Nothingness Forever wrote:how do you know there are living things in the fourth dimension and 3D is not where only living beings are?
BTW I'm pretty sure that Fred and Emily (2D and 4D) are just examples to get the concept of dimensions.
Nick wrote:The idea of higher dimensions are being considered by theoretical physicists.
"Beings" can be misinterpreted. If you refer to single celled organisms, then it may be possible for them to exist in higher dimensions. If you are referring to multi-cellular intelligent species', then that is more unlikely than likely.
Nothingness Forever wrote:I've noticed that a lot of the time you are talking about 4D beings and how to get through to them, and other topics like resources being recieved by them, but how do you know there are living things in the fourth dimension and 3D is not where only living beings are?
To go along with this, much like 4D beings, which we can't see, there are 2D "beings" which we should be able to observe? right? Where are the 2D beings? how come we can't see them (if they do exist)?
BTW I'm pretty sure that Fred and Emily (2D and 4D) are just examples to get the concept of dimensions.
Nothingness Forever wrote:To go along with this, much like 4D beings, which we can't see, there are 2D "beings" which we should be able to observe? right? Where are the 2D beings? how come we can't see them (if they do exist)?
Hayate wrote:Even if a 2D universe /was/ physically inside ours, we wouldn't be able to see or interact with it at all, due to Planck reasons as it's infinitely thin.
I think there have to be parallel universes including the ones with a different number of dimensions than ours in order for uncertainty to exist, the universe split creating a universe for every number of dimensions.
I also believe there is a universe for every outcome so of curse there's a universe for the outcome of 2d/4d beings.
The multiverse idea is plausible, but what makes you think it has to be true? Why couldn't there be just one universe, or even a small finite number of universes?
Unless it's impossible for life to exist in a 2D or 4D world.
2D might not have enough complexity to get interesting replicators, and we've proven on this forum that neither solar systems nor atoms can be stable in 4D. Inverse cube laws don't lead to simple harmonic motion, which is bad news for 4D life.
anderscolingustafson wrote:The multiverse idea has to be true because the universe is asymmetric showing that things cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, and there must be many universes averaged together to get symmetry. The only 2 ways to have symmetry are to have a large or perhaps infinite number of universes or to have no universe at all.
anderscolingustafson wrote:There would be an enormous number possibly even an infinite number of sets of physical laws a 2d/4d universe could have so even life would be impossible in some 2d/4d universes there would be an enormous number of other 2d/4d universes that would have the laws of physics and chemistry just right for life to exist.
I believe I read the thread about solar systems being unstable in 4d and it said planets would be unstable unless they were extremely close to their star, which would imply that gravity is week because of having one more dimension to travel through. This is not necessarily true however because that fact would be counteracted by the fact that more mass than our entire universe has could fit into a single 4d planet. So I still believe 2d and 4d life exist in parallel universes.
What makes you think symmetry is a necessity?
The problem with 2d life is simply that the complexity required for life simply cannot happen.
As for 4D, physics would have to be radically different in order to come up with a set of laws of physics which were consistent and supported life.
Mass affects nothing but the optimal distance from the star. In 3D, moving a planet further away from or closer towards its star only slows down or speeds up its orbit (respectively). In 4D, a planet would have to be at the perfect distance from the star. If it was any closer, it would spiral towards and be devoured by the star; if it was further away, it would spiral away from the star (and most likely towards some other demise). The mass would only affect how far out the perfect distance was; it would not make it any more likely to not lose control.
Another thing that might stabilize a 4d planet could be having a spherical orbit rather than a circular orbit like our planet has because of the extra dimension that a sphere has. It might also spin in a spherical shape since that might be more stable for it. So perhaps instead of all planets orbiting in the same plane like the planets of our solar system do perhaps the planets of a 4d solar system might orbit in the same realm since that's more stable for them. Perhaps stabilizing the orbits of 4d planets is as simple as adding another dimension to their orbits just as they would have a dimension added to themselves.
the planet would have so much more surface volume to "detect the gravity
I don't know what you mean by a spherical orbit, orbits are always curves when time is 1-dimensional.
PWrong wrote:the planet would have so much more surface volume to "detect the gravity
That's not how gravity works.
Keiji wrote:No, it has a thickness of zero, which is less than Planck length.
Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests