Anything that exists must exist in all dimensions.

I've been pondering the idea of extra-dimensions and have concluded that nothing can exist without all dimensions. Based on my less than reliable memory, scientists have determined there could be as many as 12 dimensions (probably wrong here, might be 11). That's really hard to grasp, so I find myself thinking in terms of up to 4 dimensions.

A point has no dimensions, a line is a point moving in one dimensional space, a plane is a line moving in 2 dimensional space, a cube is a plane moving in 3 dimensional space, and finally a hyper-cube is a cube moving through 4 dimensional space. The point cannot exist without space, the line cannot exist without the point, the plane cannot exist without the line, the cube cannot exist without the plane, and the hyper-cube cannot exist without the cube. Therefore, it seems that it follows that any additional dimensions cannot exist without the previous dimensions. That would mean that nothing can exist without existing in all the dimensions. If a 3-d object occupies a volume of space, it can only do so within a duration of time or it cannot ever exist. Extra-dimensional objects, including living beings, must have a 3-d existence as well.

So that analogy of a 3-d object moving through a 2-d plane used to describe the forth dimension is a flawed analogy because there can be no 2-d or 3-d without the other dimensions. The 3-d object cannot move through the 2nd dimension without the 4th dimension. We all must be extra-dimensional beings experiencing an extra-dimensional reality.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by MichiganSwampBuck]

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


Strictly speaking the meaning of dimension is


The least amount of coordinates used to pinpoint an object.

This means you would need 3 coordinates to pinpoint an object in 3 dimensions.(length, width, and height.)

For a fourth you also need time.

Here is a more refined definition....
(Note that the one I wrote above is strictly my own and was not copied from another source.)

mathworld.wolfram.com...

The dimension of an object is a topological measure of the size of its covering properties. Roughly speaking, it is the number of coordinates needed to specify a point on the object. For example, a rectangle is two-dimensional, while a cube is three-dimensional. The dimension of an object is sometimes also called its "dimensionality."

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck

That would mean that nothing can exist without existing in all the dimensions.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by MichiganSwampBuck]

Sounds like you are being a little simplistic when it comes to dimensions...

Let's imagine we live in a two-dimensional world for a second. It's a flat plane, right? So, take that flat plane and curl it so that one edge of the plane attaches to the other edge. This is what is called a curled dimension, and as you move along that dimension, you'll eventually go around a full circle and end up where you started.

Dimensions don't necessarily have to span all of space either, that is, they don't have to expand across space... they don't have to be expansive or not-curled. Many of the dimensions in 10-dimensional space are calculated to be very small curled dimensions that exist within every point of the space dimensions that we occupy. So, while they may exist, the fact that they are probably so small has no effect on the relatively huge particles that comprise us. Take the idea that a dimension doesn't have to be all-expansive and apply it to the expansion of the universe. This shows that dimensions don't have to be a fixed size.


We'll assume that the three dimensions of space are as expansive as the universe. Let's be imaginative and pretend that the dimensions are expansive in their respective directions for 20 mile.

Again, Imagine the three normal dimensions we are aware of. Now curl one of them up, let's say we'll curl the up/down dimension, which makes this dimension non-expansive. We can still go on our merry way in the left-right and in-out dimensions...

... but what happens when we attempt to traverse the up-down dimension that is curled? Well, that depends entirely on expansive or non-expansive the dimension is. Let's pretend the up/down dimension is only expansive for 20 feet inside of it's curl. If you try to go up or down in this universe, you will be greatly restricted on how far up or down you can go before you come back to where you started.

The above type of universe would be similar to living in a pipe - sort of. It would be more like a football field with ethereal pipes, that you could walk right through, at every point. As you traveled through the other 2 dimensions beside the up/down "pipe dimension" the pipes wouldn't come into play because you aren't traveling through that dimension. However, once you started to try to go up/down, you would be confined to the pipe dimension and you would find that the higher you went up, the closer you got to your starting destination. This is similar to walking around the earth, only with the pipes you are walking around the inside of the pipe when traversing the up/down pipe dimension. Now, for a moment, imagine that the pipe dimension up/down circumference isn't 20 feet, but 1 nanometer. As soon as you make a movement up or down, you are already back where you started! It's as if the up/down dimension doesn't even exist because it is curled up so much!

Now, hopefully, we can see that having extra dimensions doesn't mean they have to be all expansive as our three-dimensions appear to be: They can be curled up, so tiny, so tiny that we traverse them instantly and they don't even come into play in our reality. This is how the extra dimensions are represented in string theory.

This is what we are.

a line like this - and a line like this | one vertical and one horisontal.

The more of this "-" the less we care the more of this "|" the more we become more caring.

Too caring "|" is going to the extreme and becoming afraid too much of this - the less we care.


"- red" "| blue" = this the cross + red & blue. Out of this we get our waves, our existance. It's what we are "| god's creation the universe" & " - alien evolution." We must not deny our self of what we are, if we chose destruction then we will get it. Is reality true ? yes and no. The point of existance is to be, for this to exist + , other wise we are just energy. The universe poped into existance to be, the only landlord of anything, we are truly free to do what we please as long as we do not get too greedy or cause unplesent events to others like us. We are energy in a bottle left free to do what it wants. Be happy you are not god, it's hard being god.

One can't exist without the other, this - and | this. Sanity is the only way to go.

- Male | female.





[edit on 23-8-2010 by pepsi78]

reply to post by RestingInPieces


Thanks RestingInPieces, this is the sort of discussion I was hoping for. Are you basically agreeing with me then, that we are composed of all the dimensions? Is it possible for an object to have just a few dimensions and still exist?

Everything is alive.

A point, line, and plane do not physically exist, they are simple vector coordinates. A point being the most impossible of the 'dimensions' of them all, lacking 2 of the necessary 4 dimensions to physically exist. The line and plane you can only breach, and never hold as they both lack one of the necessary dimensions to physically exist.

Nothing can physically exist in less than 4 dimensions. Something described in less than 4 dimensions is simply a coordinate of a 4-dimensional entity, math.

Let's imagine we live in a two-dimensional world for a second. It's a flat plane, right? So, take that flat plane and curl it so that one edge of the plane attaches to the other edge. This is what is called a curled dimension, and as you move along that dimension, you'll eventually go around a full circle and end up where you started.

The minute the plane is not perfectly flat it is no longer 2-dimensional, it immediately becomes 4-dimensional, especially if something is traveling on it. Its not a paradox, its simply not 2-dimensional anymore.

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


GREAT post, i was just actually having this discussion in another thread and was not able to word it as well as you.

Agreed and thank you.

There is no limit to the amount of dimensions that can exist because there is no such thing as numbers. Unless of course your a mathematician or you want to argue about the symantics of applied math when building a house or counting money.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

 

GREAT post, i was just actually having this discussion in another thread and was not able to word it as well as you.

Agreed and thank you.

There is no limit to the amount of dimensions that can exist because there is no such thing as numbers. Unless of course your a mathematician or you want to argue about the symantics of applied math when building a house or counting money.

edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

A little off course, but we are dealing in abstracts. Concerning numbers and math as abstract concepts, they only exist in our minds. You can show me a symbol that represents a number, but you can't show me the actual number. The Ancient Greeks thought that numbers existed in some other plane of existence.

I'm pretty sure a real object needs four dimensions to exist, but I believe that all other dimensions must be there too. Therefore nothing can slip back and forth between dimensions because it is already in all of them.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

 

GREAT post, i was just actually having this discussion in another thread and was not able to word it as well as you.

Agreed and thank you.

There is no limit to the amount of dimensions that can exist because there is no such thing as numbers. Unless of course your a mathematician or you want to argue about the symantics of applied math when building a house or counting money.

edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

A little off course, but we are dealing in abstracts. Concerning numbers and math as abstract concepts, they only exist in our minds. You can show me a symbol that represents a number, but you can't show me the actual number. The Ancient Greeks thought that numbers existed in some other plane of existence.

I'm pretty sure a real object needs four dimensions to exist, but I believe that all other dimensions must be there too. Therefore nothing can slip back and forth between dimensions because it is already in all of them.

You said a 3d object needs 4 dimensions to exist. I'll add that a 4d object needs 5 dimensions to exist.

A point, line and plane do not exist. They are mathematical concepts.
No experiment has ever demonstrated that there exists more than the three spatial dimensions we are all aware of.
We do not exist within four dimensions. Time =/= a dimension.
Generalizing time as a dimension is an easy way to plot changes mathematically, but it doesn't turn it into the 4th spatial dimension.

When it comes to more than three dimensions we begin to run into some problems. For one, the three dimensions that we perceive all intersect at right angles. Can the same be said for dimension 4+?

I like the explanation of the curled dimensions above.

Originally posted by polit
A point, line and plane do not exist. They are mathematical concepts.
No experiment has ever demonstrated that there exists more than the three spatial dimensions we are all aware of.
We do not exist within four dimensions. Time =/= a dimension.
Generalizing time as a dimension is an easy way to plot changes mathematically, but it doesn't turn it into the 4th spatial dimension.

When it comes to more than three dimensions we begin to run into some problems. For one, the three dimensions that we perceive all intersect at right angles. Can the same be said for dimension 4+?

I like the explanation of the curled dimensions above.

I am probably wrong here, but isn't duration a quality of space and isn't dimension simply another word for a quality something has. Like in this sentence, "Her talent adds an extra dimension to her exceptional good looks and wonderful personality." Gravity or magnetism could be an extra "dimension" in this sense, rather than a "force". When using the tech jargon of physics, this is just a semantic difference I suppose.

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


Seeing as you have looked at this from multiple perspectives, can you please explain to me what makes you so sure that these dimensions actually exist? I'm not saying that I don't believe in them but who's to say that extra dimensions actually exist? Do we have any PROOF that they're extra dimensions? Sorry for being so inquisitive I would just like to know as much as I can about these extra dimensions.

Originally posted by Nyte Angel
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

 

Seeing as you have looked at this from multiple perspectives, can you please explain to me what makes you so sure that these dimensions actually exist? I'm not saying that I don't believe in them but who's to say that extra dimensions actually exist? Do we have any PROOF that they're extra dimensions? Sorry for being so inquisitive I would just like to know as much as I can about these extra dimensions.

I'm no physicist, but I like science fiction. This idea of extra dimensions is in many science fiction stories as well as in posts on ATS. I'm just trying to grasp the idea and have it make sense for me. Personally I have trouble believing in any reality at all, esp. my own. I can barely believe I occupy "space" for the duration of my life "time", that is until reality slaps me hard in the face. Perhaps it is easier to get by in life believing it is some kind of illusion where nothing can be proven in an objective way.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck

Originally posted by polit

I am probably wrong here, but isn't duration a quality of space and isn't dimension simply another word for a quality something has. Like in this sentence, "Her talent adds an extra dimension to her exceptional good looks and wonderful personality." Gravity or magnetism could be an extra "dimension" in this sense, rather than a "force". When using the tech jargon of physics, this is just a semantic difference I suppose.

Yes, all of those things could be possible. Which is why we need to define concepts/ things a little better/ more narrowly. That seems to be where many of the problems arise with posts on ATS. People start a philosophical discussion and get technical answers, or vice versa.

The effects of gravity or magnetism could be the result of extra dimensions, and has been suggested as such before, but you just semantically converted spatial dimensions into dimensions as an element of one's personality then applied that definition to the other things our first definition of dimensions was dealing with, the make-up of the universe/ astrophysical stuff. This is one of the serious issues, in my opinion, when physics, math and science collide. They all start using each other's different definitions whenever they see fit.

Language is unclear. Just about every conversation we have is overloaded with unstated concepts and ideas and we usually assume the other people in the conversation understand exactly what we are implying. Eliminating this ambiguity is one of the main motivaitons behind the creation of artificial languages.

Like "duration as a quality of space." Which definition of duration and which definition of space are we using? Space as the absence of everyhing, or space as the fabric of the cosmos, is space empty? Or is "space" made up of all the quantum foam and particles apparently generating/ nullifying? Or do all those things just exist within the nothingness that is space? Does space actually have any qualities?

Duration seems to mean "The measure of continuance of any object or event within Time" or "how long something lasts."

My first instinct would be to say "no, duration is not a quality of space, because space is the absence of any object. But is space an event? Hmm... It could be.... Or the duration could be how long space lasts before being filled?" But that seems like a stretch.

Freaking Englush.

If space is empty and eternal then for all practical purposes, it cannot have any qualities at all, hence no dimensions. Once something exists for a duration of time, can we have a reference point. The physicists often describe the space of the universe as a sphere or bubble, both of which are something as opposed to nothing. I like the idea of ether as the medium of space, rather than emptiness. It is really difficult for me to grasp nothingness, let along a nothingness that has some qualities to it.

Edit to add: I reconsidered your last few lines of your post. Perhaps space only exists if it is filled with something, something that has a duration.