a way to visualise 10 dimensions

[insane_alien]

on my wanderings through the intar web i found this cool flash to help you visualise 10 dimensions in our universe. it sorta makes sense.

 

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

 

Caution: may cause explosion of brain and reduce you to a gibbering vegetable.

[[Tycho?]]

Meh, I stopped watching. That isn't actually showing you how to visualize anything, its just explaining it (in a way which seems quite innaccurate, but then I dont know much about these proposed higher dimensions).

 

For example, they describe the 4th dimension (time) as a line, presumably seperate from 3 dimensional space. Which it is not. Just as the 3 spatial dimensions are at right angles, the 4th is at a right angle to that [err, is this a valid statement?], giving us 4 dimensional space time. Which is exactly why its so hard (impossible, I think) to visualize. That little animation does not assist in that.

[Bettina]

on my wanderings through the intar web i found this cool flash to help you visualise 10 dimensions in our universe. it sorta makes sense.

 

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

 

Caution: may cause explosion of brain and reduce you to a gibbering vegetable.

 

It was a cool video and I somewhat understand the meaning of it. However, I have a hard time believing in string theory no matter how many articles I read on it.

 

BTW, a true flatlander would not be able to see another flatlander unless he had some minimal height. In fact, he would see nothing.

 

Bee

[gib65]

']Meh' date=' I stopped watching. That isn't actually showing you how to visualize anything, its just explaining it (in a way which seems quite innaccurate, but then I dont know much about these proposed higher dimensions).

 

For example, they describe the 4th dimension (time) as a line, presumably seperate from 3 dimensional space. Which it is not. Just as the 3 spatial dimensions are at right angles, the 4th is at a right angle to that [err, is this a valid statement?'], giving us 4 dimensional space time. Which is exactly why its so hard (impossible, I think) to visualize. That little animation does not assist in that.

 

You're right, it doesn't. But the idea of Flatlanders doesn't help in visualizing spacetime either. To me, these kinds of exercises give us models that we can visualize, but as such they only represent the phenomenon in question. They're also helpful in that they give us a guide to figuring out what the rules of the system are. For example, the rule about what a 3D objects passing through Flatland, like the balloon, would look like to a Flatlander helps us to understand how to visualize what a 4D object would look like passing through our 3 spatial dimensions.

 

I think the video was cool, and really weird, but it doesn't go much beyond that for me. I've always liked String Theory, but I've never understood why it was necessarily true. I mean, very little is actually necessarily true, but I've always thought that a good scientific theory helps us to understand phenomena that we know exists but have no satisfactory explanation for. We know the 3 dimensions of space exist and we know time exists - so the concept of "spacetime" is a good scientific theory that explains how these two phenomena relate to each other, and therefore helps in our understanding of them. But beyond these 4 dimensions, there really isn't (to my mind) anything that 5, 6, or 7, or any higher number of dimensions helps to explain. I've never heard of any phenomena that requires more than 3 spatial and one temporal dimension in order to occur.

 

That's why, to me, it seems like String Theory's positing of more than 4 dimensions is very much like Descartes' positing God in order to uphold Dualism. It's not wrong per se, but it is a rather weak move.

[swansont]

I think they should have used the Mobius strip more to show the folding concept, and tried to explain a Klein bottle.

[Severian]

BTW' date=' a true flatlander would not be able to see another flatlander unless he had some minimal height. In fact, he would see nothing.

[/quote']

 

That isn't true. If we restrict light to travel in the plane aswell then the light will be reflected by the 2d second flatlaner and bounce back to the first, allowing him to see his friend.

[Bettina]

That isn't true. If we restrict light to travel in the plane aswell then the light will be reflected by the 2d second flatlaner and bounce back to the first, allowing him to see his friend.

 

I believe it is true. In Michio Kaku's book, HYPERSPACE, which I have read, flatlanders cannot see up or down in their two-dimensional world and cannot see you looking down at them. All they see are other lines. When a sphere passes thru their world they see a varying line from small to big then to small again.

 

But, for the flatlander to see another it must have some inherent thickness.

 

Bettina

[Nevermore]

Bettina's right. Everything would look like lines of varying height to a flatlander.

I found the animation very useful for demonstrating how the dimensions work.

[gib65]

Instead of thinking of what the Flatlanders "see", we should think of 2D photons affecting their 2D brains via their 2D eyes - that is, we should understand vision as the effect that photons have on our brains regardless of how many dimensions there are.

 

With Flatlanders, the kind of "vision" this would amount to is incomprehensible - as Bee pointed out, we can't imagine a straight line without it having some thickness - but they do experience something and I think it's fair to say that this something is at least analoguous to vision.

 

Of course, this is just a mental model - so in the end, there are no Flatlanders to experience anything. But insofar as the logic of the mental model goes, it still makes sense to talk about Flatlanders "seeing" straight lines if we think of it simply as photons effecting the brain.

[Callipygous]

']For example, they describe the 4th dimension (time) as a line, presumably seperate from 3 dimensional space. Which it is not. Just as the 3 spatial dimensions are at right angles, the 4th is at a right angle to that [err, is this a valid statement?'], giving us 4 dimensional space time. Which is exactly why its so hard (impossible, I think) to visualize. That little animation does not assist in that.

 

since its impossible to represent the 10 dimensions in our world you have to find a way to express it by explaining one part and then simplifying it. they do it by suggesting that our 3 dimensional selves are merely points moving on a line called time. i think that part of the explanation was pretty accurate, as far as finding a way to express something you cant draw in its actual form. as for the rest of it, i dont know enough about the remaining 6 dimensions to say how accurate it was.

 

i disagree with bettina because i dont think it would just be lines of varying length, you should also be able to tell how far away the line is, and therefore what shape it takes, assuming you had one eye above the other.

[Rocket Man]

a great way to understand how dimensions work is by programming 4, 5 and 6 dimensional matrices....

you can get lost in there, i have a "cube" of numbers, 3 values on each side, it has 243 values in it. five dimensions.

 

the descriptions of folding dimensions, i dont like that idea, for multiple dimensions to exist, they must be perpandicular to each other. so you fold x over z to have y meet at a different x position, you have just made x and z no longer perpandicular to eachother.

 

vectors only work if all dimensions are at right angles and dont curve.

how would you make the x axis fluctuate up and down the y? everything falls apart or at best follows proportionately so no effect occurs.

 

the flatlanders concept works, trig works on 2 dimensions so they can have "depth" perception, so flatlanders see the 2 dimensional boundarys of themselves just as we see the 3 dimensional boundarys of eachother

consider their world as consisting of height and depth.

[CPL.Luke]

rocketman you can have the axis curve as they move out from the origin ie. general relativity.

 

the only requirement is that the vectors are perpendicular at the origin, and I'm not sure if thats a real requirement or not, as I believe that you can have a dimension that is not represented on an axis

[Callipygous]

rocketman you can have the axis curve as they move out from the origin ie. general relativity.

 

the only requirement is that the vectors are perpendicular at the origin' date=' and I'm not sure if thats a real requirement or not, as I believe that you can have a dimension that is not represented on an axis[/quote']

 

i think the video used a good way of explaining it, you can curve the flat landers world by bending the piece of paper they are on. since they only experience hight and depth they cant see the curve. our dimensions could just as easily be curved in the higher dimensions, and we would have no way of knowing.

[swansont]

i think the video used a good way of explaining it, you can curve the flat landers world by bending the piece of paper they are on. since they only experience hight and depth they cant see the curve. our dimensions could just as easily be curved in the higher dimensions, and we would have no way of knowing.

 

They would likely perceive it as some kind of force, like we perceive gravity.

[swansont]

rocketman you can have the axis curve as they move out from the origin ie. general relativity.

 

the only requirement is that the vectors are perpendicular at the origin' date=' and I'm not sure if thats a real requirement or not, as I believe that you can have a dimension that is not represented on an axis[/quote']

 

 

Orthgonal is a more general, and apt, term. Perpendicular is very Euclidian. Legendre polynomials (solution, with cosine as the argument, to the Laplace equation in spherical coordinates) are orthogonal, i.e. the dot product is a Kronecker delta function, but I have never thought of them as perpendicular. Nor represented on an axis. And the polynomials are not limited to three dimensions.

[gib65]

I've got a question concerning the mobius strip.

 

Suppose there were two Flatlanders. One goes on a journey along the mobius strip and travels 360 degree, ending up in the same spot as when he started (but on the opposite side of the strip). What will the second Flatlander see? Will he see his companion in the same spot or halfway across the universe? If he sees him in the same spot, will he see him upside down? Will he be able to pass right through him? I don't get it

[Callipygous]

maybe he sees the opposite of his companion? : P

[Severian]

I believe it is true. In Michio Kaku's book' date=' HYPERSPACE, which I have read, flatlanders cannot see up or down in their two-dimensional world and cannot see you looking down at them. All they see are other lines. When a sphere passes thru their world they see a varying line from small to big then to small again.

 

But, for the flatlander to see another it must have some inherent thickness.

[/quote']

 

Your statement that I objected to was that a flatlander cannot see another flatlander unless the flatlander being looked at has dimensions out of the plane. Is that what you were saying? (I suspect we may just be miscommunicating.)

 

If that is what you are saying, it is not true. It is possible to have light polarized so that it is entirely in the plane, that light can then be impeded by the flatlander and reflected back the viewer.

 

There is nothing special about 2 dimensions. If there were an argument as to why he cannot be seen in 2 dimensions (flatworld) then you could also apply it to 3 and claim that a 3d (ie. normal) person cannot see another person unless they have an extension into a 5th (4th spatial) dimension.

[swansont]

I've got a question concerning the mobius strip.

 

Suppose there were two Flatlanders. One goes on a journey along the mobius strip and travels 360 degree' date=' ending up in the same spot as when he started (but on the opposite side of the strip). What will the second Flatlander see? Will he see his companion in the same spot or halfway across the universe? If he sees him in the same spot, will he see him upside down? Will he be able to pass right through him? I don't get it [/quote']

 

 

The mobius strip doesn't flip the image, so the image shouldn't be upside-down. He's effectively halfway around, like being on opposite ends of a flat sheet.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Your statement that I objected to was that a flatlander cannot see another flatlander unless the flatlander being looked at has dimensions out of the plane. Is that what you were saying? (I suspect we may just be miscommunicating.)

 

If that is what you are saying' date=' it is not true. It is possible to have light polarized so that it is entirely in the plane, that light can then be impeded by the flatlander and reflected back the viewer.

 

There is nothing special about 2 dimensions. [b']If there were an argument as to why he cannot be seen in 2 dimensions (flatworld) then you could also apply it to 3 and claim that a 3d (ie. normal) person cannot see another person unless they have an extension into a 5th (4th spatial) dimension[/b].

 

And using the right set of assumptions that argument can be made.

[Severian]

And using the right set of assumptions that argument can be made.

 

Then you would be in contradiction with experiment. I have no trouble seeing other people.

[Locrian]

Then you would be in contradiction with experiment. I have no trouble seeing other people.

 

Experimenatlly I find the opposite.

 

My wife forbids any such thing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Then you would be in contradiction with experiment. I have no trouble seeing other people.

 

You are assuming they (and you) are 3 dimensional and not more. You do not know this, only that you can see people in the 3 dimensions that you perceive.

[Dr. Dalek]

You are assuming they (and you) are 3 dimensional and not more. You do not know this, only that you can see people in the 3 dimensions that you perceive.

3.5 dimensions, we move through time, but unidirectionaly.

[Callipygous]

Your statement that I objected to was that a flatlander cannot see another flatlander unless the flatlander being looked at has dimensions out of the plane. Is that what you were saying? (I suspect we may just be miscommunicating.)

 

If that is what you are saying' date=' it is not true. It is possible to have light polarized so that it is entirely in the plane, that light can then be impeded by the flatlander and reflected back the viewer.

 

There is nothing special about 2 dimensions. If there were an argument as to why he cannot be seen in 2 dimensions (flatworld) then you could also apply it to 3 and claim that a 3d (ie. normal) person cannot see another person unless they have an extension into a 5th (4th spatial) dimension.[/quote']

 

 

the only problem i see is that light itself is 3 dimensional. but for the sake of the experiment we are assuming 2 dimensional people, so why not a 2d light partical too. : P