Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby papernuke » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:18 pm

What is the first and second dimension made of? Atoms wouldnt work because they have a extra dimensions which wouldnt fit.
Would the 2D's "atoms" just be atoms with only length and height? But then what would a 1D atom be? since it only has length.
For higher dimensional particles, would they just have extra extentions into the extra dimensions?
Like for 4D, would it just extend in the "ana" and "kata" directions?
and same for even higher?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby Nick » Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:38 pm

papernuke wrote:What is the first and second dimension made of? Atoms wouldnt work because they have a extra dimensions which wouldnt fit.
Would the 2D's "atoms" just be atoms with only length and height? But then what would a 1D atom be? since it only has length.
For higher dimensional particles, would they just have extra extentions into the extra dimensions?
Like for 4D, would it just extend in the "ana" and "kata" directions?
and same for even higher?


OK, here's my best guess. In String theory, gravity is made up of particles called Gravitons. These gravitons are capable of moving through different Universes, which is why gravity is so weak compared to other forces; because as soon as it's here, it leaves. This doesn't necessarily imply multiple dimensions, just multiple universes side-by-side.

I don't think 2 dimensional atoms are possible, and I'm sure 1 dimensional atoms are impossible. If these worlds existed, it would probably consist of 3d atoms moving through the plane/line. By this logic, all matter in these worlds is unstable; capable of reappearing and disappearing at will.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby papernuke » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:32 pm

Nick wrote:OK, here's my best guess. In String theory, gravity is made up of particles called Gravitons.

How can the Gravitons be detected? Or are they undetectable except for through the process of "measuring" something?

These gravitons are capable of moving through different Universes, which is why gravity is so weak compared to other forces; because as soon as it's here, it leaves.

If Gravitons immediately depart after they are here, then how can they apply the pulling force on objects?
And wouldn't that mean that there are an infinte amount of Gravitons in the universe? Since gravity keeps pulling on objects until they are next to eachothers,
but if they dissapear right after they appear, wouldnt there have to be an infinte number of appearances - pulls - dissapearances ?

This doesn't necessarily imply multiple dimensions, just multiple universes side-by-side.

Do you mean that it wont work from 2 to 3D? Only universes next to eachothers? Do you mean paralell universes or just touching universes?

I don't think 2 dimensional atoms are possible, and I'm sure 1 dimensional atoms are impossible. If these worlds existed, it would probably consist of 3d atoms moving through the plane/line.

By this logic, all matter in these worlds is unstable; capable of reappearing and disappearing at will.

Isnt that called quantum instability or something?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby Nick » Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:34 am

papernuke wrote:
Nick wrote:OK, here's my best guess. In String theory, gravity is made up of particles called Gravitons.

How can the Gravitons be detected? Or are they undetectable except for through the process of "measuring" something?

The gravitons could be detected in atom smashers. They're giant circular tunnels that accelerate atoms to near-light speed, until they smack each other and emit loads of particles. Then we take pictures, analyze each one, and classify any new ones we find. Proof for string theory would be if one particle appears, but then one second later, it's gone. So far we haven't found any particle suddenly disappearing; nor have we found a gravity-inducing particle.

These gravitons are capable of moving through different Universes, which is why gravity is so weak compared to other forces; because as soon as it's here, it leaves.

If Gravitons immediately depart after they are here, then how can they apply the pulling force on objects?
And wouldn't that mean that there are an infinte amount of Gravitons in the universe? Since gravity keeps pulling on objects until they are next to eachothers,
but if they dissapear right after they appear, wouldnt there have to be an infinte number of appearances - pulls - dissapearances ?

They are here for a fraction of a second, and there are alot of them moving through our space. Keep in mind that String "Theory" is not actually a theory, its more of a philosophy, since it is not falsifiable.

This doesn't necessarily imply multiple dimensions, just multiple universes side-by-side.

Do you mean that it wont work from 2 to 3D? Only universes next to eachothers? Do you mean paralell universes or just touching universes?

No, I meant that it could include multiple dimensions, but it doesn't necessarily have to.

I don't think 2 dimensional atoms are possible, and I'm sure 1 dimensional atoms are impossible. If these worlds existed, it would probably consist of 3d atoms moving through the plane/line. By this logic, all matter in these worlds is unstable; capable of reappearing and disappearing at will.

Isnt that called quantum instability or something?[/quote]
Maybe... I don't know. I wish someone else would talk to us.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby zero » Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:25 am

Just make something up and test it to see if it's internally consistent.

It may not be true, all the same, but at it will still be interesting. Things don't have to be the same as we experience them, but there are certain logical and mathematical limitations nonetheless. Discovering what those are is half the fun (and most of the work).
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby wendy » Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:15 am

One supposes that matter exists in a given dimension, is made from lesser parts of the same dimension: for example, 4d space is made of 4d atoms.

The need to completely replicate the 3d model is not entirely necessary, but one could do these equations in higher and lesser dimensions equally well. Many of the endeavours in this direction have been exactly along this sort of line.

There is a book 'planiverse' , which deals with the physics of 2d, in a classical sense. One could do similar things with four dimensions, but the evident instability of equations in 3d ported to 4d suggests that this is probably not the correct idiom for that dimension. Maybe different dimensions behave differently!

None the same, i would suggest that if an atomic model is used to describe 4d, then it should be of four-dimensional atoms, with a different periodic table etc.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby papernuke » Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:01 am

wendy wrote:None the same, i would suggest that if an atomic model is used to describe 4d, then it should be of four-dimensional atoms, with a different periodic table etc.

Why would there be a different periodic table? Wouldn't the elements stay the same?
Other than the fact that there might be other elements, of course, in the 4D.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: Composition of > 3 < dimensions(smaller and bigger than 3)

Postby wendy » Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:35 am

There is a different periodic table, because the orbitals are different. For example, the s orbital is spherical, and is occupied by two electrons. This is the only orbital on row 1. The p-orbital is polar, usually in the direction of the axies. Since there are four axies in 4d, there are four axies. The sp can merge to form n+1 arrows, in the direction of verticies of the simplex. This means that the C atom (which has this feature), would be of valence n (against 2n), and the orbits would point to the vertices of a simplex.

The structure of diamond, would then be alternately placed inverted simplexes (tetrahedra, pentachora), the 2d example being the vertices of a hexagonal lattice.



Even taking two electrons per orbital, we have

first row: 1-2
1s spherical, = 1 position: 2 elements (H, He)
second row 3-10, 3-12
2s spherical, = 1 position: 2 elements, eg Li, Be
2p polar = n positions, 2n elements,
third row 11-18, 13-22
3s spherical, = 1 position: 2 elements, eg Li, Be
3p polar = n positions, 2n elements,
fourth row 19-36; 23-58
4s spherical = 1 orbital: 2 elements
3d ? 3d = 5 orbitals, 4d = 8 orbitals (say)
4p polar = n orbital, 2n elements
fifth row 36-54; 59-84
5s 1 orbital = 2,2
4d 5, 8 orbitals = 10,16
5p 3, 4 orbitals = 6,8
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Return to Where Should I Post This?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests