a way to visualise 10 dimensions

[J.C.MacSwell]

3.5 dimensions, we move through time, but unidirectionaly.

 

I was thinking spatial dimensions where we are unaware of the ones we cannot see. The point is that your model depends on the assumptions you make. If I defined them exactly then Sevarian may be able to rule out the extradimensional model based on a contradiction from experimental evidence. But I don't think we can rule out all extradimensional models. In fact our current Spacetime model (with causality and locality) suffers from contradicting experimental evidence.

[CPL.Luke]

how would light translate into two dimensions, it was my understanding that light required three dimensions for the electric field oscillation, the magnetic field oscillation, and travel

[SmallIsPower]

I guess it was just a matter of time... Dr. Science explains string theory.

[swansont]

how would light translate into two dimensions, it was my understanding that light required three dimensions for the electric field oscillation, the magnetic field oscillation, and travel

 

You don't have to restrict the photons to two dimensions, just the perception of them. So, what would a photon "look like" if you could only sample them in 2-D.

[CPL.Luke]

how would the classical definition of light be able to transfer over to two dimensions

[throng]

how would the classical definition of light be able to transfer over to two dimensions

 

 

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).

[john12]

At Tenth Dimension, you find a quick tour of the possible 10 dimensions of a universe based on string theory. Well, I don't know how scientific it is. Scientists who talk about 10 dimensions tend to bend over backwards to point out that they're not really the kind of dimensions that are useful for us to move in, but they're just sort of curled up in a very small place, of no practical significance to us, and only needed to make the equations add up. Which I tend to not believe, so I like it better this way. Rob Bryanton has a fun Flash animation that helps to visualize 10 dimensions. Essentially it is like the difference between 2-dimensional flatlanders, and our well-known 3 dimensions, which is something we fairly easily can visualize. So, we can imagine the same magic continuing in more dimensions. Seen from a lower dimension, somebody who moves in a higher dimension can do impossible things, like appear out of nowhere, or travel huge distances in an instant. Because higher dimensions fold lower dimensions. Just like you might find certain distances on a piece of paper (a 2D plane), but you can fold it in 3 dimensions, and bring any two of its points together, so you can get from one to the other, without traveling any 2D distance. It would be equally logical that you can do the same with time and 3D space, or with whole timelines, or universes of possibilities, once you use more dimensions.

 

And if we assumed that the real reality is the 10 dimensions, rather than the 3, 3 1/2 we're used to, it potentially can change our perspective greatly. And, indeed, it might be an important element in our growth process that we're able to visualize these dimension, so that we maybe can start living more in the real reality, rather than insisting we're just flatlanders forever.

 

--------------------------------------

john

 

SEO

[jersincl]

Can the dimensions be measured accurately with quantum theory? The borders of the multiverse's must only be penetrable through a dimension transition phase. This can be accomplished through generated wave fluctuation in the space time fabric by shifting dark energy patterns. Easier said than done.

[pioneer]

I tend to think these extra dimensions are an artifact of math more than a reflection of reality. For example, in some crystal coordinate systems it is more convenient to use four distance dimensions (a,b,c,d) in 3-D space since the atoms align this way. From the point of view of the math this makes it easier to analyze certain structures but should not be confused with proving 5-D space-time.

 

Again, if a good math system makes life easier there is value to it. But if we try to interpret this value meaning a reflection of reality we can get into problems. The result is reality can become distorted and lead to logical conclusion that add further confusion. Let me give an example. We can draw 3-D figures using flat 2-D space. Computer simulations do this all the time so we can see depth. But if we assume 3-D defined as 2-D, reflects reality because it is so useful, we can also create special affects that violate reality, and interpret these as possible.

 

The picture below could be a complicated set of math relationships that shows a lot of variables interacting in a system of references in 3-d space, and could lead to very good results for making predictions. But that would not make it reality.

 

[throng]

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?

[3dguy]

So let me make sure i understand this. We as 3d people would look like a sheet of paper to a 4d being who could fold us. Just as we could fold a 2d paper in our dimension. Would we notice if this occured.

[throng]

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.

[gre]

Why can't you just use this perspective: 3D spacial +1D time = 3D world with motion, or 4D?

 

 

Here's another way to visualize extra dimensions (which may not be correct);

 

A ( x,y,z) axis Cartesian coordinate system ... So you have 8 3D quadrants, 2 2D planes, and a axis for time. 11 dimensions total.

[rebelion]

hi everyone i m new here so go easy on me:-)

i have a crazy theory:

u know that a dot constitute 0 demensional space and 1 demensional space is merly an infinite dots puted side by side and 2 demensional space is merly an infinite 1 demensional space puted side by side and 3 demensional space is an infinite 2 demonsional spaces puted side by side so my theory is the 4 demenisonal space would be an infinte 3 demensional spaces puted side by side and so for the 5d and 6d.. etc so what do u thinks

Edited March 2, 2009 by rebelion

[cameron marical]

but wouldnt a 3d geometrical shap placed adjacent to another still just be 3d.?

[rebelion]

^^ but in that case if we consider that (+inf)+(+inf)=(+inf) that mean that if a universe is placed adjacent to a universe is still the same universe why didnt we considered that 0+0=0 that mean a dot placed adjacent to another will constitute a dot so like we considered that a line is an infnte dots placed side by side we can consider that 4 demensional space is 3d universes placed parallel one to anther both unlimted but they dont merge with the nieghboring universe

[cameron marical]

ya, but you can add 1diminsional objects together all you want, the hightest its gonna get is 3d, and thats only if you change veiws to a more eye level view instead of birds eye. if you add 3d objects together, it just becomes a more jumbled, fatter 3d object. it could doe do more, but we just cant visualize it because we dont know what it would look like at all. weve never expereinced it, and probably never will in this lifetime.

[throng]

ya, but you can add 1diminsional objects together all you want, the hightest its gonna get is 3d, and thats only if you change veiws to a more eye level view instead of birds eye. if you add 3d objects together, it just becomes a more jumbled, fatter 3d object. it could doe do more, but we just cant visualize it because we dont know what it would look like at all. weve never expereinced it, and probably never will in this lifetime.

 

I think it's exactly right what you're saying. It is just as easy to say 3D is a great big pile of 0D points, so infine point line, infinite point plane or volume.

 

But since each point is 0D it still is not reasonable, so there is 'nothing' between points but we call it distance, and presto!

 

I think a line consists of two elements, because what is the 'distance' between each point?

 

[cameron marical]

space?

[throng]

space?

 

You can put a protracter on the end of the line and measure 0deg, then at any other point you measure 180deg. So angle is requisite for length.

 

Points + Angle = Length

 

[north]

ya, but you can add 1diminsional objects together all you want,

 

you can add 1 dimensional objects together hmmm.....?

 

really

 

1 dimensional objects don't even exist physically in the first place

 

let alone " adding them together " !!!!

 

 

the hightest its gonna get is 3d, and thats only if you change veiws to a more eye level view instead of birds eye. if you add 3d objects together, it just becomes a more jumbled, fatter 3d object. it could doe do more, but we just cant visualize it because we dont know what it would look like at all. weve never expereinced it, and probably never will in this lifetime.

 

WHAT !!!!

[cameron marical]

you can add 1 dimensional objects together hmmm.....?

 

really

 

1 dimensional objects don't even exist physically in the first place

 

let alone " adding them together " !!!!

 

one dimensiononal objects. dots. you can add them together all you want. just take some dots on a paper and add new ones in. connect the dots, and what do you get. the highest its going to get is 3 dimensional.{though i know, it would only be 2d if on your paper}

 

 

WHAT !!!!

 

what what.

[alan2here]

;290700']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.

 

This will help you understand. Nobody has any difuculty in the equally abstract 2D or its relationship with 3D but any more than 3 and we think it's too hard and don't try.

http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_E.htm

[cameron marical]

does anybody know the extra 7 other dimensions proposed by the superstring theory?

[Sisyphus]

This will help you understand. Nobody has any difuculty in the equally abstract 2D or its relationship with 3D but any more than 3 and we think it's too hard and don't try.

http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_E.htm

 

I can't watch that right now, but I wouldn't say that 2D is "equally abstract." Anything that has three spatial dimensions also has two, so visualizing it really isn't that difficult. You can even approximate the visualization in a 3D physical model, by simply making one dimension too narrow to see.