Is it possible to picture more than 3 physical dimensions?

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

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.

You sound like a college student. I don't know you, but you have "student" written all over you. All the typical traits are there, from the rebellious attitude, to the trusting of everything you read in your books, to your inability to understand the concepts which someone else is describing, to your resistance to that which hasn't been taught to you. If a viewpoint isn't in your book, it must be wrong.

I say you're young and still in school. I feel that the person on the other end has the reasoning ability of a teenage/early 20's. How accurate am I?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

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.

You sound like a college student. I don't know you, but you have "student" written all over you. All the typical traits are there, from the rebellious attitude, to the trusting of everything you read in your books, to your inability to understand the concepts which someone else is describing, to your resistance to that which hasn't been taught to you. If a viewpoint isn't in your book, it must be wrong.

I say you're young and still in school. I feel that the person on the other end has the reasoning ability of a teenage/early 20's. How accurate am I?

Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

You're right that the classic physics theories use 3 spatial dimensions. But I'm saying to look past that and consider other possibilities. There are, you know, other theories that don't abide by those ground rules. If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

I have invited you twice now to explain your position on spacial dimensions and you haven't. You haven't invented some new physical framework, so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass.

Edit - Ugh, you keep editing your posts after I reply :roll:

Edit 2 - An please, I welcome you to share with me these other theories that I'm missing out on, because I have never encountered a method of doing physics that consists of using a single spacial dimension to represent our 3.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

I have invited you twice now to explain your position on spacial dimensions and you haven't. You haven't invented some new physical framework, so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass.

I just took the time to explain my position calmly without resorting to insults. I thought that you were more interested in hearing other people's views rather than simply arguing with someone over the internet.

Yet after I explained my position, you respond to me with this. Just when I thought that maybe you wouldn't act like a predictable college-age kid, you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is really what you're about.

I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. But comments like "so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass" make anyone seem like a genius by comparison.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

back to the original question... i don't think an object or a person or whatnot.. can ever comprehend beyond the dimension where they exist.

we exist in a 4 dimensional world.. and hence we can only measure and observe up to 4 dimensions. btw, i think one will never truely be able to manipulate the dimension of its highest order - for us being time itself. we can fully interact and manipulate up to the 3rd dimension but cannot manipulate time itself. an entity (let's say god) in the 5th dimension will be able to fully manipulate all 4 dimensions but would not be able to manipulate whatever encompasses the 5th dimension.

so anyhow, we can understand all four dimensions but can never observe, document or comprehend any dimension beyond the 4th dimension (who's to say a 5th dimension exists or doesn't exist - or even know what it is.. and yes, guessing at it doesn't count..). same thing with an object in 2 dimension. hypothetically, if you imagined yourself to be a 2 dimensional object, i dare say, you, as a 2-d object, will never be able to comprehend or even guess what 3-d is.... at 1-d.. you're an infiite .

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I just took the time to explain my position calmly without resorting to insults. I thought that you were more interested in hearing other people's views rather than simply arguing with someone over the internet.

Yet after I explained my position, you respond to me with this. Just when I thought that maybe you wouldn't act like a predictable college-age kid, you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is really what you're about.

I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. But comments like "so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass" make anyone seem like a genius by comparison.

You really didn't clarify your position and you were also the first to turn to a personal attack. I'm thinking that you're the immature one. I wouldn't ignore what someone was saying based on their age or education and it's quite silly for you to do so.

Getting back to the question, I can't for the life of me picture more than 3 dimensions in my head, which isn't that surprising as our brains are ill-equipped for such thought.

 

[mx6er2587]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

hmm actually I believe my physics professor last year wrote a thesis on how the laws of physics might be different if there were only 2 dimessions (3 if you count time) I'll see if i can find it

 

[silverpig]

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.

Uh, that's like, wrong. In GR time is treated exactly the same as the 3 spatial dimensions (albeit with a negative sign), and acts just like a spatial dimension (again, with a negative sign). It can contract, expand, bend, etc, just like the spatial dimensions.

You CAN do 2-d GR with just time and x, but it's not the same as x,y,z,t which we live in.

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

I have invited you twice now to explain your position on spacial dimensions and you haven't. You haven't invented some new physical framework, so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass.

Edit - Ugh, you keep editing your posts after I reply :roll:

Edit 2 - An please, I welcome you to share with me these other theories that I'm missing out on, because I have never encountered a method of doing physics that consists of using a single spacial dimension to represent our 3.

If he can't figure out 1-dimension, he'll never understand all 26 of them.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory).

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

I have invited you twice now to explain your position on spacial dimensions and you haven't. You haven't invented some new physical framework, so stop comparing yourself to Einstein and go read a book because you're talking out of your ass.

Edit - Ugh, you keep editing your posts after I reply :roll:

Edit 2 - An please, I welcome you to share with me these other theories that I'm missing out on, because I have never encountered a method of doing physics that consists of using a single spacial dimension to represent our 3.

If he can't figure out 1-dimension, he'll never understand all 26 of them.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory).

I've been to 24 of them. #17 in particular is highly recommended.

And you're right. I can't understand any more than the 3d world we live in + time. I guess our brains are just hard wired to process information like that.

Be honest, how many of them can you visualize?

 

[iamaelephant]

I can't visualise more than 3, and I highly doubt anybody can. As for 26 dimensions, well no one knows if any of the String Theories will even pan out, but it seems unlikely to me.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I can't visualise more than 3, and I highly doubt anybody can. As for 26 dimensions, well no one knows if any of the String Theories will even pan out, but it seems unlikely to me.

The generally accepted version of string theory (if there is such a thing) is 10 dimensions now.

And it's not too difficult to visualize 4 spatial dimensions in some ways.

 

[WildHorse]

Lisa Randall has a drawing in her book Warped Passages that depicts a way to think of 4 dimensions (not including Time) 4 diomensions OTHER THAN time.

Browse it next time you're walking through some bookstore.

 

[toolboxolio]

I think the new ATI graphics card lineup does 4D.

 

[tmc]

u should be able to understand "time" as 4th dimension easily.

to put it simply, basically, your coordinates with time.

(breakfast table, 7:30 am)
(car, 7:45 am)
(office, 8:00am)

and so on.

the first entry is a 3D location so the time adds a new piece of info to it.

 

[mercanucaribe]

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.

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.

You're changing the definition of "dimension". Try telling Fedex that your box only has one dimension. You can define the position of any point in space with 3 coordinates, the size of a box with 3 distances. A dimension isn't a "realm" that you go to. You can't "go to the 4th dimension".

I don't believe that time is a dimension. I think that the passage of time only appears to be a dimension to humans, because we think of it like a flowing river. Didn't even consider that until I read it in Science.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


Wow, your ability to deduce that the average ATOTer is a late teen to early 20s college student is astounding. You still haven't explained your position on spacial dimensions. Have you considered reformulating Einstein's Special Relativity to fit your "2d world" theory?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are assuming that the framework laid out for you is the only valid framework to use.

For example, Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) works great for just about I've ever needed to do. It's worked for people for hundreds of years. Working within the framework of Newtonian physics, you can solve almost every physical problem that you're realistically going to encounter.

When other forms of mechanics such as special relativity were proposed, people used to purely Newtonian physics found it hard to believe. Classical mechanics mostly agrees with common sense, while many things that Einstein proposed seem to go counter to common sense. Yet, they've so far proven themselves to be true.

You're right that the classic physics theories use 3 spatial dimensions. But I'm saying to look past that and consider other possibilities. There are, you know, other theories that don't abide by those ground rules. If you instantly discount other views while being confined to strictly one type of framework, you might find yourself missing part of the picture.

But relativistic physics can still be reduced to the behavior of Newtonian physics if you look at the limit behavior between Galilean and Lorentz transformations. QED can still be distilled back down to Maxwell's wave equations and Maxwell's equations can be reduced down to Kirchoff's circuit rules. While each of these concepts may have been a radical jump in thinking and theory, they did not completely invalidate previous theories because they themselves were still grounded in sound observation and experiment. To say that there is only one dimension for distance completely invalidates the experimental proof of relativity, that the direction and motion of inertia frames matter to the observer. In this sense, distance is multi-dimensioned because it requires knowledge of the orientation and motion relative to an observer for your observations to be fully accounted for.

 

[WildHorse]

It's up on the Astronomy Picture of the Day:

Does our universe have higher but unusual spatial dimensions?