UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Spatial dimensions
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 14:53:06
I'm not sure about you guys but if you understand the concept of more than 3 spatial dimensions you might understand... Do you ever frustrate yourself by trying to move through other dimensions only to realize your stuck in three? Maybe I overthink everything haha I'm a bit weird.... Every time you move up a dimension you add a new direction which is always 90 degrees away from the others ugh... Trying to imagine a new direction bothers me
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 14:58:07
you can make a graph in 4D by using a normal 3-D graph with a color gradient, the color represents the coordinate on the 4th dimension. Also music requires you to think with the passage of time, so thats a way to switch up the dimensions you are thinking in. Also if you learn math well you can transfer your 3-D math to higher dimensions. To actually physically move through other dimensions I haven't figured out a way yet.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 15:02:41
Ahah tell me if you figure out how to move through other dimensions ^^ I learnt how to draw tesseracts like a month ago (pretty much a4-d cube) people can draw up to 10 dimensions but lines are freaking everywhere when they do that...
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 15:10:22
A thread made about "spatial dimensions" by "Dimension"
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 15:14:38
Ahah yeaahh :)
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 15:18:49
It is impossible for humans to imagine more than 3 dimensions. We can think and calculate in more dimensions, but our mind itself is limited to 3 dimensions. Imagining more than 3 dimensions is impossible. And if you can't imagine more than 3 dimensions you probably won't be able to move through more.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 15:24:39
ChainBreak wrote: It is impossible for humans to imagine more than 3 dimensions. We can think and calculate in more dimensions, but our mind itself is limited to 3 dimensions. Imagining more than 3 dimensions is impossible. And if you can't imagine more than 3 dimensions you probably won't be able to move through more.
Sadly yes... Makes you wonder why we are limited to 3 though... Maybe higher dimensions are just theoretical :/ well they are as far As humans will mist likely ever know -
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 20:30:41
Michio Kaku has a lot of information on this. +1 ChainBreak.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 20:39:02
ChainBreak wrote: It is [B]impossible for humans to imagine[/B] more than 3 dimensions. We [B]can think ... in more dimensions[/B], but our mind itself is limited to 3 dimensions. Imagining more than 3 dimensions is impossible. And if you can't imagine more than 3 dimensions you probably won't be able to move through more.
Can you expand on what you mean? Those words don't really mean anything by themselves... How can you think in 4 dimensions but not imagine 4 dimensions? They're synonyms lol, and even if they are different, the differences are subjective not objective It's DIFFICULT to imagine 4 spatial dimensions, and you can't VISUALIZE 4 spatial dimensions, but I don't think what you said is necessarily true -
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 20:41:19
it took me a lot of effort to imagine 4 dimensions, and i get headaches if i try for too long. not really good for anything
-
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2012 16:01:59
strat1227 wrote: Can you expand on what you mean? Those words don't really mean anything by themselves... How can you think in 4 dimensions but not imagine 4 dimensions? They're synonyms lol, and even if they are different, the differences are subjective not objective It's DIFFICULT to imagine 4 spatial dimensions, and you can't VISUALIZE 4 spatial dimensions, but I don't think what you said is necessarily true
Of course there is a difference about thinking inside a dimension and imagining a dimension. Thinking inside a dimension means you apply the rules you worked out using math that apply to the 4th dimension and process information according to these rules. Like this you don't have to imagine the dimension, but you can still think in the dimension. It is also often not really a full 4 dimensional image we create in our mind, but a series of 3 dimensional pictures that we use to imagine a 4 dimensional space. The time that is implied using this method is close to what we perceive as time, but we cannot imagine time as we don't know what it even really is. And if you don't know something you can only imagine what it is using information you already posses. The truth however could be very different. -
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2012 16:40:21
ChainBreak wrote: It is impossible for humans to imagine more than 3 dimensions. We can think and calculate in more dimensions, but our mind itself is limited to 3 dimensions. Imagining more than 3 dimensions is impossible. And if you can't imagine more than 3 dimensions you probably won't be able to move through more.
Imagine going to the store. You not only had to think in 3 spacial dimensions but had to connect the motions through a 4th dimension, time. Since you can imagine starting halfway there already; you clearly have access to machinery that can operate with more than 3 dimensions. -
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2012 20:51:09
If you read the post I just wrote you can see that what we imagine as a 4-dimensional image is actually a series of 3 dimensional images that we chain next to each other. We cannot however know that this is all there is to the 4th dimension(I'm assuming that noone here has bothered to read through the various dimension theories). The time is often refered to as stream or current, which we can't visualize. If the 3 dimensional space changes, where is the flow or the current of the time directed? I can't imagine space with 3 dimensions that has something else inside which makes the image change. Only then I would have imagined a complete 4 dimensional picture if I'm not mistaken.
-
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2012 20:55:04
Awesome wrote: Imagine going to the store. You not only had to think in 3 spacial dimensions but had to connect the motions through a 4th dimension, time. Since you can imagine starting halfway there already; you clearly have access to machinery that can operate with more than 3 dimensions.
The thread is about SPATIAL dimensions. Time isn't a spatial dimension -
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2012 20:58:26
ChainBreak wrote: Of course there is a difference about thinking inside a dimension and imagining a dimension. Thinking inside a dimension means you apply the rules you worked out using math that apply to the 4th dimension and process information according to these rules. Like this you don't have to imagine the dimension, but you can still think in the dimension. It is also often not really a full 4 dimensional image we create in our mind, but a series of 3 dimensional pictures that we use to imagine a 4 dimensional space. The time that is implied using this method is close to what we perceive as time, but we cannot imagine time as we don't know what it even really is. And if you don't know something you can only imagine what it is using information you already posses. The truth however could be very different.
I understand (and mostly agree with) what you're saying, but it's not a proof ... You're just applying generalisms. Just because we don't see it or live in it doesn't inherently mean we can't imagine or visualize it. I've never seen a dragon but I can imagine and visualize it. You're using non-scientific terms ("imagine", "thinking", etc) in scientific absolutisms, which isn't legitimate. Unless you can use neuroscience to show that the human brain isn't physically capable of processing such information, then all you can say is "It would be really really hard to imagine 4 dimensions" not "it's impossible" -
Date: Thu, Apr 19 2012 13:27:22
Well if I'd use scientific terms I doubt people would be able to understand much of what want to express. I also have to admit that I lack knowledge about this topic to express myself with scientific terms while making it easy to understand. Also I lack a lot of words, because English isn't my first language. Having English only as third language it's hard for me to choose my words in a way that would be scientifically correct. ;) To the topic itself: Even though you never saw a dragon you can still imagine what it looks like, because you have already seen a picture of one or read/heared the description of one. Using that information your brain will automatically connect this to other images inside your head(like fangs, tails, claws etc) and create a picture of a dragon. Thus it's not true that you never saw a dragon. It's just not a real image of a dragon, if dragons had existed we wouldn't even know if they really looked like what we believe them to look like. This however doesn't work as well with something like time which cannot be seen. We have images of time from movies or our imagination, but they are only images we use to have something that we can use as visualization of something we've never seen. But as you have stated I'm just assuming stuff using my knowledge and my brain. I could of course be wrong after all, because I don't have any proof. However looking at me I simply lack the knowledge to prove what I'm saying, I haven't studied the mechanism of neurons and the way they process information. Still as far as I'm concerned what I thought up there doesn't seem very unlikely to me and I believe it to be true. So for me this is what I'll see as truth. If you do otherwise that is your decision.
-
Date: Thu, Apr 19 2012 15:34:33
ChainBreak wrote: To the topic itself: Even though you never saw a dragon you can still imagine what it looks like, because you have already seen a picture of one or read/heared the description of one. Using that information your brain will automatically connect this to other images inside your head(like fangs, tails, claws etc) and create a picture of a dragon. Thus it's not true that you never saw a dragon. It's just not a real image of a dragon, if dragons had existed we wouldn't even know if they really looked like what we believe them to look like.
Haha an easy assumption to make. However, consider the logical ramifications of what you just said ... If nobody could ever imagine a dragon except using pictures of dragons that already exist ... who drew the first dragon? ;) I agree with what you're saying as a general truth. However, just like the dragon, I think there are some very creative people out there who probably ARE able imagine it. It's just pretty rare -
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:23:46
so what makes a dimension spacial? Isn't it just 3 dimensions we think most intuitively in. What makes a spacial dimension different from other dimesnsions other than our perception of it?
-
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:36:01
Awesome wrote: so what makes a dimension spacial? Isn't it just 3 dimensions we think most intuitively in. What makes a spacial dimension different from other dimesnsions other than our perception of it?
A spatial dimmension is one which simply, well, exists in space. A dimmension is the minimum number of coordinates necessary to define something within it. Because there is only one point in a 0th dimmensional world, you need zero coordinates to define it, one for a line, etc. A temporal dimmension is different. I don't have a nice convenient way to package a temporal dimmension up, though. -
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:38:42
but to define real world stuff you got have 4 time and a place. The time is just as important and thus brings in another coordinate to define the "location" of something. Sure its harder to think in, but in theory it shouldn't be any different, I wanna see an argument showing the specialness of spacial dimensions.
-
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:41:38
Awesome wrote: but to define real world stuff you got have 4 time and a place. The time is just as important and thus brings in another coordinate to define the "location" of something. Sure its harder to think in, but in theory it shouldn't be any different, I wanna see an argument showing the specialness of spacial dimensions.
You only need time to describe reactions, and only the process of reactions themselves. To illustrate what I mean, I'll use your walking to the store example. In any instantaneous moment, I could be, for example, at my door. I'd need three spatial dimmensions to describe all of the matter concerning me, my door, the road, the store, etc. I could also describe all of the matter once I'm in the store: the door, the food, etc. However, where I need time is to describe the action of walking to the store. The temporal dimmension describes how things change within the spatial dimmensions -
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:44:01
But if I told you to meet me at the store I would have to imply 3 spacial coordinates (the store) and then a time coordinate as a "location" so its not just about actions.
IAmTheMrGuy wrote: You only need time to describe reactions, and only the process of reactions themselves. To illustrate what I mean, I'll use your walking to the store example. In any instantaneous moment, I could be, for example, at my door. I'd need three spatial dimmensions to describe all of the matter concerning me, my door, the road, the store, etc. I could also describe all of the matter once I'm in the store: the door, the food, etc. However, where I need time is to describe the action of walking to the store. The temporal dimmension describes how things change within the spatial dimmensions
-
Date: Fri, Apr 20 2012 02:45:26
Awesome wrote: But if I told you to meet me at the store I would have to imply 3 spacial coordinates (the store) and then a time coordinate as a "location" so its not just about actions.
I consider that different, though. That's playing into a language game (Wittgenstein would be proud) rather than just trying to define something physical in physical space. -
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2012 02:25:01
well it also lead me into thinking that it is also or quite impossible to imagine a dimensionless 'something' like a point ..the dot is just a rpresentation of it right .. well i haven't gone to my higher maths so .. still questions so far hahaha
-
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2012 02:26:20
@Awesome they're all measured in the same unit lol. Tell me how long one meter of time is and i'll call it spatial
-
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2012 02:50:28
Besides, considering them different dimensions is an antiquated concept anyway, they're not separate, they're one thing called space-time like how electricity and magnetism are considered different, but they're really just different effects of the same thing, that's how space-time works also
-
Date: Sun, Apr 22 2012 04:09:35
2.998 * 10^7m/sec is the speed of light, the fastest possible speed. So at most 1 second represents that much in a spacial dimension. Is there some connection?
strat1227 wrote: @Awesome they're all measured in the same unit lol. Tell me how long one meter of time is and i'll call it spatial
-
Date: Sun, Apr 22 2012 17:20:51
Awesome wrote: 2.998 * 10^7m/sec is the speed of light, the fastest possible speed. So at most 1 second represents that much in a spacial dimension. Is there some connection?
There is a conneciton, but one second does not equal that much distance. You can think of space-time graphically. The "y-axis" (or x-axis if you feel like it) can represent space, and the "x-axis" represents time. Your line (aka you or any other object) has a set length. No matter how hard you try, that line can never change length, but it can change slope. If you are not moving through any space at all, you are moving as quickly through time as possible. If you move as quickly as you can (the speed of light), then you are not moving through time at all. So, a second is more of a 'limitation' (poor word choice, but hopefully you'll get the idea) than a measure of physical space. The two are connected, but not quite in the way you describe. -
Date: Sun, Apr 22 2012 17:23:34
Or, you can think about it CORRECTLY with space-time lol