We start with a point.
August 7, 2006 9:38 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: previously
Sorry, double.
This is a really great presentation, though.
posted by Drunken_munky at 9:41 AM on August 7, 2006
This is a really great presentation, though.
posted by Drunken_munky at 9:41 AM on August 7, 2006
Good god, not again...
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:45 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:45 AM on August 7, 2006
Oh no! I had only just managed to forget this! Augh.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:50 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:50 AM on August 7, 2006
The previous thread has given me the great notion of the "Puppy Love vs. Savings" axis, so it's all worthwhile.
posted by boo_radley at 9:56 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 9:56 AM on August 7, 2006
Has the animation changed since the last post? I'm reading the comments in the previous thread and they seem to be discussing things that I didn't see in this animation.
posted by CRM114 at 10:09 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by CRM114 at 10:09 AM on August 7, 2006
The progressive steps for imagining the various sets of dimensions bears a passing resemblance to the steps for imagining the kabalistic tree of life.
posted by owhydididoit at 10:26 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 10:26 AM on August 7, 2006
This is sort of a "DaVinci code" for the mathematics crowd - makes you feel as if you've learned something, but you haven't, and most of it is wrong.
There's a wealth of actual physics websites and texts out there - but, well, that might actually be hard.
posted by vacapinta at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2006
There's a wealth of actual physics websites and texts out there - but, well, that might actually be hard.
posted by vacapinta at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2006
Metafilter: As if you've learned something, but you haven't, and most of it is wrong.
Apologies. I couldn't resist.
posted by yeti at 11:32 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Apologies. I couldn't resist.
posted by yeti at 11:32 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Thanks vacapinta. I'd been wondering what the site was missing, and you cleared it up for me: an albino assassin.
Actually, I'd take one minor issue with the DaVinci Code analogy. Dan Brown makes up facts out of thin air, and ignores inconvenient facts to tell his story; but he seems vaguely aware of the general outline of history. This guy seems to be completely ignorant of the last couple hundred years of developments in math and physics. This is what the DaVince Code would be if Dan Brown heard about some dude named Jesus and decided to write a book based on it.
posted by Humanzee at 11:35 AM on August 7, 2006
Actually, I'd take one minor issue with the DaVinci Code analogy. Dan Brown makes up facts out of thin air, and ignores inconvenient facts to tell his story; but he seems vaguely aware of the general outline of history. This guy seems to be completely ignorant of the last couple hundred years of developments in math and physics. This is what the DaVince Code would be if Dan Brown heard about some dude named Jesus and decided to write a book based on it.
posted by Humanzee at 11:35 AM on August 7, 2006
Mathematicians have a joke about this:
"How do you visualize 10 dimensions?"
"Easy, first I visualize N dimensions, then I let N equal 10."
posted by em at 11:58 AM on August 7, 2006
"How do you visualize 10 dimensions?"
"Easy, first I visualize N dimensions, then I let N equal 10."
posted by em at 11:58 AM on August 7, 2006
I really liked the idea of imaginary time (a time dimension orthogonal to real time, by analogy with the imaginary number line in the Argand plane) from A Brief History of Time.
I bet if this guy heard about that, his head would explode.
posted by wilberforce at 11:59 AM on August 7, 2006
I bet if this guy heard about that, his head would explode.
posted by wilberforce at 11:59 AM on August 7, 2006
Never venture into higher dimensions without Buckaroo Banzai at your side. After all, he's been to the 8th dimension and back again!
posted by nlindstrom at 12:21 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by nlindstrom at 12:21 PM on August 7, 2006
em writes "Mathematicians have a joke about this: 'How do you visualize 10 dimensions?' 'Easy, first I visualize N dimensions, then I let N equal 10.'"
Wait, that's a joke? That's how I actually do visualize multiple dimensions.
posted by orthogonality at 12:30 PM on August 7, 2006
Wait, that's a joke? That's how I actually do visualize multiple dimensions.
posted by orthogonality at 12:30 PM on August 7, 2006
I don't know if it was "Debunked" in the other post, I think people were just thrown off by his using the word "choice" for the 5th dimension. He probably should have said something to the effect of "All possibilities of waveforms as they collapse."
Of course, The way waveforms collapse is based on our choice. (as long as you don't believe that the universe is pre-destined).
posted by hatsix at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2006
Of course, The way waveforms collapse is based on our choice. (as long as you don't believe that the universe is pre-destined).
posted by hatsix at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2006
hatsix writes "I don't know if it was 'Debunked' in the other post, I think people were just thrown off by his using the word 'choice' for the 5th dimension. "
No, I really don't think they were. I think the fundamental problem is that this is nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:42 PM on August 7, 2006
No, I really don't think they were. I think the fundamental problem is that this is nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:42 PM on August 7, 2006
"as long as you don't believe that the universe is pre-destined"
All possibilities happen and as the inevitable outcome reaches it's inevitable conclusion of entropy, the waveforms collapse at that time. The universe is simultaneously predestined and consists of free will. If you don't think that's possible, try reviewing the definition of the word infinity. Plenty of room to make that possible.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:52 PM on August 7, 2006
All possibilities happen and as the inevitable outcome reaches it's inevitable conclusion of entropy, the waveforms collapse at that time. The universe is simultaneously predestined and consists of free will. If you don't think that's possible, try reviewing the definition of the word infinity. Plenty of room to make that possible.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:52 PM on August 7, 2006
It has nothing to do with the wording; this is nonsense. Consider:
-Although the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is still the most popular, many physicists subscribe to the many worlds interpretation which argues that there's no such thing as wave function collapse.
-Setting that aside, wave functions are typically infinite-dimensional, and they are always more than one-dimensional, so how could "all possibilities of waveforms" be a dimension?
-Setting that aside, the only people I've ever heard advocating a role for "choice" in wavefunction collapse are cranks. Every serious physicist that I've met or studied under describes it as a random process. Every experiment has bared that out. Anyone who can demonstrate control of wavefunction collapse has a million dollars coming to them from James Randi.
-Setting that aside, the kind of "dimensions" related to wavefunctions are completely different from the dimensions of physical space. Putting them together is simply the sign of faulty thinking.
posted by Humanzee at 2:18 PM on August 7, 2006
-Although the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is still the most popular, many physicists subscribe to the many worlds interpretation which argues that there's no such thing as wave function collapse.
-Setting that aside, wave functions are typically infinite-dimensional, and they are always more than one-dimensional, so how could "all possibilities of waveforms" be a dimension?
-Setting that aside, the only people I've ever heard advocating a role for "choice" in wavefunction collapse are cranks. Every serious physicist that I've met or studied under describes it as a random process. Every experiment has bared that out. Anyone who can demonstrate control of wavefunction collapse has a million dollars coming to them from James Randi.
-Setting that aside, the kind of "dimensions" related to wavefunctions are completely different from the dimensions of physical space. Putting them together is simply the sign of faulty thinking.
posted by Humanzee at 2:18 PM on August 7, 2006
Which dimension contains the eldritch horrors? 'Cause I want to avoid that one.
posted by ryoshu at 2:20 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by ryoshu at 2:20 PM on August 7, 2006
I don't know about "N dimensions," but after careful study, I've rated Angelina Jolie's dimensions "Mmmmm MMM!"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:24 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:24 PM on August 7, 2006
Oh, the alternate-universe grammar in that flash demo: "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 future contained in the fifth dimension into the fourth dimensional line that we are experiencing as time."
posted by pracowity at 2:44 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by pracowity at 2:44 PM on August 7, 2006
Dupe and Stup (id).
This is basically time-cube level crap.
posted by delmoi at 2:50 PM on August 7, 2006
This is basically time-cube level crap.
posted by delmoi at 2:50 PM on August 7, 2006
I don't know if it was "Debunked" in the other post, I think people were just thrown off by his using the word "choice" for the 5th dimension. He probably should have said something to the effect of "All possibilities of waveforms as they collapse."
The problem is that all ten dimensions, except time, are spatial. Think about it. You have three dimension, length, width, and height. But if you turn your head, all of those transform into eachother. The other nine dimensions are the same way. Except they're very small, smaller then an atom.
posted by delmoi at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2006
The problem is that all ten dimensions, except time, are spatial. Think about it. You have three dimension, length, width, and height. But if you turn your head, all of those transform into eachother. The other nine dimensions are the same way. Except they're very small, smaller then an atom.
posted by delmoi at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2006
By small you mean short? shallow? What is the right word for this?
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:07 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:07 PM on August 7, 2006
How would I notice if a few dimensions (other than the first four) vanished?
posted by pracowity at 3:16 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by pracowity at 3:16 PM on August 7, 2006
I'd like to hear some more, Delmoi. I'm a classical history major and in no way an authority on math or physics. If this link is a bunch of un-scientific crap, then I apologize, but I'd at least like to hear how I, as a scientic layperson, should have been able to tell.
posted by CRM114 at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by CRM114 at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2006
If infinity is comprised of all finities ending forever, than is finity all infinities beginning forever.
*head asplodes*
posted by Skygazer at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2006
*head asplodes*
posted by Skygazer at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2006
pracowity: presumably the laws of physics would stop working.
posted by mrnutty at 3:24 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by mrnutty at 3:24 PM on August 7, 2006
I often wonder if the whole 'dimension' concept is a blind alley, a dead end. 1- and 2- dimensional objects are wholly imaginary...they do not exist, never have, and never will. All objects in our universe simply are. We are able to perceive length, height, and depth, and we can do very cool things with our ability to manipulate those attributes. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are divisible, or can be considered separately.
Dimensions, in other words, are imaginary. Drawing conclusions from imaginary premises can be highly useful, but useful and true are not the same things. A blueprint on paper will let me make really neat things, just as a map will let me navigate, but the map is not the territory.
My hunch, and it is obviously just a hunch, is that time isn't a dimension, it's a force of some kind. Calling it a dimension lets us do all kinds of interesting things (like computing light cones, as a trivial example), but that doesn't make it actually physically true. I suspect time travel would require rewinding the entire universe, which would require infinite energy.
My suspicion, in other words, is that there is no time but now; it's a side effect, not an axis.
There's no real evidence of any type that higher dimensions exist... it's just a bunch of really neat equations on paper. If the premise -- the existence and divisibility of the first and second dimensions -- is flawed, all conclusions drawn are suspect.
posted by Malor at 3:41 PM on August 7, 2006
Dimensions, in other words, are imaginary. Drawing conclusions from imaginary premises can be highly useful, but useful and true are not the same things. A blueprint on paper will let me make really neat things, just as a map will let me navigate, but the map is not the territory.
My hunch, and it is obviously just a hunch, is that time isn't a dimension, it's a force of some kind. Calling it a dimension lets us do all kinds of interesting things (like computing light cones, as a trivial example), but that doesn't make it actually physically true. I suspect time travel would require rewinding the entire universe, which would require infinite energy.
My suspicion, in other words, is that there is no time but now; it's a side effect, not an axis.
There's no real evidence of any type that higher dimensions exist... it's just a bunch of really neat equations on paper. If the premise -- the existence and divisibility of the first and second dimensions -- is flawed, all conclusions drawn are suspect.
posted by Malor at 3:41 PM on August 7, 2006
Which dimension contains the eldritch horrors?
N dimension. And I just let N = this one.
Whoops.
posted by Sparx at 3:54 PM on August 7, 2006
N dimension. And I just let N = this one.
Whoops.
posted by Sparx at 3:54 PM on August 7, 2006
By small you mean short? shallow? What is the right word for this?
Actually coiled. Think about a game of asteroids, you move from one side of the screen you pop out on the other. So the X dimension in that game is 400 pixels or whatever. The universe is like that. Some of the dimensions are very large, others are very small -- less then a plank length. This is all spelled out in detail in the old thread, by other people.
but I'd at least like to hear how I, as a scientist layperson, should have been able to tell.
The only way to tell is to become less of a layperson in the fields you're interested in. Go out and actively search for information from legit sources, rather then waiting for something to come to you.
Other then that, there's really no way to tell, which is why this sort of thing sucks.
posted by delmoi at 4:03 PM on August 7, 2006
Actually coiled. Think about a game of asteroids, you move from one side of the screen you pop out on the other. So the X dimension in that game is 400 pixels or whatever. The universe is like that. Some of the dimensions are very large, others are very small -- less then a plank length. This is all spelled out in detail in the old thread, by other people.
but I'd at least like to hear how I, as a scientist layperson, should have been able to tell.
The only way to tell is to become less of a layperson in the fields you're interested in. Go out and actively search for information from legit sources, rather then waiting for something to come to you.
Other then that, there's really no way to tell, which is why this sort of thing sucks.
posted by delmoi at 4:03 PM on August 7, 2006
I've seen the "time isn't a dimension" idea on Metafilter before. I can sympathize ---Newton thought that time and space were fundamentally separate, and he was no dummy. The thing is, a lot of evidence has come in since then, and that idea really just doesn't work.
Much like evolution, relativity isn't "just" a theory. There are still details to be ironed out, but the basics have been overwhelmingly confirmed. Time dilation has been observed (by numerous techniques). Gravitational lensing provides direct evidence of the curvature of spacetime.
Time dilation and spacetime curvature are complicated ideas, but one simple result is that different observers will disagree about some really basic stuff. If one observer sees two events as happening at the same time, but in different locations; another may disagree, and say that there was a time difference as well. Thus a separation that is purely in distance for one observer, also includes time for another ---in much the same way that some point along the "x axis" in one coordinate system may also have some displacement along the "y axis" in a different coordinate system. The fact that mixing between time and space occurs at a fundamental level indicates that they're part of the same basic thing ---spacetime.
To really understand what physicists mean by "dimension", and especially "spacetime", you have to understand (at least at some basic level) what a manifold is. You really, really need to understand the difference between an intrinsic and an extrinsic description of a manifold. Some of this stuff is complicated and jargon-filled; which really sucks. But just saying something like "time is a force" doesn't resolve that in any way. For starters, "force" means something very precise to physicists, and it most certainly can't describe "time". Replacing highly precise jargon with sloppy jargon just muddles understanding even further.
posted by Humanzee at 4:43 PM on August 7, 2006
Much like evolution, relativity isn't "just" a theory. There are still details to be ironed out, but the basics have been overwhelmingly confirmed. Time dilation has been observed (by numerous techniques). Gravitational lensing provides direct evidence of the curvature of spacetime.
Time dilation and spacetime curvature are complicated ideas, but one simple result is that different observers will disagree about some really basic stuff. If one observer sees two events as happening at the same time, but in different locations; another may disagree, and say that there was a time difference as well. Thus a separation that is purely in distance for one observer, also includes time for another ---in much the same way that some point along the "x axis" in one coordinate system may also have some displacement along the "y axis" in a different coordinate system. The fact that mixing between time and space occurs at a fundamental level indicates that they're part of the same basic thing ---spacetime.
To really understand what physicists mean by "dimension", and especially "spacetime", you have to understand (at least at some basic level) what a manifold is. You really, really need to understand the difference between an intrinsic and an extrinsic description of a manifold. Some of this stuff is complicated and jargon-filled; which really sucks. But just saying something like "time is a force" doesn't resolve that in any way. For starters, "force" means something very precise to physicists, and it most certainly can't describe "time". Replacing highly precise jargon with sloppy jargon just muddles understanding even further.
posted by Humanzee at 4:43 PM on August 7, 2006
Wow man ... so like ... GOD is the 10th dimension ... heavy.
... Pass the Kouchie on the left hand side ...
posted by Dillenger69 at 5:14 PM on August 7, 2006
... Pass the Kouchie on the left hand side ...
posted by Dillenger69 at 5:14 PM on August 7, 2006
The visualization of all the dimensions along with the tenth is good, I loved the presentation. It could definitelly be a good book to get. Very Interesting.
posted by friendly1 at 5:15 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by friendly1 at 5:15 PM on August 7, 2006
Hmm...nothing, everything, infinity....looks Taoist.
Particularly with QM and the nature of observation.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:11 PM on August 7, 2006
Particularly with QM and the nature of observation.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:11 PM on August 7, 2006
There's a standard analogy that's helpful for understanding the question "how could we physically observe these tiny extra dimensions?"
Imagine that 50 feet away from you is a garden hose. The garden hose has two dimensions -- its length and its circumference -- but because it's far away you don't really see the circumference, so it looks effectively like a line to you. Now suppose that there's a luminescent bug crawling along a straight line on the garden hose. What will you see? Depending on the bug's orientation, you might just see a dot of light moving along the line (if the bug is going horizontally along the hose); you might see a dot of light that stays put and flashes on and off (if the bug is going around and around the hose); or you might see some combination of the two. As an observer of these lights, then, you would build up a taxonomy that includes an "always-on light" as well as "flashing lights" of various sorts. You might even work out rules for how the various sorts of light interact with each other, e.g. you might discover that if there are two lights flashing with the same frequency, but timed so that one is on when the other's off, then they don't interact with each other even if they appear to run into one another.
This complicated phenomenology would be vastly simplified once you learned that there was an extra dimension: then you could formulate the hypothesis that there's really only one kind of bug, and all the different observed behaviors for these lights are just coming from different orientations of the bug in the extra dimension. You would get a big conceptual benefit this way even if you were never able directly to access the extra dimension (say the hose is behind glass or something so you can't just walk over to it.)
Something similar happens in physical theories with small extra dimensions: even if you just have one kind of particle in the fundamental theory, the observers who don't directly see the extra dimensions may see a spectrum of many different particles. The spectrum of particles these obervers see is then related to the topology of the extra dimensions; very roughly, each "hole" that the extra dimensions have gives you one kind of particle.
posted by em at 6:26 PM on August 7, 2006
Imagine that 50 feet away from you is a garden hose. The garden hose has two dimensions -- its length and its circumference -- but because it's far away you don't really see the circumference, so it looks effectively like a line to you. Now suppose that there's a luminescent bug crawling along a straight line on the garden hose. What will you see? Depending on the bug's orientation, you might just see a dot of light moving along the line (if the bug is going horizontally along the hose); you might see a dot of light that stays put and flashes on and off (if the bug is going around and around the hose); or you might see some combination of the two. As an observer of these lights, then, you would build up a taxonomy that includes an "always-on light" as well as "flashing lights" of various sorts. You might even work out rules for how the various sorts of light interact with each other, e.g. you might discover that if there are two lights flashing with the same frequency, but timed so that one is on when the other's off, then they don't interact with each other even if they appear to run into one another.
This complicated phenomenology would be vastly simplified once you learned that there was an extra dimension: then you could formulate the hypothesis that there's really only one kind of bug, and all the different observed behaviors for these lights are just coming from different orientations of the bug in the extra dimension. You would get a big conceptual benefit this way even if you were never able directly to access the extra dimension (say the hose is behind glass or something so you can't just walk over to it.)
Something similar happens in physical theories with small extra dimensions: even if you just have one kind of particle in the fundamental theory, the observers who don't directly see the extra dimensions may see a spectrum of many different particles. The spectrum of particles these obervers see is then related to the topology of the extra dimensions; very roughly, each "hole" that the extra dimensions have gives you one kind of particle.
posted by em at 6:26 PM on August 7, 2006
The "smallness" of a dimension could only be determined by comparing it to larger dimensions, yes? In that case, suppose these extra dimensions are "very small." Well, where are they? Wouldn't the fact that they're physically (in 3D terms) small mean they are located at some X-Y-Z coordinates?
They make up some new directions (e.g. one might introduce coordinates "w1, w2, ..., w6" to go along with "x,y,z"). Saying they are "small" means that if you go a short distance along any of the "w" directions you wind up back where you started.
The notion of "distance" here is the same notion of distance that operates in the familiar large 3 dimensions, but I wouldn't quite say that these extra dimensions are "small in 3D terms". (It might be useful to imagine a beetle who lives on your desk, wondering if there is a third dimension and, if so, how high the ceiling is.)
posted by em at 6:43 PM on August 7, 2006
They make up some new directions (e.g. one might introduce coordinates "w1, w2, ..., w6" to go along with "x,y,z"). Saying they are "small" means that if you go a short distance along any of the "w" directions you wind up back where you started.
The notion of "distance" here is the same notion of distance that operates in the familiar large 3 dimensions, but I wouldn't quite say that these extra dimensions are "small in 3D terms". (It might be useful to imagine a beetle who lives on your desk, wondering if there is a third dimension and, if so, how high the ceiling is.)
posted by em at 6:43 PM on August 7, 2006
Time is a form of measurement. It's not real. Saying a minute is thirty seconds has no more or less meaning than saying a foot has twelve inches.
You can measure a tree all you want, and time how long it takes to grow and live and die. Measuring it doesn't affect its state of being. We simply use measurement to help us describe to one another our perception of the universe, but these are arbitrary measurements that are meaningless outside our diminuitive sphere of influence.
If you tried to explain how we measure space and time to an alien, it would laugh at you, and you wouldn't get the joke.
If you were successful at devising time travel, and then used our current preconceived notion of time in trying to make it work, that'd be as absurd as if you were to move to Quebec and then insist everyone there speak english.
None of this talking about the subject is useful. We're 3 dimensional beings trapped in a linear nonomnipotent perception of a small portion of our environment. We're like ants in Toledo discussing the existence or nonexistence of Belgium. This really is laughably silly.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:58 PM on August 7, 2006
You can measure a tree all you want, and time how long it takes to grow and live and die. Measuring it doesn't affect its state of being. We simply use measurement to help us describe to one another our perception of the universe, but these are arbitrary measurements that are meaningless outside our diminuitive sphere of influence.
If you tried to explain how we measure space and time to an alien, it would laugh at you, and you wouldn't get the joke.
If you were successful at devising time travel, and then used our current preconceived notion of time in trying to make it work, that'd be as absurd as if you were to move to Quebec and then insist everyone there speak english.
None of this talking about the subject is useful. We're 3 dimensional beings trapped in a linear nonomnipotent perception of a small portion of our environment. We're like ants in Toledo discussing the existence or nonexistence of Belgium. This really is laughably silly.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:58 PM on August 7, 2006
Why ten? Why not eleven, or nine? Seems arbitrary to me, and thus, wrong.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:19 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:19 PM on August 7, 2006
« Older Self-reflection & New Directions | Because Stupid Is As Stupid Does Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by CRM114 at 9:39 AM on August 7, 2006