Physics5000 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 It is Universally accepted that time is the manifestation of the fourth dimension. Even so Have you ever seen a 4-dimensional figure? Can a 3-dimensional figure move without time? Can a 2-dimensional figure move without time? I am proposing that time is not the fourth dimension, but a binding law that all dimensions must obey. Tell me what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 1. I've seen a hypercube, made in perspective by a 3D glasses whatsit and a computer at Warwick University. 2. As moving is defined as the change in the position of an object relative to time, no it can't. 3. See 2. 4. 'The 4th Dimension'. They're only arbitrarily applied you know, it doesn't really matter what you call them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Physics5000 It is Universally accepted that time is the manifestation of the fourth dimension. That is the unequivocal testimony of the physics community. Even so Have you ever seen a 4-dimensional figure? No; only 3D figures in time. Can a 3-dimensional figure move without time? Can a 2-dimensional figure move without time? There is no motion without time. I am proposing that time is not the fourth dimension, but a binding law that all dimensions must obey. Tell me what you think. This effort is a non-starter, because the Minkowski space of Special Relativity is a legitimate 4D vector space, and time is its 4th dimension. What exactly about that do you have a problem with? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dluther Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 If 4 dim. is not time which is debatable, then... with our current technology we will never examin a four dim. figure because 4 dim. (if not time) states that we could see everything at once... For example... 1. If we could enter the 4'th dim... when you look at a person, you not only see there current side that you would see in a 3Dim world. But you would see every side at once. Incomprehendable with our current state of mind, untill we have made tchnological advancments creating some digital interface that could be interlinked to our minds, creating a "fake" 4 dim. world. (Living then, would only be an image) CONCLUSION: If not time, we might never see our 4'th dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 3-d space would be like a picture, never moving. There must be a fouth dimension, time, for you to even consider dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Not really, Raider. In Newtonian mechanics, the space is a Euclidean 3-space from which time is just something separate. It is not logically entailed by the space, but it is also not inconsistent with it. In SR, however, the Minkowski spacetime includes the time component as a necessity. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Physics5000 Even so Have you ever seen a 4-dimensional figure? Time is a spacial demension, so we don't see 4D objects, such as a 4 demensional cup. Can a 3-dimensional figure move without time? Can a 2-dimensional figure move without time? Well, when something moves, it is creating an event, thus moving through time. I am proposing that time is not the fourth dimension, but a binding law that all dimensions must obey. Tell me what you think. Time is the forth demension and is spacial. Further, it is defined as the increase of entropy. And it has coordinates that tell when a something existed. What do you mean by law ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta Time is a spacial demension, so we don't see 4D objects, such as a 4 demensional cup. Klein bottles ahoy! You can 'see' 4D objects by creating them in 3D with perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Truth Behold! You're right! we can 'see' 4d objects. But see, in what sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta You're right! we can 'see' 4d objects. But see, in what sense? You know, with your eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Klein bottles ahoy! You can 'see' 4D objects by creating them in 3D with perspective. I thought a klein bottle was just a 3D mobius strip. or is there something I am missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward I thought a klein bottle was just a 3D mobius strip. or is there something I am missing? It was the first thing that came into my head following the '4D Cup' statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri You know, with your eyes? With our eyes, eh? Are you sure? we only see 3 demensions with our eyes, and sense 1 spacial demension. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 well arguably we only see 2 dimensions with our eyes, and then our brain does some clever trickery to make it look 3D. But what Mr L is talking about is the 3D projection of a 4D object, in the same way that you can project a 3D cube onto a 2D piece of paper, and still recognise it as a cube. and do you mean one temporal dimension rather than spacial [sic] (should be spatial) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Yes, but we only sense time, do we not? About that wierd trickery the brain plays on us: I read (on the CAT6!! I love those tests! you can learn so much!) that stereo-vision is what helps us see 3D. Our eyes are positioned close to each other, so we could see distance, depth, heighth, length.... The article didn't get very far as to what actually happens in the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 It is down to the stereovision, and is essentially uses parallax to create the illusion of three dimensions. ps. Futurama is a great source of science jokes, such as the line from Leela (a cyclops) 'Stay still dammit, I don't have good depth perception!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward well arguably we only see 2 dimensions with our eyes, and then our brain does some clever trickery to make it look 3D. But what Mr L is talking about is the 3D projection of a 4D object, in the same way that you can project a 3D cube onto a 2D piece of paper, and still recognise it as a cube. and do you mean one temporal dimension rather than spacial [sic] (should be spatial) If we live in 3D space, we never can see 2D object, in the same way as 1D and 0D. Dimensions is {x,y,z}. 1) 0D - {0,0,0} it is invisible. 2) 1D - {x,0,0} it is invisible. 3) 2D - {x,y,0} it is invisible. The piece of the paper is not 2D, but 3D the object. At reduction of its thickness, it becomes transparent. When it reach the zero, the object (paper) becomes invisible absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. If we live in 3D space, we never can see 2D object, in the same way as 1D and 0D. Dimensions is {x,y,z}. 1) 0D - {0,0,0} it is invisible. 2) 1D - {x,0,0} it is invisible. 3) 2D - {x,y,0} it is invisible. The piece of the paper is not 2D, but 3D the object. At reduction of its thickness, it becomes transparent. When it reach the zero, the object (paper) becomes invisible absolutely. You misunderstand. He's not talking about seeing a 2 dimensional object, but about being only able to infer two dimensional information from a single set of photons. Take a photograph of something. The picture in the photograph is two dimensional, although neither the picture itself or the objects pictured are. Now change the camera to an eye. The effect is the same; the information received is two dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Physics5000 Posted May 14, 2003 Author Share Posted May 14, 2003 So then we are seeing 2d objects that our brain is programmed to precieve as 3d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 No. Our mind is designed to detect 3 physical demensions, 1 spacial. So we can see, physically, up to 3d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 well technically, we see only 2D, our mind (as stated previously) percieves the image and we come to the conclusion that there is depth to the object, the 3rd dimension Originally posted by MajinVegeta Time is the forth demension and is spacial. Further, it is defined as the increase of entropy. And it has coordinates that tell when a something existed. not exactly the increasing of entropy, rather the change in entropy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri You misunderstand. He's not talking about seeing a 2 dimensional object, but about being only able to infer two dimensional information from a single set of photons. Take a photograph of something. The picture in the photograph is two dimensional, although neither the picture itself or the objects pictured are. Now change the camera to an eye. The effect is the same; the information received is two dimensional. A photograph it is possible to consider simply as a set of light spot on a certain surface. For animal these a spots does means no more than any others. Only the imagination inherent to person allows to see the picture of KNOWN to him an objects in these spots . If on photograph will be the image of unknown object, that a person will perceive their in the same way as animal. This will be a set of a light spots only. So. On photographies does not exist 2D object. Exists the light spots on 3D object only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Paper is 2 demensional, yet it exists in 3D space. why? (trick question) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta Paper is 2 demensional, yet it exists in 3D space. why? (trick question) The piece of paper is not 2D, but 3D object, as I had explained above, yet it visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 paper is 3D or we would not get those dreaded paper cuts;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now