perception of dimensions

[harryk]

This is a series of thoughts that came to my mind after watching too much star trek, especially the episode about the two-dimensional beings in TNG. Please read and share your opinions.

We exist in a universe that has three spatial dimensions. Because of this, we are able to perceive that portion of any object that occupy the same spatial dimensions that we occupy. An example would be the four dimensional Rubik's cube. The "cube" has a total of four axes, with two (for the need of a better word) faces on each, such that every face has a different color. It's easier to Google it. Explaining it in words isn't to easy. In any given position, a maximum of Seven faces are visible. This means that the remainder of the cube has a different position on the fourth spatial axis than us. Another interesting example is Griffin from MIB 3. According to the movie, he is a five dimensional being (I know the movie says 'fifth' dimensional, which is wrong) who exists in three spatial, one temporal and one idontknowwhattocall dimension that passes through all the possible branches of the timeline. While three dimensional beings see the part of his body that exists in our spatial dimensions, he might be able to see different versions of the timeline, at different points of time.

Finally, what would our world look like, when viewed from a 2 dimensional perspective? I think the answer is obvious. If the fictional 2d beings from star trek existed in two of the three spatial dimensions we occupy, surely we could see them, but they could only see the portions of our universe that intersect their plane.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

[SplitInfinity]

This is a series of thoughts that came to my mind after watching too much star trek, especially the episode about the two-dimensional beings in TNG. Please read and share your opinions.

We exist in a universe that has three spatial dimensions. Because of this, we are able to perceive that portion of any object that occupy the same spatial dimensions that we occupy. An example would be the four dimensional Rubik's cube. The "cube" has a total of four axes, with two (for the need of a better word) faces on each, such that every face has a different color. It's easier to Google it. Explaining it in words isn't to easy. In any given position, a maximum of Seven faces are visible. This means that the remainder of the cube has a different position on the fourth spatial axis than us. Another interesting example is Griffin from MIB 3. According to the movie, he is a five dimensional being (I know the movie says 'fifth' dimensional, which is wrong) who exists in three spatial, one temporal and one idontknowwhattocall dimension that passes through all the possible branches of the timeline. While three dimensional beings see the part of his body that exists in our spatial dimensions, he might be able to see different versions of the timeline, at different points of time.

Finally, what would our world look like, when viewed from a 2 dimensional perspective? I think the answer is obvious. If the fictional 2d beings from star trek existed in two of the three spatial dimensions we occupy, surely we could see them, but they could only see the portions of our universe that intersect their plane.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

 

First of all...our Universal Reality the Space/Time and the Matter and Energy that exist within it need more than just 4 Dimensional States to exist. Although 10 or 11plus Dimensional Reality has not been definatively proven...what has been proven is that since Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons and Electron exist as both particle and wave...as well as all Matter is completely comprised on it's smallest level of Quanta...4-D...as Length, Width, Height and Time...is not enough dimensionality for Quanta to exist.

 

Also...as far as Star Trek and 2 Dimensional Life forms...again...Matter and Energy cannot exist in a 2 Dimensional Universal State so this is but fantasy as well.

 

Split Infinity

[harryk]

I didn't mention that the universe had only four dimensions, did I? If I may have implied so, it was unintentional. About the fictional 2 dimensional life forms, there is no way as of now for us to conclusively prove or disprove the possibility of existence of a universe consisting of two spatial dimensions. It is possible for such a universe with a different set of laws of physics that provide for it's existence to exist. It might even exist as a plane within our universe, although it seems unlikely. Whether it would have intelligent life is unrelated to the topic. I quoted the segment from star trek just to paint a mental picture.

Edited April 5, 2013 by harryk

[imatfaal]

SplitInfinity

 

The original topic was quite clear - you must resist the temptation to immediately branch off or to expand the topic. Please also stop answering using speculative or hypothetical physics when the question does not call for that. Do not further derail the thread by responding to this moderation within the thread.

 

 

First of all...our Universal Reality the Space/Time and the Matter and Energy that exist within it need more than just 4 Dimensional States to exist. Although 10 or 11plus Dimensional Reality has not been definatively proven...what has been proven is that since Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons and Electron exist as both particle and wave...as well as all Matter is completely comprised on it's smallest level of Quanta...4-D...as Length, Width, Height and Time...is not enough dimensionality for Quanta to exist.

 

Also...as far as Star Trek and 2 Dimensional Life forms...again...Matter and Energy cannot exist in a 2 Dimensional Universal State so this is but fantasy as well.

 

Split Infinity

 

 

harryk

 

on topic - I presume you have read Flatland by Edwin Abbot. It is a novella about a two dimensional world - and is, amazingly, from the nineteenth century.

[SplitInfinity]

SplitInfinity

 

The original topic was quite clear - you must resist the temptation to immediately branch off or to expand the topic. Please also stop answering using speculative or hypothetical physics when the question does not call for that. Do not further derail the thread by responding to this moderation within the thread.

 

 

 

 

harryk

 

on topic - I presume you have read Flatland by Edwin Abbot. It is a novella about a two dimensional world - and is, amazingly, from the nineteenth century.

OK...hold on a minute. I was specifically replying to the quoted post that reads and is specific to detailing our Universal Reality as 3-D Geometry with and additional dimension specific to time. That statement is detailing something that is not possible given the behavior of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Also as far as Flatland is concerned...since Matter and Energy cannot exist 2 Dimensionally as well as the fact that the poster stated we would surely be able to see 2-Dimensional Life Forms or any 2 Dimensional Constructs...Light or Photons could neither reflect off anything 2-D nor could Quanta exist in 2-D.

 

I was not talking about theoretical physics...I was talking about how the lack of necessary dimensionality precludes these possibilities.

 

Split Infinity

[harryk]

SplitInfinity

 

I think you misunderstood my Griffin example. I did not say the universe has the spatial and one temporal dimension, rather Griffin does(I know I'm quoting fiction excessively, so if anyone knows something that physically exists in three spatial, one temporal and a dimension that extends through alternate timelines, feel free to correct me). That is similar to saying, just because we exist in three spatial dimensions, it doesn't mean the universe has only that many.

Also, to perceive doesn't always mean to see, or to detect reflected photons. Neutrinos can't be detected by conventional methods, but that doesn't mean their existence is impossible.

 

Imatfaal

 

Yes, but I started reading the book very recently. After reading the first few pages, it occurred to me that my preconceptions about the perception of universes with lesser or more dimensions were not entirely correct. Much like how we see pseudo-3d images of our surroundings(being unable to see the backside of an opaque object) the square from flatland is unable to see 2d shapes in the detail we can see. As for Griffin, (again, pardon the fiction) he would still be able to see objects in pseudo 3d, in addition to different points in time along his current line of sight, and the alternate timelines from his current spatial perspective.

[SplitInfinity]

Harrak...I understood what you were getting at...it's just I could not come to terms with it as I have an issue when anyone states that matter and energy...thus Celestial Bodies and anything or ONE upon them...exist in a 4-D state.

 

They can't.

 

Split Infinity

[harryk]

In a way, don't we exist in all dimensions simultaneously. The only difference is, we have a measurable quantity along three spatial dimensions, but when considering the others, such as time, for instance, we exist on a .... Uh... Thing that ....

What I mean to say is, if we consider a plane parallel to the xy plane within which two (spatial) dimensional objects exist, and time as the z axis, then as the plane moves along the time axis, there is only one value for z, and not a range of values anywhere on the plane. However, any object in the spatial plane may have a length and breadth. Our universe is quite similar, except it has three spatial dimensions, within which an object could have a range of values.

It seems difficult to convey ideas through words efficiently. What I'd give for a neutral interface right now.

[md65536]

Imagine exploring the 3d world as a 2d sensor, like an eye or a digital camera's sensor. Imagine you have no understanding of 3d geometry. You see a projection of the 3d world onto your 2d senses.

 

What you see is a 2d image at any moment, but it rotates and distorts as you move through the 3d world. Lengths appear longer or shorter as you move closer or farther from them (along an extra dimension that you can't directly perceive). Lengths appear to shorten as they rotate toward lining up with that 3rd axis. Things rotate, revealing different sides of things, as walking through a doorway reveals the other side of a wall.

 

This is also how animations of 4d objects appear: they twist and distort and lengths change. (They are 4d objects projected into a 3d space---a projection that is weird to us---which is then projected onto a 2d surface making an image---a projection which is familiar to us.)

 

What would be interesting is to build a virtual 4d world, something like the 4d equivalent of a simple house, and project it onto 3d geometry and then explore it like a video game. What I'm wondering is whether the brain would be able to assemble a consistent mental image of the world. Like, if we see a perspective image of a cube, we effortlessly process it into a mental image. We see distorted edge lengths but are able to intuitively understand that they're the same length. Would our brains be able to understand the geometrical relationships of points in the 4d world, just by experiencing it? Is geometrical understanding possible due to simply training of the brain, or are our brains hardwired to understand 3d?

Edited April 6, 2013 by md65536

[harryk]

There is already such a game. Google '4 dimensional Rubik's cube'.

Though not as real-world-ish as a house, it gibes us quite a good idea on how the human brain can process 2d images of 3d projections of 4d objects and, from that understanding, analyze and solve the puzzle. Judging from the comments on the android app of the game, only a handful can solve it. Whether it is because they can understand the concept of four dimensions better, or simply because not enough people have put enough effort into solving it is unclear.

[SplitInfinity]

 

There is already such a game. Google '4 dimensional Rubik's cube'.

Though not as real-world-ish as a house, it gibes us quite a good idea on how the human brain can process 2d images of 3d projections of 4d objects and, from that understanding, analyze and solve the puzzle. Judging from the comments on the android app of the game, only a handful can solve it. Whether it is because they can understand the concept of four dimensions better, or simply because not enough people have put enough effort into solving it is unclear.

OK...not to be a kill joy here but we can only represent such things as 2-D, 3-D and 4-D. Reality is a bit more complex than the representations. At a young age we are taught...INCORRECTLY...that 2-D is lines or a picture on a piece of paper. We are taught that 1-D is a single dot drawn on a paper...3-D is an object...lets use a Baseball...and the only complex notion such as the teaching that true 2-D would be looking at something like a piece of paper with a picture on it and as the paper is turned so that the edge is pointed at our eyes...we would see nothing as it would not exist.

 

The RWALITY is every single one of these representations is absolutely 100% INCORRECT.

 

The reality is that 2-D or Two Dimensional Reality...would not allow for something like a flat piece of paper with a picture when turned on edge no longer exists...the reason being...2-D is not enough dimensionality for Matter or Energy to exist...thus no flat surface of ANYTHING...no picture and not even light bouncing off it so you could see it. 1-D would be a Singularity thus a Universe unto itself where there would be NOTHING except a single point of existance that would not allow anything tangible matter or energy to remain.

 

3-D...still is not enough dimensionality to allow either Atoms or Protons or Neutrons or Quantum Particles such as Light or Photons to exist. 4-D...could not even allow for time as where there is no Matter or Energy...there cannot be time as 4 dimensional states are not even enough for Photons and Electron to act as both Particle and Wave.

 

So although such a Game Cube may be good for increasing a persons geometric awareness...it CANNOT represent the Dimensionality you state.

 

Split Infinity