Dimensions

  • 159 Replies
  • 45436 Views
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #120 on: July 15, 2009, 01:25:38 PM »
Hah, so you guys were arguing the same side and just didn't know it.  

I believe it is a matrix operation...?  You might have to refer to your advanced physics class for the special case of four-vectors.  I'm pretty rusty.  

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #121 on: July 15, 2009, 01:27:59 PM »
Hah, so you guys were arguing the same side and just didn't know it.  

I wasn't arguing anything, I was trolling Raist.

I believe it is a matrix operation...?  You might have to refer to your advanced physics class for the special case of four-vectors.  I'm pretty rusty.  

Ah, well thanks anyway. I'm sure I'll learn it in the course of my degree, I intend to major in physics and possibly also do a second major in mathematics.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #122 on: July 15, 2009, 01:59:18 PM »
So if I understand everything that has been said hear then time dilation would be equal to( (c^2-v^2)^.5)/c
again I may have misunderstood something but this seems to be the logical equation. so if something was going at half of light speed it would be moving through time at a fourth of the speed it should be going.
right?
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #123 on: July 15, 2009, 03:19:01 PM »
I think it would be sqrt(3) / 2 times the speed of a stationary clock.  Which is 87% of normal speed.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #124 on: July 15, 2009, 03:22:49 PM »
It seemed to me the if the speed limit is the speed of light then that would include the forth dimension. so V^2 + (the speed moving through time)^2=c^2
granted I know talking about moving through time in terms of speed is really bad but I couldn't come up with a better term
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #125 on: July 15, 2009, 03:35:55 PM »
I think it would be sqrt(3) / 2 times the speed of a stationary clock.  Which is 87% of normal speed.

This makes sense to me. If you represent time on the vertical axis of a number plane and one-space on the horizontal axis, you get an angle (say θ) between the temporal axis and the velocity vector (which has magnitude c). Then the spatial component is equal to c sin θ, and if sin θ = 0.5 when θ is on the closed interval [0, π/2] then the temporal component is equal to c cos θ = √3/2 c.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #126 on: July 15, 2009, 04:51:43 PM »
Damn. I am an idiot. My first mistake was I meant to say 3/4 not 1/4
my second mistake was I forgot to take the square root of it. which would be sqrt(3) / 2
I should drink more caffeine before I post.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 05:57:09 PM by optimisticcynic »
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2009, 05:08:12 PM »
Meh,  small mistakes; you had the idea.   :-*

Well I was all embattled because I agree with Raist's idea.  I think I posted something just like that a couple years ago (damn it's been a long time since my FES hayday!). 

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2009, 05:39:49 PM »
It seems to me that people make mistakes going back in time. the problem isn't going back in time. it is having your own personal time go the opposite way of the rest of the universe. for all we know time reverses from time to time then goes forward again. however that would be the whole universe as a whole. for one part to start going backward would actually be to that object traveling forward in time while the rest of the universe travels back in time.
Did I make any sense?
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2009, 07:37:22 PM »
Did I make any sense?
Yeah: reversing the flow of time is only useful if we don't regress in our actions and memories with it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2009, 09:39:38 PM »
Yeah: reversing the flow of time is only useful if we don't regress in our actions and memories with it.

Isn't that what we mean by "reversing the flow of time"? I mean, if time were "reversed", but we were regressing in everything we did, then our perception would still be of "forward" time, so then time has not actually been reversed as far as we are concerned.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2009, 10:31:57 PM »
Yes.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2009, 10:35:26 PM »
Steve, You honkey troll mo-fo.

Time travel would have to be more of a jump than a change of direction, I guess.  

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2009, 10:46:11 PM »
Time travel would have to be more of a jump than a change of direction, I guess.

You mean like applying time dilation between the two ends of a wormhole?

Incidentally, I had an interesting idea regarding this: suppose you had two ends of a wormhole, A and B, with a time difference of t between them - B being the one farther into the future, so that you go from A to B to move forward through time and vice versa. Now, if we place wormhole A inside wormhole B, it will come out of wormhole A at some point in time t before it was placed into wormhole B. That is to say, we can double the time difference between a pair of temporally separated wormhole portals by placing one inside the other.

More generally, we can increase the time difference between two temporally separated wormhole portals t1 apart by passing one of them through another pair of temporally separated portals t2 apart. If we pass both of them through this gate in opposite directions, we can achieve a temporal separation of t1 + 2t2. So, we could obtain a time machine with years in between the two portals by simply flying one portal around the Earth and then effecting repeated applications of this technique, as opposed to the conventional "wait seventy years for a rocket to fly to some faraway place and back at near light speed".

Now all we need to do is invent a wormhole. ;)
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2009, 10:49:32 PM »
You forgot time.
That's an Einsteinium Dimension.  We're referring solely to spacial dimensions.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2009, 10:58:10 PM »
You forgot time.
That's an Einsteinium Dimension.  We're referring solely to spacial dimensions.

Yes, they were talking about spatial dimensions two years ago. We are now talking about time because the original subject of the thread is long dead.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #136 on: July 16, 2009, 08:13:56 AM »
Time travel would have to be more of a jump than a change of direction, I guess.

You mean like applying time dilation between the two ends of a wormhole?

Incidentally, I had an interesting idea regarding this: suppose you had two ends of a wormhole, A and B, with a time difference of t between them - B being the one farther into the future, so that you go from A to B to move forward through time and vice versa. Now, if we place wormhole A inside wormhole B, it will come out of wormhole A at some point in time t before it was placed into wormhole B. That is to say, we can double the time difference between a pair of temporally separated wormhole portals by placing one inside the other.

More generally, we can increase the time difference between two temporally separated wormhole portals t1 apart by passing one of them through another pair of temporally separated portals t2 apart. If we pass both of them through this gate in opposite directions, we can achieve a temporal separation of t1 + 2t2. So, we could obtain a time machine with years in between the two portals by simply flying one portal around the Earth and then effecting repeated applications of this technique, as opposed to the conventional "wait seventy years for a rocket to fly to some faraway place and back at near light speed".

Now all we need to do is invent a wormhole. ;)
You are a wormhole.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #137 on: January 27, 2011, 09:12:02 PM »
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 11:19:32 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #138 on: January 27, 2011, 09:56:02 PM »
Your brother make that, too?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #139 on: January 27, 2011, 11:12:44 PM »
Your brother make that, too?
'Fraid so.

He made that as a quick demonstration when I asked about it. I'm still coming back to watch it to try and sort it out in my head, even though it starts off rectilinear to simplify the 4D topology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_torus
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 01:58:22 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #140 on: January 27, 2011, 11:16:33 PM »
Wow, my head.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #141 on: February 22, 2011, 10:59:29 AM »
Wow, my head.

All the four vector does is establish the point where time is invariant and can be used as a comparison for other inertial frames of reference using the lorentz transformation.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #142 on: February 23, 2011, 12:01:08 PM »
what about the Calabi-Yau dimensions?
I realize that the dimensions in the OP are mathematical constructs, but is their any easy way to visualize and understand the rolled up dimensions of string theory?
for example, if something were to move in the 4th spacial dimension, would it still be visible?

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #143 on: February 24, 2011, 11:12:28 AM »
what about the Calabi-Yau dimensions?
I realize that the dimensions in the OP are mathematical constructs, but is their any easy way to visualize and understand the rolled up dimensions of string theory?
for example, if something were to move in the 4th spacial dimension, would it still be visible?





Calabi-Yau manifolds are used by string theory because they provide the required symmetry for the 'strings' to have resonance, which probably over complicates things. I think it might be easier if you tried to imagine the fourth dimension like another axis on a graph that you can't see. For example if you look at a 2D cross section of a graph, it doesn't not show you the other dimension unless you either move it within that plane.

Translate that to a 3D graph and the only way to see the fourth dimension would be to move it within that plane as well.

If something where to 'move' in the fourth spatial dimension you wouldn't see it.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #144 on: February 27, 2011, 01:39:53 AM »
what about the Calabi-Yau dimensions?
I realize that the dimensions in the OP are mathematical constructs, but is their any easy way to visualize and understand the rolled up dimensions of string theory?
for example, if something were to move in the 4th spacial dimension, would it still be visible?





Calabi-Yau manifolds are used by string theory because they provide the required symmetry for the 'strings' to have resonance, which probably over complicates things. I think it might be easier if you tried to imagine the fourth dimension like another axis on a graph that you can't see. For example if you look at a 2D cross section of a graph, it doesn't not show you the other dimension unless you either move it within that plane.

Translate that to a 3D graph and the only way to see the fourth dimension would be to move it within that plane as well.

If something where to 'move' in the fourth spatial dimension you wouldn't see it.

The way its described though, implies that its not in the same league with 1,2, and 3, so to speak. As in, is there a world with a x,y,v dimensions, sharing our x and y, that works in the same way as our x,y,z?
because I've heard its wound up tightly.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #145 on: February 27, 2011, 05:09:58 AM »
what about the Calabi-Yau dimensions?
I realize that the dimensions in the OP are mathematical constructs, but is their any easy way to visualize and understand the rolled up dimensions of string theory?
for example, if something were to move in the 4th spacial dimension, would it still be visible?





Calabi-Yau manifolds are used by string theory because they provide the required symmetry for the 'strings' to have resonance, which probably over complicates things. I think it might be easier if you tried to imagine the fourth dimension like another axis on a graph that you can't see. For example if you look at a 2D cross section of a graph, it doesn't not show you the other dimension unless you either move it within that plane.

Translate that to a 3D graph and the only way to see the fourth dimension would be to move it within that plane as well.

If something where to 'move' in the fourth spatial dimension you wouldn't see it.

The way its described though, implies that its not in the same league with 1,2, and 3, so to speak. As in, is there a world with a x,y,v dimensions, sharing our x and y, that works in the same way as our x,y,z?
because I've heard its wound up tightly.

The fourth dimension is still like I described. But they apply the Calabi-Yau manifold to try get the right symmetry for the strings to harmonise which is why the dimensions in String theory are twisted and contorted, but the definition of the fourth dimension, and whether you can see it, remains the same.

Essentially what the Calabi-Yau manifolds do is describe what the 'space' looks like within that dimension.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #146 on: February 11, 2012, 04:04:12 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonHise

While organizing I came across this stuff again, but I recall not being able to directly upload this one to tinypic. After a point, there is a law of diminishing returns with this stuff, for how much you real get out of it. It goes from interesting to pretty.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #147 on: February 24, 2012, 01:25:14 PM »

Rotating:


This shape is know as a tesseract.  It has four dimensions consisting of the normal dimensions of length, width, and height and also consisting of a fourth dimension which we will call ?.  Once again this is a shadow.  You cannot point in the direction of the fourth dimension because it is something else rather than the normal up, down, left, right, forward, and back.  We can still project it though, but only as a shadow with inaccurate measurements.


I used to draw pictures like this when I was bored in school.  I'd get them up to 10 dimensions.   I figured out how to do it and that what I was drawing was multi-dimensional cubes on my own.  I also used to do it with pyramids.

I could never figure out a good way to do it with spheres since there are no vertices.

The tesseract is the same as a torus (prety much a spherical shape) only substituting the donut shape for a cube within a cube. If you can keep track of the shape as it is minus the rotation you can see one side of the inside cube stretching out and unfolding around the outside as the opposite end being one side of the wider outside cube shrinks inwards and becomes the inside.


same as this without geometric edges


and here is the inside view of torus



In the same way as a cube can be rotated inside a sphere so that all the cubes points can trace every single point on the inside of the sphere then a tessaract is basicly the same math as a vortating torus. if you were to take every possible moment of the tessaract's cycle and have them coloured differently and in sequence so there is no empty space's in the squares of the cubes etc. like a whole flowing field. Then it would be just like a sphere..It cant rotate and produce the same effect as a cube travesrsing the inside points of the sphere (making a sphere from a cube) at same time as this because the vertical axis akin to the donut hole would be rotating as well

but the point being is that the tesseract represents the same thing as a sphere inside a sphere which unfold into inversions of one another as they turn inside out with the cycle through the "4D" axis but with cubes.

The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus) because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #148 on: February 24, 2012, 04:15:45 PM »
My brother made this picture.  :o

just saw he has made the whatsamajig-torus as well... which is I guess similar to what I was getting at regarding the tesseract following the same principle as a torus their both 4D objects following 4D principles.
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

*

Lorddave

  • 18139
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #149 on: February 25, 2012, 09:30:44 PM »
The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus) because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

What's the cohesive threshold of sensory perception?  And wouldn't a stretched wavelength due to the expansion of space be red-shift?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.