Very cool video.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I have to punch myself in the face now.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Very interesting. First time I've been able to get close to understanding string theory, 5+ dimensions, etc. But what's that at the end about not being the "accepted explanation"? Does the video not demonstrate an apt metaphor or is it wrong or what?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Not sure... curious about that too...
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
String theory proposes "sub"-dimensions -- dimensions that are themselves curled up in our dimension to appear as a line or point in our third dimension, as well as our own dimension being curled up in another, higher dimension. Last I checked, there is an estimated 7 sub-dimensions in our three-dimensional space.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Whoa. That's pretty deep.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Does it matter, at that point, whether we consider them "sub" or "super"? I mean, from a strictly layperson standpoint, does it matter whether the probability axis operates around or within space-time? for that matter, do the words "around" or "within" have any meaning for how probability relates to space-time?
Edit: taking a cue from the fact that they assign "color" to sub-nuclear particles, I'm gonna say "no" Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
People have a tendency to search desperately for answers to meaningless questions. It's one of the things that kept civilization alive. Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I would summarize that by saying this guy's not explaining anything all that scientific, even if he does have a slick video.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Very interesting. First time I've been able to get close to understanding string theory, 5+ dimensions, etc. But what's that at the end about not being the "accepted explanation"? Does the video not demonstrate an apt metaphor or is it wrong or what?
I believe string theory posits the existence of additional spatial dimensions. The video only goes up to three spatial dimensions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: I would summarize that by saying this guy's not explaining anything all that scientific, even if he does have a slick video.
Agreed. Starting with the point at which he treats time as being the fourth dimension.
It's interesting and sort of cool, but he's pulling stuff out of his rear. Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
so creatures from the 5th dimension such as Mxyzptlk are not the most powerful of the dimensional beings? I think this makes it sound like they should be from about dimension 8 or so.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I firmly believe that any extra dimensions must include rivkas that use eyeroll smilies, even if that is all they contain.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: There was some discussion of this here earlier.
I would summarize that by saying this guy's not explaining anything all that scientific, even if he does have a slick video.
And there was also some discussion here!
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
From what I've read, the physics "community" isn't all to fond of this guy or his ideas.
Really, his tenth dimension stuff isn't really a theory or anything, it's more of a thought experiment. I don't think he's actually proposing it as fact, but rather as a way to look at it.
But dang it if it isn't interesting. It helps you visualize the term "dimensions" in the first place, particularly with how it relates to time.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah. The video made some of the scenes in Donny Darko make way more sense (the tubes coming out of his chest was him being able to see into the fourth (or fifth?) gen.) and the Tralfamadorians view of life compared to human's (the flatbed train with Man tied down on his back with blinders) came immediately to mind. So even if it's not true, in the "scientific" sense, it's still pretty freakin' neat.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: People have a tendency to search desperately for answers to meaningless questions. It's one of the things that kept civilization alive.
This was my initial feeling too... But in a weird way, it's just logic. Whether or not the tenth dimension will ever impact our lives, you can't deny that it's the logical extension of the following the first-to the second-to the third dimension rule, which IS part of our lives.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
You silly earthlings and your "three" dimensions, we have five...thousand.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
I have never understood how time is considered a higher dimension. Hypothetically, one- and two-dimensional creatures could experience time as well, but not as a manifestation of the next-highest dimension.
Besides, these hypotheses are awaiting experimental confirmation.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
Besides, these hypotheses are awaiting experimental confirmation.
What on earth would that be like?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: It helps you visualize the term "dimensions" in the first place, particularly with how it relates to time.
Not accurately.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
Besides, these hypotheses are awaiting experimental confirmation.
What on earth would that be like?
I was talking about string theory because that's what the website was about. Did you think I was talking about the existence of Flatland? Because that would be a big discovery.
Well, there would be a party if the Large Hadron Collider confirms the existence of the Higgs boson.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: I have never understood how time is considered a higher dimension. Hypothetically, one- and two-dimensional creatures could experience time as well, but not as a manifestation of the next-highest dimension.
If a two dimensional critter experienced time, that'd be the third dimension for the critter. Dimensions are interchangeable. It's just a matter of rotation from one axis to another.
The noted physicist Jacob Burroughs posits that we could rotate through dimensions while still experiencing only three spacial dimensions and one time dimension, but be experiencing duration along what we now consider to be a spacial duration.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By noted do you mean fictional? He's a Heinlein character.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I had just looked him up to make sure I was remembering it correctly before I said anything.....
Unless he shares his name with the character......and has not published anything (despite being "noted")...
Of course I hardly know anything about Physics.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: It helps you visualize the term "dimensions" in the first place, particularly with how it relates to time.
Not accurately.
Not any less accurately than string theory does. Physicists have completely failed up to this point in showing through experimentation that string theory could be correct or just a bunch of bull. It's made no predictions that they have been able to test the past thirty or so years they've been raving about it. There may be hope with the large hadron collider, but what if they don't find the Higgs boson? What if it essentially does nothing to further our understanding of physics, and the attempts at finding a quantum theory of gravity?
Honestly, we need stuff like this. Whether or not it has much actual merit is important, but it's also important for people to start thinking in ways like this. Just ask Newton or Einstein -- you don't solve the mysteries of physics without that type of thinking. I'd wager 99.9% of those paths lead the wrong way, but they get us THINKING in the right direction. As far as I'm concerned, the next advances are most likely going to be results of inductive, rather than deductive reasoning. But we need an induced theory that can actually be tested, and I don't think string theory is doing that. I'll eat crow if it turns out otherwise, but I'll still stand by the fact that this guys thread of thinking is more helpful than not. It's probably utter crap, but it's the kind of merging of creative, lateral thinking that physics needs.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm still furious that the US Government killed our own super collider when it was 90% finished...grrr... idiots... the brain drain is going to seriously hurt us.
Anwyay, just spent an hour or two watching This Elegant Universe on YouTube and how String Theory evolved into M-Theory...
I had no idea that Grand Unified Theory is within our grasp!! Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: I was talking about string theory because that's what the website was about. Did you think I was talking about the existence of Flatland? Because that would be a big discovery.
quote:I had no idea that Grand Unified Theory is within our grasp!! [Eek!]
...or as far away as it's always been, largely depending on how the cookie crumbles with LHC.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: Not any less accurately than string theory does. Physicists have completely failed up to this point in showing through experimentation that string theory could be correct or just a bunch of bull. It's made no predictions that they have been able to test the past thirty or so years they've been raving about it. There may be hope with the large hadron collider, but what if they don't find the Higgs boson? What if it essentially does nothing to further our understanding of physics, and the attempts at finding a quantum theory of gravity?
You're aware that string theory isn't the only thing that people are working on? That some reasonable advances in math have come from the work? That many other arguably more important advances have been made in the last 30 years?
quote:Honestly, we need stuff like this. Whether or not it has much actual merit is important, but it's also important for people to start thinking in ways like this. Just ask Newton or Einstein -- you don't solve the mysteries of physics without that type of thinking. I'd wager 99.9% of those paths lead the wrong way, but they get us THINKING in the right direction. As far as I'm concerned, the next advances are most likely going to be results of inductive, rather than deductive reasoning. But we need an induced theory that can actually be tested, and I don't think string theory is doing that. I'll eat crow if it turns out otherwise, but I'll still stand by the fact that this guys thread of thinking is more helpful than not. It's probably utter crap, but it's the kind of merging of creative, lateral thinking that physics needs.
Fine. The thinking should be related to the world as we understand it though. Lateral thinking is great, but some grounding is necessary, otherwise you're just wanking.
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I'm still furious that the US Government killed our own super collider when it was 90% finished...grrr... idiots... the brain drain is going to seriously hurt us.
There is much more to physics than super colliders and particle physics even if it doesn't have the publicity that the super expensive particle physics experiments have.
Part of the reason that it doesn't have the publicity is that many of these other experiements don't individually involve as many people or as big of a budget. Part of getting and keeping a fantastically large budget, as these particle physics experiments have, is generating publicity, to the point that they have people on this full time. This is something that for the most part the rest of the physics community lacks.
It's not clear to me what brain drain your talking about. I think it worth pointing out that senior field leading researchers from Europe have been coming here since we don't have mandatory retirement ages like large parts of Europe do. Also, its not like there is lack of people that would like to have research jobs. It's the complete opposite, and has been for quite a while.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MEC: You silly earthlings and your "three" dimensions, we have five...thousand.
If you have a problem with that maybe you should take that up with Mr. Laser!
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
My brain hurts...
Just one thought; if this is not the accepted expanation, what use is it? If I explained that clouds are really candyfloss bubbles made by Sky Giants it would be 'running contrary to the accepted mainstream viewpoint' and also about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
So what I'm basically asking is how valid is this explanation? Are we talking close, but simplified for dummies or totally in the Territory of the Chocolate Teapot?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Chocolate Teapot.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Thank you rivka for your concise, yet complete response. I am in your debt.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Others will disagree, of course. But that's exactly why I objected to this -- it becomes something someone has to unlearn later. As a former teacher, I hate "models" like that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to learn that despite being well aware of how wrong it was, I enjoyed it and showed it to my son.
I did make sure he understood that that's not how the fourth (and higher) dimension really is. We had a fun discussion about the curvature of dimensions.
*goes off to teach about electron orbits*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *goes off to teach about electron orbits*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Physics it might not be, but what I'm surprised everyone is missing is the application to Laundry Science. Folding through the 5th dimension is likely to revolutionize the industry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Others will disagree, of course. But that's exactly why I objected to this -- it becomes something someone has to unlearn later. As a former teacher, I hate "models" like that.
Yup!
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Physics it might not be, but what I'm surprised everyone is missing is the application to Laundry Science. Folding through the 5th dimension is likely to revolutionize the industry.
That's how people lose socks in the dryer.
From what I understand about physics, time isn't a dimension. Time is a subjective observation based on experience of entropy and something to do with relativity. Am I close to being right?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Physics it might not be, but what I'm surprised everyone is missing is the application to Laundry Science. Folding through the 5th dimension is likely to revolutionize the industry.
It's actually been going on for a few years already. It looks like this. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: From what I understand about physics, time isn't a dimension. Time is a subjective observation based on experience of entropy and something to do with relativity. Am I close to being right?
Time is generally considered to be a 4th dimension. The wikipedia entries on Spacetime and World lines provide some insight into this subject (and their summaries are good enough that I won't attempt to rephrase them). Distance in spacetime depends on position and time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Playing the role of" is not the same thing as "is."
Calling time the 4th dimension is a type of shorthand. Unlike the three dimensions (and other theoretical spatial dimensions), time is not interchangeable in any meaningful sense.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The extra spatial dimensions predicted by string theory are not interchangeable with classical spatial dimensions because they are not flat (spacetime is not flat either but these extra dimensions don't have the same degree of "non-flatness"). Lets call one of these extra dimensions "w". You could not (for example) specify a cube using x,y,w coordinates.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cheerfully* Ok, my dad (who should know) says you're right and I'm very wrong.
I still don't like the video. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic particles that make up our world are collapsed from waves of probability simply by the act of observation. In the picture we are drawing for ourselves here, we can now start to see how each of us are collapsing the indeterminate wave of probable futures contained in the fifth dimension into the fourth dimensional line that we are experiencing as “time”.
This is where the video loses me. I get that quantum physics is really weird stuff, but our observations actually cause things? And this is in some way related to the choices I make?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic particles that make up our world are collapsed from waves of probability simply by the act of observation. In the picture we are drawing for ourselves here, we can now start to see how each of us are collapsing the indeterminate wave of probable futures contained in the fifth dimension into the fourth dimensional line that we are experiencing as “time”.
This is where the video loses me. I get that quantum physics is really weird stuff, but our observations actually cause things? And this is in some way related to the choices I make?
From what I've heard and read, yes, Quantum Reality can be influenced by the observer. From what I remember in Quantum Reality the particles exist everywhere at the same time until they are observed...kind of of like the electron cloud...you can tell the speed but not the location...or the location but not the speed...
Wasn't there a recent experiment when they actually proved Quantum Reality (or was it Quantum Tunneling)... they fired a particle at a screen with two slits...and this particle was to go through one or the other and hit the detector on the other side to see which slit it went through. But lo! It went through BOTH at the same time!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It sounds like this one But wouldn't it not work if someone was looking at it, or recording it?
EDIT - Oh, I guess so.
quote:A remarkable result follows from a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors are placed in either or both of the two slits in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern.
Crazy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic particles that make up our world are collapsed from waves of probability simply by the act of observation. In the picture we are drawing for ourselves here, we can now start to see how each of us are collapsing the indeterminate wave of probable futures contained in the fifth dimension into the fourth dimensional line that we are experiencing as “time”.
I get it now. He's using quantum mechanics as a metaphor for his proposed model, not as an explanation for how his model works.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic particles that make up our world are collapsed from waves of probability simply by the act of observation. In the picture we are drawing for ourselves here, we can now start to see how each of us are collapsing the indeterminate wave of probable futures contained in the fifth dimension into the fourth dimensional line that we are experiencing as “time”.
This is where the video loses me. I get that quantum physics is really weird stuff, but our observations actually cause things? And this is in some way related to the choices I make?
From what I've heard and read, yes, Quantum Reality can be influenced by the observer. From what I remember in Quantum Reality the particles exist everywhere at the same time until they are observed...kind of of like the electron cloud...you can tell the speed but not the location...or the location but not the speed...
Wasn't there a recent experiment when they actually proved Quantum Reality (or was it Quantum Tunneling)... they fired a particle at a screen with two slits...and this particle was to go through one or the other and hit the detector on the other side to see which slit it went through. But lo! It went through BOTH at the same time!
An observer can just be another particle. It used to be theorized that conscious observation played a role in quantum effects but that theory is no longer mainstream.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
"Observe" in this case being more synonymous with "interact" than "witness"?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)