What does it mean there are Four Dimensions? - Page 3

Nice link, isought . . . the soap bubbles and a spinning top are favorites for Physics (math) theory but then i do like to relate to particle systems.
Not to offend, Just my desire to keep it as simply as i can.
To look within the mirror?

i found that link momrnts before i posted it, looked up 11 dimensional shizznat as a result of a program over dimensions on the sciense channel. although i haven't heard any talk over sciense and physics, whatnot, describing those ideas...

You should talk to my friend, michio kaku, he has also theroized the 11 dimensional theroy, as well as quantum states at the different levels of existance, tiny-small-medium-large-X-large. depending on what level of existance most of the forces of the universe have some what different characteristics. for example gravitational fields appear flat on a solar level but at pico level gravity becomes violent and distorted. this is the reason why we still do not have a unified field theroy and a combining of general relativity and quantum mech.

quote:

---

i found that link momrnts before i posted it

---

Glad to hear that I wasn't totally misunderstood, thank you both. As mentioned

quote:

---

sorry if I'm repeating something... We exist in the forth "spatial" dimension. 1 of time, and 3 of depth.

---

We seem to have a distinction between 'the real world', our existence as related to our composition and the way 'dimension' is related to the nucleus or central flux of existence itself?

quote:

---

dimensional theroy, as well as quantum states at the different levels of existance,

---

The perception of elemental particles give an assertion of electron fields related to matter, while most theories range within the domain of some other dynamic state of being?

have you looked into frequency and wavelengths. everything seems to opperate off of them.

Part & parcel to the continum theory, all matter [mass] is reduced to energy [mass => energy] therefore all have related frequency & wave length which form the continum of energy ranging from cosmic rays [high freq=>short wavelength] to gravitational waves [low freq=>long wavelength].
An easily understood concept but rather miss leading as all energy doesn't reduce to electromagnetic radiation. Sound waves are a form of energy but it doesn't propagate through space, it needs a medium [matter] for one.

so they are a result of the operation of "it". makes sense since we detect "it' by "them"

In the case the chemistry, we have Ionic (electrostatic) & Covlaent (elcetromagnetic) bonds which give form of the electron orbitals & inertial mass (molecules) of our composition.

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

Who knows what the Universe has to offer in terms of evidence of such ponderings, we haven't really set foot outside of our own solar system. But I did watch this documentary back in high school about the fourth dimension and some idiots trying to map the entire thing out graphically through a computer program - basically, the object kept disappearing and coming back as it twisted around, which didn't phase me as particularly fascinating.

quote:

---

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..

---

As a wave function then our existence may be nothing more than the flow of the electron in the folds of an electric field existing between charged bodies.

quote:

---

.. maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

---

Conversely, the preception of the electron cloud (bond) is represented as a dynamic system in motion & exposed other time appears an electon orbital. The positve & negative spin is about (around) a central core (line[s]) extenting through the nucleus?
But at any time T1, charged particles (electrons) would be as far as possible from each other and as close as possible to oppositely charged particle (nucleus).
The 1s2 orbital of hydrogen & helium form a level of electrostatic charged relationship.
The rest of the periodic chart form electromagnetic bonds (hybrid) sp orbitals to form chemical bonds (molecular species). A change in level, especially significant by the d (5) & f (7) orbitals are interior filling before transition into the inert gas form of monatomic (inert element) atoms.

Astarte, nice to hear from you even if I am being obsessive.

quote:

---

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

---

But I have been spending some time investigating how understanding [general comprehension) has progressed?
What I found is that you comment is as valid today as it was back when I went to college. As many post included in this section deal with concepts that were not topics of general discussions of my days in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elementary_particle#Unmentioned_relate
d_topics

quote:

---

Xerxes, your change to the intro:

In particle physics, an elementary particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the fundamental particles from which all larger particles are made.

makes it seem as though fundamental particles were smaller than elementary particles. According to at least three sources that I've read today the term "elementary particles" came of use in 1934 and the "fundamental particles" came of use in 1947 (source Merriam-Webster); yet in present use all entries on fundamental particles list see: elementary particles. Hence, they are synonyms with elementary particles being the favored term. I will amend this to clarify.--Sadi Carnot 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that particles thought to be fundamental are called elementary. Particles that are actually fundamental are called fundamental. Thus the list of elementary particles keeps changing and the list of fundamental particles is unknown. -- Xerxes 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You could be right; however, I feel that presently we are in a terminology transformation window. I suppose that it will be some time before the public intuitiveness as to the difference between these two terms arrives. --Sadi Carnot 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the aspect & extension of particles is to define what a particle & the system to which it is a member or element {in the mathematical sense} or form vs function in the physical sense. The aspect of where does a particle exist relates to the how does it manifest it's existance? The Math aspect of sets need to be applied to the concept of particles as well the the Physics aspect of form & function. Which for the present version, science isnt even sure of their existence, let alone established any real sense of function. Clay 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Having promoted an alternative model (perception, understanding, abstraction, etc.), Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I thought I should go over the precepts that arise relating them to the general perception of the theories of Chemistry & Physics.

Duality
The historical aspect of the atoms extended into sets of relationships (Laws of Physics) based upon distinct particle & specific actions
(changes in potential [positional] energy or the changes in energy) relative to that system. Which gives continuity to the various conceptualizations relating to these (math) functions, ie. => Particles in Motion => the action/reaction nature of the Duality (mass/energy).
Example: H²O, the water molecule is composed of two atoms of hydrogen chemically bonded to an oxygen atom is a general ionic solvent that plays a significant role in chemical reactions. Beyond those aspects is the rather unique characteristic relating to the liquid/solid phase change, ice floating in water relates chemical bond length & angle to the physical form (3-dimensions) of the (real) macro-identity of our world.
The concept of the atom produced the perception of electron(s) forming orbital(s) => shell(s) surrounding the nucleus. This precept extends that these (at this level) particles (inertial masses) obey (act) in accordance with the Laws of Physics. That electron orbitals & planetary systems adhere to the same set of rules but because the electrons have a charge then they must obey the Laws of Electromagnetism as well deriving two separate forms or functions which are resolved as simultaneous equations, those values which are consistent to the inertial masses & the charged particles => (energy) functions, ie. field fluctuations => Charged Particles in Motion => the action/reaction nature of the Duality (mass/energy).

Note: Into general conceptualization the rigorous mathematical model gave way to the Quantum Theory, deeming that only (smaller) simplest of systems (atoms) could be defined therefore conceptualizations become more accepted as a generalization for the rigorous mathematical model and the spin factor of the electrons.
While this seems contrary to our normal aspect or conceptualizations of our existence, it does extend from the aspect that at some point the division of particles into smaller particles form or function produces the effect or aspect of our 3-d & time.

A conditional statement is implied (like the unspoken STP) that the molecular nature of atoms gives rise to those characteristics of our existence including the aspect of Inertial Mass , an extension of atoms being the center around which our construct of 3 dimensional space => matter.
Inertial Mass 1
Aspect of Relativity revolves around an extension derived from the 'Speed of Light'
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/67241/question-about-the-speed-of-lig
ht.htm

quote:

---

'Hmm i was thinking of this the other day... Einstein once said that matter can never travel the speed or faster than the speed of light...Does this mean it is possible to Infinitely Travel closer to the speed of light? Light travels 186,282.397 miles per second...What i mean by this is if Man Kind can ever harness an energy source to ever get that far in technology you could travel 186,282.39699999 repeating forever and ever or would it eventually just round itself up?'

---

Hmm . . . Isn't Science Fiction great! Isn't it wonderful how Perceptions of Space the Final Frontier!
Ya, I know I thought the starship entering warp ...stretching the ship into a ray as it snaps forth with a sudden acceleration, disappearing in a cascade of light.
How wonderfully does perception3 extend this very thing, the speed of light?
So there they are standing upon the bridge then the Captain gives the order 'Engage' [warp engines], pan to the exterior view against space. Good thing they have force fields to hold the ship together & protect the crew. Wonder, what they did before they developed such shielding? Think about it, could human beings survive?
How many G's are required to accelerate to the speed of light? A few [2 or 3] g's & pilots can pass out, how many g's can the human body withstand? What would extended periods of time of sustained G factor have upon the body? Would they need a special suite (decompression chamber)?
Because the faster you go [velocity] the greater the inertial mass becomes => greater the force required to accelerate the inertial mass => The stretching of the starship in space,kind of like the old standard, a bar of metal would expand with increased temperature except in one dimension, the length?
Theory of Relativity:
if something exist in one reference system then it must exist in all reference systems relevant to it?
That because gravitation is constant in one reference system then it must remain constant in all related reference systems?
In the macro-existence of atoms & molecules, we perceive the starship [an electron] doing just that, except as the electron orbital decays, releasing excess energy by emission of the photon returning the atom to it's normal state.4
I conceive it differently, which is more related to action<=>reaction & the extension of photon emission, inertial mass<=>particle & energy<=>(quantum or difference in potential) wave. Therefore the photon emission is related to the inertial mass; the electron (charged inertial particle) is held by inertial force(s) [nuclear] increasing force extends it to the limit, where photon (non inertial mass) quantum of energy is released. Slightly different perception based different distinctions extending from prior different conclusions related to inertia.

Inertial Comedy

quote:

---

Years ago when I was young, I worked a construction job in a distant town, right on the river. My nephew & I were staying together in a cabin so it wasn't long till we had are fishing gear with our tools, I even borrowed a flat bottom skiff with a outboard motor. Which turn into a problem as the little 7 hp. kicker tends to over power that size of the boat . . . So there we were out on the river, early in the morning and . . it is colder than a 'witch's *!**'! . . . I mean the coldest day of the year & we are out on the water. We anchored in a bend in the river setting up our lines. And wouldn't you know it, we no more than wet our lines when some other people show up and anchor right in the spot we had been planning to drift into . . .Anyway at this point we decide to move & my nephew wanted to captain the ship so to speak. He fired up the engine and pointed the bow upstream & poured on the steam. Now, of course, this course (event2) of actions had some consequences or reactions . . . I had moved to the bow of the boat & weighed anchor, he being bigger moving to the sturn2 had produced the effect of being stern heavy (ie. relative &#10021; ).
The bottom, being nearly flat, the bow had a slight taper so the hull raised & this surface acted as a air foil. So too, the stern sank as it pushed forward & the inertia of the water piled up as a wave as the stern sank, increasing the angle of attack, lifting the bow nearer to vertical so I was leaning forward as the boat rose before it came down to plane . . . the lid of the styrofoam cooler started to blow off. As he reached forward to hold down the lid, his hold [against the twist] of the throttle slipped. Our acceleration not only stop but it became negative!
The inertia that he had struggled with was gone as his momentum pushed out a piece of the sidewall of the cooler . . . as the wake swept over the stern of the boat, we slipped, boat & all, into the briny deep [actually it was in a fresh water river]. I guess you could say it was a matter of perspective that I had neglected to mention the effect of the bottom of the boat as a hydrofoil but being oblivious to these events had transpired, I was still leaning forward, trying to counter balance these lifting forces and the thoughts I had were that we were going to flip over . . . in fact, I reached down to the lip & grasped the curved metal of the bench seat but as the momentum crested, I felt my hold slip as the inertia cast me out of the boat. The water was shallow as we were over a shoal in the bend of the river. Standing up I looked around, my nephew was behind me as it hit me that everything, not attached to the boat itself, had been catapulted from the boat. The parts of the Styrofoam cooler floated near our sunken but upright boat, but all our gear, every hook, line & pole had disappeared from our sight and brother was that water a cold!

---

footnote
1)Note: A general conceptualization rather than a rigorous mathematical model
2)event => for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction
3)&#10768; (centerline through which those forces act/react)
4)the relative normal state example being the relatively normal excited state of the wire in the bulb in the flashlight turned on.

If you want to really understand what the "fourth dimension" is, simply study the properties of lower dimensions in relation to higher, and then take it one step further to determine the properties of a four-dimensional figure, which is called the tesseract by some. What's interesting is that this tesseract, once actually illustrated, is really only one cross-section of reality, a frozen moment in time. The "real" tesseract extends beyond the moment, existing simulaneously in the past, present, and future. Of course, this is more a logical and psychological analysis of our relationship to the fourth dimension, which is generally viewed as the phenomenon of time, although it's much more than that. Once understood, you come to the conclusion that the the universe is "at least" four-dimensional and that, due to limitations of our minds, we can see, or experience, only one cross-section, only one infintessimal "slit" (we call the present) of a reality that exists beyond the "now," simultaneously in the past, present, and future. Our experience of time is determined "internally," not externally. The fourth dimension may be interpreted as the phenomena of motion requiring time, but I tend to think that these phenomena are nothing more than our experience or perception of time due to limitations in that experience or perception, and that the "real" world without "motion in time" is the true so-called fourth (or possibly higher) dimension.