Bittersweet Candy Bowl

Well, everyone I am in contact with (constantly) already knows these. I would like to share with you some truly outstanding facts and theories. I hope to find you enjoy them. It may also prove to your teachers (for those in school) that you aren’t simply goofing off.
First: Einstein’s theory of multiple dimensions. I almost hate to do this one first, as I am a bit shady on it. Oh well.
Alright, picture a line. Merely a line would be the first dimension, a bare existence without any real shape. Now, turn the line into a flat square, like you would draw on paper. This is the second dimension, a shape, but no depth. The third dimension gives depth, as the square becomes a box, a circle becomes a ball, etc. The fourth dimension, which we exist in, is the dimension which allows movement of said object. Beyond this, there are 5 more. These, I am not so clear on. Try to find them!

Wicked! But I really dont want to go find aII five.

Where does the single point dimension come in? is it the zeroeth dimension?

And what about things moving around in a coordinate plane? That’s two dimensions plus time, thus an alternate third dimension?

It would be the -1st dimension and the 2+T respectively, for no reason at all

I cannot possibly conceive of any other dimensions. We’re probably not allowed to see them, much like how a being living in a 2+T dimension (I like that phrasing, but I’m not sure if it’s the technical name) couldn’t conceive of or move in a third spacial dimension. There are probably a few more spacial dimensions that we just can’t conceive of that just don’t exist in our universe.

Here, enjoy!

there’s 10 dimensions here =D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ySBaYMESb8o&feature=channel

Ohh, now I kinda get what string theorists are talking about. But, my definition of dimensions is that they are infinite. And while there are a lot of outcomes for the universe, it’s still a finite amount.

For the uninitiated: single point dimension is physical existence, second dimension is horizontal movement, third dimension is vertical movement, fourth dimension is temporal movement, fifth dimension is, well …. Supposedly the rest are just compressed. That’s what Stephen Hawking said, anyway, but he’s admitted to being wrong before.

You have to be humble when you are in a situation like his.

Yeah, I’m just gonna work with the three dimensions along which I can freely move.

@ Jerk - You magnificent bastard.

4

I’m not including the fifth. It’s not infinite enough for me.

You move along the fourth too. You don’t have a choice. Whoever said, “You cannot know where you are without saying when you are?” Christ, that’s going to bug me until I actually look for it.

Are there negative dimensions?

Fun Fact: There’s a lizard that shoots blood from its eye as a way to defend itself from lizards.

I said freely.

or forget it.

You mean a horny toad.

TEXAS WOOOO

You have good fajitas.

Oh man are we talking biology in here now?!

Why not? You know a lot?

Alright! Next, Quantum Physics!
Quantam physics is a tricky subject, delving into mainly temporality. It is said that there are a great many realities, that could be visited. However, this has not become a reality, nor has there been any definitive proof of other realities.
In the temporal (relating to or of time) aspect, quantam physics houses three theories to the timeline. The first: time is a river and completely unalterable.
The second: time can be altered, and whatever is changed in the past will have an effect on the future. An excellent representation of this theory is the movie “A Sound of Thunder”.
The third: time can be changed, but the current timeline will not be altered. Instead, another timeline will spring from the point in which the past was altered.
The reality hopping will be covered on the next segment, on black holes.


Questions? Comments? Acrobatic Manuevers?

So now there is a whole topic about this? ^_^

String theory is fun. Oh, and biology too.

*smiles wickedly* This will be interesting methinks. I myself am trying to picture just the first dimension. I mean the line I picture is technically 2D right? It has a very small amount of width to it…

Well, in concept the line should have no width. It’s hard to imagine/explain.

The first time I heard the story “A Sound of Thunder” I was camping in the hills outside San Francisco when I was twelve. That really stayed with me.

It is kinda interesting. The only problem is: it is not what string theory is about. Not by a long shot. The video is IMHO a commercial for a philosophical book that just uses appeals to physics as a selling point.
Some problems (not in the order of importance)

1) You don’t need the third dimension to create a mobius strip. It can be just a two-dimensional space with certain internal topological properties, without existing within a space of higher dimension.

2) Fifth dimension as described is not one, but infinite dimensions.

A number of dimensions a space has is, basically, how many coordinates you need to note a position of a point. So if we say: “the fourth dimension is time” we need just one number, for example time since the Big Bang in seconds, to describe the position of any event in time.

If we say “the fifth dimension is the different outcomes of our life” how do we put a number on that? It’s not really about being quantifiable, it’s about topology. Can you say with certainty how you line up all the branching possibilities from this moment, so that “close” ones go together? If we try to describe possibilities as a space, we see it has to have infinite dimensions. (Not that a physicist would even try. Physics does not explain free will.)

3)This problem is easier seen on the 7-th “different universes with different laws” dimension.

How many parameters do you need to describe laws of physics? More than one: strength of electromagnetic interaction, strength of weak interaction, strength of strong interaction, strength of gravity. It is not a “dimension” simply because it is at least four dimensions (more really, because who says other universes don’t have a Fhtagn interaction or a Power of Love interaction with completely different sets of parameters).

It all stems from two wrong assumptions:

1) Any two infinities are equally “infinite”, so since a line has infinite points, an infinite amount of possibilities can be described as a dimension. And

2) String theory has 10 macroscopic dimensions. In reality superstring theory in 10 (microscopic and absolutely equal) dimensions is just one of the ways a string theory can lead (after a ton of math) to describing the world as we see it.

Yet superstring theory still hasn’t led to the unified field theory, mathematically. I don’t know. They recreated a part of the Big Bang in the Large Hadron Collider this week. The matter basically exploded and turned into soup. Wheels within wheels, and such.

I thought CERN had already done that?

Apparently not. I just read that on the news today, so they must’ve done it yesterday at the latest. Unless you have some kind of superior news source, in which case (I am dead serious) you should share it with me. Because for all my librarianisms I am still pretty retarded.

One dimentional things aren’t that hard to imagine. Just think about all the things we can measure which have only a value but no direction, for example: Temperature, Mass, Voltage, etc. These could all be called “one dimentional” concepts.

Another interesting thing that confuses people: An electron has mass, but no volume. It is just a theoretical point in space. The same is true for all other infinitesimally small particles, such as the positron and the (not yet proven to exist) neutrino.

I don’t honestly think that anything has no volume. It’s like having to occupy a space in order to exist, I just don’t think we have any way to describe the observation on that scale, like the case where the CERN described a case where protons and neutrons couldn’t even hold together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ CERN#The_Large_Hadron_Collider

Not a superior news source, perhaps. But it seems that they are making repeated attempts, and also that the attempts so far have mostly been experiments to see if the contraption works. ^_^

I just read Yahoo! News

I always use the 2D going on 3D step to compare 3D to 4D as the guy did in the video. But I also don’t agree with his 5th dimention explanation. If we compare a 2 dimentional object (say a circle) changing in the fourth dimention (Time, say moving) it would appear to be moving, just as it did when changed in the third dimention (depth, say, taking cross-sections of a bent pipe). Therefore I could generalise that all dimentions above the three we can “see”, we understand as time.

This brings up interesting consequences as different time flows could be caused by different dimentions and we could possibly have different places where time flows slower, faster, or possibly even backwards.

I hope i made myself understood, i can try to explain in more detail, if not.

Oh, well, that probably happened this week. ^_^

On “Electrons have no volume”
The idea here, is that rather than the electrons, positrons and (possibly) neutrinos occupying space, they define it. Space is defined as the distance between two or more points. If electrons and positrons (and possibly neutrinos) are the points, then just like geometrical points, they cannot occupy any space, and thus have no volume. This is mostly an interesting though experiment. Even if there is some very interesting maths leading up to it, I wouldn’t be able to understand it, much less explain it.

That’s pretty neat. I never considered space as something relative to two points but that’s a good point.

Learning new stuff every day. Pretty easy when one doesn’t know anything. n_n

On black holes:
Everyone knows that dying stars produce black holes. That begs the question, why doesn’t every star make one? The answer is pretty simple. Stars need a certain amount of mass before they can go through the motions. These stars are known as supermassive. Stars run on fusion power, fighting a constant battle against gravity. Once the fusion stops, gravity wins, and compresses the core many times over in less than a second. A small black hole is born, and it eats it’s way from the star, and creates what is known as a hypernova. The question was once posed to me: why is it that a black hole doesn’t just eat itself? The answer is: The matter of the black hole is just a few inches in diameter. Everything else is just a hyperpoweful gravity well.
Recently, it was discovered that galaxies are held together at the center by a supermassive black hole. Before you ask how big that star must have been, I must tell you that it is entirely possible for black holes to cannibalize one another, and they did. As they continued to eat, they grew bigger, drawing in more and more gas, which formed stars and planets.
Black holes do have a limit, contrary to popular belief (at least as far as gas is concerned, seeing as it has little mass), and the black holes in the center of galaxies must take enough gas at some point. When this happens, an ultrapowerful burst of energy is released, which flies across the universe. This only happens once in a galaxy, because the burst pushes the gas away from the center, and scientists today use it as a way to tell a galaxy’s age.
Fun fact: It is believed by some that black holes aren’t an end, but a window into a parrallel universe. Whether it’s true, we don’t know. But the results of getting caught are far less romantic. Anything caught is stretched to it’s limit, and then ripped apart by the molecules.

Yay black holes, they are totally utterly black, and the do appear to be holes of some kind. I myself prefer the parallel universe idea, now I just have to find a black hole and I just have to figure out how to get through one without you know, utterly dying.

Oh, I read about that once. A “white hole”, I think they called it.

Even if there is a parallel universe on the other side of the black hole, you’re never gonna see it. You’ll get spaghettified, and that is a technical term.

Sorry to backtrack, and I’m sure everyone will just move on anyway, but on the subject of the fifth dimension being infinite, I really don’t think it is. The spacial dimensions and time may be infinite, but if you are working with a finite amount of material the amount of outcomes is also finite. Though there is still debate over whether the universe contains a finite amount of material so Idunno.

Bullshit relevant to the topic

Proper space travel may some day be possible, by utilising exotic matter (negative mass) to expand space behind a vessel and contract it in front, effectively creating a “wave” that the vessel rides on for great distances. There are no time-dilatory effects on the crew, as the ship is effectively stationary while space more or less moves around it. this is known as an Alcubierre Drive.

@ Gabriel - Lyucs already posted that. That is mostly what I’m responding to.

@ sammy - I have to change my pants at how cool that is. I cannot friggin’ wait ‘til they make that happen.

@Scotch: I don’t pay attention to you guys. Especially now when you’re arguing about this which we have no real way of properly defending either side unless you have spent years studying this shit, which I find highly unlikely.

BLAH

Now let’s talk about the 4th Spacial dimension.

Your cube will become a tessarect. One of these things:


Now let’s put that tessarect through a simple rotation.

I freakin’ love that. I could stare at that for hours. But the actual dynamics of a fourth spacial dimension are going to remain unknown because we seriously can’t conceive of how it works in our current setup in our current universe.

I assume that a 4D cube would be seen at multiple angles in its timespan at once.
Actually, we humans of today can not even start describing 4D objects, as we do not have the required mindset to deal with the idea of objects existing at multiple points in time.

I always figured that a 4-D object would just be width, length, depth, and something else. Another line going off in a completely different direction that we can’t conceive in the same way that a flatlander couldn’t conceive depth. Time would work normally.