What is the "number of parameters or measurements" needed to describe an object? Since when do angles used to describe orientation count as "dimensions"? I have reverted the introduction. Brian Jason Drake 06:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I had to reword the last couple of sentences of this paragraph, since east-west and north-south movements are only applicable to spherical geometry, and spatial dimensions are based on Euclidean geometry. NickBush24 06:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm moving this paragraph to talk, because as far as I can tell it's either hogwash, or at least not properly sourced:
-- Delirium 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Infinity is not a dimension. It is the continual expansion of the current 4 finite dimensions at light speed. Also, it is impossible to have a one dimensional object/entity. The smallest dimensions allowed for an object/entity are two dimensions. Only the motion of an object and the direction of forces are allowed to have one dimension. ( Francie. Scientific Ambassador of the universe. 25 May 2007)
"We can move up-or-down, north-or-south, or east-or-west, and movement in any other direction can be expressed in terms of just these three."
Can you really speak of movement in terms of just the three spatial dimensions? Doesn't the very concept of movement depend on the time dimension? Without time all you have is position and no movement. Right?
What's the difference between space and time? Haven't we treated them as one thing ("spacetime") since Einstein? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Why (how come?) our space have three dimensions of space and one of time? How did the space originate? -- Inyuki 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Many Some scientists believe that space originated from particales slaming together at hype-speed, thus, creating the Big Bang, but there is also an unknown factor, where did the the particals come from, and what made them accelerate so fast, so it might point to a God, or a great force, existing before and possibly after the Big Bang.:No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy,the "Fight" between matter and anti-matter is simular to the rebellion against Heavean strangely,here :No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy, here, http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01.html-- Dansanman 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}
Electrons can move in 3 dimensions in space, move through time, can spin, and don't appear to have an internal structure. How can all this be accomplished if there are only 4 dimensions? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 12:00, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Can't multiple dimensions exist in a way that allows a particle to be in two places at once. If so, our whole universe could be a single particle (entity) that can be veiwed from an astronomical number of locations.
My theory (and i think it happens to coincide with the accepted theories lol) is that the universe is a big 4 dimensional sphere that we are on the surface of...kind of like the earth is a 3 dimensional sphere and the things living on the surface of it basically can only move in 2 dimensions...
so yeah, if you were a 4 dimensional (spacial) guy or girl floating around "above" our universe then yeah you could see it from different angles (at different times) (or if you were 5 dimensional then you could see it from different angles at once :p .... but... about being in two places at once? wtf? -
BriEnBest
10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Classical physics theories describe three physical dimensions: from a particular point in space, the basic directions in which we can move are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward."
Is there anything in physics to justify the "up/down", "left/right" and "forward/backward" labels or are these arbitary directions that humans have decided to label and consider special? Brian Jason Drake 08:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
IMO, i think physics is a description OF those directions and the different applications of "moving" in different directions (and stuff...) - BriEnBest 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"Also, in science fiction, a "dimension" can also refer to a separate world or plane of existence, though this meaning is not discussed in this article.)"
String theory certainly should be somewhere other than the science fiction section, for it has been proposed as a real theory, but it might belong in science fiction as well. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 06:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I have rewritten the lead and my change has been reverted. I think however the lead should not make a too strong distinction between common sense, mathematics and physics. The mathematical definition is simply an extension (abstraction) of the common sense concept. The difference with physics is not really true. Adding a unit to a dimension is not really something that important. Not only physicist are using multi dimensional spaces with units. Economists, chemists, physicians, etc... Moreover an simple example should belong to the lead just as in manifold or in eigenvalue. This is also recommended in the mathematics project. Vb 12:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the information added in this section was incorrect. The relevant info belongs to the 3-D film article. The Simpsons mention would also be better served elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- Metron4 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't able to make any sense out of this:
So I deleted it. -- Alvestrand 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade's deleted comments
Why would we be using Kant as an authority on this anyway? He is a philosopher. I very much doubt he originated the idea anyway William M. Connolley 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade's deleted comments
this section needs its tone revised
There is a discussion at the ref desk about whether raising to a different power expresses a different dimension. If you want to contribute, be quick, because these discussions die out in a few days. DirkvdM 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at sections 4, 4.2, and 4.4.1 there seems to be some vandalism there. 24.185.25.78 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This diagram is extremely innacurate for the 0th and 1st dimension. Even the slightest thickness of a 0 dimensional object would make it one dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely small point. Any thickness of a one dimensional line would make it two dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely thin line. Fredil Yupi go 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My reasons:
I very much agree with your reasons and have just removed the link. It hurts Wikipedia's credibility to have these kinds of links. Mdmkolbe 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to have had that link personally - BriEnBest 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been removing this poorly-written, (apparently) ideologically driven section. It needs the following to reappear: coherent style, sources, and NPOV. 129.171.233.29 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I will not replace this section. It contains a very basic (even if unorthodox) observation, so it would be hard to find a citation that would make it conform to NOR. It was, however, entirely coherent, and was no more ideological than any other contribution. SemblaceII 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat new to the whole more than three dimensions. done some research and found the tesseract and torus. however, it is real hard to visualize what it would look like being a 4 dimensional being. how about starting a project about what the world would look like if we could see it in the 4th dimension? THE WORLD IN 4D 5D and so forth. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Paintedrealms (
talk •
contribs)
18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not wikismart at ALL but I'm fascinated by theoretical dimensions despite the fact that I can very loosely understand even the 4th dimension...anyway I don't want to mess up the main page so I thought I'd leave this here for someone else to do...
[1] thats a link to a very good example of what a spider web would look like in 4D, i thought it might be a useful thing to have on the page...
--
71.117.1.116
07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"E "Theories such as string theory and m theory predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size. We as humans can only perceive up to the third dimension while we have knowledge of our travel through the fourth. We, however can not perceive anything past the fourth."
for reference, here is the next sentence: " As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size" - this does not make sense because the sentence before it says that our universe (and more importantly, the dimensions we perceieve) are all MICROSCOPIC in size, then it says they're macroscopic...
let me try again, "...predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the size of these dimensions compared to the universe as a whole are subatomic in size."
how's that? can someone verify that for me, please? BriEnBest 08:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
how exactly do string theory and m theory predict that *just one* additional spatial dimension? what evidence do they base this on, or is it just theoretical math? if so, what is the math based on and where does it start? - BriEnBest 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
it seems that this page assumes that
a) certain particles are made up of, or in fact are strings
b) when these strings are applied to the laws of harmonics, there is some type of mathematical need for 26 dimensions?
that is basically where i'm at right now... i would like to see the "proofs" of the equations they start with on that page, or maybe be told where they came from. i research that page off and on and the rather esoteric physics vocabulary they use. they also do things to the equations like change an x to a t. and add things without adding the same to both sides... it has a pretty reputable address, but seems a bit, unfinished. i do believe there is reason to why they do those things, but i do not understand them... - BriEnBest 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- BriEnBest 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Adding the three Euler angles, for a total 6 dimensions, allows the current degrees of freedom —orientation and trajectory —of the aircraft to be known."
Preceeding this sentence, which is in the second paragraph of the article, is discussion saying that to pinpoint an aircraft you need three dimensions, and then comes a sentence stating that time can be a dimension, making the total count so far - four. Then comes this sentence which says that if you add three more "Euler angle" dimensions the total count is 6. Either this means that: 6 should be 7; or, they should say that "without the dimension of time," or something like that. - BriEnBest 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmmm, Donuts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.26.1.99 ( talk) 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Larn to splel (Deliberate -_-) Gamesftw ( talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
With regards to: "The equations used in physics to model reality often do not treat time in the same way that humans perceive it. In particular, the equations of classical mechanics are symmetric with respect to time, and equations of quantum mechanics are typically symmetric if both time and other quantities (such as charge and parity) are reversed. In these models, the perception of time flowing in one direction is an artifact of the laws of thermodynamics (we perceive time as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy)."
While this is very true and very interesting and very impressive sounding, I'm not sure it has found it's home in Dimension -> Time. Dhatfield 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no rocket scientist, but if there are dimensions in space, then the simple act of moving backward would be moving backward in time. The article gives misleading hints that the fourth dimension is time, but a tesseract is seen to be a hypercube and all dimensions have time. So, if it is proved that there is one dimension, there is one dimension in time, et ceterae (not et cetera) and therefore you may see that a for every unit in space, there is a unit of time. Even from a simple notion of force, one would find squared time. If so then there must be another set dimensions for time that match each and every superposition or "world" of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 ( talk) 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Note to the author of this article:
I recommend not watching sci-fi movies deep in the night an writing an article some may be unfortunate as to cite.
Note to those who think the quantum theory and its applications are highly illogical:
Please explain why light can be polarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 ( talk) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I am doing a research paper and i was wondering, what books should I read to get a better understanding about different dimensions? My topic is how understanding dimensions can be beneficial to our society. if there is any book or website to help me with my topic i would like to know what they are, but i am mainly focused on understanding the demensions first.i would like some differing opinions as well, so i can interprit what i think
What is the "number of parameters or measurements" needed to describe an object? Since when do angles used to describe orientation count as "dimensions"? I have reverted the introduction. Brian Jason Drake 06:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I had to reword the last couple of sentences of this paragraph, since east-west and north-south movements are only applicable to spherical geometry, and spatial dimensions are based on Euclidean geometry. NickBush24 06:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm moving this paragraph to talk, because as far as I can tell it's either hogwash, or at least not properly sourced:
-- Delirium 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Infinity is not a dimension. It is the continual expansion of the current 4 finite dimensions at light speed. Also, it is impossible to have a one dimensional object/entity. The smallest dimensions allowed for an object/entity are two dimensions. Only the motion of an object and the direction of forces are allowed to have one dimension. ( Francie. Scientific Ambassador of the universe. 25 May 2007)
"We can move up-or-down, north-or-south, or east-or-west, and movement in any other direction can be expressed in terms of just these three."
Can you really speak of movement in terms of just the three spatial dimensions? Doesn't the very concept of movement depend on the time dimension? Without time all you have is position and no movement. Right?
What's the difference between space and time? Haven't we treated them as one thing ("spacetime") since Einstein? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Why (how come?) our space have three dimensions of space and one of time? How did the space originate? -- Inyuki 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Many Some scientists believe that space originated from particales slaming together at hype-speed, thus, creating the Big Bang, but there is also an unknown factor, where did the the particals come from, and what made them accelerate so fast, so it might point to a God, or a great force, existing before and possibly after the Big Bang.:No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy,the "Fight" between matter and anti-matter is simular to the rebellion against Heavean strangely,here :No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy, here, http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01.html-- Dansanman 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}
Electrons can move in 3 dimensions in space, move through time, can spin, and don't appear to have an internal structure. How can all this be accomplished if there are only 4 dimensions? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 12:00, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Can't multiple dimensions exist in a way that allows a particle to be in two places at once. If so, our whole universe could be a single particle (entity) that can be veiwed from an astronomical number of locations.
My theory (and i think it happens to coincide with the accepted theories lol) is that the universe is a big 4 dimensional sphere that we are on the surface of...kind of like the earth is a 3 dimensional sphere and the things living on the surface of it basically can only move in 2 dimensions...
so yeah, if you were a 4 dimensional (spacial) guy or girl floating around "above" our universe then yeah you could see it from different angles (at different times) (or if you were 5 dimensional then you could see it from different angles at once :p .... but... about being in two places at once? wtf? -
BriEnBest
10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Classical physics theories describe three physical dimensions: from a particular point in space, the basic directions in which we can move are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward."
Is there anything in physics to justify the "up/down", "left/right" and "forward/backward" labels or are these arbitary directions that humans have decided to label and consider special? Brian Jason Drake 08:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
IMO, i think physics is a description OF those directions and the different applications of "moving" in different directions (and stuff...) - BriEnBest 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"Also, in science fiction, a "dimension" can also refer to a separate world or plane of existence, though this meaning is not discussed in this article.)"
String theory certainly should be somewhere other than the science fiction section, for it has been proposed as a real theory, but it might belong in science fiction as well. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 06:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I have rewritten the lead and my change has been reverted. I think however the lead should not make a too strong distinction between common sense, mathematics and physics. The mathematical definition is simply an extension (abstraction) of the common sense concept. The difference with physics is not really true. Adding a unit to a dimension is not really something that important. Not only physicist are using multi dimensional spaces with units. Economists, chemists, physicians, etc... Moreover an simple example should belong to the lead just as in manifold or in eigenvalue. This is also recommended in the mathematics project. Vb 12:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the information added in this section was incorrect. The relevant info belongs to the 3-D film article. The Simpsons mention would also be better served elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- Metron4 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't able to make any sense out of this:
So I deleted it. -- Alvestrand 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade's deleted comments
Why would we be using Kant as an authority on this anyway? He is a philosopher. I very much doubt he originated the idea anyway William M. Connolley 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade's deleted comments
this section needs its tone revised
There is a discussion at the ref desk about whether raising to a different power expresses a different dimension. If you want to contribute, be quick, because these discussions die out in a few days. DirkvdM 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at sections 4, 4.2, and 4.4.1 there seems to be some vandalism there. 24.185.25.78 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This diagram is extremely innacurate for the 0th and 1st dimension. Even the slightest thickness of a 0 dimensional object would make it one dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely small point. Any thickness of a one dimensional line would make it two dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely thin line. Fredil Yupi go 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My reasons:
I very much agree with your reasons and have just removed the link. It hurts Wikipedia's credibility to have these kinds of links. Mdmkolbe 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to have had that link personally - BriEnBest 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been removing this poorly-written, (apparently) ideologically driven section. It needs the following to reappear: coherent style, sources, and NPOV. 129.171.233.29 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I will not replace this section. It contains a very basic (even if unorthodox) observation, so it would be hard to find a citation that would make it conform to NOR. It was, however, entirely coherent, and was no more ideological than any other contribution. SemblaceII 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat new to the whole more than three dimensions. done some research and found the tesseract and torus. however, it is real hard to visualize what it would look like being a 4 dimensional being. how about starting a project about what the world would look like if we could see it in the 4th dimension? THE WORLD IN 4D 5D and so forth. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Paintedrealms (
talk •
contribs)
18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not wikismart at ALL but I'm fascinated by theoretical dimensions despite the fact that I can very loosely understand even the 4th dimension...anyway I don't want to mess up the main page so I thought I'd leave this here for someone else to do...
[1] thats a link to a very good example of what a spider web would look like in 4D, i thought it might be a useful thing to have on the page...
--
71.117.1.116
07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"E "Theories such as string theory and m theory predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size. We as humans can only perceive up to the third dimension while we have knowledge of our travel through the fourth. We, however can not perceive anything past the fourth."
for reference, here is the next sentence: " As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size" - this does not make sense because the sentence before it says that our universe (and more importantly, the dimensions we perceieve) are all MICROSCOPIC in size, then it says they're macroscopic...
let me try again, "...predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the size of these dimensions compared to the universe as a whole are subatomic in size."
how's that? can someone verify that for me, please? BriEnBest 08:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
how exactly do string theory and m theory predict that *just one* additional spatial dimension? what evidence do they base this on, or is it just theoretical math? if so, what is the math based on and where does it start? - BriEnBest 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
it seems that this page assumes that
a) certain particles are made up of, or in fact are strings
b) when these strings are applied to the laws of harmonics, there is some type of mathematical need for 26 dimensions?
that is basically where i'm at right now... i would like to see the "proofs" of the equations they start with on that page, or maybe be told where they came from. i research that page off and on and the rather esoteric physics vocabulary they use. they also do things to the equations like change an x to a t. and add things without adding the same to both sides... it has a pretty reputable address, but seems a bit, unfinished. i do believe there is reason to why they do those things, but i do not understand them... - BriEnBest 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- BriEnBest 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Adding the three Euler angles, for a total 6 dimensions, allows the current degrees of freedom —orientation and trajectory —of the aircraft to be known."
Preceeding this sentence, which is in the second paragraph of the article, is discussion saying that to pinpoint an aircraft you need three dimensions, and then comes a sentence stating that time can be a dimension, making the total count so far - four. Then comes this sentence which says that if you add three more "Euler angle" dimensions the total count is 6. Either this means that: 6 should be 7; or, they should say that "without the dimension of time," or something like that. - BriEnBest 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmmm, Donuts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.26.1.99 ( talk) 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Larn to splel (Deliberate -_-) Gamesftw ( talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
With regards to: "The equations used in physics to model reality often do not treat time in the same way that humans perceive it. In particular, the equations of classical mechanics are symmetric with respect to time, and equations of quantum mechanics are typically symmetric if both time and other quantities (such as charge and parity) are reversed. In these models, the perception of time flowing in one direction is an artifact of the laws of thermodynamics (we perceive time as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy)."
While this is very true and very interesting and very impressive sounding, I'm not sure it has found it's home in Dimension -> Time. Dhatfield 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no rocket scientist, but if there are dimensions in space, then the simple act of moving backward would be moving backward in time. The article gives misleading hints that the fourth dimension is time, but a tesseract is seen to be a hypercube and all dimensions have time. So, if it is proved that there is one dimension, there is one dimension in time, et ceterae (not et cetera) and therefore you may see that a for every unit in space, there is a unit of time. Even from a simple notion of force, one would find squared time. If so then there must be another set dimensions for time that match each and every superposition or "world" of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 ( talk) 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Note to the author of this article:
I recommend not watching sci-fi movies deep in the night an writing an article some may be unfortunate as to cite.
Note to those who think the quantum theory and its applications are highly illogical:
Please explain why light can be polarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 ( talk) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I am doing a research paper and i was wondering, what books should I read to get a better understanding about different dimensions? My topic is how understanding dimensions can be beneficial to our society. if there is any book or website to help me with my topic i would like to know what they are, but i am mainly focused on understanding the demensions first.i would like some differing opinions as well, so i can interprit what i think