Music In The Dimensions

[alkaline]

you're getting stuck on something that really seems like a side issue to me. The change in sound quality really isn't noticeably perceptible to someone with untrained ears.

[Geosphere]

But consider the limitations in sound manipulation in planespace. Now listen in realmspace. It would be like listening to a walkman on full volume lying on the floor of a cathedral - the original sound idea lost in overtone. We would hear a suggestion of the original.

[alkaline]

ahh, you just gave me the solution - headphones! then the sound goes directly from the speaker to the ear, with nothing in between but foam and air.

[Geosphere]

air, earcanal, ear wax...

It is the closest we can come to it. But we really can't be too sure how planar sound works. We may be missing something. Soundwaves may be far larger or smaller in scale.

Not to mention time. Planar time may make songs millenia long or millisecond long.

[alkaline]

your scale and time arguments seem to be a lot bigger concern than the transmission issue. Speed of sound all depends on speed of wave transmission between molecules. For realmspace in air, sound travels slower than in steel. Since momentum would be a lot less for planar objects, i would assume that everything would move faster and everything would be higher pitched.

[Jay]

Cool does that mean Emily's voice is probably deeper than Bob's and Fred's?

[alkaline]

i would consider that to be very likely :-)

[Geosphere]

Why? What if tetraspace is teenyweeny?

[alkaline]

I'm just assuming that it isn't. I'm assuming the same size of sub-atomic particles between each dimension. This makes comparison between them easier.

[Geosphere]

ooooooooooooo

Dangerous assumption.

[alkaline]

dangerous to who? this is all hypothetical anyway. no one is going to get hurt by these assumptions :-P

[Geosphere]

Those poor plane spacers and tetra spacers.

And us, possibly limiting our chances of ever proving such an existance by narrowing our vision.

[Jay]

Since momentum would be a lot less for planar objects, i would assume that everything would move faster and everything would be higher pitched.

Instead of moving faster, what about moving at similar speeds to in realmspace, but using less energy to do it? In that case, the total energy of the 2d universe could be considerably less than ours, and therefore, maybe a lot smaller in diameter.

[alkaline]

i don't think having less energy would say anything about the size of the universe, it would only affect the ratio of energy to matter.

i don't think narrowing our scope is necessarily a bad thing. We can't have as much fun with dimensional things if the beings from the different dimensions can't interact :-P I doubt we're in any position to find such real dimensions any time in the near future, anyway...

[RQ]

Sound couldn't exist in a vacuum and doesn't because it needs a medium to carry from one place to another and thus would end as soon as it enters a vacuum.

[RQ]

ok so we're arguing whether sound in 2D would change when we hear it. Surely. And the sound that we hear surely depends on the humidity since sound travels faster the drier it is, and two sound waves that are the same would only add up to more volume. That's why we would have two speakers on our computers. Now you might be thinking of a wave as having its trough height (forgot the name) and wavelength as the same at all time, but waves that have the same wavelengths at a given time, their heights match the troughs of the other and vice versa then they cancel each other out.

[alkaline]

sound travels as waves in matter. If you have a filament in a vacuum, you can still send waves over the filament, and it could transmit sound. Sound wouldn't enter the space around it though, since there would be no air to transmit the sound to. Thus, the nature of the sound transmitted over the filament wouldn't change from the environment around it.

humidity and other environmental conditions don't make enough of a change to sound for us to perceive, and so it doesn't really matter.

We have two speakers on our computer for stereo affect, no other reason. Putting a second speaker in doesn't actually increase the decibal level of sound very much if the two speakers are at the same volume.

trough height = amplitude, i think.

[RQ]

Sound from a higher dimension to a lower one, would not be as recognized by, say, bionians as it is by us, since just like a sphere passing through flatland, all they would see are circles one after the other each bigger than the previous until the one with the diameter, and then back to a dot. As for sound coming from lower dimensions, it would be highly improbable, but not quite impossible, for us to hear it the way bionians do, not much different, maybe more primitive, but it would be unstable to stay the same as it would in the lower dimension, since it has an extra direction to go in, plus the chaos theory, just diminishes its chances.

[alkaline]

you can't really compare vision to sound, so using the sphere analogy doesn't work when you're talking about sound transmission between the dimensions.

[RQ]

Im not using the sphere analogy. All im saying is that even if somehow the 2D electrons obtained 3D properties, we wouldn't be able to hear them the way bionians do because of the extra dimension we have and that would make more or less possible orbits for the 2D electrons, which would collapse the sound, and we wouldn't be able to hear them the same way the bionians would, if we hear anything at all.

[Jay]

A sound wave is produced by the vibration of air molecules that go up and down as the ripple of energy passes through them. Having more directions for the ripple to go just means that the energy dissapates quicker, The actual nature of the wave isn't changed.

[RQ]

It would be if you are your regular 2D atoms change to 3D.

[Geosphere]

It would be if you are your regular 2D atoms change to 3D.

This type of statement goes from science theory to fantasy in the blink of an eye and destroys reasonable debate. Back it up and it can be considered.

[RQ]

Well for one thing 2D isn't 3D by definition, and doesn't have a 3rd dimension.

[Yoshi]

or so we think

[RQ]

well, i made a post about that in proof that higher dimensions could not exist within lower ones, but I think it's contradictory to think that a 2D world could be 3D yet not be 3D by definition.

[Geosphere]

RQ, the 2D world could be inscribed on a sphere.

[Yoshi]

exactly

anything 2-d can be wraped around a 3-d sphere

which would change it to 3-d.

Although the people on the 2-d world wouldn't know about it.

So we could be speaking for ourselfs

[RQ]

The fact that they don't know about it means everything, so they would have to use Occam's razor and cut out the 3D dimension since they cannot observe it. As for us, all that would do is bend Euclidean geometry into Riemman geometry which for all I know makes the addition of the internal degrees of the angles to more than 180 degrees. So technically, the fact that the people are bent in the 3D dimension and they don't know it would only change on how we observe their world and nothing else.

[Geosphere]

the fact that the people are bent in the 3D dimension and they don't know it would only change on how we observe their world and nothing else.

What if its a closed sphere?