Dimensions - and their applications

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by Siggy_G » Wed May 22, 2013 11:30 am

The thread Light Speed Varies with Electrical Properties of Space eventually started to debate the application of multiple dimensions in theoretical physics, something that is diverting from the intended content of the Electric Universe board. Therefore, a separate thread is being started here, where it is more applicable.

Based on what was discussed, it would be interesting to see definitions and eloborations on the following:
  • * What is a dimension from a mathematical point of view?
    * How can more than 3 spatial dimensions be used mathematically to solve physical problems?
    * Is there any plausibility of the existence of numerous dimensions where physical objects can exist, disappear or reappear?
    * Do the historical detections of earlier hidden physical values/entities bear any relevance to the plausability of hidden dimensions?

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by Siggy_G » Wed May 22, 2013 11:33 am

Since I've kept my own view separate from the opening post, I'll respond with that here:

Dimensions are mathematical constructions that allow calculations from and projections onto predefined coordinate axes of given values. Three perpendicular coordiante axes can be extruded in each respective direction to define a volumetric scenario. It can hence serve as an abstract cubic grid which a physical scenario can be illustrated within, and it can be used to define cross-sections. One can also use spherical and radial relations in a similar manner.

Time is defined as an additional dimension; because it can illustrate the changes within a volumetric scenario in sequential steps. However, time is still merely a standardized metronome, used as an abstract grid which a physical scenario (of motion) can be illustrated within.

What else are dimensions than abstract mathematical grids used for calculus? I would claim that dimensions shouldn't be confused with physical entities and that physical values will never be hidden within additional dimensions, no more than decimals are «hidden» between whole numbers.

Historical detections of earlier hidden physical values/entities are no more than that; more accurate methods and instrumentation for measurements within a physical scenario. Since values weren't hidden in additional dimensions before, there is no reason to suspect they will in the future. The suspicion should rather lie in the interpretations or detection methods.

ranmacar
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by ranmacar » Thu May 23, 2013 3:06 pm

Hello!

I find it sad, that this topic still resonates in physics.
What I think should be useful, is looking at experiments, that suggest more than 3 physical dimensions + time are required. Quantum teleportation? Delayed double slit? Do they really need more than 3d wave structures?

In my thread, I tried to describe what a naturalistic explanation of these and other phenomena might look like. Aether as a real liquid, and Matter as it gaseous form. That brings quantum physics into fluid-gas dynamics, turbulence and resonance - are higher dimensions useful in this context? Anyone familiar with the math on these subjects?

celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by celeste » Fri May 24, 2013 11:43 am

Siggy_G , where you say, "I would claim that dimensions shouldn't be confused with physical entities and that physical values will never be hidden within additional dimensions", I once agreed. Let's take another look, using a specific example to see why this may be wrong.
One shape that we encounter frequently in EU, is the toroid. If we have a charged particle spiraling in a toroidal path,we can describe it's motion in 3 dimensions (maybe using cylindrical coordinates?),and time. We could also describe the spiraling in 5 dimensions. If we start with our three cylindrical coordinates,and say the particle is spiraling around the z axis,at some radius R,and travels through some angle A, we can describe the circling of the particle around the toroidal axis. Then we can add 2 more dimensions,radius r,and angle B, to describe the spiraling of the particle around the toroid. Notice that 2 of these dimensions are just "wrapped up".
Now notice something odd. If we are using our three dimensional model, and say the radius for our particle's position is decreasing, we don't know if the particle is spiraling inward as it travels around a fixed size torus,or if the whole torus is getting smaller. That is because, in 3 dimensions, the radius is a mathematical construct,not related to the torus directly. On the other hand,in our 5 dimensional model, each dimension IS related to the structure of the torus. If someone says r is rapidly decreasing (as opposed to big R), this may suggest a pinch in the toroidal current,for example.
This will be even more important when we try formulating laws. Here is a "law" that is easy to explain: If a particle is to stay on a stable toroidal path, it better not spiral in to the center of the torus. In our 5 dimensional model of the torus, that law can be expressed simply as r must be less than R. For kicks, try expressing that law for a torus using 3 dimensional space.

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by Siggy_G » Fri May 24, 2013 2:24 pm

Celeste,
The example is interesting and does perhaps illustrate how additional dimensions are applied in mathematical descriptions of physical effects.

What you call two extra dimensions in this example, is what I would call a local coordinate (reference) system that is linked to a larger or global conceptual shape (such as a circular path). All still within the same volumetric scenario. That's how it could be dealt with in code or 3D animation.
celeste wrote:Here is a "law" that is easy to explain: If a particle is to stay on a stable toroidal path, it better not spiral in to the center of the torus. In our 5 dimensional model of the torus, that law can be expressed simply as r must be less than R. For kicks, try expressing that law for a torus using 3 dimensional space.
You're right, translating an object's complicated movements, within e.g. a gyroscope or numerous epicycles, onto a global 3D coordinate system can be tricky. However, one have to analyze the scenario and define a local coordinate system and a rotational pivot point for the object. So in your example, the particle moves in a circular path (r) through a larger circular path (R). Your law still applies to 3D, but you'll use a local and a global coordinate system.

Physically, the larger circle is a field alligned electric current and the smaller the induced magnetic field wrapped around it. A test particle would be affected by both and will get its resultant path dependent on its position from the main current.

bdw000
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by bdw000 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:17 pm

Glad to see someone interested in this scientific misuse of the word "dimension."

I for one do not buy into the idea that extra dimensions "exist."

Dimensions are simply a way to DESCRIBE parts of the real world, usually in a mathematical context.

But we just live in "the world," or "the universe," most would say that we occupy something called "space." This space can be DESCRIBED using what we call "three dimensions." But that does not prove, in any way, that the "space" that we live in is COMPOSED OF three separate, physical, "dimensions," in the way that a wall is composed of separate bricks. Space just is what it is. Nowhere has anyone ever seen JUST ONE actual, physical, dimension.

To claim that there are more than three physical dimensions in the real world, when no one has ever, in any way, pointed to JUST ONE dimension, that exists all by itself separate from any other dimension, proves to me the complete lack of any physical evidence for the idea of extra dimensions.

Until someone can physically, scientifically, "resolve" (for want of a better word) the three dimensions we use to describe the space that we inhabit, into separate, physically-existing, entities, I claim that there is zero physical evidence for any other physical dimensions beyond the usual three (which are just descriptions).

Where would the atomic theory be, if they claimed that water was composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, but they could not under any circumstances, break water down into those two components??? And what if they could add Hydrogen and Oxygen together in many different ways, but they never produced water? If you can't do those things, the atomic theory still "might" be right, but you have no hard scientific evidence for it.

The idea that you can just go to some sort of cosmic store and buy as many "dimensions" as you want to put together in a way to create your universe the way a bricklayer builds a brick wall is pure fiction until backed up with some hard, physical, evidence ("speculation" and "pure assertion" not being considered hard, physical, evidence).

moses
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by moses » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:27 am

When one considers that experiencing, or consciousness, can be practically thought of as being in a different dimension, then a multi-dimensional universe could exist.

Our actual world could be physically multi-dimensional, it is just that we ascribe points in other dimensions to points in 3D. There are anomalies in physics which suggest more dimensions. A creature that puts all information into a 2D universe, recieves points of light from the 3D or higher universe and converts this light into nerve electrical impulses, from which the creature generates experiencing that represents that light. Now if anyone is following this they would see that this has become very tricky.

Indeed, how do we generate the experiencing of what is around us. We had better leave this to some other time and place.

But 3D is only an approximation to reality. And in the other dimensions lies life with all it's mysteries.
Cheers,
Mo

bdw000
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by bdw000 » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:43 pm

moses wrote:When one considers that experiencing, or consciousness, can be practically thought of as being in a different dimension, then a multi-dimensional universe could exist.

Our actual world could be physically multi-dimensional, it is just that we ascribe points in other dimensions to points in 3D. There are anomalies in physics which suggest more dimensions. A creature that puts all information into a 2D universe, recieves points of light from the 3D or higher universe and converts this light into nerve electrical impulses, from which the creature generates experiencing that represents that light. Now if anyone is following this they would see that this has become very tricky.

Indeed, how do we generate the experiencing of what is around us. We had better leave this to some other time and place.

But 3D is only an approximation to reality. And in the other dimensions lies life with all it's mysteries.
Cheers,
Mo
Hey moses. Thanks for your reply.

When it comes to "consciousness," I make no claims, and suspect (and would bet) that there is a great deal more than physical reality. I am actually a new age kind of guy. But calling whatever is beyond physical reality "dimensions" only confuses the issue when talking about science.

If the physicists want to "play the game of science," where they always claim that whatever they say is "more real" than what anyone else says (even when they have zero physical evidence), then they have to stick to their own rules. All I am saying is that there is no hard, physical, "scientific" evidence for even one physical "dimension" existing all by itself (whatever that means). And until that can be "observed" SCIENTIFICALLY, not simply speculated about, all talk of extra (physical) dimensions is just speculation without any empirical support. My point is that the physical space that we live in is just ONE THING. It is not made up of three separate things to produce the "space" that we all know and love. There is no evidence at all that the space that we inhabit can only be produced if someone or some thing goes down to the corner store, buys three things called "dimensions," and puts them together in some way that produces what we call "space." I am saying that when you go down to the corner store, what you buy is ONE thing called "space." If you or anyone else wants to throw some SCIENTIFIC evidence against this claim, hey, I am ready to look at that evidence. My complaint is that the whole discussion of extra physical dimensions is without any physical, scientific evidence.

You claim that our world "could be" physically multi-dimensional. Well, that is absolutely correct. It might be. But "could be" does not qualify as any sort of scientific evidence. Our world "could be" entirely made up unicorn feces. Who knows? Since no one knows what unicorn feces are, there is now way to disprove the idea. But will that idea really help us understand our world? Anything is possible if we don't have the ability to prove (or disprove) what we are talking about.

You mention that a creature "that puts all information into a 2D universe." Well, no one has ever seen a 2D universe. This is one of the complaints in my first post. A sheet of paper does NOT represent a 2D universe: a sheet of paper is a THREE dimensional object. As far as I'm concerned, the very idea of a 2D OBJECT is physically impossible, much less a 2D universe. If you want to argue this point, I will simply reply, SHOW me a 2D object (or universe, if you wish to be bold). If you can't do that, then does it really deserve a place in scientific discussions? This is not like atoms in the 19th century, where there were many compelling reasons to think that some unobservable thing like atoms might exist. There is no compelling reason to think that unitary dimensions exist. The only thing we know is a "three dimensional" universe and 3D objects. Nothing else has any empirical support whatsoever. Until there is some empirical support for such a thing, it is an idea and nothing more, just like a unicorn. It could be correct, but it is not science. If you want to point to a physical 2D universe (or simply a 2D object), something that we can actually see or touch or "observe" through a microscope or some other instrument, I'm all with you. Until then, my claim is that talk of physical dimensions as separate things in themselves will not further our understanding of the world we live in, in the same way that no amount of talk about unicorns, no matter how "scientific" that talk appears to be, will ever further our knowledge of the real world.

Something that few people seem to think about is, how would you even perceive a 2D object (or universe)? By definition (and remember, this is a mathematical DEFINITION), anything 2D has zero thickness. Zero thickness basically means, in our "3D" world, that it DOES NOT EXIST. If you want to argue this claim, then show me something with ZERO thickness. How would you see such a thing? This is part of what I am saying: by definition, all talk of anything "2D" is NOT perceivable by us in our 3D universe, so is it even possible, by definition, for us to ever verify the existence of such things? I would be interested in serious ideas of how we could actually perceive one-dimensional or two-dimensional objects from our three dimensional perspective in a three dimensional world.

I want to emphasize that I am only talking of the dimensions that physicists (and mathematicians) talk about. I do not deny the possibility of many what I prefer to call "realms" (to avoid confusing with physicists use of the word "dimension") that are somehow "beyond" the physical world that we live in.

moses
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by moses » Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:04 am

But calling whatever is beyond physical reality "dimensions" only confuses the issue when talking about science.
bdw000

But will that idea really help us understand our world?
bdw000

We generate our world inside our heads. Science can't handle this. But this effect needs to be in the mathematics. Then the mathematics might help us understand the real world. Then the science might have some real significance instead of being bullshit.

There may well be a creature that generates a 2D universe inside it's head. And that is the reality. It is up to science to deal with this, not ignore it.
Cheers,
Mo

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Dimensions - and their applications

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:30 am

Until there is some empirical support for such a thing, it is an idea and nothing more, just like a unicorn. It could be correct, but it is not science.
String and M theory are just ideas, not science. They are actually hypothesis. ;)

But ideas can be tested, so does that make them science? With the "Black Swan" fallacy looming over such testing, can anything be discounted/falsified?

I like "probabilities". If everything mysterious was tested to a high degree of probability, then that seems good enough.

We live in a science based society that seems more like a superstitious cult.
And many accept the dogmas, using maths or ideas to support them.
Physics should be immune to such ideas and maths which are dubious.
But, they go out to prove them, and because we have to have answers, the proof is found in observations , without knowledge of other possible causes.

I see no reason to suspect that there are other "dimensions", without considerations of other possibilities first. Get a good handle on gravity and the source of electrical energy, then we can play with what we know something about.

That I understand anything is a possibility, maybe a low probability. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests