• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Dimensions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spire

III
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
15,079
Location
Texas
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y9KT4M7kiSw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y9KT4M7kiSw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

It's interesting of course, but think about this.. We, supposedly existing in the 3rd Dimension, cannot perceive beings in the 2nd Dimension. We can generate—just as Carl Sagan did—what the 2nd Dimensional world might look like either with cast shadows or computer generated imagery, but those are still conceptions of the 3rd Dimension. Everything we experience exists in the 3rd Dimension and as such, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and every dimension beyond that is unreachable. The only advantage we have over the 1st and 2nd Dimensions is the ability to emulate them. We cannot experience, only emulate. Subsequently, those that exist in the 4th Dimension cannot experience what it is like to live in the 3rd Dimension, they can only emulate it and thus, have never advertently interacted with this plane of existence.

Think of the dimensions as an infinitely tall tower. The ground is the basis for existence: it is not a dimension at all, simply the literal idea of existence as a whole. The literal floors on every floor are two-way mirrors, and there are no stairs or elevators. Those on the second floor can look down and see the first, but the first see only a mirror when looking up. Those on the third can see both the second and first floors, but cannot see the fourth. Those on the third floor could not exist without the two floors below them and thus, the 3rd Dimension is entirely dependent on the 1st and 2nd Dimensions, but it has more.

I think that "God" is humanity's identification of a being able to exist in a dimension(s) beyond our own. Throughout our history, people have divulged in hallucinogenic drugs and trances to reach higher states of mind. We do this because we are unhappy with our world, we always feel trapped. Naturally, we are trapped by the bounds of the 3rd Dimension, but what's detrimental is that we further trap ourselves with immoral and oblong jurisdictions and laws, rather than promoting the expansion of the mind to try and reach the 4th Dimension. But perhaps that's because the leaders, or if you'd like to go so far as the Templar, Masons, etc. have realized that it's either an impossibility or not worth pursuing when we can rather mechanize the world and expand our influence throughout as much of the available 3rd Dimension as possible.

Perhaps the 4th Dimension is not the place for us, and that we exist in the 3rd for a reason. Think about this concept: say there are a total of 12 dimensions. Each one is capable of yielding lifeforms, and within each, they're all competing for dominance over the dimension. Ultimately, there would be 12 ruling species over the entirety of this cross-dimensional universe and at that point, it would finally be at balance.

But going back to the "3rd Dimension is entirely dependent on the 1st and 2nd Dimensions, but it has more." I think what is most important is that we define what that "more" is. What differentiates one dimension from another? Is it the ability to perceive different forms of light? Is it the introduction of forces such as gravity and electromagnetism? If that's the case, what might the 4th Dimension truly constitute? Perhaps in the 4th Dimension, gravity exists within gravity, thus nullifying our ability to perceive it.

Though all in all, dimensions are still theoretical. Until we truly cross into another, until we experience another dimension apart from our own rather than emulating one and understanding what may constitute it, it's simply a concept. The universe as we perceive it is built up of various fundamental spectrums, or 'dimensions'. We understand three dimensions, but only directly (and wholly) are in tune with the 3rd. We are composed of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Dimensions, but are limited to only the 3rd. Though just with the idea of "if God created us, who created God?", we theorize that just as the 3rd Dimension resides over the 1st and 2nd, so too must a 4th reside over ours, and so on and so forth.

What are your perceptions on the subject?
 

Crimson King

I am become death
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
28,982
You should check out the site and video called "Imagining the 10th Dimension". It's awesome.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
You should check out the site and video called "Imagining the 10th Dimension". It's awesome.
I was just about to say this. That series of videos is a lot more clear than any other description of dimensions that I've seen.

If I remember correctly, the existence of the 10/11 dimensions has been mathematically proven. Of course the math used to describe it is far beyond what anybody here would know.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
What do those dimensions entail?

I've heard of the eleven dimension theory, but was under the impression the experts didn't know what those dimensions were.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I was just about to say this. That series of videos is a lot more clear than any other description of dimensions that I've seen.

If I remember correctly, the existence of the 10/11 dimensions has been mathematically proven. Of course the math used to describe it is far beyond what anybody here would know.
How can that be mathematically proven? That's a statement about the universe.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
If I remember correctly, the existence of the 10/11 dimensions has been mathematically proven. Of course the math used to describe it is far beyond what anybody here would know.
I don't think it was that it was mathematically proven. If I recall correctly, to eliminate certain problems, positing multiple dimensions is necessary to solve them, with 11 being the minimum.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
The 10/11 dimensions comes from the different variants of String theory and M-Theory. Essentially, in order for the mathematics of the string theories to work, they needed to invoke 9 spatial dimensions (25 in the case of bosonic string theory though) plus a time dimension (so, formally, time does not count as the 4th dimension, it is its own distinct dimension) making 10 and 26 in total respectively. The 11th dimension comes from M-Theory, which adds a further dimension to unite the five different string theories into an overall construct, acting as an extra dimension.

The leading explanation for why we currently cannot see or verifiably interact with any of the higher dimensions than the third (plus time) is because the higher dimensions are all bundled up into subatomic regions of space (possibly at planck length or smaller), smaller than anything than we can currently observe or see. There is potential ramifications for them being there, such as an explanation for why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces (gravity may leak into these other dimensions, causing it to drop off faster over a distance).
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Bundled up in space? Wouldn't anything in space be 2nd or 3rd dimension?

From what I understand, string theory and M theory aren't scientific fact, just theories floating around amongst others. So what's the evidence for these dimensions? Or are these dimensions just assumed because they are necessary in string and M theory?
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
It is very weird and counter intuitive to think about. But, yes, our understanding of what "space" is, and apparently dimensions, gets very convoluted and strange once you start getting into subatomic scales, especially when you start dealing with planck length. I try to keep up with it as best as I can, and read what material I can get my hands on (and understand), but notions start to get truly mind-bending.

Yes, string theory and M-theory are not proven in any capacity, as far as I know. It's even had the issue for a while that they couldn't even come up with any testable claims to prove or disprove the theory, since the mathematics involved were so intense and difficult. They have, however, come up with some testable predictions but none has been observed or verified, though there are some tantalizing indications of it being at least partially correct.

But, yeah, people were wondering where the 10/11 dimensions thing came from, so I provided where it came from. String theory had to invoke these extra dimensions for the formulas to work, and also the different branches of string theory aligned quite well when considered with that amount of dimension. No one has verified that's actually the case though. So, for the moment, as far as I can recall of physics, higher dimensions are purely theoretical and mathematical constructs.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
So these dimensions were invoked to accommodate String Theory, yet ST itself isn't proven.

That would be like invoking abiogenesis with proving macroevolution first.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
String theory is weird to say the least.
although it mathematically consistent, it has not had a single experimental proof, and most real world phenomenons that would be proves for string theory are almost impossible to make an experiment for/verify.

Thus, it has also split the world of physicists and a lot of them consider string theory to be complete bullocks.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
It's simply saying that for String theory (a plausible explanation of our observations) to work, there must also be these extra dimensions.

What's the problem with that?
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Well, the intriguing thing about String theory that lends it some legitimacy despite not being experimentally verified is that the mathematics for it are very cohesive, and can work out quite beautifully (from what they can work out).

So, that's sort of the unnerving thing about String theory. Mathematically, it is very solid so far, and mathematics has had a propensity to reveal deeper truths about reality before, but, yet, at the same time, it is so unverified in any other way.

Sort of an interesting issue of whether you can have such a complex and coherent mathematical theory that might not have anything to do with reality.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Math is just a logical progression from axioms to theorems. I think you're saying that they have a complex and coherent physical theory that might not have anything to do with reality.

What do you mean about mathematics revealing deeper truths about reality?

Also there are paradoxes of mathematics that don't always line up with our perceptions of the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Yeah, I meant to just say that the mathematics behind it is so far quite solid and coherent, not that it is explicitly a mathematical theory.

As for mathematics revealing truths, I know that for quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, the mathematics for the field rapidly outpaced the experiments they were able to perform to test it, but when the experiments were finally able to catch up, they found that their measurements agreed with a great degree of accuracy to what had been mathematically deduced before hand, despite it being such a weird new field that people weren't sure how to approach or handle most of the time.

It ended up spawning some quote that I cannot remember precisely nor find on Google, but was something like "Mathematics has the unnerving ability to discern the nature of reality" or something like that.

See, the thing that's slightly different about that is that has some basis in the reality of how we handle volumes and objects. String theory will literally have no landing in reality if it's foundation is not true, yet, is some how very mathematically coherent. It's very weird to explain, and I guess I'm not doing a very good job at it.

Man, this is making me want to read up on it all over again, cause I used to know this better, and I'm fairly sure I'm not doing it any sort of justice at the moment.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I feel the exact same way. I used to be so into studying these kinds of things and now I've forgotten a lot of it. I blame university.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Have there ever been conflicting theories that were both mathematically consistent?
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Of course ...

Any theory has to be mathematically consistent. So all you need to do is look at a theory that was later proven wrong like Newtonian mechanics.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Have there ever been conflicting theories that were both mathematically consistent?
I'm pretty sure that there are a number of different and conflicting theories or hypotheses (quantum gravity, string theory, loop quantum gravity etc.), that attempt to unify the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak interaction and the strong interaction). They all seem to be mathematically workable. Despite this though, there isn't much evidence yet that points to which one is right.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
So then really, having mathematical consistency doesn't really serve as an argument for the theory being true.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
Well again a theory can never be "true" in the way that you mean.

But yes, just because it is mathematically consistent, it doesn't mean it's true. Just like how a flat earth is visually consistent, but is false when you are able to see the whole picture.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
So then really, having mathematical consistency doesn't really serve as an argument for the theory being true.
It is necessary but certainly not sufficient.

One of the things that I think scientists do sometimes though is say "we have Theory X, and now Hypothesis Y would fit our current observations and the math works out that Y is explained by X, so therefore I support hypothesis Y"

If that makes any sense.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
So then really, having mathematical consistency doesn't really serve as an argument for the theory being true.
As mentioned above it is a requirement, because if a theory if not mathematically consistent consistent, you can show that both X and not(X) are true after which the Principle of explosion [1] allows you to show that anything is true, including the fact that your theory is false.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
So then really, having mathematical consistency doesn't really serve as an argument for the theory being true.
Pretty much. It's basically an argument that the theory functions as a theory.

It is necessary but certainly not sufficient.

One of the things that I think scientists do sometimes though is say "we have Theory X, and now Hypothesis Y would fit our current observations and the math works out that Y is explained by X, so therefore I support hypothesis Y"

If that makes any sense.
I would have though you're meant to replace the words "hypothesis" with "observations" or "facts". I was pretty sure a hypothesis is a theory that hasn't got any evidence in favour of it yet.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I'm confused as to what you are saying.

Of course I know I didn't explain it very well. I was basically trying to say that things like string theory are in part supported because the math works out well.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
Of course I know I didn't explain it very well. I was basically trying to say that things like string theory are in part supported because the math works out well.
Having a theory that is mathematically coherent (and consistent with current data) only makes it possibly correct. To increase our confidence in it, it will have to undergo multiple tests and avoid falsification. It so happens that string theory is the only game in town so it appears to look promising from the lack of competitors, but our inability to come up with other models should not add credibility to string theory. To do so would be to argue from our ignorance. Granted, we might be able to say that it is the best model we have, given that it may be the only coherent one, but that doesn't give it much support.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
I'm confused as to what you are saying.
So am I.

I would have said, "we have hypothesis X which is supported by Y observations and the maths works out. It also makes Z predictions which are consistent with reality and explains W phenomena. That's why we support hypothesis X."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom