Where the 4th dimension is

[Neues Kinder]

Well, I have my own theory about where the fourth dimension is.

The fourth dimension is there, but it isn't here. It isn't around us, it isn't beside us, it isn't above us or below us. The fourth dimension isn't really in any location in relative to us, because for that to be we have to be in the same world, but we're not. The fourth dimension isn't a where, it's a what. We are here and they are there, period. We can't get to the fourth dimension by traveling in a specific direction, because our world is every direction we can travel. Our worlds are not in two different places, they are in two different universes.

That's the best I can describe it.

Split from "Tetronian written language" by iNVERTED

[RQ]

Yes, that is correct. A visual analogy would be a sheet going into the third dimension. The third dimension isn't there relative to the sheet universe, thus it's not there. In order for the 2d person to go into the third dimension he has to bend into the third dimension which would make him nonexistent, unless he has a third dimensional analogy of himself, which can't be because with respect to the 3D the 2D universe doesn't exist. Thus with respect to the 2D, the 3rd dimension doesn't exist.

[otheronenorehto]

Yes, that is correct. A visual analogy would be a sheet going into the third dimension. The third dimension isn't there relative to the sheet universe, thus it's not there. In order for the 2d person to go into the third dimension he has to bend into the third dimension which would make him nonexistent, unless he has a third dimensional analogy of himself, which can't be because with respect to the 3D the 2D universe doesn't exist. Thus with respect to the 2D, the 3rd dimension doesn't exist.

Wait if that is true than wouldn't it be questionable whether 1, 2 or even possibly 3 dimensions actually exist in our universe?

I actually kind of like this conclusion for some reason...

How are they conceptually evident without existing? In a 2 dimensional world would 1 D space be evident but not exist? That is kind of fun to think about.

[Hugh]

In order for the 2d person to go into the third dimension he has to bend into the third dimension which would make him nonexistent

I'd don't see why that would make him nonexistent. Consider 2d Fred living within a 2d manifold; along a 2d plane curved into the 3rd dimension as a large sphere. He would only be 2d, yet his body, and his universe, would actually be in 3d space.

It's interesting to think about what a 3d manifold space would look like. Being inside one, you would think that everything is 3d, but there would actually be a 4d curvature to everything, including yourself.

The fourth dimension is there, but it isn't here. It isn't around us, it isn't beside us, it isn't above us or below us. The fourth dimension isn't really in any location in relative to us, because for that to be we have to be in the same world, but we're not. The fourth dimension isn't a where, it's a what. We are here and they are there, period. We can't get to the fourth dimension by traveling in a specific direction, because our world is every direction we can travel. Our worlds are not in two different places, they are in two different universes.

If we're in a 3d manifold space, we would actually be in the fourth spatial dimension already.

How are they conceptually evident without existing? In a 2 dimensional world would 1 D space be evident but not exist?

I think that whatever the total number of dimensions that actually exist is, then all dimensions below that number would exist as well.

[lordofduct]

would make him nonexistent. Consider 2d Fred living within a 2d manifold; along a 2d plane curved into the 3rd dimension as a large sphere. He would only be 2d, yet his body, and his universe, would actually be in 3d space.

It's interesting to think about what a 3d manifold space would look like. Being inside one, you would think that everything is 3d, but there would actually be a 4d curvature to everything, including yourself.

That is how I feel myself. Did you read my thread about our 3D universe existing on the surface of a 4nth sphere. It could help explain the big bang theory because a 4nth sphere is made of 3D spheres progressively getting larger then shrinking back smaller. Depending what point in revolution it is depends which 3D sphere is on the surface... this means that our universe would grow and then shrink over time and then repeat. Just like the big bang theory says.

That reminds me; I have more to add to that thread with some work I've been doing lately.

[wendy]

You don't need to make 3d space a glome in 4d to get the big bang expansion. All you need is to support a zero-converging curvature.

The things remain relative to their position, and the reducing curvature creates extra space around them: this gives the illusion that things are receding.

W

[lordofduct]

You don't need to make 3d space a glome in 4d to get the big bang expansion. All you need is to support a zero-converging curvature.

The things remain relative to their position, and the reducing curvature creates extra space around them: this gives the illusion that things are receding.

W

I never said you had too. I'm saying it could.

to debate the semantics:

inversely you don't need to support a zer-converging curvature as it could be explained by a 3D surphace of a glome.

[EDIT] Oh I wanted to add something to that. Well on top of what I said I could also support or your zero converging curvature. Where as when the glome rotates and the multiple spheres rotate in and out of it creating different sized 3 dimensional surfaces... well it would also create the zero converging curvature; the path which the spheres followed. Just picture one right now in your head and you will see such a curve.

[otheronenorehto]

How are they conceptually evident without existing? In a 2 dimensional world would 1 D space be evident but not exist?

I think that whatever the total number of dimensions that actually exist is, then all dimensions below that number would exist as well.

Are you sure that they exist. Conceptually they seem evident as "kind of a progression" to 3 or 4 dimensional space... Could it be that matter/universe exists in 3/4 dimensions and dimensions 1 and 2 are concepts that are usefull in helping describe the existence in 3/4 dimensions but do not nessecarily exist as such?

I honestly don't know off the top of my head but are there any objects in the universe that are proven to exist only in 1 or 2 dimesnions?

[lordofduct]

How are they conceptually evident without existing? In a 2 dimensional world would 1 D space be evident but not exist?

I think that whatever the total number of dimensions that actually exist is, then all dimensions below that number would exist as well.

Are you sure that they exist. Conceptually they seem evident as "kind of a progression" to 3 or 4 dimensional space... Could it be that matter/universe exists in 3/4 dimensions and dimensions 1 and 2 are concepts that are usefull in helping describe the existence in 3/4 dimensions but do not nessecarily exist as such?

I honestly don't know off the top of my head but are there any objects in the universe that are proven to exist only in 1 or 2 dimesnions?

Well if you describe it as we would exist in a 4D world but only can conceive 3space... so the 2nd dimension is dependent on the conception of it as they actually are 3D but don't understand. So circles drawn on a 3D surface are 2D but they don't have life so we could never ask a circle if it understands that it is actually 3D or possibly 4D!

[PWrong]

I think that whatever the total number of dimensions that actually exist is, then all dimensions below that number would exist as well.

Every dimension exists in the same way that the number 6 exists. If your criteria for existence is that we can interact with it directly, then only the third dimension exists. Noone really knows why our universe happens to be 3D, although string theory has a few suggestions.

[Hugh]

Hi PWrong,

Every dimension exists in the same way that the number 6 exists. If your criteria for existence is that we can interact with it directly, then only the third dimension exists.

What we perceive, might not be reality. 2d Fred "sees" nothing around him and concludes he has no dimensions, or only one. We see 3 dimensions around us and conclude that there are only 3? Might we be missing something? What about all that missing mass? Dark energy? Our science knowledge is only in the primitive stages relative to where we'll be a thousand years from now. Let's not rule out the possibility of higher existing dimensions, or beings that are limited to fewer dimensions than we think we are.

Noone really knows why our universe happens to be 3D, although string theory has a few suggestions.

Doesn't string theory point to the existing number of dimensions as being greater than 3?

[PWrong]

2d Fred "sees" nothing around him and concludes he has no dimensions, or only one.

No he doesn't. Fred has 2D eyes. He sees lines around him. He walks forward and the coloured line segments get bigger. He then concludes that he lives in two dimensions.

Our science knowledge is only in the primitive stages relative to where we'll be a thousand years from now.

Not neccessarily. Some string theorists think we're extremely close to a theory of everything. And I have to point out that 99% of the population is in the primitive stages compared to modern physics. Most people know less about physics than galileo did.

Doesn't string theory point to the existing number of dimensions as being greater than 3?

Yes, it says that there are 6 or 7 "curled up" dimensions. But it also offers an explanation for why we only have 3 large, uncurled dimensions that we can see. It's something to with strings being able to collide and interact.

[miseleigh]

Are you sure that they exist. Conceptually they seem evident as "kind of a progression" to 3 or 4 dimensional space... Could it be that matter/universe exists in 3/4 dimensions and dimensions 1 and 2 are concepts that are usefull in helping describe the existence in 3/4 dimensions but do not nessecarily exist as such?

I honestly don't know off the top of my head but are there any objects in the universe that are proven to exist only in 1 or 2 dimesnions?

One problem with existing in a three dimensional universe is that we cannot possibly measure, see, or interact in any way with any object that only exists in one or two. An object must have length, width, and depth for any human to see it or discover it's existence. And, although I am no expert in quantum mechanics, I believe even a photon has 3D size although it has no mass. The same holds true for energy fields, such as gravity or electromagnetic fields. Conceptually, we can imagine the existence of a two dimensional object, but having no depth, we would be unable to discover it's existence because for us it would not interact with any trionian object. In that case, whether it exists or not would depend on your definition of exist.

[lordofduct]

An object must have length, width, and depth for any human to see it or discover it's existence.

True, but that doesn't mean that cancels out the 1st and 2nd dimension. The existence of matter in the universe is not dependant on if we can see it or not. That is why the 4th dimension 'could' exist, because it also is not dependant on our visualization of it. Things like time, energy and other crap exist with out us seeing it and we discovered some of them without ever seeing them, but only seeing the effects it caused to the world around us.

Anyways, what restricts these things to 3 dimensions? Nothing. Why is it magnetism can pass through any non metalic object with no or little effect to it? If it can ignore restrictions of a 3-spatial dimension... why would it be restricted to only stay in that?

Dimensions can be just restrictions to the actions an object can do. Take one of Einstein's basic parts of the Theory of General Relativity; 2 spheres of different mass and density sit on a 2D plane curved through 3-space. The one of higher mass and density creates a larger curve in the 2D plane that causes the smaller object to be pulled closer to it... gravity.

That action restricts the forces of density and mass to only effect 2D this effect in turns effects three space. The curve can exist at any angle in 3 space... but is of itself 2D.

A dimension is only a restriction of a higher level. Something can be recorded in 2 dimensions while ignoring the 3rd.

[miseleigh]

I never said anything didn't exist just because we can't see or detect it. I said that depends on your definition of 'exist'. Didn't say what my definition was. :)
I only said that bionian objects can't be detected by anything existing in the third. However, with gravity being a 2D plane, then it appears I was wrong. I should have left off 'or discover it's existence.' But we still can't see it, and we still can't prove it is an 'object' as such.

Tangent- But how can it be a 2D plane if it curves? Don't need an answer, I just need to go re-learn my Einstein. I like you, lordofduct. You're making me think. I only hope I'm not letting myself look like an idiot. :)

[PWrong]

And, although I am no expert in quantum mechanics, I believe even a photon has 3D size although it has no mass.

The word "size" has very little meaning in quantum mechanics. In a way, an electron is the size of the universe. That is, it could be anywhere in the universe until you look for it. Once you find it, it collapses to a point. At least that's one way to think about it. I'm not actually sure if a photon has a wavefunction, or if they act differently. Jinydu can probably tell you.

Why is it magnetism can pass through any non metalic object with no or little effect to it? If it can ignore restrictions of a 3-spatial dimension... why would it be restricted to only stay in that?

It can't pass through any object. Magnetism travels at the speed of light, which depends on the medium. I don't know why electromagnetic fields are restricted to 3 dimensions, but if they weren't, Coulomb's law would be an inverse cube law. The most likely explanation is that there aren't any extra dimensions.

[miseleigh]

But I thought string theory requires more than 3 dimensions</a>, and that string theory was becoming pretty well accepted.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/string_systems_030226.html