throng

It makes perfect sence that there is a minimum space, uncertainty, and that Planck expresses length (more than other things), because it is only possible to make volume between a minimum of four locations. Of course space only exists between locations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Absolutely! Visualising math working as geometry is a real key to the core of real fundamentals, visualizing is understanding the whys of the thing.

I can't see that a circle of radius r would fit inside a square with side r, I'm not sure what you mean. Well the largest possible distance is 2r. When r is squared the largest distance is a diagonal of the square. A circle would require infinite relative distances but the set of distances lies between 2r and 0. I don't think it is necessary to create area to make two dimensions, because dimensions are measurements, not only spacial, and three points in a line has two measurements, length and 180 deg. So really, I think any three locations constitutes two dimensions, and a line is actually 2 dimensional. Only an empty distance between two points is truely one dimensional. Is it true that if two measurements can be applied a thing is two dimensional? Can distance angle area and volume be the actual definitions of geometric dimension? A circle has infinite points, doesn't it?

If only one unit of distance was used - 1m, the maximum no of points that could be only 1m away from any other is 3, equalateral triangle Any other 2D shape requires relative distance. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, thank you kindly I am refering to simplex, I just didn't know it. I guess the ones that exceed 4 points can't actually be made, because it would require more than one distance value between points (corners). 5 points would be a 4D shape wouldn't it? The point is you need 4 points to create 3 dimensions, then and number of points can't possibly create more, because there are no directions where the a measure of 1m could lie between 5 points. Relative distance is inevitable after 4.

I think a 4D being would draw 4 dots on a paper using the same length between any two points. For us in 3D only 3 dots forming a equalateral triangle consists of equal distance. We can't draw 4 dots using a single measure of distance.

Are you aware of the creation theory buddhism, and ancient lore (celtic, egyptian etc). It is a metaphorical story that uses imaginary points to create 3D space time starting with a void. Have you heard this philosophy before? It is based on the concept that the universe is a phenomena of consciousness, which some more radical Q physicists also profess. You familiar with that philosophy?

Sorry about the salad, I'm unclear in thought. I only intended to use directions as dimensions and include time as one direction. The general model for 3D is three directions (x,y,z), time being distinctly different in nature to spacial dimensions. The original post says four relative spacial directions are required for 3D and time is identical in nature to the other three (a movement relative to other movement). I just think it is a very simple expression which says, There are three dimensions which are 4 directions and time is one of them. There's no new theory or revelation in it, it is just an original way of saying the same thing, but easier to visualize the time dimension. I had another idea about dimensions too, so pass the dressing please. 0D is a point. 1D is a distance, and a maximum of 2 points can be equally spaced. 2D is a triangular plane and a maximum of three points can be equidistant. 3D is tetrahedral and only four points can be equally distant. 4D In 4D five points could be equidistant. In 5D, 6 points. In 6D, seven ... etc. That is just another expression, not the standard (line)^n. I like the direction one best because time is represented exactly like the spacial dimensions. Nothing new here, it is just speculative thought, and origional expressions for dimensions. I'm sure they're sensible or reasonable.

I actually only like my first post. Is this post at all sencible, even though it is wildly speculative?

Nothing doesn't exist so it is in fact not nothing.

I just had a thought about dimensions, an alternative metaphor if you like. It is a construct useing imaginary points. A single point represents 0D. No dimensions at all. A line is 1D. only 2 points can exist at equal distances. A plane is 2D and only 3 points can be equidistant. The tetrahedron. A maximum of four points can be at equal distances in 3D. So in 4D five points could be equidistant. In 5D, six equal distances. In 6D, seven... and so on. Is that right?

I don't quite understand this, if the distance between galaxys is increasing, would that not increase 3D volume? Take four points (tetrahedron), the distance between them increases as they move awat from eachother. So does the volume.

Furthurmore animals mate with thier own children or siblings. Ready to bleed ready to breed is the only criteria for animal morality. I don't think that is natural for humans and anybody who does is totally incredible. What is natural for humans? We have a moral yardstick, so any harmless activity is acceptable. So the question really is; how is gay love harmful, hence unnatural?

Thanks for dressing the tossed salad. I'm glad there's quantum dots, I will read up on that, for now it's the first I've heard of it. I'm just a dreamer and I dwell on concepts. When we think of Zero Dimensions we immediately think of a dot as it has no volume. So, we are conditioned or even bound to conceive of dots from a 3D perspective. However, zero dimensional merely means unmeasureable or non scalar quantity, so the dot visualisation is a very simplified representation.

Zero dimensional means existance with no measurable quantity. A point is merely a representation for the immeasurable. I think zero dimensional points are actual phenomena, here's why: Volume is spontaneously created and we observe universal expansion. Since the distances are increasing, space is created from an immeasurable quantity or zero dimension or 'nothing'. Could distance or volume expand if there were no zero dimension? I really do think there exists a zero dimension with no measurable quantities.

A photon has zero dimensions. Anything travelling at c is zero dimensional. (infinite mass). No time. If a photon must travel a distance, it takes the one dimensional form and instantaneously arrives at the destined point. (From the photon's perspective). The photon itself sees the universe as a point and it has no wavefunction, for movement is impossible in zero dimensions. The delay in light arriving, say from the sun, is really the photons expansion from zero dimensions to three. We interpret the wave function of light as relative to our own wavefunction (speed). So, whereas we percieve the phenoma of distance or volume in accordance with our own speed (frequency), the photon doesn't. At c there's no time or distance. the dimension is zero (zero frequency wave function). It is our own wave function relative to zero (or infinity) that creates the perception of distance, movement and time. These phenomena don't exist at c. So, we can express the experienced dimensions of space/time as directions, because the universe expands in four spatial directions relative to the observers 'speed' and the volume is the effect of wave function 'expanding".

I think it is flawed to think of light as 3 dimensional. A photon doesn't 'experience' time, and since it traverses distance instantaneously (from the perspective of the photon), it doesn't experience space. That's why a photon (massless particles) can exist as a zero dimension. We see light in 3 dimensions so the photon 'expands' its wave function to fill our 3D universe. In this way, the probable location of a photon is at all places in the universe at once, but the photon itself exists as a point since it travels at c. You see how if you travelled at c, the universe would have zero dimensions, so would you. (you would shrink to a point, but fill the universe).

The universe is motion or transfer of energy. The expansion can't be into nothing so it is into itself. The dimensions of the universe are in relation to c. If the observer travels at c he takes no time to traverse distance so the universe is relatively very small. By that notion. expansion is relative to our slowing down in relation to c, which is in accordance with entropy. The universe's size is governed by the speed of the observer relative to c, so it isn't really expanding. It's an illusion we observe as we slow due to entropy.

I wonder if the probable location of a photon is within the universe, what determines its eventual arrival at an electron. The electron's probable position is as large as the photon's so it all becomes 'unmissable'. Its like all the wave functions merge into one huge function and it's all a part of the waves 'touching' or interacting.

If you say here you specify the space you occupy. If you say now you specify the moment. To create a point that is exact, your essence would be travelling at c giving you infinite density and a zero time. Then you'd have the dilema of being several places at once, hence being infinitely 'undense' at the same moment. The moment you occupy at c is the only moment and your position is everywhere. So, now is the only thing that exists and everywhere is here.

I think the water is like air, indeed air needed more often. The essential ingredient is oxygen really. Oxygen from air H20 from water CO2 for plants. Microbes live in airless environments but still need H2O. Perhaps evolution centers around oxygen. Though I see your point. Water is life Here's some interesting stuff on water. http://www.digibio.com/archive/RedHerring_com-Why_water_is_weird.htm

Yep, runs in the family, cuteness.

I think we can express the four space/time dimensions as motion in four directions. 0 dimensions = point. It has no direction, so no dimension. 1 dimension = line. The distance required a moment to exist and it has length. The expanding line has movement in two directions. We can call these directions (dimensions) length and time. 2 dimension = triangle. The corners move outward in three directions (dimensions). Length, time and width. 3 dimension = tetrahedron. the four vertisies move in different directions to create the expanding tetrahedron. The directions (dimensions) are length, time, width and height. So movement in at least four directions is required for expanding 3 dimensional volume, hence the 4 dimensions of space time. I think we could express dimensions as directions in this way.

That would be great I'd like to see proof there's not nothing. I think southerncross was adequately describing nothing in zero dimensions, or a point. A point can't expand but it ever contracts. A point doesn't exist for it has no dimensions, yet ever can it be halved in size. So in zero dimensions nothing is defined as ever less, which implies an infinite ammount. Therefore, there is an infinite ammount of nothing lessening at an infinite rate. In zero dimensions where only nothing exists.

Maybe you have a knowledge you find difficult to express. I think it is best to invent logical mathematical metaphors for an idea. Anyone with a great idea should be wary of it's possible applications and perhaps humanity would be doomed by their greed if given infinite energy. If you study, you'll find alot of your ideas have already been solved. Antimatter, strange quarks, strings, entanglement, uncertainty, possibility. You could find the mathematical expression you need.

I got it, thanks very much, a picture is 1000 words. Thats my neice.

here goes again