Imagining the Tenth Dimension

[FireWall]

Just thought that I would share a cool video:

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

There actually appears to be a great deal of philosophical implications that result from the claims made in that video (e.g., free will versus determinism).

[Zogo]

my head exploded in the 8th dimension..

I've always lumped the 8th, 9th and 10th all together in the past.

[r0y4l]

Pretty interesting

[leg]

I've read books and stuff on string theory before, and that example really helps you visualize it better than anything I've read.

[MV8]

Very cool. Thanks for the link. :)

[defjux]

WHOA

WHOAAAAA

[Streetwolf]

Interesting find.

[dylan]

Trippy.

[King_Nada]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

[MidnightStalker]

omg

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/stringtheory.png

[ob]

whoa

[post-mortem]

you are now entering.... the twilight zone

[schtoofa]

good stuff

[Tone-Loc]

I am pretty sure that the 5th dimension is the dimension behind mirror images... at least that's what I learned watching the Superfriends.



:D

[Streetwolf]

Well it does make sense, for certain up to the 4th dimension. I always did think of time as representing the 4th dimension but I do not believe it IS the 4th dimension.

For instance, imagine yourself in a 2 dimensional world (as in the flash). All you can do is move along the x- and y-axes. In other words, you cannot jump. Your feet must always be on the ground (not that you'd have any height but just imagine...)

Now think about motion. How can you get from any one point to any other point WITHOUT crossing a 3rd point? You can't! Since you always have to be touching the ground, this is impossible. Now think of the concept of time. Let's say at time t = 0 you are at point x0 and at time t = 1 you are at point x1. How do you jump from x0 to x1 (or vice versa)? You jump from time t = 0 to time t = 1 (or vice versa) - time travel in the 2nd dimension. So in the 2nd dimension, time simulates the 3rd dimension. But we know that a 3rd dimension exists, namely our universe, and that to jump from 1 point on a plane to another on that plane without crossing a 3rd point on that plane, you just don't touch the ground inbetween those points. This is possible as the 3rd dimension introduces the concept of height.

Now take the 3rd dimension. How do you get from a point in the 3rd dimension to another point in the 3rd dimension WITHOUT crossing any other points in the 3rd dimension? Again we can use time. Say you're at x0 at time t = 0 and at x1 at time t = 1. If we travel through time from t = 0 to t = 1, we can 'jump' from x0 to x1. However we can extend this to the 4th dimension as we did from the 2nd to the 3rd dimensions. Thus the 4th dimension must contain some way for objects in the 3rd dimension to travel from one arbitrary point straight to the other in the 3rd dimension without crossing any other point in the 3rd dimension.

What exactly this 4th dimension is, we may never know. But it's still interesting to think about.

[Ignatz]

A few years back Hawking said something about the implications of all this. Basically he said that, since the "universe" (universe isn't even the proper term since we think of the universe as our observable space-time and this 10+1 dimensional concept goes far far beyond that), anyway, since it contains an infinity of infinite possible infinities, then anything which can be imagined is not only possible, but must inevitably exist in one of them.

This goes for not only the most profound and popular of human imaginings, like major religions for instance, but the most trivial, like cartoons, or the weirdest and most dismissed, like Gene Ray's Time Cube or the ramblings of schizophrenics.

It really makes you question even the most basic assumptions about the nature of reality.

[dook]

Total crap.

The first few are stolen straight from a book called "Flatland". The remaining (at least up to 7 when i shut it off) have absolutely nothing at all to do with string theory, and really aren't even that good for imaging what a higher-dimensionsal world would be like. He appears to be trying to sell a book based entirely off insinuating that the number 10 in his title has something to do with modern physics.

Two thumbs down.

[Zogo]

The first few are stolen straight from a book called "Flatland".

stolen?

Total crap.

non-believer!

[FireWall]

Total crap.

The first few are stolen straight from a book called "Flatland". The remaining (at least up to 7 when i shut it off) have absolutely nothing at all to do with string theory, and really aren't even that good for imaging what a higher-dimensionsal world would be like. He appears to be trying to sell a book based entirely off insinuating that the number 10 in his title has something to do with modern physics.

Two thumbs down.

That is a very underdeveloped critique that spews a bunch of claims without any additional explanation. What do you mean by "the first few," and how are they the intellectual property of the author that you alluded to? How do the higher dimensions fail to have anything to do with string theory, and why does that matter? Why does his explanations fail to offer a good illustration of higher dimensionality? Your last sentence is also very vague. I am not saying that any of your points are wrong; all I am saying is that you failed to sufficiently communicate them, and as they stand, none of them are effective.

[wads]

he is making stuff up

i saw that site a few months ago, what the author claims about the first couple dimensions were pretty straight forward. because it's hard to make stuff up about things many people already know for a fact.

the concept of using time as the forth dimension in context that there are 10 dimensions required by string theory isn't correct as far as i know. the 10 mathmatical dimensions string theory needs are spacial dimensions, not time.

infact the author has a little disclaimer somewhere on that site, which states all of his ideas and theories do not agree with the mathmatics nor the modern view of cosmology or QM. and that the site is purely there to inspire people to think about things that they dont get to in everyday life. basically to stir the imagination.

on a side note though, its actually pretty easy to picture the 4th (spacial) dimension. i think anyone that has finished a course in multi-variable and vector calc should have an idea. a line is a crossection of a square, a square plane is a crosssection of a cube, and a cube is a crossection of the equivilent 4th dimensional object. having all the original properties of a cube, like right angles, symmetrical etc.

infact just like you can draw a representation of a cube on paper, you can do the same for a 4th object, go google some.

edit: yeah, the disclaimer is in the preamble

[Streetwolf]

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's easy to picture it but I would agree that it's easy to understand it.

[SenSai]

Actually, I'm saddened that there is only 10 dimensions. Reading The Elegant Universe as well as the follow-up book Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene, he explains that all the different types of String theory are bound together by M-Theory, which has 10 spatial dimensions plus the one time dimension which unifies the other types of String theory together.

I must say, the site gave a perfect explanation, but I feel as if they got the 4th dimension wrong, and didn't really address time.

[leg]

If I remember correctly, some string theories actually suggest more than 10 dimensions. I really don't remember why though.

[Ignatz]

It's either 10, 11, or 26. As for why, you probably only can say why in equations, not words.

[MidnightStalker]

Now think about motion. How can you get from any one point to any other point WITHOUT crossing a 3rd point?
A straight line.

It's either 10, 11, or 26. As for why, you probably only can say why in equations, not words.
Don't forget 12 (F-Theory).

[wads]

A straight line.


Don't forget 12 (F-Theory).

did you forget a straight line is made up of infinite points?

[Streetwolf]

A straight line.
Good job, now go take a math course.

Draw a straight horizontal line across the middle of a piece of paper, making sure it touches both edges. Now draw a point below the line and another point above the line. Connect the two dots without lifting your pencil off the paper and without crossing that line you drew.

[Zogo]

26? how did they get that?

Draw a straight horizontal line across the middle of a piece of paper, making sure it touches both edges. Now draw a point below the line and another point above the line. Connect the two dots without lifting your pencil off the paper and without crossing that line you drew.

he'd trace it off the edge of the paper and onto the backside..he'd never have to lift it up.

[Streetwolf]

26? how did they get that?



he'd trace it off the edge of the paper and onto the backside..he'd never have to lift it up.
Except a 2D world doesn't have a backside :p

[Flyingcow]

unless you are talking about discrete geometry...

there is ALWAYS another point inbetween 2 points on a line.

i found a video on digg about time travel that was a lot more accurate and interesting than this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5896048467372201322&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=undefined

[donn]

that was awesome flyingcow! :eek:

[|RES|arod]

That asian teacher is so weird in that video; its disturbing.

[wads]

that was a nicely put together documentary, but i dont think all the stuff that was noted in it was correct.

first would be trying to explain time as the 4th dimension, i dont think thats completely accurate, since no matter how many dimensions you have, there will always be time. it would be better to consider time being an inherant property of existance, rather than just another dimension. because in math, and probably physics too, dimensions are known to be spacial dimensions.

although the mathmatical properties of nth dimensional geometry fits the things he said, ie, things that "live" in higher dimensions could just appear and disapear, or be in 2 places at once. it cant explain anything else other than the 4th dimension. then it isnt broad enough to be called a theory.

the other big wtf that hit me was towards the end, where they discuss a black hole. they claim, that you could travel into the past, if you orbit a black hole.

however anyone that knows the principles if general relativity would see that although its true that being close to a black hole would allow you to travel in time, it would NOT be to the past.

instead, the time travel effect originates from the gravitational field created by the black hole. general relativity is the best theory so far that explains gravity, and its role in the universe. an implication to the theory is objects in strong gravitational fields travel slower in time to an independent frame of reference. time travels normally to itself. this fact has been experimentally proven many times.

therefore, orbiting a black hole would infact let you travel into the future, and NOT the past.

time travel is only physically possible into the future. not the past. special relativity prohibits it. since having a high velocity means that time travels slower as seen from someone at rest, that means you are traveling into the future. the only possible way to travel backwards in time would be to travel faster than the speed of light. however, in order to first reach the speed of light, special relativity states that you would need infinite energy, and infinite time to accelerate up to that speed. which is impossible.

i guess the guy failed in his experiments to travel back in time? he doesn't have a nobel prize yet.. sooo

[|RES|arod]

I don't think you watched the full video wads. He didn't claim to be able to travel back in time. He said that once the "time machine" was built that it would allow someone to travel (at the earliest) back in time to the initial building of the machine. The documentary noted the difficulty in traveling backwards in time. Most of it concerned traveling in the future. I am sure the professor of physics is aware of the principles of general relativity.

[Magus]

The DaVinci code and now this? My world is spinning!

[MidnightStalker]

Didn't you read the disclaimer.

[wads]

I don't think you watched the full video wads. He didn't claim to be able to travel back in time. He said that once the "time machine" was built that it would allow someone to travel (at the earliest) back in time to the initial building of the machine. The documentary noted the difficulty in traveling backwards in time. Most of it concerned traveling in the future. I am sure the professor of physics is aware of the principles of general relativity.

it is you that did not watch the video arod.

the black hole section starts at 37:00

at time 38:20 they state that orbit the black hole for a while, "and emerge at a time EARLIER then one went in"

they also state, that this is possible because one can travel faster than the speed of light near a blackhole, as seen from someone at rest. which is also not true, since the velocity and angular momentum of accretion disks can be MEASURED. and the speed gets near the speed of light near the event horizon, but definately not at or over the speed of light.
so basically the assumptions the guy uses for his laser powered time machine is false......as presented in the video, but then again he's a professor in physics right? HE CANT JUST BE MAKING THIS STUFF UP.

[Zogo]

Except a 2D world doesn't have a backside :p

how can I draw something on a piece of paper if it's only 2D?!

[leg]

they also state, that this is possible because one can travel faster than the speed of light near a blackhole, as seen from someone at rest. which is also not true, since the velocity and angular momentum of accretion disks can be MEASURED. and the speed gets near the speed of light near the event horizon, but definately not at or over the speed of light. I'm pretty sure Hawking and others have proven that particles are able to escape the event horizon of a black hole. So I wonder, must these particles be traveling faster than the speed of light? :confused:

[Dr.Gizmo]

Now think about motion. How can you get from any one point to any other point WITHOUT crossing a 3rd point? You can't! Since you always have to be touching the ground, this is impossible. Now think of the concept of time. Let's say at time t = 0 you are at point x0 and at time t = 1 you are at point x1. How do you jump from x0 to x1 (or vice versa)? You jump from time t = 0 to time t = 1 (or vice versa) - time travel in the 2nd dimension. So in the 2nd dimension, time simulates the 3rd dimension. But we know that a 3rd dimension exists, namely our universe, and that to jump from 1 point on a plane to another on that plane without crossing a 3rd point on that plane, you just don't touch the ground inbetween those points. This is possible as the 3rd dimension introduces the concept of height.

This is reminds me of Zeno's paradox of motion (from Aristotle). Did you cover this in a philosophy course? It was in my intro class.

[wads]

I'm pretty sure Hawking and others have proven that particles are able to escape the event horizon of a black hole. So I wonder, must these particles be traveling faster than the speed of light? :confused:

things that end up escaping a black hole are freed because of quantum mechanical effects, not being able to go faster than the speed of light.

more specifically, the 2 ways to synonomous ways to explain it is
1. all elementary particals, or just things small enough exibit QM effects, specifically the heisenberg uncertainty principle. and a consequence of that is that things can end up where they shoudlnt be, just at a extremely low probability. you can think of the principle as electrons orbit thenucleus of an atom 99% of the time, since thats the energy state they want to be in, however they soemtimes randomly go off somewhere else. and its completely unpredictable, except with probabilities. thats why schools teach that there is an electron cloud, instead of just an electron orbiting the nucleus like the moon orbits the earth. so anyways, since all elementary particles exibit that feature, every once in a while, something jumps out of the black hole randomly, and is launched away from it at very high speed, for reasons unknown to me yet. but this happens SO rarely that the chance of this effect already happening is practically zero.

2. the second way, and equivilent way is to understand that there are virtual pairs of particals and its anti particals popping in and out of existance constantly. as soon is such a pair pop into existance, they immediatly destroy each other, and disapear. this has been proven by experiments involving a vacuum, and measuring the changes in energies in it. anyways, if such a pair of virtual particles were to pop in JUST at the edge of a black holes event horizon, its possible that one of the virtual particles get sucked into the black hole, before they get a chance to destroy each other, and the one left is launched away very fast for the same reason as above, buti have no i dea why.

[Streetwolf]

how can I draw something on a piece of paper if it's only 2D?!
Hmmm?

The surface of the paper is 2-dimensional. Ignore the fact that the writing itself is slightly raised off the surface, if even by a really small amount.

[Zogo]

The surface of the paper is 2-dimensional. Ignore the fact that the writing itself is slightly raised off the surface, if even by a really small amount.

is a pencil 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional?

[|RES|arod]

3...

[Zogo]

3...

the defense rests its case.

[|RES|arod]

the defense rests its case.
what case? 2 dimensions only has one side.

[MidnightStalker]

the defense rests its case.
The prosecution rests its case.

[Zogo]

what case? 2 dimensions only has one side.

no writing utensil can exist in a 2 dimensional world.

[Streetwolf]

Alright you can simulate what would happen in a 2D world using a damn 3D pencil on 3D paper. The image you draw is technically 3D as it has some depth due to it being raised up even just a little bit (as long as it's at least one atom) on the paper. But we picture it as 2D for the sake of the argument.

In a real 2D world in which the z-axis exists (so we're 'standing'), you could either jump or move forward/backward. There is no side to side. So now take your '2D paper' which is an entire section of the world (if you cut it out there would be some sort of void in our 2D land). You can draw a line vertically or back and forth (horizontally) or some sort of combo of the two, but not side to side. So draw your 'horizontal' line clear through the section of 'paper'. Draw a point above it and one below it. Note that there is no backside to this 'paper'. Connect the dots without leaving the bounds of the 'paper' and without crossing the line.

Also note that in order to draw the line back and forth or even a point in the middle you would actually have to put your hand INTO the piece of paper - which is, needless to say, quite impossible. This is analogous to drawing a line through a cube from its top-front-right corner to its bottom-back-left corner with those two points being the only two on the line that are on the surface of the cube (a solid cube, no holes, etc). In other words, in an n-dimensional world you can only 'touch' every point in a solid object if said object is n-1 dimensional or less.

==

Edit: In response to the above post, a writing utensil CAN exist in ANY dimension n > 0. For n = 2, you'd have a 2 dimensional "pencil" whose mark is a line (unless you just make a point which is 0 dimensional). Depending on what axes your world is on, you can make lines in 2 distinct directions and any vector combination of them. To simulate a 2D object, you simply orient the drawing such that you have two lines converging at a common point in front of you - basically this allows the viewer to see that the object rests on both axes. In our 3D world we do the same thing. Think of how you can draw a cube. You can give the viewer the 'straight on' view, which would simply be a square (and the rest of the cube is behind it). OR you could angle the cube so that the x and y axes are on angles within your perspective, allowing you to see the 'hidden' third dimension.

[munks]

i saw a bunch of people dismiss this as bullshit on SA a while back but i, not being a physicist nor quantum physicist, can't recall why