Can YOU imagine the Tenth Dimension? Stupid people need not click here
 

Seriously, how intelligent do you have to be to not only understand what this man is explaining, but to fully comprehend it in every sense?? This is some pretty grand shit.

Unfortunately I have to admit that I started getting lost at around 7, simply because my mind was having difficulty fathoming such massive amounts of theory. Open the menu on the left and click Imagining the Ten Dimensions.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

If anything it's worth sitting through the Flash.

It's a well-made flash, and it reminds me of Donnie Darko. I need to watch the Director's Cut.

edit: what was I thinking? This is 100% bullshit. 10th dimension, lol

Intriguing stuff. I followed like you up until I got to about 7 or 8. I think what the flash is saying is that, like alternate reality in which you chose a different path and reached a different result, that our universe is one of many possibilities in which not only do people and things react differently, but the fundamentals of time and space may not have the same bearing on each other. It's easy to say, but harder to imagine. A universe in which gravity does not apply, for instance, would make it impossible for life to be sustained in our universe. But in such a universe, the rules of sustenance for organisms may not apply the same. Perhaps beings of energy rule, since they cannot maintain a corporeal form. Perhaps energy does not even transfer as we would expect it to, making atomic particles an unreality in that other, infinite universe.

Yeah, their explanation of time, the fourth dimension, and how it would travel through the branches of the fifth dimension, that definitely reminded me of Donnie Darko, and actually better helped me comprehend the concepts of that movie.

This is a fascinating animation. I've dedicated a fair portion of my own idle thoughts toward figuring out how time functions within space and how, if there were a way, one could manipulate both forces. This doesn't provide all the answers but it does erect a solid framework from which better questions may be asked.

I understood the concepts of each dimension well, I think. The notion of one point which contains all possibilties and all other points along string theory is nothing new to me. I've just never seen it explained in this manner before; until now, it was mostly an abstract concept that I fiddled with in my own mind.

I've long entertained the idea of folding positions on a point (points on a point, making the larger point, in fact, a spherical construct of many lesser points which comprise the sum of its parts) over so that one could move along previously untravellable paths, or connecting diametric points on a point so that they collapsed upon each other, eventually forming a "donut". A donut still maintains the same unified surface as a sphere, making that form the most stable for quantum movements through space.

The video didn't address that part, but I expect that the principles that allow it lie between the sixth and ninth dimensions and would be better explained in the book.

I may have to get this book.

It's weird, I kinda understand the whole 10 levels in a way it but I couldn't explain it very well to someone if they asked without looking back at it. If I said "the tenth dimension is everything and every possibility and every concept everywhere in everyting" they'd all be like "?"

It sorta adds clarity to a few life theroies of my own as well. Although the whole fold concept gets a bit confusing, i.e. how the hell does one fold a dimension to another, but I guess that's for the physics guys to do.

I think you mean physicists. :edgartpg:

Of course, this is what a Slashdot article I was reading the other day mentioned; that string theory has caused physics to come more or less to a practical halt as more people devote their theories towards string theory. Without any way to experiment and view the results of their theories, everybody's spinning their wheels, working towards a non-goal.

I think the question is can humans even correctly perceive 10 dimensions? Watching this demo and it seems after the 4th dimension all that is being done is attempting to explain addition dimensions is trying to apply crude 3 dimension examples. We can't even being to understand dimensions above the ones we live in and can't perceive without using words like "stacked" which is really just applying a 3D concept to all dimension above 3. Or we just break new dimension up into a new 'alternate' universe that really is just a copy of our own 4 dimension universe.

I understand we can perceive the concept of 10 dimensions (which this demo explains) but I really do not believe we have the ability to understand the nature of a dimension above the 4th.


I just wanted to add, if this type of stuff is of interest to you, you might want to check out the 3 hour special Nova ran on string theory. Very interesting stuff:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Have you watched the show on Discovery Science called "Parallel Dimensions"? They were discussing the 5 theories of String Theory and how they may have solved String Theory by adding an 11th dimension (which turns it into M-Theory).

No they didn't solve string theory. They were just able to remove all of the mathematic anomalies from the string theory equations. That's only a first, very small step to proving string theory.

Totally awesome. Man that was an interesting animation. I can't wait to watch that again while high. Infinite possibilities contained... geeze. Yeah, i've never seen Donnie Darko, but everybody tells me that it's a must see.

It was a pretty simple Flash for me to follow, but I'm different. We had some really in-depth theory discussions in my Grav-Mag Course which delve in to String Theory. Also did some research on Electromagnetics which ties into String (lol~). But I've had more than my fill of research... >< It is a great Flash for simplification though.

When you get down to the bottom line on describing tenth dimension, it's really not that horrid. There's just nothing else to imagine beyond that, I'd figure.

It's actually not all that hard to grasp the 10th dimension. It's simply all possiblities for anything to happen in any way, at any time and in any place. It's all encompasing, it is in essense the truest sense of the word "everything" you can use.

It would be like someone working out all the combinations to a mathematical formulae then solving every other formula; while so noting this in a book. This book would be the singular answer to every mathematical problem you could think of or witness. Where it confuses people, is this book could not exist in our reality, simply because if even we noted only 1+1, 1+2, 1+3 and so on, the book would already be infinitely big since 1+x could be 1+(-infinity) to 1+inifinity); so even if that was the only problem listed, it would still represent one infinity, we would still have every other infinite problem to account for.

Yes it does fly over many people's heads, it's simply because they haven't put much thought into inifinity. No matter how big something gets, it'll never get any closer to infinity (or farther away for that matter); let me rephrase that, unless you put something infinite into a sequence of events, it'll have a finite number of outcomes no matter how complex it is. So for our universe, no matter how many factors are involved, there is only a certian (obscenely high) number of outcomes for every situation bound by the laws of nature. Once how have a grasp of inifinite possiblity, you must also grasp those infinite possiblities happening in an any location of our universe (which may or may not be infinitely large, meaning infinite places). But let's consider place finite (as we will time, if you believe in a beginning and end to our universe), so we can move on to time. Time is easy to grasp, something happens at a certain moment, thus affecting what happens next. Time is (as far as we've proven) linear, it doesn't change what has happened before. But with possible outcomes for any moment in time and places it can happen at that moment makes the possible combinations staggering. And if we factor in the possiblity of time travel and every event imaginable happening everywhere all the time, at the same time IT STILL IS NOT INIFINITE IN POSSIBILITY (got that?).

The 10th dimension is when we factor in our dimension (and all of what it described in the last paragraph) with every other possible dimension. It is quite possible after, and only after all of these alternate realities have been factored in, after everything (as I defined in my first paragraph) is taken into account that we have true infinity and see the 10th dimension.

EDIT: Yes I realize the video described infinity before the 10th dimesion was met, but I'm not going back through the web I just weaved.

Ah well. Although it isn't the theory that most physicists are currently studying, it is still very thought-provoking and I really like it. The website seems to give a simplified explanation of "reality," so I really want to read at least some of this book to get some more details.

Well, that's most likely because any and all physicists go limp if you don't prove something like this with a dozen pages'-worth of proofs.

They really dumb this down to a scale where a physicist could say isn't "technically" correct. I could follow this, but amid all the studying I've done in string & higher dimensions, I don't know *how* the Math ties in to physical depictions like this stuff. That's a huge problem with this stuff. You really get to a point where if you don't specialize in it, you really won't be able to explore, much less understand all the material.

I'm actually really impressed on how easy it is to grasp, as the show couldn't be longer than about 5 minutes. I can see how it is more complex when you analyze "everything" in all it's full glory, but to give such a crammed lesson in five minutes, it really is impressive.

I have to take this opportunity to shamelessly brag that I used to be William "Bill" Buscombe's tenant. I used to rent the third floor of his victorian house in Evanston IL. He was a really nice guy, and was a phenominal physicist. Rest in peace, Mr. Buscombe. Your lectures will never be forgotten.

DEEP stuff here, presented in a cute way! I really like how they simplified the concept of dimensions past the third. I think I got it, considering how far out the actual subject matter is.

I got the impression that each dimension is a part of successively higher ones that we cannot truly comprehend, but can at least try to theorize in our terms. I like how infinity becomes inconsequential higher up and how different timelines and possibilities are all absorbed into the elite highest dimensions.

This highly reminds me of a lecture about infinity I once attended for fun (yes, for fun) in which one of the most memorable parts was shown in which:
"we may see four dots on this paper, but in a higher dimension, those four dots could be the feet of a cow", which was quite humorous and logical at the same time, cutting to a cheesy 3D pic of a cow in a thunderstorm.

The guy in the flash sounded like he was surpressing himself from laughing at several points :o I couldn't fathom the "superstrings" mentioned at the end, that was just overkill.

Presented this way, I have no problem understanding what he's talking about; I'm very good at visualizing this kind of stuff in my mind. Normally, I'm a total word thinker, but I seem to have a knack for picture thinking when it comes to physics...

However, there is no way I could ever understand the math behind it. *Dunce*

Also, I don't agree with the whole infinite possibilities thing. As a determinist, I believe that there is only one possibility, and it was decided the moment the universe came into existence. But that's for a different thread.

I watched it a second time with my bro, and we found the flaw of explaining the travel of light (a dimension between the fourth and fifth) that Einstein theorized.

If you want to get in to string theory, that is a 26 dimension ball game that I rather stay out of. I'm really afraid I'll look like an idiot if I talk about it, because I know I'm going to miss a few details.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I can't wait to read this book, now.

That's why I edited it to "physics guys" in the last second because I couldn't remember which one it was and couldn't be bothered to look it up on Google. >______________>

Don't laugh at me, but in my eyes, visualizing the 10th dimension is simple:

Let q be a 10-tuple such that q = (x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8,x9,x10).

Depending on what number system each xi is in, then q can be an element in the reals, rationals, integers, or natural numbers(or doesnt neccessarily have to be exclusive). If there exists a natural number j such 1<=j<=10 and xj = a+bh, where h is an imaginary number, then q is in the complex domain. Simply put, anything that is 10 dimensional is just a vector in the set of all elements in the form of q.

In 1 dimension space, we view these elements as a line.
In 2 dimension space, we can view them on a coordinate axis
In 3 dimension space, we can view then in space as volumes, etc.

There is no geometry for anything greater than four, but the principle is the same. In other words, I don't think physicists can give you a geometric representation of a 4 dimensional string theory function, hehe.

Sorry I just see things from the perspective of a mathematician.

Strangely I was actually lost trying to follow this up until the dimensions 7-10. (It's always like that with me; I get baffled on the easy stuff and make sense of the difficult stuff.)

What I don't actually understand is how something can be "in" a dimension. As a "3 dimensional creature" I don't quite understand how, theoretically, a conscious being of any kind could perceive these higher dimensions by observing the immediate surroundings using light and sound. Furthermore I didn't understand how a creature could NOT perceive 3 dimensions; even if you flatten 3-dimensional space visually, I'd imagine you'd still understand the 3rd dimension there. Isn't this obvious in say, an animation?

It seems like all of the other dimensions are just conceptual explanations, and while I understand them I don't see their actual practicality. I mean, sure, the fourth dimension being time makes sense, but how the hell does anything perceive the past/present/future in space, realistically?

Are other scientific concepts reliant on an understanding of these dimensions? I feel that there is an unseen simplification to all of this.

My original understanding of dimensions beyond the third came after I saw Cube 2: Hypercube. Admittedly a bad movie; it introduced the concept of a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. I looked up the concept and saw a 4-dimensional cube get drawn. It's basically just drawing another a cube perpendicular to another cube and connecting the points; which in hindsight is what the flash animation tried to explain - the previous dimension merely becomes points for the next dimension. Drawing the tesseract was simplistic, but seeing it in motion was much more mind-boggling; because it wasn't until then that I could really see how it was more than just two cubes with their vertices connected.

Oh god this isn't something I should've watched just before going to sleep. Now I'll be up all night thinking about shit I cant possibly comprehend. So there are millions of me's existing in the 5th and 6th dimensions but I won't ever meet them because I'm stuck in the 4th, or 3rd, dimension. Awwww.

But when you get down to it, maybe it doesn't stop there? Most people find it hard enough to wrap their minds around the concept of a 6th or 7th dimension, let alone a 10th. Maybe we just don't have the capacity to imagine anything beyond that? We say that the 10th dimension is pretty much the 'be-all and end-all', in that there's nothing left to imagine.

...Maybe there is, and we're just too 'simple' to realize it.

Well, I mean, there's nothing *left* in my mind ;p It's every combination of everything that could, will, or has happened in universes, each with infinitely differing details. In one, the gravity of Earth could be -10,000m/s, -.1m/s in another. Then you get into the ridiculous amount of variations of one planet to another in each combination, and you also have examples where the speed of light, sound, or vibrations (p & s waves in Geophysics) could differ.

Could be something, but cripes-on-toast. I can't imagine it ;_; If there is something, you could explain it in math but putting it into a practical example or mindset for folks to follow might be more than difficult.

Oh, no. I can't imagine anything else either. But after watching the flash vid, I started wondering... If they were able to go that far, why not go farther? [further?]

Bullshit. I even doubt time is the "4th dimension", since you can't move forth and back in time like you can do in space.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but time typically is the tying note to make something fourth-dimensional.

Otherwise, all practical thought processes would render it rather hard to imagine. Technically, through the fourth dimension viewing, you could see all six faces of a cube from looking straight at one. It gets into messy vectors which most folks don't fancy.

0 dimension is a point/position
1 dimension is a line (adds length)
2 dimension is a body (adds height)
3 dimension is a full body (adds width)

"Marty, Marty. You aren't thinking Fourth Dimensionally!"
"Yeah, I know. I'm told I have a problem with that..."
~Back to the Future

That was a pretty neat flash. Certainly made the subject more enjoyable and digestable than it normally would've been. I found it interesting how the dimensions started to sort of repeat themselves going into the cycle of point, line, branch, fold and back to a point again.

I enjoyed the flash, but at the same time being the nerd I am, I wouldn't mind seeing some mathematical backing to these ideals. I delved a little into multiple dimensions thanks to my vector/multivariable calculus class, and the whole 2D people in the flash reminded me of countour lines.

But my prof lost me when he described 4D as "think about 3D contour lines." Seriously... how? Of course, time is the base of how most people judge the fourth dimension but to visually comprehend it is only through 3D contour plots.

Although it has hard to visually see dimensions larger than 3, I have seen some strange, very strange, plots of up to 27 dimensions, using colors, textures, volumes, shapes, etc. In a sense, each dimension can be visualized by a different variable, such as a through z.

The flash didn't really give anything mathy for my liking, but it's still very intriguing to think of the tenth dimension as the "everything" dimension.

Is a three-dimensional object possible? Not really. A three dimensional cube would have width, depth, and height, but no duration. It wouldn't exist for any lenght of time. All objects need to have a measurable extension along the fourth dimension in order to exist for more than zero time.

That's how I think of it, anyway. Just because humans don't have the ability to freely move along the fourth dimension doesn't mean that nothing does. I once read an article that explained how tachyons have been observed to move in a non-linear fashion along the fourth dimension.

It's just a skill that we don't have.

Nice find. This is like a simplified version of Michio Kaku's 'Hyperspace'. If this Flash intersted you, I would highly recommend Hyperspace: A scientific odyssey through parallel universes, Time Warps, and the 10th dimension. Physics is fun!


I know something that wasn't included in the 10 dimensions: Nothingness/Oblivion. The only thing outside all possibility of all things that exist is that which does not exist. Data: "Could lack of dimension be a dimension in itself?"

To me, nothingness is a point, that is indeed outside the 10-dimensional reality-sphere we live in. It cannot be comprised of different times, dimensions, it has no length etc., so it's an imaginative {0}, which is the opposite of everything that really does exist.

Think of it like how {x=2} is the "counter" of {x is not 2}. This is how I think of it, anyway.

Nice video, though.

The flash made it REALLY straightforward and easy to comprehend. I liked it.

So pretty much, every single possible thing than human beings can possibly comprehend... things within our wildest dreams and imagination. I guess that falls within the dimensions of connecting our universe to other universes. Now, in the tenth dimension... in there lies the shit that's actually beyond our comprehension. Hah, I guess that's where GOD lives.

I disprove this through religion. Wait, no I dont.

Personally, I thought it was very enlightning and the flash presentation was very entertaining considering the material it was working with.

Please explain what tachyons are. I've never heard of them.

Hmm interesting flash. Though I'm with Dee on this, I want more math involved! Crude 2D examples can only show so much after the 4th dimension.
Still, this flash is a great way to introduce a non-physics person to the idea of 10 dimensions.

Tachyons is a made up subatomic particle that always moves faster than the speed of light.
*Doesn't anyone watch Star Trek anymore?*

Very interesting flash.
But more interesting than imagining the 10th dimension is "Hearing the 10th Dimension"... If it's so hard to imagine it's shape, how would it sound? 0_o;

Definitely a manageable bit of info for someone not totally familiar with a lot of concepts. I get the idea that it's really at most an overview, and far from technical, but still gives me an insane amount of info to think about at the same time.

I'm definitely considering locating this book, as it sounds like something that would be very intriguing to me.

Honestly, I'm not sure that I can. I'm not a physicist, or even close. I didn't entirely understand the article that I read, and everything else I wrote in that post could easily be a missaprehension.

I agree with you as well on the whole "more mathematics" thing. The only probably though is they'll never show us what "other" mathematical concepts they've used to prove certain ideas. This may not sound like a big thing to most, but I think it would give us a firm idea, from the ground up, how certain things were conceived.

That means nothing.

Since time can't be measured in the same unit than space, it cannot be a dimension, since any comparison done is inconsistent.
I see time as "a continuum where 3 dimensional objects exist".

But some sciencists (and pseudosciencists) overcomplicate things with theories that try to explain what they actually don't understand well. Then, those theories get "established"...so they hinder "thinking outside the box" around another ideas.

Think, for example, about the good old explaination of orbits by Ptolemy (which prevailed until Copernicus' days), based on complicated "epicycles" where the Moon and Mars' orbits were monkeying in a funny way around the Earth - complexity that was gone when Copernicus realized that it was the center was the Sun, not the Earth...

According to my understanding, Einstein disagrees. However, I'll not press the point, since I am by no means sure of my grounds.

Wow, that was... something.

A stipend though:
- The Flash describes Time as a line in which we go along a set path of growing from birth till death, but then has the 5th dimension as branches of different futures. If we are all moving along a linear path in time, then how does the relationship between different particles (People, things, etc.,) affect each particle's linear path.
In other words: Are our relationships (Interactions/observations?) of other objects ('Particles', to be nitpicky) going to affect our own time-line? Or is this covered in the 5th/6th dimension when it comes to different outcomes?

The flash really was quite interesting, and perhaps I may even get the book. As for my above question, I was thinking that maybe the 4th 5th and maybe 6th dimensions all operate at the same time together, as does 3D space, since an object, such as a box, will always have width depth and height, and it won't magically just become flat or a dot.

If strings vibrate in the 10th dimension as described (every possible outcome for every possible universe), but the 10th dimension is only one point (the same), then what are the strings made of? or is it a way of saying that the point of the 10th dimension itself is vibrating somehow?

I like explanations like this guy's. There's nothing better than someone talking about something he's both very enthusiastic and very knowlegeable about.

On the first point: according to the book (as understood from the flash), this sort of thing is best observed in the 5th dimension where you'll see the timelines bend and kink and branch off as they take on differing alternatives based on relationships between individuals.

On the second point: it depends on your perspective. Here, a box is a box because we understand things in 3-D space, but in 4-D space, that box is but an entity, a point that travels through time. It may not be a physical point in 3-D space, but from the perspective of 4-D space, the fact that it is a 3-D box is not important, it merely exists as an object in time.

Overall I enjoyed the interpretation, although the author seems to follow Ockham's Razor religiously trying to parse everything to the least components (as he should anyway) possible. Though this is an elegant and simple way of presenting how to encompass everything there is to consider in the universe and beyond, I'll admit. What I really like best is the way point of view is employed to simplify everything as either a point, a line, or a 2-D figure. It makes figuring out things in higher dimesions less taxing on the mind trying to compound other dimensions on the existing 3-D framework and simply work from a different perspective. I understand the idea from my experience reading diagrams that deal with more than 4 variables (like 10 chemical components in rocks) where certain aspects are assumed constant and the resulting chart is "projected" from that variable to create a more legible diagram.

Hmm... So would I be correct in saying that it is kind of like a subatomic particle that changes by mearly being observed: that mearly because we exist and that we move through time, that our future selves are always changing due to what we decide to do in the present?

Here's a bugger of a follow-up question: How would one go about seeing someone's 4D time-line?

Its about dammed time that someone followed that principle. There seems to be a great and very steep learning curve when it comes to these complex mathamtical theories, and having a simplified version explain the basics of something like Higher Dimensional Visualization, is a welcome one.

Err, what he said. Occam's razor should be used when introducing students & interested company to complex theories and overall information.

Yeah, seems we agree about having an easy way to look at these things. One thing I was a bit disapoinnted about was that there was no visualization of a higher set of physical properties.

Since
O = Point
1 = Line
2 = Length
3 = Width

and
4 = Time

I would have expected 5, 6, and 7 to be additional unseen physical parameters (Which, technically they ARE, but in a subdued and different form) instead of universes and possible outcomes, which is getting into the realm of probability and not physics.

The best thing about this flash is: while it is still a theory, it does give to light an explanation of so many sci-fi schema, such as Time Travel, Seeing into the Future, Parallel Dimensions, etc.,.

As such, I'd like to see a story/movie/tv show? that uses a (somewhat) realistic explanation as to why Johnny Lightspeed can warp to the gamma sector in under 12 parsecs, instead of just 'Warp Drive' or 'Tachyon Particles' as the given explanation. This flash has given a way for them to explain it somewhat (Although the actual methods for acheving warp drive, or time travel is still unexplanable at this point, so I'll allow for artisitic legroom :p ).

Well I was just using a well known example of technobabble to show my point. Yes I know that a parsec is a unit of distance and not time, but whatever! :p

I read that book,. So even though I can't view the flash right now, I have a pretty good idea what's going on

One thing I found intriguing was the seemingly supernatural powers an extradimensional being would have over a being of lower dimensions. If a Flatlander had cancer, for instance, we 3D beings could just pluck the tumor out seemingly by magic, because there's a whole side of him not covered in the third dimension. An extradimensional being traveling through lower dimensions would appear to disappear and then reappear again while he was traveling. For example if you were walking on Flatland, its citizens would only see 2D cross-sections of your feet and then see them disappear as you lift your feet. If beings of higher dimensions were traveling thorugh 3D space, we would see random blobs appear and then disappear as they were traveling.

Also, to the people who reamrked it's hard to envisage things in higher dimensions, it's actually physically impossible. Our brains have evolved only to visualize three dimensional space or lower. That's why higher dimensions can only be explained in terms of analogs between us and lower dimensions. All of you should definitely pick up either Hyperspace or this other guy's book. It's some very cool stuff.

Interesting. It's pretty easy to follow his argument, though I'm a bit disappointed at the treatment of time as another dimension. I was expecting 10 spatial dimension (10 lines perpendicular to each other).

Come on, you don't believe this do you?

I understand what he's saying, but he's already going wrong at number 5. The creatore of this flash confuses the split as, on one hand a concrete other direction, and on the other hand an alternate path. Those two things are not the same, not even metaforically.

The theory of Einstein suggests that the fifth dimension is just a spacial dimension that we can't see and that creates gravity. And for that power another dimension is needed, and for that again another. Therefore, there is an infinite number of dimensions. We experience the fourth dimension as time, but maybe it's also spacial and we might just be traveling through it at a constant speed. We might just experience the rest of them in again another different way, or we might not experience them at all. And then our mind would not be capable of understanding an comprehense those things.
but don't let that bother you, i can't imagine it would make you any happier.

I like these subjects. Even though I don't completely understand them.
By the way, Einstein had a theory on bending time and travel the universe
from one point to another in 0 time. Just like point 3 in the flash.

Good God.
If you use big words, spell them correctly. I'm only saying this so you can save yourself some grief.


Anyway....

As a firm believer in Superstring Theory and practically martyred by my own junior high school (bunch of bible beating louts :eyebrow: :boxing: ), I can safely say that from the flash, one can deduce that the only way that there could be an 11th Dimension would be if there were another way of creation of a similar (or completely different, as the case may be) universe in which time is experienced.

As we'll never be able to reach another dimension alive, I also would say that it's not to be worried about. It is interesting to think about, though.

Okay, so this guy builds up to 10 dimensions through a simple cycle, Point, Line, Split, Fold, and then the fold becomes the point and the cycle starts over, until the point is every possible anything, in which case it is the only point possible.

Now, if dimensions 3, 6 and 9 are folds as well as points, then why can't dimension 0 be a fold as well as a point? Can you have dimensions less than zero? Unless I misunderstood this flash, then one should be able to prove their existence.

Also, what about dimensions that are in between whole numbers? They exist according to chaos theory. All fractals have dimensions with decimal places. I'm pretty sure I once read about a fractal triangle that had a dimension of 2.3, and you could prove it using logarithms. (I'm searching for a link, I promise...)

Well, can you HAVE anything that is less than zero?

No. So chances are that there are no negative dimensions unless you consider the idea of non-existence having it's own universe.
But if that's true, wouldn't that mean that not-existing was in existence? So even then, the diminsions would be positive, not negative.

Nothing will always be nothing. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would be something, not nothing.

String Theory, similar to quantum mechanics, is based completely on mathemaical equations and complete physics. Wherein the math might be flawless, without empirical evidence and experimentation, these theories remain theories.

Understandably, the interest in String Theory has rose greatly over the past 2 decades following Bohrs atomic model and the next Quantum Mechanics. But you must realize that the dilema of Schrodinger's Cat best exmplifies all theories and physics reasoning beyond what is physically unobservable with any instrument.

I commend physicists for venturing into Sting Theory because they risk a lot studying something that is so difficult to quantify. Compared to some other literature I have read concerning String Theory, this particular flash does a good job explaining although it conflicts with other observatinos on the subject. With so much disagreement among scientists, how can we hold one theory as more valid above another when there is no evidence?

Oh well, its very confusing. At the very least, String Theory is a intriguing idea which had me interested all of last year.

Yeah, time as a dimension is even less of a dimension than money. :doh:

I've been speculating...since each of the spatial axis (x, y, z) is orthogonal with the other two axis, why don't we take into account the imaginary (sqrt -1) axis associated with their real counterparts, which are orthogonal to them? Euler's equation involved the numbers e, pi, and a imaginary and real axis [ e^(pi*i)+1=0 ]

Extrapolating that idea to each one of the axis...it'd give six dimensions (x, xi, y, yi, z, zi) or, well, three complex dimensions (X, Y, Z or whatever notation could be used)


PD: Oh well, money may be a dimension, since it's a degree of freedom. (Theoretically) it can go up and down infinitely! :dealer:

It is definitely possible to use the imaginary axis argument, especially if the conditions are met, but I would like to point out two things:

1) One of the reasons complex analysis is used in proving certain theories is to avoid dealing with anything sinusoidal. Sinusodial oscillating functions, in the physical sense, may give insight to certain things that may exhibit wave behavior. Often though, they can present difficult mathematical challenges. If this is the case, then complex analysis can be used to make the mathematics a little simpler and to give other insight on additional things. An example of this is applications of the fourier series.

2) The imaginary axis was a good point, and it is possible that is something string theorists are doing in their theoretical work. They're not going to tell us nor are we ever going to know they because we're not researchers, LOL.

One more thing (x,xi,y,yi,z,zi) is incorrect.

To express this in complex domain, it is simply the following:

Assume that x,y,and z are elements in the complex number system. Then anything in {The set of complex numbers}^3 is the ordered triple (x,y,z), where x=a+bi, y=c+di, z= e+fi. So, that six dimensional ordered pair is essentially (a+bi,c+di,e+fi), which is in essence, reduces a six dimensional problem into a 3D one. WHile it is true that the ordered pair of real numbers(g,h) expresses the number g+hi, (g,h) is not an element in the 1d case of the set of complex numbers. g+hi, on the otherhand, is in that set.

Science made simple -- I like it!

The concept of other dimensions has always been somewhat interesting to me, but I've never really tried to conceptualize it beyond the fourth (I'm a simple person). I can't say I totally understand the flash (I suspect I'll need to read the book, or at least watch the flash over a few times) but it'll make for some interesting conversation, I guess.

Sorry, I messed up the details ;) - I was just trying to illustrate a "non-dimensional time, Complex 3D space" idea :biggrin:

I have a question about this. The one visual it uses during the description of a 2d man shows the cross-section of a human going by, as if a 2d man will see each layer of a person as if that person is cut in half from head to toe an infinite number of times. My question is why wouldn't the 2d man simply see a human as if I would close one of my eyes to look at it? If you're looking at at a human in 2d, wouldn't the skin still be what is being observed? What causes the 2d eye to look past the outside surface of the object and see it in cross sections?

I'm not a exactly a expert in this area, but I'll try to explain.
The reason the "flatlander" could potentially see a 3D being (the human) as cross-sections is because the flatlander cannot perceive depth in any sense.
In our world, according to the flash. We can see this depth or cross-sections of us as one being. The flatlander can only see the length and width of that being. Even if that is technically peering through the 3D human's insides. You could go as far and say we're passing through 2D worlds all the time =p.
Again this works the same for us when we try to imagine the 4th dimension. We can only see a cross-section of what we're experiencing as err time.

Closing one eye would not render everything in 2D, rather it takes 3D objects and put them into a plane of projection, thus giving it the "flat" appearance.

"Flatlanders" can see projections, but, in the case of 3D objects as they cross through the 2D world, only a slice is visible. However if the 3D object were to stand outside of the 2D world and have a light shine through it, then we have a projection and an effect of 2D on 3D objects, much like how movies appear on screen.

Plain and simple version of the world we live in:

No Dimension: A point. For instance, were you to point out a specific place in the air (not the sky) around you, that would have no dimension. Same thing with a dot on a piece of paper. The dot has dimension, but the point is specifies does not.

1st: Lets take that dot on the piece of paper. You can draw a line from one end of the dot to the other. A line from point A to point B is 1D.

2nd: Say you draw a picture, good or bad. The picture is 2D even if it gives the illusion of being 3D. Van Gogh is not 2D as most of his paint sticks out from the canvas.

3rd: 3D is you and me, living together in perfect harmony (no, that's just a lie) Anything that sticks out is 3D. (no lude comments, please)