What is the 6th Dimension?

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
okay
so then if I apply time , and time alone , would speed up or slow down any physical dynamic then
show an example of where this actually happens
show where " time " and time alone controls any physical dynamic of any object(s) ”

You're still throwing specious strawmen into the "discussion".

whatever

Time can't be isolated and "applied" to a physical process any more than pure "length" can.

so " time " can't be isolated

hmmm....

yet you said that " without time there are no movements "

the differnce between length and time

is that length is necessary for an object to manifest

and time has nothing to do with the manifestation of any object

 

[Dywyddyr]

so " time " can't be isolated

Nor can length or any other dimension.

hmmm....
yet you said that " without time there are no dynamics "
the differnce between length and time
is that length is necessary for an object to manifest

Wrong.
Or maybe YOU can show that length is necessary and time isn't?

and time has nothing to do with the manifestation of any object

Another supposition on your part.

 

[thinking]

Nor can length or any other dimension.


Wrong.
Or maybe YOU can show that length is necessary and time isn't?


Another supposition on your part.

what worries me is that you think you actually make sense

time for a break , by me anyway

I expect you'll come back with some sort of quip

but hopefully you'll think more upon your above post

 

[Dywyddyr]

This extension out into space I did not call breadth, I referred to it as a static vibration for lack of better words.

Static vibration is a meaningless term.

Basically, aside from what I called it, it is as you describe, extension of space out and onto itself, not moving in any way and providing nearly infinite potential meridians for manifestation. Kinda like the Tesserac version of the fourth dimension, your familiar with that are you not...

Pure unadulterated crap.
Word salad.

If there is length then there is force...this is extremely and painfully elementary physical deduction based upon...if there is length...something is there in one way or another. Either the length is between two THINGS or of a single THING. If it is a thing...it is physical...and therefor there is force...this doesn't change no matter how much you toy with words...

Wrong again.
"Force" doesn't come into at all, it's a separation, a distance, a dimension, NOT a force.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Static vibration is a meaningless term.

It is not my fault if your brain is unable to make any sense out of it, though, yes, the term is vague. Considering that there are no other terms to describe this, I chose one that worked for myself. By static vibration...you are familiar with how statistical read-outs look...right... in this case it is similar to a graph with many different read-outs which appear blurred together, only that there is no read-out and no actual blurriness. The blurred area on the graph are possible locations for the matter to pass through, setting aside any probabilities. Take this example of the read-out and apply it to a spatial area and you might get a better idea of what I mean, though in your individual case I would be surprised if that where so.

Pure unadulterated crap.
Word salad.

Again, it is not my fault if you are unable to comprehend what I am saying. This is your own limitation, some people share it and others don't.

Wrong again.
"Force" doesn't come into at all, it's a separation, a distance, a dimension, NOT a force.

I never said 'force comes into at all'...whatever that means...

I said where there is length there is force.

Maybe you have problems understanding English...

As your own writing makes it sound like your saying that force is a separation, a distance, a dimension (Your it appears to refer to the "Force" you wrote). I assume you mean length...

Once again...

Where there is length there is force.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

If you're talking about a theory of physics, yes. However, its possible to discuss systems which a great many dimensions either in the realms of abstract mathematics (which even allows for infinite dimensions) or you can talk about non-physical dimensions.

Does this regard or take into consideration the claims that the forth dimension is time...

For instance, suppose you consider an object moving through 3 dimensional space. The space has 3 dimensions, 3 directions. However, the 'phase space' of the object is twice that, because to specify the system you need to give the location and velocity of the object, position is 3 parameters, velocity is another 3, total of 6. So if you're talking about n objects in d dimensional space then the phase space is of dimension 2*d*n dimensions.

This is interesting, as your presentation is easy to follow. This reminds me of an earlier discussion in this thread regarding that dimensions are basically used to coordinate. Before I inquire further is this to say that phase space has 6 dimensions or that it is 6th dimensional (which is basically the same thing). And what are your ideas regarding the 4th dimension as time...I am interested.

It's possible, if they exist, to measure/detect extra dimensions which are curled up very small by their effect on high energy particle collisions or deviations in the behaviour of gravity. The particular shape of these dimensions (ie what shape they curl up into) is a matter of horrifically complicated mathematics and they have no simple explaination to people who haven't done a fair amount of differential geometry.

I do recall writing earlier that dimensions curl inward in the shape of an attraction and this is consistent with what your saying, regardless of what shape you say is too difficult to describe in layman terms, I already know it will be an attractor.

What are your thoughts on gravity, then, if it is influenced by these tiny curled up dimensions. Also, is the curl occurring within the atomic cloud, around it, or both. Is this particular shape within the Gluons and Glue-balls...or the partons...

I didn't say we use infinite dimensional descriptions of space-time, I was pointing out that mathematicians and physicists are very familiar with the concept of extra dimensions, a great many mathematical systems involve infinite dimensional systems. Even something as simple as polynomials is an example. Think of all the kinds of polynomials you can make by adding together $$1,x,x^{2},x^{3},x^{4}$$, such as $$3x^{4}+2x^{3}-6x^{2}+x-1$$. That's a 5 dimensional vector space because you've got 5 different things you add together.

Except, our calculators can't show those extra two dimensions. Maybe we should make better calculators...

Your wording helps to clarify what is occurring here, if I am correct...there are different systems of study that use the word dimension/s within their system to help them describe that system. In the mathematics of differential geometry dimensions there does not appear to be a 4th dimension of time as they use the word, as your above model demonstrates. Some Physicists, but not all, have the theory that the 4th dimension is time, though when doing differential geometry they might use the word altogether differently as well.

I figured it was self-evident that mathematicians and physicists are familiar with the concept of extra-dimensions. I've been well aware that those concepts are no all the same amongst them and there is a good deal of debate between various groups of thought as to what those extra dimensions are. Up to this point I am even more acutely aware. No one has devised a means to test what the 4th dimension is, and it can be applied in many different ways according to different systems of thought.

That's not the same kind of 'dimensions'. You're referring to simply changing from one unit of measurement to another. You aren't doing anything fundamental there, just converting from one choice of length to another. A physicist wouldn't call that anything to do with 'dimensions' or 'altering dimensions'.

Not all physicists consider the 4th dimension to be time. This is a fabrication by many that do. Have you read about hypercubes...

Also, as I see it changing from unit of measurement to another is one of the fundamental ways to understand what is being measured. If there this is more to measure then simply x, y, and z and that is all most measure, then they are gaining a tiny fraction of the total measurements and cannot fully understand what they are measuring.

I don't think you have any grasp of what it means when a physicist says 'dimension'. You think that we mean changing imperial units to metric units, things of that kind. Not at all. For instance, I work in research related to how generalised extensions of electromagnetism affect the topology of 6 dimensional compact spaces with SU(3) structure. That is working with extra dimensions and I say nothing about units of measurement, I work to see how having 6 extremely small extra dimensions of a particular configuration can be made energetically stable so as to explain the particle families we see in nature. The issue of "metric or imperial?" is mute.

Yes, I do have a grasp on what they mean, though I disagree with some of the ideas they have that haven't been tested and simply assumed and taking for granted. I am having trouble following what you are saying about "metric or imperial", can you clarify...

If you don't know any vector calculus and you don't understand vector spaces then I don't think you're in a very good position to be whining about how physicists don't pin down what 'the fourth dimension is', you don't even understand basic terminology. Time is a dimension, since you require both the place and time of events to uniquely define them. Newtonian viewpoints had time as a dimension too, it's just it didn't get altered by space or vice versa as it does in relativity. Such things as string theory then extended that, though the notion of Kaluza-Klein reduction is as old as relativity and the mathematical notion of how to describe multi-dimensional systems is hundreds of years old.

Why can't they make themselves clearer...why can't these systems you describe provide a visual model...why is it apparently only in the minds of these people and apparently some sort of esoteric language amongst them. Why don't they all agree. Why so many different ideas amongst them. Why do they talk and debate amongst themselves. I don't believe they posses an ability to see multi-dimensions in their mind while not being able to demonstrate visually what they are talking about and that other people don't possess this ability. If any one person can use their imagination to visualize multi-dimensions then it seems plausible that so can anyone else.



Or is it that only a physicist or a mathematician can visual the dimensions of an apple within their mind...

I really don't understand how you lot wax lyrical about multi-dimensional things and whine about how physicists/mathematicians are unclear when it's pretty obvious you'd made no attempt to understand what we say. I don't complain I can't speak French to French people. Why? Because I never learnt it. Or am I missing something? :shrug:

Yes, you are missing something. I am left with the impression that you claim to possess special powers of the mind to see things within it that are multi-dimensional that other people can not see. Yet, you and every other such person, including myself, cannot provide any visual evidence to date. It is annoying to hear then such claims and at the same time hear physicists or mathematicians tell other people that they are not allowed to think on such matters or that their mind cannot see these things that the physicists or mathematicians fail to prove through demonstration. What is the 4th dimension and where is the proof...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Does this regard or take into consideration the claims that the forth dimension is time...

In terms of physical theories, both relativistic and not, time is a dimension. It's a parameter in your model which you need to specify an event. For instance, Apollo 11 launched from Florida. Florida is where but to actually define the event of Apollo 11 launching, compared to any other launch, you need to know when, July 1969.

This reminds me of an earlier discussion in this thread regarding that dimensions are basically used to coordinate.

The number of independent coordinates is the number of dimensions.

Before I inquire further is this to say that phase space has 6 dimensions or that it is 6th dimensional (which is basically the same thing)

Phase space is not physical space, it's an abstract concept related to the parameters which describe a system. 10 particles in 3 dimensional space have an associated phase space of dimension 60. To describe the system you have 60 variables, but the particles only move in 3 directions.

I do recall writing earlier that dimensions curl inward in the shape of an attraction and this is consistent with what your saying, regardless of what shape you say is too difficult to describe in layman terms, I already know it will be an attractor.

What exactly is the shape of an 'attraction'? The shapes they form are not anything like such things as the Lorentz attractor. Somehow I doubt you know what the shape of a Calabi Yau is.

Except, our calculators can't show those extra two dimensions. Maybe we should make better calculators...

The 5 dimensional vector space $$\langle 1,x,x^{2},x^{3},x^{4}\rangle$$ has nothing to do with the 3 spacial dimensions you're talking about. The infinite dimensional vector space of polynomials is an abstract concept which has particular properties. And calculators are not 'confined to 3 dimensions', since when did calculators only do 3 dimensional vector calculus? My pocket calculators will do various simple mathematical operators for me, from which I can develop and explicitly calculate various things in any number of dimensions. I've written tons of computer programs for such things as Mathematica which work in 6, 10, 50, even more, dimensional vector spaces.

The concept of a vector space is more general than the concept of space-time directions. Polynomials have nothing to do with space-time calculus in their rawest form. Look up on Wikipedia for what a 'vector space' is.

In the mathematics of differential geometry dimensions there does not appear to be a 4th dimension of time as they use the word, as your above model demonstrates.

Differential geometry does not make reference to time or space, only to different variables in a system. I can write down a description of a 4 dimensional Euclidean space without having to assign any physical meaning to any of the parameters. It's purely an abstract description. Turning maths into physics is the process of assigning physical meaning to the parameters, which might be spacial directions and time or might be the phase space parameters. The concept of differential geometry doesn't require you to assign physical meaning to anything you talk about.

Some Physicists, but not all, have the theory that the 4th dimension is time, though when doing differential geometry they might use the word altogether differently as well.

It's not a matter of 'theory', it's a matter of definition. Is 't' in a physical model an independent parameter? Yes. Then by definition 't' counts as a dimension. The whole 'does time get described in the same manner as space' discussion is related to the fact that in Newtonian theories time is absolute, it does not have any interaction with space. In relativity though you find that motion through space affects motion through time, so you can't regard time and space as seperate, they form a single larger concept, space-time. It is purely semantics whether you call time a dimension or not and if you adhere to the definition of 'dimensions' then you should call it a dimension.

No one has devised a means to test what the 4th dimension is, and it can be applied in many different ways according to different systems of thought.

There's no 'ordering' to dimensions, x isn't the first, with y then the 2nd, etc. There are 3 independent spacial directions which we can easily see so you can call them whatever the heck you like provided your 3 basis vectors are linearly independent.

Not all physicists consider the 4th dimension to be time. This is a fabrication by many that do. Have you read about hypercubes...

I do research into 6 dimensional spaces, of course I've heard of hypercubes. And as I just commented with the issue of ordering dimensions, the fact is that even if there's say 2, 4, 6, 50, whatever, extra dimensions which are curled up small time is still a dimension, whether you call it the zero'th, the first, the fifth, the last. If you'd ever done any vector calculus you'd know that you can just redefine a set of coordinate bases to exchange which one is first, which second etc.

There are 3 'large' spacial dimensions and one time dimension. If you want to label a general 4d space-time vector as (t,x,y,z) then fine but you could do (x,y,z,t) or (x,t,y,z) or (z,x,t,y) or any other permutation. Due to particular conveniences when doing the calculus the two prefered ways are (t,x,y,z) or (x,y,z,t). I personally prefer (t,x,y,z) because then you can extend this to include other dimensions easily, $$(t,x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n})$$.

Yes, I do have a grasp on what they mean, though I disagree with some of the ideas they have that haven't been tested and simply assumed and taking for granted.

Please don't bother to lie so transparently or at best kid yourself with such huge delusions. If you understand what SU(3) structure'd 6 dimensional spaces are you'd have to know vector calculus and relativity, which would mean you wouldn't be making the incorrect statements you are about the issue of time and it's relation to spacial dimensions.

Why can't they make themselves clearer...why can't these systems you describe provide a visual model.

Visually representing a 6 dimensional object on a 2d computer screen or a page of a book is next to impossible and you can only accurately describe the properties of those spaces using a lot of mathematics, which takes a while to learn. If you can't speak the language, don't expect to understand.

Or are you of the naive view that everything should be immediately understandable to anyone, irrespective of the complexity of the system and the ignorant of said person?

Why so many different ideas amongst them. Why do they talk and debate amongst themselves. I don't believe they posses an ability to see multi-dimensions in their mind while not being able to demonstrate visually what they are talking about and that other people don't possess this ability. If any one person can use their imagination to visualize multi-dimensions then it seems plausible that so can anyone else.

This is proof you didn't understand what I meant when I said SU(3) structure, as if you did you'd know how it's possible to describe things without drawing a physical representation. I can describe electromagnetism without having to draw the magnetic fields themselves, I use Maxwell's equations.

When I do my work I do not have a picture of the 6d shape in my head, I have a more abstract concept in my thoughts, linking together various mathematical concepts which sometimes can be related to more everyday experience but rarely.

Physics and maths is more than drawing pictures, it's about precise statements and logic.

Yes, you are missing something. I am left with the impression that you claim to possess special powers of the mind to see things within it that are multi-dimensional that other people can not see. Yet, you and every other such person, including myself, cannot provide any visual evidence to date. It is annoying to hear then such claims and at the same time hear physicists or mathematicians tell other people that they are not allowed to think on such matters or that their mind cannot see these things that the physicists or mathematicians fail to prove through demonstration.

Then you have no clue about how physicists or mathematicians work.

When someone says to me "Let M be a manifold of dimension 2n with SU(n) holonomy" I instantly know a great many of it's properties. I don't have to visualise it, infact I cannot because there's infinitely many utterly different shapes which satisfy those conditions but I know each and every one of them has such things as a Ricci flat metric, can possess a closed Kahler form and can thus be used to describe supersymmetric quantum field theories.

If someone says to you "3+5 = 8" do you have to think of 3 objects and then 5 objects and then think what those tow things together are? Or do you have some abstract notion of what '3' is and what '5' is and how they combine? I don't need to think in terms of apples or beans or waffle irons to think of the concept of 3, I have a well defined notion of it separate from physical things. That's how mathematicians and a great many physicists think.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is not my fault if your brain is unable to make any sense out of it

Of course it's your fault.
You chose the (contradictory) terminology.

Again, it is not my fault if you are unable to comprehend what I am saying. This is your own limitation, some people share it and others don't.

See above.

I never said 'force comes into at all'...whatever that means...

Yes you did - your comment:

I said where there is length there is force.

Maybe you have problems understanding English...

The confusion and problems with English are yours.

As your own writing makes it sound like your saying that force is a separation, a distance, a dimension (Your it appears to refer to the "Force" you wrote). I assume you mean length...

Wrong again.
It's length I was talking about.

Where there is length there is force.

Wrong.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Blah blah balh...


Yes you did - your comment:

Can you find those words then and quote them for everyone else to see, or please stop making stupid claims regarding what I did and didn't say...

Blah blah blah...


Wrong.

Your so...savvy with words...such an argument...

 

[Dywyddyr]

Can you find those words then and quote them for everyone else to see, or please stop making stupid claims regarding what I did and didn't say...

You really ARE dumb aren't you?
I DID quote your claim in my last post.

I said where there is length there is force.

Your so...savvy with words...such an argument...

Quite, can't even remember what you've written...

 

[Jozen-Bo]

In terms of physical theories, both relativistic and not, time is a dimension. It's a parameter in your model which you need to specify an event. For instance, Apollo 11 launched from Florida. Florida is where but to actually define the event of Apollo 11 launching, compared to any other launch, you need to know when, July 1969.

This is too narrow. Physics does not simply break down into two groups of relativistic and not, there are many other views and theories and mixtures thereof.

Perhaps you believe there is only 1 single future and past and that time is sort of like a length between these two, as your description implies. Another theory which is taking seriously is that there are multiple futures and there is no way to determine which we are heading towards, as we play a major role in that outcome. If this is so, then with so many different versions of July 1969 more questions come up. Are they in the same place...as if that is possible.

The number of independent coordinates is the number of dimensions.

So...dimensions are independent coordinates...

Phase space is not physical space, it's an abstract concept related to the parameters which describe a system. 10 particles in 3 dimensional space have an associated phase space of dimension 60. To describe the system you have 60 variables, but the particles only move in 3 directions.

I figured as much, its very similar to my description of a 'static vibration' for lack of a better term. What baffles me is that just because there are 10 particles we suddenly have 10 more dimensions, even so the particles are almost exactly the same. I don't view additional variables describing the same sort of phenomena as meaning newer and higher dimensions. 10 particles in 3 dimensional space have the same number of dimensions to them as a single particle does, they don't suddenly become 60th dimensional because their position and velocity is added and then multiplied by their total number.

What exactly is the shape of an 'attraction'? The shapes they form are not anything like such things as the Lorentz attractor. Somehow I doubt you know what the shape of a Calabi Yau is.

I thought you would know this. Any attraction...ANY...produces the shape of a spiral of some sort. Considering that there are so many different kinds of spirals, from the more complex and subtle shapes to the simpler, I will leave it with this general statement. And, yes I am aware of the Caabi Yau shape, it reminds me of a fucked up pretzel...so...

The 5 dimensional vector space $$\langle 1,x,x^{2},x^{3},x^{4}\rangle$$ has nothing to do with the 3 spacial dimensions you're talking about. The infinite dimensional vector space of polynomials is an abstract concept which has particular properties. And calculators are not 'confined to 3 dimensions', since when did calculators only do 3 dimensional vector calculus? My pocket calculators will do various simple mathematical operators for me, from which I can develop and explicitly calculate various things in any number of dimensions. I've written tons of computer programs for such things as Mathematica which work in 6, 10, 50, even more, dimensional vector spaces.

But it won't ever show it graphically.

And...so now your saying we have conceptional dimensions and non-conceptional dimensions...isn't this mudding things even more...

The concept of a vector space is more general than the concept of space-time directions. Polynomials have nothing to do with space-time calculus in their rawest form. Look up on Wikipedia for what a 'vector space' is.

More concepts...both that of a vector space and that of space-time 4th dimension...do we have any real dimensions anymore...are they are just conceptual...

Differential geometry does not make reference to time or space, only to different variables in a system. I can write down a description of a 4 dimensional Euclidean space without having to assign any physical meaning to any of the parameters. It's purely an abstract description. Turning maths into physics is the process of assigning physical meaning to the parameters, which might be spacial directions and time or might be the phase space parameters. The concept of differential geometry doesn't require you to assign physical meaning to anything you talk about.

OK.

It's not a matter of 'theory', it's a matter of definition. Is 't' in a physical model an independent parameter? Yes. Then by definition 't' counts as a dimension. The whole 'does time get described in the same manner as space' discussion is related to the fact that in Newtonian theories time is absolute, it does not have any interaction with space. In relativity though you find that motion through space affects motion through time, so you can't regard time and space as seperate, they form a single larger concept, space-time. It is purely semantics whether you call time a dimension or not and if you adhere to the definition of 'dimensions' then you should call it a dimension.

Interesting. I would agree that it is a matter of definition.

There's no 'ordering' to dimensions, x isn't the first, with y then the 2nd, etc. There are 3 independent spacial directions which we can easily see so you can call them whatever the heck you like provided your 3 basis vectors are linearly independent.

With this statement isolated onto itself...I'd agree...yes.

I do research into 6 dimensional spaces, of course I've heard of hypercubes. And as I just commented with the issue of ordering dimensions, the fact is that even if there's say 2, 4, 6, 50, whatever, extra dimensions which are curled up small time is still a dimension, whether you call it the zero'th, the first, the fifth, the last. If you'd ever done any vector calculus you'd know that you can just redefine a set of coordinate bases to exchange which one is first, which second etc.

How would you describe the appearance of a 6th dimension space...can you draw a picture...

Also...its only a fact if it can be proven. Have we proven that time is a dimension yet...

There are 3 'large' spacial dimensions and one time dimension. If you want to label a general 4d space-time vector as (t,x,y,z) then fine but you could do (x,y,z,t) or (x,t,y,z) or (z,x,t,y) or any other permutation. Due to particular conveniences when doing the calculus the two prefered ways are (t,x,y,z) or (x,y,z,t). I personally prefer (t,x,y,z) because then you can extend this to include other dimensions easily, $$(t,x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n})$$.

Please don't bother to lie so transparently or at best kid yourself with such huge delusions. If you understand what SU(3) structure'd 6 dimensional spaces are you'd have to know vector calculus and relativity, which would mean you wouldn't be making the incorrect statements you are about the issue of time and it's relation to spacial dimensions.

Cute, though this doesn't answer much nor change much.

Visually representing a 6 dimensional object on a 2d computer screen or a page of a book is next to impossible and you can only accurately describe the properties of those spaces using a lot of mathematics, which takes a while to learn. If you can't speak the language, don't expect to understand.

So, can you see these 6 dimensional objects in your mind...describe them...

Or are you of the naive view that everything should be immediately understandable to anyone, irrespective of the complexity of the system and the ignorant of said person?

No, I am of the view that the mind can process geometrical shapes without requiring math or physics. That anyone can visualize an apple (for example, anything visual and with a shape) in their minds, not just physicists or mathematicians...

This is proof you didn't understand what I meant when I said SU(3) structure, as if you did you'd know how it's possible to describe things without drawing a physical representation. I can describe electromagnetism without having to draw the magnetic fields themselves, I use Maxwell's equations.

Then do it, give us a perfect physical representation without using a model of any sort.

When I do my work I do not have a picture of the 6d shape in my head, I have a more abstract concept in my thoughts, linking together various mathematical concepts which sometimes can be related to more everyday experience but rarely.

...a more abstract concept in your thoughts...

that isn't very convincing...

How do you know for certain, then, that it is really 6th dimensional if your can't even visualize it...

Physics and maths is more than drawing pictures, it's about precise statements and logic.

Is that all...:shrug:...I thought there was more to it still...

Then you have no clue about how physicists or mathematicians work.

Why...because I don't think like you...this is no argument...it lacks any juice...rating my intelligence does little to establish your own case or description of the matters we speak of. I find it to be somewhat childish myself.

When someone says to me "Let M be a manifold of dimension 2n with SU(n) holonomy" I instantly know a great many of it's properties. I don't have to visualise it, infact I cannot because there's infinitely many utterly different shapes which satisfy those conditions but I know each and every one of them has such things as a Ricci flat metric, can possess a closed Kahler form and can thus be used to describe supersymmetric quantum field theories.


If someone says to you "3+5 = 8" do you have to think of 3 objects and then 5 objects and then think what those tow things together are? Or do you have some abstract notion of what '3' is and what '5' is and how they combine? I don't need to think in terms of apples or beans or waffle irons to think of the concept of 3, I have a well defined notion of it separate from physical things. That's how mathematicians and a great many physicists think.

And, despite this, they continue to argue and debate about reality and what it is amongst themselves, because this way of thinking does not gurantee automatic correct thinking. It does not ensure that everyone will come to the same conclusions about the world around them. Oh well...

 

[Jozen-Bo]

You really ARE dumb aren't you?
I DID quote your claim in my last post.

Quite, can't even remember what you've written...

No you didn't. Anyone else reading this will catch that if they check...you are confused.

Since you continue to become ruder with each post and offer little, if any, substance for thought...you and me have nothing left to discuss.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If this is so, then with so many different versions of July 1969 more questions come up.

It's totally irrelevant.

So...dimensions are independent coordinates...

Why the confusion?
That's the definition of dimension.

What baffles me is that just because there are 10 particles we suddenly have 10 more dimensions, even so the particles are almost exactly the same. I don't view additional variables describing the same sort of phenomena as meaning newer and higher dimensions. 10 particles in 3 dimensional space have the same number of dimensions to them as a single particle does, they don't suddenly become 60th dimensional because their position and velocity is added and then multiplied by their total number.

Yes they do because each of the particles defines its own co-ordinate system.

I thought you would know this. Any attraction...ANY...produces the shape of a spiral of some sort.

No.

But it won't ever show it graphically.

Nothing to do with the calculator: it's our perceptions that won't let us see more than a set number of dimensions at one time.
You could (possibly) do it by displaying multiple 3 or 4D graphs side by side but then you'd still have to train people to interpret them correctly.

How would you describe the appearance of a 6th dimension space...can you draw a picture...

See above.

Cute, though this doesn't answer much nor change much.

? Of course it does.

So, can you see these 6 dimensional objects in your mind...describe them...

See above: we're not "equipped" by nature to see 6 dimensions.

No, I am of the view that the mind can process geometrical shapes without requiring math or physics. That anyone can visualize an apple (for example, anything visual and with a shape) in their minds, not just physicists or mathematicians...

Except that there's a difference between visualising and processing.

Then do it, give us a perfect physical representation without using a model of any sort.

Incorrect use of terminology on your part.
Alpha said "it's possible to describe things without drawing a physical representation" - he didn't say "model". To a mathematician/ physicist a written mathematical description IS a model, but it's not physical representation.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

....


Why the confusion?
That's the definition of dimension.

No...its one of the possible definitions.

di·men·sion (d-mnshn, d-)
n.
1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.
3. Aspect; element: "He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension" (William S. Paley).
4. Mathematics
a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
b. The range of such a coordinate.
5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.
tr.v. di·men·sioned, di·men·sion·ing, di·men·sions
1. To cut or shape to specified dimensions.
2. To mark with specified dimensions.

Yes they do because each of the particles defines its own co-ordinate system.

Again, this depends on the definition being used.

Nothing to do with the calculator: it's our perceptions that won't let us see more than a set number of dimensions at one time.
You could (possibly) do it by displaying multiple 3 or 4D graphs side by side but then you'd still have to train people to interpret them correctly.

PLEASE...Can you show me a 4th dimensional graph...

See above: we're not "equipped" by nature to see 6 dimensions.


Except that there's a difference between visualising and processing.

Again, definition is important. And, off course there is a difference between visualizing and processing...so...

Incorrect use of terminology on your part.
Alpha said "it's possible to describe things without drawing a physical representation" - he didn't say "model". To a mathematician/ physicist a written mathematical description IS a model, but it's not physical representation.

Then...give me a model...

 

[Dywyddyr]

No you didn't. Anyone else reading this will catch that if they check...you are confused.

The quote "I said where there is length there is force." was from YOUR post.
But since you're being dishonest I'll list other occasions.

LENGTH...is part of that which produces force...it is not separate from the manifestation of force physically

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326230&postcount=274

If there is length then there is force

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326237&postcount=278

I said where there is length there is force.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326722&postcount=305

Since you continue to become ruder with each post and offer little, if any, substance for thought...you and me have nothing left to discuss.

You're correct, liars don't deserve discussion.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

The quote "I said where there is length there is force." was from YOUR post.
But since you're being dishonest I'll list other occasions.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326230&postcount=274

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326237&postcount=278

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326722&postcount=305


You're correct, liars don't deserve discussion.

...

“I never said 'force comes into at all'...whatever that means...”

Yes you did - your comment:

“I said where there is length there is force.”

“Maybe you have problems understanding English..."

'Force comes into at all' (your words) is not the same thing as saying 'where there is length there is force' (my words).

You obviously have problems understanding English.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No...its one of the possible definitions.

And since we're talking physics...
4. Mathematics
a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
b. The range of such a coordinate.

Again, this depends on the definition being used.

PLEASE...Can you show me a 4th dimensional graph...

Just how limited IS your education?
http://www.ist-inc.com/XRT/xrt3dmoreinfo.html

You can drape shading from one dataset over a surface defined by a second dataset to create a 4D graph.

Or an easier way to visualise one is imagine a triangle with grid lines (the so-called "Marketing Triangle" which plots 3 dimensions onto two), and then imagine it a right prism with the height plotting the fourth dimension.

Again, definition is important. And, off course there is a difference between visualizing and processing...so...

So?
Anyone can visualise an apple, how many can process the apple topologically into a beaker, for example?

Then...give me a model...

Alpha did give you one there and then: Maxwell's equations.

 

[Dywyddyr]

“I never said 'force comes into at all'...whatever that means...”

Ah I see the problem.
You don't speak English at all.

'Force comes into at all' (your words) is not the same thing as saying 'where there is length there is force' (my words).
You obviously have problems understanding English.

Try this: force has nothing at all to do with it.
It doesn't come into it at all.
NOW do you understand English?
Force does not at all come into the picture when talking about length.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This is too narrow. Physics does not simply break down into two groups of relativistic and not, there are many other views and theories and mixtures thereof.

I know, but you can have two broad classes of theories, those which have time and space affecting one another (relativity for instance) and those where they are completely seperate (Newtonian). In either one time is a dimension.

So...dimensions are independent coordinates.

The dimension of a system is the number of independent continuous variables.

What baffles me is that just because there are 10 particles we suddenly have 10 more dimensions, even so the particles are almost exactly the same. I don't view additional variables describing the same sort of phenomena as meaning newer and higher dimensions. 10 particles in 3 dimensional space have the same number of dimensions to them as a single particle does, they don't suddenly become 60th dimensional because their position and velocity is added and then multiplied by their total number.

Each particle requires 3 variables to define it's position in 3 dimensional space and 3 more variables to define it's momentum in 3 dimensional space. Adding more particles means more complexity, means more variables, means more dimensions in your phase space.

I thought you would know this. Any attraction...ANY...produces the shape of a spiral of some sort. Considering that there are so many different kinds of spirals, from the more complex and subtle shapes to the simpler, I will leave it with this general statement. And, yes I am aware of the Caabi Yau shape, it reminds me of a fucked up pretzel...so...

Obviously you aren't aware of what the geometry of the objects discussed in string theory are because they are not 'simple attractions' or whatever poorly defined description you want to use. A Calabi-Yaus are not 'spirals of some sort', they do not have simple analogies in terms of everyday shapes, because they are (at least the ones in string theory) 6 dimensional. Yes, the simplest examples are such things as tori but that's just a tiny class of them.

But it won't ever show it graphically.

So you're saying I'm limited in what I can describe using mathematics by how good my calculator is?!

And...so now your saying we have conceptional dimensions and non-conceptional dimensions...isn't this mudding things even more...

Do you even know what mathematics is about!? It's about abstract logic. Physics is the application of that abstract logic to real world phenomena. There's no muddling, there's only your lack of comprehension. I know the difference between a phase space and a space-time. I know the difference between a moduli space and a vector space. I know the difference between a complete space and a topological space. All are different concepts in mathematics, with 'space' not refering to the space up there in the sky but a concept.

More concepts...both that of a vector space and that of space-time 4th dimension...do we have any real dimensions anymore...are they are just conceptual...

A vector space is a space with particular properties and again I don't mean a literal 'space' like up in the sky. Look up what 'vector space' actually means.

How would you describe the appearance of a 6th dimension space...can you draw a picture...

Not 6'th but 6. String theory has 9 spacial dimensions. There's 3 which are big, the ones we're familiar with and then 6 MORE. So when I say I do work on 6 dimensional spaces I don't mean the 3 we see and 3 more, I mean I talk about 6 dimensional systems which are in addition to the 3+1 we already know about.

An a picture of the 6 dimensional space would be such things as the Calabi Yaus, so no, I can't draw them. I don't need to, I work out their properties and behaviour from their mathematical definitions. I don't need to draw a sphere to work out the shortest path between 2 points on the Earth's surface, I compute the geodesics of the spherical metric.

Also...its only a fact if it can be proven. Have we proven that time is a dimension yet...

I really don't see why you're obsessed with this. Do physicists need to include a parameter 't' in their algebra to describe systems in the universe? Yes. Does it matter if you call it a dimension or not? Not really. 'Dimension' is a label we give to things to help discussion. If you don't want to call it a dimension, fine, it just means you're working to a different vocabulary to most other people.

Cute, though this doesn't answer much nor change much.

It utterly retorts your "But what's the fourth dimension?!" whining because there's no natural ordering to dimensions, nor is there a natural choice of how you label dimensions if time and space affect one another.

So, can you see these 6 dimensional objects in your mind...describe them...

Where did I say that? I said I didn't need to, I am able to describe them and their behaviour via their mathematically defined properties. I can describe spheres without having to draw them. All you need to know about spheres can be obtained from the general definition $$S^{n} \equiv \{ x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} \, | ||x||=1 \}$$ . Don't need to draw anything, that's the whole reason mathematics is the language of physics, you can do a lot without having to cling to the imprecise nature of visual intuition.

No, I am of the view that the mind can process geometrical shapes without requiring math or physics. That anyone can visualize an apple (for example, anything visual and with a shape) in their minds, not just physicists or mathematicians...

I never said otherwise, I said the converse. You don't need to visualise something to describe it's properties.

Then do it, give us a perfect physical representation without using a model of any sort.

$$dF=0$$ and $$d \ast F = 0$$. That's the entirety of source-less electromagnetism.

How do you know for certain, then, that it is really 6th dimensional if your can't even visualize it...

FFS, it's not 'the 6th dimension' it's 6 extra dimensions. And I know what I'm describing are 6 dimensional object because that's what I construct them to be, I use coordinates $$(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},x_{6})$$ and build them up from that.

How do you know for certain, then, that it is really 6th dimensional if your can't even visualize it...

FFS, it's not 'the 6th dimension' it's 6 extra dimensions. And I know what I'm describing are 6 dimensional object because that's what I construct them to be, I use coordinates $$(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},x_{6})$$ and build them up from that.

And, despite this, they continue to argue and debate about reality and what it is amongst themselves, because this way of thinking does not gurantee automatic correct thinking. It does not ensure that everyone will come to the same conclusions about the world around them. Oh well...

There's no argument amongst mathematicians who do work on systems of varying dimensionality, because mathematics doesn't require 'physical evidence'. For instance, $$S^{7}$$ (using the definition I just gave) is a 7 dimensional sphere. I can work out various properties of it without having to know or care if such things exist in the real world. The number '7' doesn't exist in the real world, but we can apply the concept of '7-ness' to groups of objects. If I have 7 apples I have a group of apples which in some way relate to the concept of '7'. Having 7 apples doesn't give me a physical thing which is '7', I'm attaching an abstract concept to a physical thing. Physicists argue over how to attach physical meaning to particular mathematical systems, that's how you do physics, you look for mathematical systems which, when you attach physical meaning to various thigns in the system, gives the same dynamics as the physical system you've associated it to.

Mathematicians do not require any physical justification for their work, because they aren't trying to describe nature. Physicists try to describe nature so they can test if the models they think behave like nature actually do but even when a model is shown to be wrong the mathematical concepts behind the model are still perfectly valid because they never needed physical justification.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

And since we're talking physics...
4. Mathematics
a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
b. The range of such a coordinate.

Again, this depends on the definition being used.

Again, this depends on the definition being used.

J

ust how limited IS your education?
http://www.ist-inc.com/XRT/xrt3dmoreinfo.html

I'm not seeing a 4th dimension in that model...maybe it's an abstract concept...

Or an easier way to visualise one is imagine a triangle with grid lines (the so-called "Marketing Triangle" which plots 3 dimensions onto two), and then imagine it a right prism with the height plotting the fourth dimension.

So is it time or a graph super imposed on another...

So?
Anyone can visualise an apple, how many can process the apple topologically into a beaker, for example?

Probably anyone who has been shown how...

Alpha did give you one there and then: Maxwell's equations.

I would like to SEE this model...