Have you ever had a four dimensional experience

**confuted** · 08-17-2003

Sorry Silvercord, but I'm with Einstein on this one.

**Brian** · 08-17-2003

No, but there is a fourth dimension! It is accessable only to enlightened hackers. Y'know in the matrix when Neo starts trinity's heart!!!1 THATS REAL BECAUSE ITS THE MATRIX. AND YOU SEE HER CODE SHE IS WRITTEN IN GREEN SYMBOLS. AND THEN HE HACKS THE GIBSOM!!1 HE GOES ACCROSS THRE FOURTH DIMENSION TO STEART TRINITYS HEART AND WHEN HE OWNS ALL THOSE AGENT SMITHS AND WHEN HE KILLS FLIES OMG OMG.

Quit smoking crack. A 4th dimension can be time, just as it can be anything else. The 4th dimension can be anything you can measure, width, height, length, time, whatever. Just as any other dimension can be anything else. Dimensions are defined by our needs. There are no dimensions we can traverse freely other than the three, x, y and z.

**gcn_zelda** · 08-17-2003

How about this...

The fourth dimension is a theoretical piece of crap, so it doesn't matter much. Nobody even know if there is a frickin' fourth dimension.

**Perspective** · 08-17-2003

Brian is correct... the 4th dimension belongs to the matrix... erm i mean. The 4th dimension is what we define it to be. It can be pretty much anything. These definitions are always based on assumptions which brings me to my next point...

Originally posted by DavidP
No offense to Silvercord, but thats a load of BS.

To "Assume" is to make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me."

The more you assume the more you will fall away from facts and valid points, not get closer to them.

you obviously havent taken any logic or discrete mathematics courses.... everything we 'think' we know is based on assumptions. (ex. The validity of the particle-wave theory is an 'assumption' its still a theory, never been proven correct, yet we assume it is true and as a result we can use its properties to derive other 'facts' which in turn rely on the origional assumption)
assumptions are the basis of everything including Oreo cookies.

**Zach L.** · 08-17-2003

Assumptions... or in math-speak, axioms.

**Clyde** · 08-17-2003

you obviously havent taken any logic or discrete mathematics courses.... everything we 'think' we know is based on assumptions. (ex. The validity of the particle-wave theory is an 'assumption' its still a theory, never been proven correct, yet we assume it is true and as a result we can use its properties to derive other 'facts' which in turn rely on the origional assumption)
assumptions are the basis of everything including Oreo cookies.

I don't like that at all. When scientists speak of "theories" they don't mean, estimates, or guesses, they don't even mean "not sure", the "theory" of heliocentricy states that the planets orbit the sun, things can be "theory" and "fact". - wave-particle duality for example is "fact" as well as "theory".

Whilst there are assumptions involved all over the place in science, because theories are tested via experiment we have a means to determine the validity of the initial assumptions.

The only "master" assumption involved is that we are (or rather I am) not in a matrix style world where the data being fed to our (/my) senses are all fake, whilst an inherently unproveable assumption it seems a pretty reasonable bet.

**~~Silvercord~~** · 08-17-2003

well this has been fun!

i had to have you guys assume the paper was actually a plane to convey a more abstract idea, when in actuality a piece of paper is as much a three dimensional entity as you and me.

EDIT: Is it even possible to prove or disprove the existence of higher level dimension (or, for that matter, lower level dimensions). and can there be such things as a 'negative number of dimensions', i.e instead of having a three dimensional basis can there be a negative three dimensional basis? I'm going to draw a picture of what is in my math book (the geometrical representation of the w coordinate, I don't have a scanner so I have to friggin use paint

)

EDIT1: and aren't there scientific theories that rely on higher level dimensions for explanation? Clyde I'm sure you know something about that, because I don't. I thought some (or all?) quantum theories relied on higher level dimensions. I've also heard the universe started out with a lot of dimensions but only three significantly expanded

EDIT2: here's a picture of what's in my math book. The z axis is not drawn to 'make visualization easier'. There is a four dimensional vector P that intersects what appears to be a plane. However, that is NOT a plane, that intersection is actually three dimensional space! You can calculate instantaneous space by dividing by the w coordinate in the same way you can calculate an instantaneous plane by dividing by the z coordinate. The reason I hypothesized the fourth dimension isn't time is that there seems to be no logical connection to the space at w == 1 vs the space at w == 1.1, in the same way there is no logical connection to the plane at z == 1 vs the plane at z == 1.1, but if einstein says it was time then I am probably wrong.

http://www.thedevelopersalliance.com...coordinate.JPG

**JaWiB** · 08-17-2003

What was it that Einstein said...something like "No amount of evidence can prove me correct..."

**~~Silvercord~~** · 08-17-2003

*cough* Ok that's enough *cough*

**Zach L.** · 08-17-2003

But the universe doesn't number the dimensions... "Let's see, you over there... you're the ninth, and you..." Time is another dimension - not a spacial one, but it does not exclude spacial ones entirely.

Clyde, we do have experiments, and we can see things. We have to rely on the assumptions that 1) our senses are providing us with correct information, 2) our brains are interpreting it correctly (a somewhat contrived, yet relevant example is optical illusions), and 3) the equipment with which we are measuring things provided enough accuracy and precision to discriminate between theories. Some theories (related to relativity and quantum mechanics) both yield the same results to such great precision that our equipment has yet to be able to fully confirm one or the other.

**~~Silvercord~~** · 08-17-2003

both yield the same results to such great precision that our equipment has yet to be able to fully confirm one or the other.

Ohh, I remember reading an article about scientists trying to find the top quark or something like that, and they had to use an instrument as tall as a skyscraper to try to measure the electrical signal it gave when it crashed into other sub atomic particles orsomething like that,and that a dog farting in china could throw off the signal and screw up the experiment.

**Clyde** · 08-18-2003

and aren't there scientific theories that rely on higher level dimensions for explanation? Clyde I'm sure you know something about that, because I don't. I thought some (or all?) quantum theories relied on higher level dimensions. I've also heard the universe started out with a lot of dimensions but only three significantly expanded

String theory and its spawn M-Theory both posit multiple dimensions (i think its 10 for string, and 11 for M-Theory) though most of them are "curled up", in M-theory though there seems to be atleast one non-curled up spacial dimension.

Clyde, we do have experiments, and we can see things. We have to rely on the assumptions that 1) our senses are providing us with correct information,

I accept this, its just that it seems a pretty safe bet.

2) our brains are interpreting it correctly (a somewhat contrived, yet relevant example is optical illusions),

I don't think this limits us at all, if we interpretted data incorrectly we would produce an incorrect theory which would then fail when further tested against reality.

and 3) the equipment with which we are measuring things provided enough accuracy and precision to discriminate between theories.

Sure, but that is a solveable problem and more-importantly we do not automatically assume that all our measurements are infinitely accurate. If we do not have the required accuracy to make a conclusion we don't make the conclusion.

Some theories (related to relativity and quantum mechanics) both yield the same results to such great precision that our equipment has yet to be able to fully confirm one or the other.

Interesting, got any details?

**Zach L.** · 08-18-2003

You seem to have missed my point. I agree that these assumptions are reasonable. I also agree that if our brains were misinterpreting data (from which false conclusions could be drawn), eventually something would tip us off to that fact (which quite often happens). About the equipment, it is a limiting factor (at a specific time). Conclusions are drawn without 'sufficient' data. Sometimes, because an alternate theory does not exist at the time (though it is later replaced). At any rate, the point I was making is that these are assumptions that are made. If you don't make them, then there is no foundation for your theories.

As for issues with relativity, Joao Magueijo comes to mind as one of the physicists who is working to determine if some of relativity's conclusion's are correct (such as the speed of light being a constant). He has a book out, though I have yet to get around to reading it.

**Clyde** · 08-18-2003

At any rate, the point I was making is that these are assumptions that are made. If you don't make them, then there is no foundation for your theories

I agree that science makes assumptions (though i don't think your 3rd one is valid because I don't think we do assume that measurements will be accurate enough, hence the truly innane amount time i have to spend doing errors in my lab write ups), but I don't think that it limits it or makes it any less valid, because if the assumptions are false they will get uncovered (aside from the base assumption that we are not living in a "fake" world").

I suppose what i'm getting at, is that when we talk of assumptions we should distinguish between reasonable, valid ones, and unreasonable invalid ones.

As for issues with relativity, Joao Magueijo comes to mind as one of the physicists who is working to determine if some of relativity's conclusion's are correct (such as the speed of light being a constant

I think i read an article on him, as I recall he's one the "heretics" of modern physics but hey not always a lot of difference between a "heretic" and a "visionary" eh?