by wendy » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:54 am
Why do you assume that the two dimensional space is embedded as planes in 3d space? This sort of model has been proposed for 3d as well, but the idea that space is somehow "embedded" as parallel slices of larger space makes me no sense.
Firstly, one supposes that a change might be to only an adjacent dimension. If the universes are arranged as pages of a book, then the only option for change is from page 7 to page 6 or to page 8. The universe is more dynamic than this, and one might suppose hundreds of thousands of dimensions as the embedding space.
High dimensions, such as this is no stranger to physics. The entirity of all of the N particles of a gass is represented by a single point, in 6N dimensions. It's called phase space.
One can understand the rotation of 4d objects by visiting a six-dimensional object, or 5d by visiting a 10 or 11 dimensional one.
One image, that amuses my mind, is based on a notion in 'the secret of the gods', where there are life-forms that range upwards, where, for example people are as ants in the city, and the city has a concious. Since we know in physics, the age of life / heart beat is roughly constant for all things, this goes upwards too: a city that might last for thousands of years, one heartbeat might be a day long, and we are much as a speck of dust in the instant of the eye.
Such can be modeled, so that all things have the same area, by considering that the euclidean plane is really a surface of concentric horospheres, and one's lot, be it city of gnat, is the same size closer or further out from the centre. There is no real centre, one goes inwards to get ever bigger things, and ever outwards to get ever smaller things.
In hyperbolic H4 space, all of these things are still the same size, in space and in time.
W