Ko0K on 8/7/2006 at 06:11
In the end, whatever indications they may find supportive of the string theory (as well as anything else concrete or abstract, including consciousness) are still confined to the dimensions we can access, right? If we were to be two-dimensional beings, we may be able to theorize and build working models to explain the third dimension, but there wouldn't be anything accessible to us in our 2-D world that would actually prove anything. So I guess it boils down to gaining acceptance rather than proving a theory.
frozenman on 8/7/2006 at 06:27
I've taken several physics classes under one of the scientists featured in The Elegant Universe and he's a horrible horrible man. I wouldn't be suprised if they try to push that the 11th dimension is GODS. Plz be careful wrapping those dimensions I paid very dearly for them.
Certainly there's plenty of precedent of mathematics later being discovered in real life physical systems, but it seems to me like string theory is a retarded kid's lumpy clay figurine with a dimension here, a string there, tacked on until the goddamned thing can't even stand up straight.
ps. rush rules.
Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
It's exactly the same. What do you think adding a spatial dimension is? It's giving the Universe a topology along that dimension. A curved Universe is one kind of topology.
And I suppose an ogygen atom is a red plastic ball with the letter O on it?
Now in my book, adding a dimension entails adding a perpendicular set of information. Each point gains another part to its vector. Now where does this fit into your tuboid universe? How can your tuboid universe describe things that its original 2-dimensional form couldn't?
thefonz on 8/7/2006 at 11:05
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
And I suppose an ogygen atom is a red plastic ball with the letter O on it?
Now in my book, adding a dimension entails adding a perpendicular set of information. Each point gains another part to its vector. Now where does this fit into your tuboid universe? How can your tuboid universe describe things that its original 2-dimensional form couldn't?
Isnt the universe shaped like a giant marble, played in a mind-bogglingly huge game of marbles by strange aliens with long fingers and strange languages...
Oh, and thats a trick question - oxygen atoms are
invisible since air is
invisible.
i may have been watching men in black...
i was also crap at physics at high school...Kroakie on 8/7/2006 at 13:23
What I really want to know is when will the technology to change me into a quantum being so that I can sprout strange lumps from my back and shoot lightning with my fingers arrive?
Deep Qantas on 8/7/2006 at 14:48
Look, MM. If you can't understand the difference between 2D and 3D you really shouldn't be trying to wrap your head around high level dimensional theories.
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
How can your tuboid universe describe things that its original 2-dimensional form couldn't?
How about point in 3D space? How do you describe that in the 2-dimensional form?
Raven on 8/7/2006 at 15:20
lol - that is an easier way to put it than I was attempting to do. Agent Monkeysee is Agent Monkeydoing a good job of trying to explain it though! Have anyone read the flatlander (or is it called squarelander?, basically a book about the social and political structure of a 1d universe based on how "long" everyone is, then there is a sequel, where they discover the 2dimension, and suddenly circles are the in thing - THINK OF THE SOCIAL UP HEAVIAL!) books, apparently they are illuminating on this subject, and I have yet to read them.
MM - think of a being restricted to living on a squiggly line drawn by a pencil on a sheet of paper. This being knows only one dimension with 2 modes of freedom forward and backward, lets say that the paper is made into a sphere so that our pencil line loops around unbroken. Our 1D being can go forward or backward as much as he likes. Now to a two dimensional being that lives on the surface of the paper (either on the inside or the outside of the sphere - the same side with our 1d being from before), if she gets to the correct parts of the sheet (those that intercept the sqiggle) then she can see the 1D being and the life that he lives on this line travelling forward and backward. Our 2d lady is very pleased that she has the freedom to move sideways. Of course, we are observing all this by looking at this sheet of paper and using the fact that we live in 3D (spacial - lets take time as given for all theortical beings described in this story) we can notice that the paper is looped (or crumpled more likely) into a ball and this looping takes place in the third dimension. This looping and 3rd dimension has a great impact on the 2D and the 1D being. First of there is the seemingly unending nature of their universes, yet with no concept of the third demension the reason that it is harder to travel along some parts of the line might seem inexplicable to our 1d guy and imagine if the sphere was spun by a crazy being living in the 3d. Think of the forces that would effect both beings with absolutely no way to describe what was happening (even if the forces only affected the beings along their dimensions)
edit - note that the 1d and 2d beings can not look "up" or down" and so could not see “in the distance” the opposite part/side of the line or sphere; this "in the distance" is the 3rd dimension that I am forbidding them to experience... directly at least :P. I am allowing our 3 dimensional forces such as gravity and centrifugal*shudder* (sorry, centripetal) effect our pet beings. It is only the 1d or 2d equivalent components of these forces that the beings experience, yet the effects will still be seemingly inexplicable. As Agent Monkeysee has explained there are currently experiments being conducted that can detect phenomena that have proposed explanations/models using higher dimensions... deal with it.
now consider the above example and think how a "tuboid universe can describe things that its original 2-dimensional form couldn't?" - then learn the maths and stop reading popular science (especially if it is wrong)... pick up a well written textbook instead and take a class or a 100.
Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 19:53
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
How about point in 3D space? How do you describe that in the 2-dimensional form?
You're being real treat, darling. Obviously you can't describe a 3D point in 2D space, which is half my point anyway.
Now I didn't really want to suggest this, because it makes you come off as something of a clueless twat, but I can't think of any other way you could be misconcieving this. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
You think that the universe is a 3D geometric shape, and any point on a 3D shape obviously has three dimensions.
* It is
not a 3D geometric shape, as 3D geometric shapes tend to either have a volume greater than 0, or not exist. And it's a universe anyway, not a curled newspaper. Trust me, there
is a difference.
* Distances can only exist within the universe, and so everything remains in the same relative place within the universe even after curving it. If you thought you could prove anything by drawing a line from A to B on the 3D representation and then measure it with a ruler, you are sadly mistaken.
* And even if you could, any given point on the universe in the 3D representation can still be represented by only two values - Y and Rotation (unlike in a polar coordinate system where you also have Distance). Rotation is directly proportional to X in the original universe. Somehow I fail to see where the perpedicularity lies.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/7/2006 at 19:57
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
And I suppose an ogygen atom is a red plastic ball with the letter O on it?
Are you deliberately not trying to get this? Do you think this whole branch of theoretical physics is bullshit and you're just leading me on to earn some kind of dumbass Internet victory? Because I really don't give a shit if you don't want to believe this. I'm trying my best to explain this stuff because I think you're genuinely interested.
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Now in my book, adding a dimension entails adding a perpendicular set of information. Each point gains another part to its vector. Now where does this fit into your tuboid universe? How can your tuboid universe describe things that its original 2-dimensional form couldn't?
You... just add it. A point in a plane aX + bY = c becomes a point in a volume aX + bY + cZ = d. The Flatlanders wouldn't be able to express it geometrically just like we can't express higher dimensions geometrically, but algebraically there's nothing to it.
As to what you couldn't describe in the toroid universe using merely two dimensions, you couldn't describe the curvature because the curvature is in 3 dimensions. There wouldn't be anyway of describing the curvature using only 2 dimensions, that's why you need 3 dimensions, but there is blatantly obvious evidence that the curvature exists because a straight line eventually meets itself.
You have a piece of evidence: straight lines eventually meet themselves. This is not describable using the 2 dimensions the Flatlanders have access to so they propose their 2d Universe is actually curved in the 3rd dimension, and further that it's a closed curvature. This model of the Universe explains why straight lines meet themselves.
The higher dimensions proposed in String Theory more or less work this way, though instead of describing the behavior of straight paths they're used to describe the behavior of quantum particles. The particles behave a certain way or have certain properties that aren't easily reconcilable with a 3-dimensional universe. But you add higher dimensions and the behaviors and properties suddenly make sense.
I can't really give you any more details than that because I'm not a theoretical physicist and this stuff involves a lot of really complex mathematics. I'd say for greater detail go read that Wikipedia entry I linked earlier. The point is there is a set of observations we make that we can't explain using the standard 4-dimensional model of space-time, but that adding higher dimensions makes clear. Does that mean higher dimensions exist? No, like someone pointed out earlier String Theory is more a hypothesis than anything else because most of its predictions are currently beyond our means to verify experimentally. But it's a promising direction of inquiry and the
notion that there are higher spatial dimensions really isn't very bizzare.
