OneSpace

It seems wishywashy to you because you won't take a position on what is possible so you can build on it. Intuitive or Non-intuitive? If you can't explain it then you have to work with what is possible, if you won't try and build on a possibility then your not doing science. You have to prove that what i am saying is not possible, these one liners of yours don't cut it. And if all the current theories are non-intuitive? That's right, you get a single band, and this is the same result you would get from a wave starting at the opening of the slit. You appear to be saying i said it would be an interference pattern which is the opposite of what i said. (your trying to shift the goal posts again) You seem to be taking a wishy washy position that the universe has no fixed center, but i think it is only your opinion that it is a special case. I think the universe not having a fixed center is the nature of the wave. I think every reference point is always at the center of a reference frame and never moves from this position, this is the base of the hypoyhsis. To build on this possibility, every particle is always at the center of the universe and never moves from this position. The movement I suggest is time passing through the center of the particle at "c" and at this relative center moves out in a wave in infinite possible directions. Every 0D reference point has a spherical 3D wave of 1D time. The Double Slit Hypothsis: The electron in the double slit experiment travels from the firing reference point to the observing reference point in a wave, then from the observing reference point to the hit reference point also in a wave. Because (building on the possibility)every reference point is the center of the wave. If the wave begins at the opening of one slit it will only go through that slit and hit as a single band. If the wave begins at the firing point, and is not observed, it will go through both slits and hit as an interference pattern. This will be the final post that battles shifting goal posts, and wobbly definitions of science, maybe a public forum is not a suitable place for this afterall. PS edit It should be plainly clear in this experiment; If your following the logic; why the laser appears as a beam up to the point of appearing like a wave.

I am not trying to show i am right (your shifting the goal posts). I am trying to show what i am saying is possible and therefore build on that. The evidence is not in question, what is infered from that evidence is. You infer wave/particle daulity where i am infering just the wave, i put foward the case for you to show how it could not possibly be the way. Your wobbly logic seems to be you can infer wave/particle daulity is absolute proof. You seem to have made up your mind on this and any other way needs to not only be shown to be possible but needs to be proved. Also: I believe that the maths and predictions only use the wave. My hand waving says if you wish (and it is completely up to you) to help show it's not even possible then the burdon is yours.

Snail. A circle is a 2D shape, it would seem I am not the only one who thinks shapes are 2D. Are you kidding, i didn't mention area? A circle has area i thought this was already understood. I respect everyone's opinion so i did look it up anyway and i think i know what you mean, a circle is just a simple closed curve made from a 1D line. Well this is exactly what i am saying anyway, that 2D shapes and 3D objects are made from 1D lines. I am saying there is in existance, only infinite1D lines seen in QM as the probability wave that is everything. That any 0D reference point is the center of the universe relative to that point. 0D is zero, it is not a dimension because it is zero, even time (which i am saying is every infinite 1D line making the universe and everything in it), is paused in 0D to give stillness to the center of the universe relative to a point, a 0D reference point rides the 1D line from still to "c" by exerting a force in any possible 1D direction. For every 0D reference (say you), every possible 1D line (time) is already there, it is seen as 3D space and you can ride time (by exerting a force) in any possible direction in this space made of infinite possible 1D lines. This is the hypothsis. You may say you don't think it works like that but you can't say it doesn't work like that without a logical explaination, or maybe it just really doesn't make any sense to you at all, i can't tell from what you have said. It is a reference only? Wait that is what your saying i am not saying when this is exactly what i am saying. Your reference 0D, your observation point 0D, an observable point of reference 0D, yep i am pretty sure this is the exact thing i have been saying all along. Nothing more? Well consciousness is only a reference point for thought so you are right but this is a whole other chapter and i don't want to get into it right now. This would be the second time you have tried to move the goal posts. I don't understand why expressing a new idea meets such resistance, evidence or logic should be the only resistance without going on about every piece of terminology and reinterperting what i say to mean the opposite(or just not bothering to read it properly). It is just that i would prefer to see posts that actually discuss evidence, logic or why it doesn't make sense rather than battling this kind of resistance all the time.(not everyone, not all the time anyway) Klaynos. Young's experiment infered wave properties by the evidence of an interference pattern when firing single electrons at the double slits and infered particle properties by the evidence of a single band when an observer was placed near the opening of one slit. I used the same evidence but infered the observer was the last point of reference in the experiment and this is where the wave began, hence the same single band which is the same evidence. You asked what evidence, the same evidence, just what is being infered by that evidence changes. To answer your statement: The only set center is the point of reference' date=' the last observed point of the double slit experiment is the measuring device, a wave could give the resulting single band hits in the experiment if it started at the measuring device. I also explained that the universe is an infinite expanding sphere, without a set boundary and without a set center. The center of the universe is relative. Time is the only thing that moves, dimensions are a way to describe that movement. Like the 3D universe is expanding. Ok i hope i answered a few more questions. Goodnight.

I really need to explain this hypothsis more simply I think. *To graph this in 2D - (for simplicity only)* Draw a line>(1D time), Then draw a 2D circle>(a particle) with this line passing through the center of this circle. Draw a larger 2D circle>(the universe), around the first circle. Imagine the line is being pulled through the center of both circles together at "c". The line moves from past to future and the center is right now, the future line is every possible direction but will be a straight line if no force is applied. On a similar graph draw two random lines>(1D time lines) and a 2D circle>(particles P1 & P2) on each line. Draw a large 2D circle>(the universe) but imagine this universe circle is infinite and therefore the center can be anywhere even two places at once relative to seperate objects. The 2D particle circles P1 & P2 each have their own time line being pulled through at "c". The 2D universe circle has it's center at the center of both particle circles relative to each particle. The infinite universe has no set boundary and therefore has no set center, it can be anywhere along any 1D time line at any 0D point. Because, on this graph, the 2D particle circles are on different 1D time lines they can interact with one another, P1 pulls it's 1D time line reeling in P2 as a reaction to reeling in its new center of the universe. In this instance P1 can reel in any possible center in any possible direction at any possible speed up to the limit of the speed time is "reeling" at which is "c". The 2D particle circles P1 & P2 never move, the 0D centers of there relative universe move along a 1D time line moving all things within the 2D universe circle with it. In a 3D world- Infinite 1D time line moves through all finite 2D & 3D particles, the particle does not move through a stationary 1D time line, It is all relative how it seems. You observe the land go by on a boat and you observe the boat go by on land, relative to an observer or any observable thing they could be said to be stationary, a 0D point, and everything moves relative to them. The center position of the universe is relative to every individual particle and the universe is made of infinite 1D time lines propagating from this center. I hope this answers your questions.

0D is a point at the center intersection of x, y and z axes. If it did not move out from this point the axes are not needed, 0D could be said to be time itself paused, represented by a dot. 1D is a 0D point/dot moving out from this intersection, it can move in any and all 3D directions but it is a continuious movement (a wave in all 1D directions) and can be mapped as a line or curve, ok the hypothsis is it is time itself. Time still exists in 0D, it is the only thing that can, all dimensions, all forces, all particles and everything derived from these things (e.g. space, gravity, consciousness) cease to exist or could be said to be paused (in time) in 0D. Something has to be there, logically something (the universe) does not come from nothing. I don't think i just like the idea or have some personal attachment to it, it just follows the evidence. Time could exist as every dimension even if it is paused as a 0D dot. If time is the only thing in 0D, exists in all movement up to "c" in 1, 2 and 3D then dimensions are not arbitrary they are sequential. The hypothsis is time is the quantum wave, every point you observe from is the beginning (the intersection of any 3D graph) of a quantum wave. An explaination of the observer's role in Young's double Slit Experiment. Based on: There is no past or future, there is only right now. At any point. ******************************************************************************************************************************************** Young's double slit experiment is supposed to show that photons or electrons act like both a particle and a wave. In the following hypothsis i will attempt to show that they only ever act as a wave and predict a recurring result. In the double slit experiment a measuring device is placed near the opening of one slit and the electrons are fired one at a time at the slits; before measuring they act as a wave, but when measured they appear to act as a particle. The same "particle result" however would be achieved by a wave if the electron was fired from the position where the measuring took place. i.e. a wave fired through a single slit produces a single band. What i suggest could be happening at the point of measurement is the distance travelled from "firing to measuring", is one wave, and from "measuring to hit", is another wave. The distance travelled from firing to measuring is the "past" relative to this new "right now" measurement of the same electron, from this later observed point, a new wave begins. If time is a 1D expanding point and moves out from this point at"c" in a wave like an expanding sphere, any point in that sphere, relative to a particular observed point, is where the wave starts from. If the sun disappeared (the event) Newton logic says the planets should immeadiatly leave their orbit, but from our planet, "our particular right now"; the sun is still there and it should take time travelling at "c" for you to see the light go out and gravity to let go. Form an observed point at the sun it takes 8 minutes for light and gravity to reach you, the hypothsis is it is time that moves at "c" from a "right now" point at the sun, this is where the wave starts from..the relative "right now" point of the event i.e. The wave's result will be relative to this observed point if you are at the sun. If you were half way between the sun and earth you see the light from the sun go out in 4 minutes from the past event on your up held palm, but you are now the last observed point, a new wave starts for you from your "right now", (imagine dropping a pebble in water at this half way point), a new wave starts from this "right now" point relative to this observer, the light from the sun is now a smaller/newer wave than a wave that has already been travelling for 4 minutes from the sun. This newer/smaller wave is relative to the last observation point. So if you think of the electron only as a wave in young's experiment you will observe the hit of the wave starting from the point of your last measured observation, if that observation is at the opening of one slit this is where a new wave starts, it travels through only the slit it is in front of and hits as a single band, giving the same single band result as if it were assumed it had turned into a particle. ************************************************************************************************************************************************.

Theory? In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. 1. Time is logically 1D, it moves from one point to another along a single axis on a graph in 1D, it is not 2D and it is not 3D or an imagined 4 or more D. 2. The universe logically starts when time starts and the momentum would logically be in all 3D directions. (space/time) 3. Nothing can go faster than time, logically this is impossible and could therefore be what is setting a universal speed limit. 4. Logically, there is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now. 5. Logically the three spatial dimensions are the x, y and z axes you might see on a 3D graph, this is logically every direction, there is no proof of any other dimensions. 6. Even if you remain 3D stationary, logically you are still moving in 1D time. Darkshade, a quote from Klaynos.

The Theory The universe starts as a 1D point of time and moves away (*multiplies in every direction at a rate of "c") from this point in all directions as a 1D time wave originating from that 1D point of time. A 1D point of time anywhere in the universe is any other 1D point of time anywhere else in the universe. A 3D space (graphed on x,y and z axes only) is created from this 1D quantum wave. The 1D time point at the center are the same 1D's of time *moving away from the center; it is the same time, IT IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOW, everwhere in the universe. There are only 3 dimensions, this is the limit, because this is every direction there is to take. *Moving in any direction is moving in 1D time. Time is not a seperate dimension, it is the first one, 2D and 3D are structures of 1D. This follows scientific principles: QM- the wave Relativity-1D is every other D Time- it is always right now, everywhere. Special relativity-speed limit of "c"

Space and Time. Everything is said to exist in the fabric of space-time, but is this really an acurate saying? Did time exist before space? In a 3D graph of the universe IF space is only acting on two of the axes, then that which is acting on the third axis would have to be time. As we turn and angle our view of the universe could it be what we are really doing is turning and angling all of 2D space relative to this particular view? To find a point in space we need three points, but if by the act of turning and angling our view we are always perpendicular to the 2D plane of space, then what we are seeing as depth is really a component of time. If we look at a 2D space on a graph it is acting along the x and y axes, this 2D plane could be parellel to all other 2D planes like the pages of a closed book along the z axis relative to the observer, to travel from one 2D plane to the next is then a matter of time. "There is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now". If correct, the view of 3D empty space is one part 2D plane and one part 1D time, if you move perpendicular to this plane you will feel like you are moving through space but what could be really happening is that you are moving through 1D time on this z axis, as though you are moving through the pages of a closed book, leaving behind the 2D past, moving toward the 2D future, but always in the 2D right now. If this is a more acurate view of the universe it could suggest, based on a different view of the evidence, that dimensions are not arbitrary but they are all built from a combination of the first dimension. In QM the wave is described as a single thing yet at the same time is every thing, if dimensions are built and evolve from a single dimension then this suggests to me that this QM wave is the same thing as the 1D thing, that from which all other things and dimensions evolved. Relativity says all dimensions can become one another, so everybody has seen this as evidence that dimensions are arbitrary, but this is a view of the evidence only, what i am saying is just a different view of the same evidence, i am not changing what relativity has expressed. This view of relativity that i have is that all dimensions can become one another because they all evolved from a single thing, that at the quantum level things still behave as a single thing, the more this single thing combines the less it can be seen acting like a single thing. Add Edit>-To examine what makes up 2D space alone.- To find a point in 2D space you will use the x and y axis only, The movement in any direction on a 2D plane will be along a map line between two points. Just like moving from one 2D plane to the next as described above, could moving from one map point to the next along this line also be a single function of 1D time, if you could move through this 2D plane you would feel like you are moving through space but what could be really happening is you are moving through 1D time along a map line, leaving behind a point, the 1D past, moving toward a point, the 1D future, but always in the 1D right now. So with both the description of 3D and the description of 2D together, moving in any direction within a 3D space is always a matter of moving in 1D time. To assume time began at some point, (big bang or whatever) this description shows how a "Quantum 1D Time Wave" could act in every direction along all axes to create the 3D space we experience. Just time alone follows the QM principle that it is in one place and every place at the same moment of right now, so i would think everything made from a "Quantum 1D Time Wave" would act the same way and that is just what the evidence from QM describes. Could this "Quantum 1D Time Wave" also "SPIN" some way within it's own 3D space to create the more rare 3D particle? Would this not also agree with the evidence from QM where every 3D particle is both a particle and a wave? Would it not be that the more of these 3D particles that combine, the less they would behave like the raw thing they were made from? GOOD LUCK.

I am not trying to disprove QM at all, exactly the opposite. What I am trying to show is that QM is the true way that things are, that by looking at the classical world in a different way it will fit exactly with the truth of the QM world evidence. I don't explain it like a scientist because i am not, i am trying my best so please bear with my misuse of words and try and see what i am actually saying. The point here is that it is a different way of looking at the classical world to agree with the quantum world without changing any of the evidence gathered. The hypothsis is that the quantum wave is a 1D single line function, it creates time. A combination of the quantum waves creates 2D space and a further combination creates 3D matter. (a non arbitrary interpertation of dimensions) The classical world has the evidence of relativity, all dimensions can turn into one another. This fits exactly because they are each other to begin with in this hypothsis. Again the point being that none of the evidence changes for either quantum or classical. The quantum wave is one but it is many is the appearant absurdity, but a true absurdity that i agree with because of the evidence. I completely think it is true and if looked at properly is not an absurdity at all. By looking at up spin and down spin that we discussed before, using this hypothsis they are each other to begin with, but without meaning they are both up and down at the same time, a further and unnecessary absurdity. PS Edit> Reading back over this thread i think you have all been pretty patient with me, so thanks. One piece of evidence, any piece, showing that dimensions have to be arbitrary is enough to put this to bed, so if there is such evidence then please let me know.

ajb I would agree the path need not be straight, Dark I would like to ignor string theory altogether but that is just me. The whole hypothisis is that of a linear universe of only 1 dimension. The other dimensions are built from this 1 dimensional thing. I don't doubt we live in the classical three spatial dimensions, the ones i defined anyway, but speculate they are all built from the same 1D QM wave. What I see is being called the fourth dimension here is time but again the speculation is that this 1D QM wave is time. It appears as a 2nd dimension>TIME in 1D, it appears as a 3rd dimension>TIME taken to travel along the z axis i.e.depth in 2D space, and appears as a 4th dimension> TIME to 3D objects, what we experience. One wave appearing as everything in the universe, a new(afaik) and different view of the classic world but it now being the same as the quantum world. It does not change any of the evidence gathered about these worlds and in my opinion is a lot better explaination. It might be just me but i beleive that the universe, like evolution started from the simplest of simple things and got more complicated and complex with time.

I think QM can be explained without any more absurdity than "A wave being an infinite number of waves that make up that wave". I think the evidence (which is right) of QM will show us that the classical world in exactly the same way as the Quantum world, that the truth is the quantum evidence fits with the classical evidence (which is right) if we look at it the right way. The wrong way being arbitrary dimensions and the coin in my hand being both heads and tails till i look. PS edit> I didn't say the evidence for QM is wrong (yes there is buckets of ) only that we may be looking at the evidence the wrong way, there is a difference..

If a particle is defined as 0D and not as a 3D object then i am not only on the wrong page but in the wrong book. A 1 dimensional thing to me is something that can only move in a straight line along a single axis as represented on a 3D graph. If it stops it is 0D and is represented by a point. A 2 dimensional thing to me is something that can be shown on a flat sheet of LxB, without any depth. It can be shown on a graph using two axes. A 3 dimensional thing to me is something that can be shown using three axes on a graph giving the thing LxBxW. I thought this was a pretty standard way to think of dimensions. I am a 3D object for instance, space is 2D and time 1D. You can not graph 4D without using imagination. I don't think i can discuss dimensions any other way, sorry. Edit add> I looked but could not find the post but i have read somewhere here that a point in space is described using the x and y axes only, the z axis (depth)being time. I am not presenting this as a scientific principle it is just what i read.

I am only trying to show an idea that a 3D object such as an atom is made up from 2D parts and those 2D parts are made from 1D parts and therefore only one 1D thing (A 1D wave). A wave being an infinite number of waves that make up that wave (this is how others here described the quantum wave to me are they wrong?) I am using the evidence not disagreeing with it. You said the dimensions are arbitrary- We (3D objects) move in space and move in time. Time does not move in us nor does space, we would have our own space and our own time if it did, so the dimensions are not arbitrary they are ordered. Just like everything in the universe the simpliest of things builds into the more complex things. (This is not just my personal idea of how things work i would think it is most peoples) If you can argue just this one point then you could show how, "3D object such as an atom is made up from 2D parts and those 2D parts are made from 1D parts" IS WRONG. That is all it takes, one piece of evidence.

Thanks ajb i took that on board. Here is a phrase from wiki on phase space that helped me understand: For simple systems, such as a single particle moving in one dimension for example.... 1. So what they're saying here is a particle, a 3D oject, is moving one dimensionaly.i.e. along a single line of momentum? This would explain why everybody has been saying that 3D can move/exist in all dimensions. I didn't get it until now but i think i see how the thought process works. I have another way of thinking about it for your consideration: 2. Time moves along a single line of momentum in one dimension creating that one dimension. 2D is created when time under-goes a continuious change (spin, angular momentum) of direction resulting in the formation of 2D space. This idea seems to be given a very poor reception and i don't understand why. I look at the two ways of thinking and see big holes in the thought process of the first. To explain, The only thing that is 1D is time, space 2D and matter 3D. I think everything (1D, 2D, 3D) moves in 1D time, second by second. I don't see anything wrong with saying a 3D object can move in one dimension, because it really does. Every higher dimension moves in the ones below. Everything that is 3D(matter) moves in 2D(space) and 1D(Time) for instance. And 2D(space) moves in 1D(time) to, higher moving in the lower. The problem with the thought process of the first is the question of whether or not dimensions are arbitrary. Can lower dimensions move in higher ones? If they can then dimensions are arbitrary, if they can't then dimensions are not arbitrary. Does the lower 2D(space) move in the higher 3D(matter) or is it only ever the other way around, the higher 3D(matter) moves in the lower 2D(space)? I would say the later, they are not arbitrary.

Q. by Onespace & A. by Klaynos, 1. Q. 3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time? A. 4D matter exists in 4 dimensions of space-time. Onespace- Time being the fourth right? So what is a single line of momentum if not 1D? I have already asked this but as yet have not had an answer. Don't get me wrong here, i appriciate yours and everybody's time. 2. Q If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic? A. Nope, and it't not magic, if you consider beta decay, you get a quark changing. Onespace- You mean a conversion from a down to an up quark? I would think it was still always what it was built from. Atoms build into all matter, this doesn't mean even after great change it stops them from being atoms, right? 3. Q If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing? A Do you mean one thing is made of an infinite number of probability waves? If so no. If you mean there's an infinite number of electrons (for example) in the universe then there's so many that that's not a bad approximation. Onespace- I think you have missed the question altogether here. No, i mean if there is only the wave then everything is the wave, if by everything i mean more than one thing, which there is, and which i do mean by saying everything, and by one wave i mean only one type of wave, then that one type of wave must be the many waves of the same thing. It is a question of logic, not about what waves are made from which is another question altogether. Do you agree with this logic or do you see it another way? 4a. Q 0D is time stopped or paused? A 0D normally refers to 0 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations. Onespace- I agree with 0 spatial dimensions but i don't know how you justify time variation without a dimension for time to exist in. Would time not need at least a single line to exist in, to move along? 4b. Q 1D is where only time can exist? A 1D normally refers to 1 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and some linear movement. Onespace- I agree with 1 dimension and linear movement but you would need at least 2D for something to be refered to as a spatial dimension, a single line of momentum is invisible and has no provision for space but it IS real and it IS experienced. Time is the only thing i can think of that fits the Bill, do you have another answer? 4c. Q 2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time? A 2D normally refers to 2 spacial dimensions, allowing for time variations, and 2 directions for motion. Onespace- I agree, But 2 directions of motion suggests to me that this motion began in only 1 direction and through some interaction became 2 directions of motion. Is this not how all other things in the universe work, evolution for instance? Don't we need to take one step before we take another? Does it not follow we need one dimension before we have two. 4d. Q 3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time? A Matter can be confined to any one of 3D, 2D, 1D or 0D. It is not a dimension on it's own, nor is it derived from one. Onespace- Matter is not a dimension, i agree yet again, but matter is what exists and therefore what is derived from the existance of a third 3 Dimension. Not 2 and not 1. If this is how you see it explain then how 3 dimensional objects exist in only 1 or 2 dimensions? I think adsurdity is like a cancer that grows and multiplies if left unchallanged. If there were only 2 dimensions for everything to exist in then how could you have the impossible 3 Dimensional object in the first place, i can only see this as the spreading of the absurdity cancer from the original, "both up spin and down spin" idea in QM. Q 5. If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions. A How? You're going to explain this mathematically, and show that there is an infinite number of the same wave. Onespace- To get to 2D you must add 1D + 1D. (1+1=2), and show there is an infinite number of the same wave? (refer back to Q.3) If everything is the wave? Well most of science i thought says when solving problems using QM think of objects only in the form of the wave, would you not agree? Nothing starts as a complex or conbination of things, it is always and without exception a process of starting from a simple or single thing and evolving into the more complex combinations. The only arguement you could have with this i can see is a religious one where i would just have to agree to disagree. So if there is only the one wave i would suggest it is a 1D wave creating all the other more complex combinations of 2 and 3 dimensions and the more complex combinations that are the things those dimensions contain. The math is simply a procession because you have to have 1 before you can get 2 or your talking god. 6. Q The statement: Any two superposition states, so you have an electron, it is either up spin or down spin, before you measure it, it is in both states, a superposition. A It is both, quantum mechanics doesn't have to obey the what you consider to be absurd. Onespace- Hey everybody has a BS meter and this makes mine go right of the scale. I think of this like the coin in my hand is both heads and tails before i look, it is just BS, it looks like BS, it sounds like BS, it smells like BS and yuck it tastes like it to, that is because it is BS. An absurdity used to explain an absurdity in every way. And where does it lead, it is a total dead end and spreads like a BS cancer. We must be willing to think about this a different way or we will never get anywhere. Conclusion- I hope you realise we are all on the same side, the side of truth. I also hope you don't think you have to be a physicist or a mathematician to care about this stuff. Science means i don't have chicken bones shaken above my head when i am sick, or my wife and daughter is not scarficed because of bird signs, so i care. I may be wrong but you sure are not pointing out where.

Mass is 3 dimensional and energy i would think is 1 dimensional. I think this because energy is not an object as in 3D and it does not have a spatial area as in 2D but it has a momentum due to its spin even a rest although you may correct me on this. You did ask if there are any competing ideas, so if i may? Energy and mass are the same thing (e=mc2) so if all the mass in the universe were converted to energy would we have a 1D universe? So could it be that the origin of mass is a 1D thing? I believe the dimensions are said to be arbitrary and one cannot exist without the other but i have yet to find a satisfactory reason for this beleif and this mass energy conversion just seems to reinforce the idea that dimensions are built one at a time from lesser dimensions. From wiki: In an atom, electrons in motion around the nucleus possess orbital angular momentum in addition to their spin, while the nucleus itself possesses angular momentum due to its nuclear spin.[65] How many dimensions does an electron have? is it 2D due to it's own spin and would it be 1D without spin? I am studing and trying to find my own answers but there is little discussion in relation to the dimensions of things and how they interact with one another. I wish i could be more specific but fear this would be seen as hijacking the thread.

It would help for you to take a position on the things i say so i know where the arguement actually is. 1. 3D matter is made from 2D space, 2D space is made from 1D time? 2. If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic? 3. If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing? 4. 0D is time stopped or paused? 1D is where only time can exist? 2D is where space exists, built from and existing with 1D time? 3D is where matter exists, built from and existing with 2D space, which inturn is built from and existing with 1D time? 5. If there is only the infinite number of the same wave then it must be creating all dimensions. 6. The statement: Any two superposition states, so you have an electron, it is either up spin or down spin, before you measure it, it is in both states, a superposition. It is either up or down, not both, this is an absurdity used to balance what seems the absurdity in quantum mechanics? If i knew what i was arguing against it would help greatly......................

Time, a single dimension, a single line of momentum, described by a single number along a one dimensional line, using a single axis, 1D. Space, angular momentum, a flat sheet without thickness, described by a pair of numbers of lenght and width, using two axis, 2D. I would be happy to describe dimensions any way you want as long as we both know what is meant, and we can move along. Somehow? The planets and stars are inside space' date=' how is this confusing? Time first, 1D. Within this infinite number of waves of 1D time there is an interaction between the waves creating a continuious changing of direction of some of these waves -angular momentum- now any position can be described with two points along two different axes. This interaction between the waves, in this way, creates 2D space. Space second,2D. Again some of the the infinite number of 1D waves interact around 2D space to create 3D matter, which by looking at the amount of matter in space is a rare occurance. Is matter inside space, and is space inside time? Well that is how it appears in the real world, but what i am describing really has no inside and outside, it is all one thing (1D time), and what appears (is built) as space and matter is still just time regardless of the interaction. 1D time is both time and that which is built from it's interaction with other waves of itself. 1D waves interact with other 1D waves to form 2D and 3D, it appears that 3D is inside 2D but i accept your criticism this is not an acurate description. 1D still is 2D and 3D, the forms taken by 3D objects only appear to be inside 2D space because it is a lesser dimension. A point does describe 0D, it has no momentum, if 1D time is momentum along a single line and that momentum is stopped by a point to give a position along that line then it is describing stopped time. I am accepting your criticism, I don't think your posts are of a personal nature, and thankyou.

Acting? i said interacting as in one axis interacts with another forming another dimension. Yes a single line of momentum(1D) on 1 axis, becomes a more complex (2D) with angular momentum on 2 axes. From last post. 1. 3D matter is inside of 2D space' date=' it follows then that 2D is inside 1D. This is not the answer you are looking for? The planets and stars are inside of space, 3D matter of any description does not exist outside of 2D space, so 3D matter is said to be inside 2D space. Does it not follow that 2D space is inside 1D time? Is this not the only way that we could be experiencing all three at once? Like Russian stacking dolls, one inside the other? Are you trying to say that a 1D point is inside a 2D map so i have it back-to-front? This is wrong. The 2D map itself is inside 1D time as shown by each passing second, you can't see 1D, it is not a point, you can only experience it (by being inside it, not by being outside of it). A point can be used to represent 1D but so can a cross, or a picture of a cat, it is arbitrary what you use. If you say no, the point is a real 1D thing then it must have momentum or it is still, and is really 0D. So. If it has momentum, has no spatial dimension (3D or 2D), but is as real as (3D or 2D) and we experience it just as we experience (3D or 2D), what is it? 3D is a submainfold of 2D, and 2D is a submanifold of 1D. This is also how all the things i see here in the natural world working. i.e complex things being formed by less complex things, less and less complex until you reach the source of the lowest dimension. That from which everything complex came from. That which is an infinite number of waves of the same thing. I am a firefighter not a maths professor, please don't do that again, i am doing the best i can.

It would seem the absurdness door has been opened for some time for these explainations, instead of explaining quantum mechanics without weird, it is explained with further weird. (quantum is a different world? really? how does THAT work?) And your examples of this is ????? ok, some examples of following logic. 1. 3D matter is inside of 2D space, it follows then that 2D is inside 1D. 2. If one thing can turn into another thing then it must have always been that thing, or it's magic. 3. If everything is the wave, then there must be an infinite number of waves of the same thing. A 1D wave on one axis' date=' and a 1D wave on the other axis. A 1D wave. The wave is acting on all axes creating the dimensions, yes it is part of them all, every part. As for my spelling, apart from being a poor speller, sometimes i am in a rush, like the last post just before work this morning. Don't worry, i don't take anything said over a computer personally, i need to look people in the eyes for that. edit> The, the, them, further 2nd edit> a T H E virus? 3rd edit> i thought you were having a go at my spelling Klaynos. 4th edit> And a Y O U virus? Did you do this? 5th edit> I don't even know if your seeing this but T H E and Y O U even in posts back to the beginning in this thread are jumbled. Can you see this? Ok i just checked other threads and it is there also.

Q. I don't get what you mean here, by "can exist in 1D", so can any of the spacial dimensions. A. 1D is a single line of momentum, there is only 1 1D thing that i know of and that is time... The universe is 1D with some 2D inside and a little 3D inside that agian. Do you know the Russian stacking dolls? Is the small one inside the the big one, and is the next smallest one also inside the big one? Q. How does it follow? Time acts on the other 3 as each of the other 3 act on the other 3... Q. Why do they have to be inside each other? HOW can they be inside each other? They're orthogonal to each other... A. Same answer for both,the whole universe is 1D, some of the 1D interacted with some of the other 1D producing some 2D inside of the 1D. Space is inside of time just as matter is inside of space. (just as it appears in the world) The 2D (which are 2 1Ds) interacted with another 1D on a third axis producing 3D which is insde 2D which is inside 1D. Q. Any two superposition states, so you have an electron, it is either up spin or down spin, before you measure it, it is in both states, a superposition. A. Does a tree fall in the forest arguement. The cat that is both dead and alive. I understand the arguement and all i can say is, "are you kidding". And your saying: "when I turn my car engine on I get power and can move therefore there must be a gremlin on a treadmill inside the bonnet." Why not an infinite number of 1D acting as the wave and interacting with itself on seperate axes. I may be wrong, it might just be me then that thinks this is far far more clear-cut and logical. Q. But they're not, the first requires 2D at least. A. 1D does not require 2D. 2D is a product of 2 1Ds interacting on seperate axes. Q. No it doesn't you can have them all at once. A. A single line of momentum is 1D, it is the wave, the wave acts on all axes, with no interaction it is only 1D, when it interacts it becomes 2D and then 3D. Your right, you do have them all at once but that alone does not make them arbitrary. Q. I don't understand this? A. See above. I am doing my best.

I didn't know i was redefining "dimension". I didn't say i could see every angle, just a different angle, if there is something i am not seeing please point it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions Length width height? A coordinate system? I am not saying that matter is a dimension, but only that is what exists within the dimension. Sometimes, as is the case for time it is all that can exist in 1D so it is the thing that must be making the dimension by default. (Cause and effect, time is the effect and if time is all there is, it must also be the cause.) If time is an infinite number of waves of the same thing and one dimension can become another then it follows that time alone is acting on all three axes. It would follow that 3D is inside of 2D and 2D is inside of 1D and that is exactly how it appears in the physical world. All of you by your lack of arguement. I am not sure if you agree with this information from wiki so don't take it personally. I know there are more than a dozen theories for Quantum and none of them are clear-cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition Superposition Principle The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration' date=' any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a mixture of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the mixture is specified by a complex number. Then the world can be in a state which is a mixture of the two? Are they kidding? THE TWO? Any two what, an infinite arrangements of particles, the one we see and some magical reality we don't, and they are mixing?????????????? [b']Says Who??????????[/b] ok so lets have a look how i am describing it then for what i hope will turn into some kind of thought provoking arguement . 1. A 1D thing is a single line of momentum A 2D thing is angular momentum A 3D thing is angular momentum with a third axis of momentum. 2. A single line of momentum has to exist before you can have another line of momentum. This means it is not arbitrary but there is a procession that must be followed. 3. Every line of momentum is every other line of momentum i.e. the same 1D thing is on every axis. This agrees with the results from relativity. 4. Superposition exists because the first dimension contains only one thing (the wave) and all other dimensions are inside of, and made from, the first. So who says, i do because it is all clear-cut and it all follows.

Zephir i have not yet read your spec thread but you answer that science doesn't know the answer, which is really what i was thinking. I think your being a little in your unfair with:

1D is a confinement where only time can exist. 2D is a confinement where space can exist, and time. 3D is a confinement where matter can exist, and space, and time.

Good question, the answer is when you have all three existing you do have them all at once, time can exist on it's own but to have space you need time and to have matter you need time and space. The axis are the dimensions, they build 1 by 1. If space (the middle) did not exist you could not jump straight to matter (the end). Holes please.