reason to believe that there are more than 3 dimensions?

seems like a logical extension.

 

[everman]

Look at the books flatland and flatterland.

 

[91TTZ]

I kind of disagree with their definition of "dimension". I don't think that length, width, and height should be separate dimensions, while time only occupies one other.

I'd say that distance (which encompasses length, width, and height) is one dimension, and time is another.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: everman
Look at the books flatland and flatterland.

i've read flatland, good book.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I kind of disagree with their definition of "dimension". I don't think that length, width, and height should be separate dimensions, while time only occupies one other.

I'd say that distance (which encompasses length, width, and height) is one dimension, and time is another.

When you publish your theory, be sure to post the responses here.

 

[Drakkon]

i had to think in topological spaces in college and its kinda translated a lot of ways nowadays - that kinda counts doesnt it?

 

[amicold]

If I think hard enough you can imagine time-space. It's very headache inducing however and at the moment I think it should be disqualified as a true physical dimension since we are constantly moving forward in it, and cannot travel through it.

 

[Motek]

Some say fourth dimenson is time...

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I kind of disagree with their definition of "dimension". I don't think that length, width, and height should be separate dimensions, while time only occupies one other.

I'd say that distance (which encompasses length, width, and height) is one dimension, and time is another.

I'll pass that on to my physics professor, I'm sure he'll be interested to hear this theory. Who knew we all lived in a line.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I kind of disagree with their definition of "dimension". I don't think that length, width, and height should be separate dimensions, while time only occupies one other.

I'd say that distance (which encompasses length, width, and height) is one dimension, and time is another.

I'll pass that on to my physics professor, I'm sure he'll be interested to hear this theory. Who knew we all lived in a line.

People never cease to amaze me. I can say something so clearly, yet some idiot will always come out of the woodwork who conveniently either doesn't understand or just would like to argue.

Maybe you can admit to your physics professor that you think that "distance (which encompasses length, width, and height)" has to be a line.

 

[LostWanderer]

I'm not calling repost, but there was an interesting thread around here someplace on the 10th dimension. It had a pretty cool video that explained it. If I find it I'll post it here, but try googling that....Good read.

:thumbsup:

EDIT - OK found the link...

Tenth Dimension

 

[SlitheryDee]

nm

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I kind of disagree with their definition of "dimension". I don't think that length, width, and height should be separate dimensions, while time only occupies one other.

I'd say that distance (which encompasses length, width, and height) is one dimension, and time is another.

I'll pass that on to my physics professor, I'm sure he'll be interested to hear this theory. Who knew we all lived in a line.

People never cease to amaze me. I can say something so clearly, yet some idiot will always come out of the woodwork who conveniently either doesn't understand or just would like to argue.

Maybe you can admit to your physics professor that you think that "distance (which encompasses length, width, and height)" has to be a line.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I honestly don't understand what you're saying. This really is the first time I've ever heard someone propose that the x, y and z directions are not separate spacial dimensions. What exactly are you trying to say? How could you possibly think that x, y and z are all one dimension?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

I'm not ashamed to admit that I honestly don't understand what you're saying. This really is the first time I've ever heard someone propose that the x, y and z directions are not separate spacial dimensions. What exactly are you trying to say? How could you possibly think that x, y and z are all one dimension?

Sure, they're separate spacial dimensions, but I'm saying that when you consider them in their purest forms, you could consider time one dimension, and space another dimension.

They only mean something to us because it helps us measure things so we can build objects. Concepts like up/down reference the ground. They work on Earth on a human scale but don't mean much on a larger scale.

It's sort of like speed... it really only means something when you have something else to compare it to.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

I'm not ashamed to admit that I honestly don't understand what you're saying. This really is the first time I've ever heard someone propose that the x, y and z directions are not separate spacial dimensions. What exactly are you trying to say? How could you possibly think that x, y and z are all one dimension?

Sure, they're separate spacial dimensions, but I'm saying that when you consider them in their purest forms, you could consider time one dimension, and space another dimension.

You're wrong. You can consider it that way only if you are dealing with an object moving in one direction and one direction ONLY, which is a very limited outlook. If you want to model any object that changed direction in any way you must consider more spacial dimensions. There's nothing "pure" about considering our universe with anything less than 3 spacial dimensions.

Ugh okay you edited your post after I replied. Basically you are showing a profound lack of understanding of elementary physics. Spacial dimensions don't "reference the ground", they exist whether or not the Earth itself exists, or whether or not we are even here to "reference" them.