Visualizing Ten Dimensions (String Theory)

[magma]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

I always thought the theoretical stuff at the end wasn't brilliantly put, but this is an excellent programme. It's available via torrent pretty easy, but if anyone asks nicely I'll, err find a Rapidshare of it.

[ahier]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

you got a link for watching that online? always appreciate a new horizon documentary


edit - magma didnt see that, pretty please?

[DRTY]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

I always thought the theoretical stuff at the end wasn't brilliantly put, but this is an excellent programme. It's available via torrent pretty easy, but if anyone asks nicely I'll, err find a Rapidshare of it.

Ahhh, Downloading documentaries is acceptable aint it? Its just like extended iplayer

But yeah obviously it is 'dumbed down' in places, I guess because it needed to be accessable for such a vast audience. But it was pretty good, defo worth watching.

[magma]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

I always thought the theoretical stuff at the end wasn't brilliantly put, but this is an excellent programme. It's available via torrent pretty easy, but if anyone asks nicely I'll, err find a Rapidshare of it.

Ahhh, Downloading documentaries is acceptable aint it? Its just like extended iplayer

But yeah obviously it is 'dumbed down' in places, I guess because it needed to be accessable for such a vast audience. But it was pretty good, defo worth watching.

Yeah, totally... and all the stuff before that is wicked. I really like Brian Cox.

Things Can Only Get Better for Horizon whilst he's on board.

Sorry.

[DRTY]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

you got a link for watching that online? always appreciate a new horizon documentary


edit - magma didnt see that, pretty please?

Here it is on gay youtube. But if you wanna watch it properly, it wont be hard to find a full copy online (torrents/rapidshare etc)

[DRTY]

Yeah, totally... and all the stuff before that is wicked. I really like Brian Cox.

Things Can Only Get Better for Horizon whilst he's on board.

Sorry.

LMAO. True though his stuff is great, did you watch his TED talks on CERN? Infact saying that have you ever watched any TED talks? They're fucking fantastic!

Recommend that site to anyone some seriously mind blowing ideas on there and great ways to search through videos too.

http://www.ted.com/

[Coppola]

I'd like the rapidshare if you have it magma.

[alien pimp]

Horizon - Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time it is.

Think i was originally on BBC2. It's not 100% relevant, but it is about time, and it does talk about string theory for about 5/10 minutes.

i might have seen it already but doesn't ring much bells, thanks

[magma]

edit - magma didnt see that, pretty please?

PMs

Edit: You too Coppola

[magma]

Yeah, totally... and all the stuff before that is wicked. I really like Brian Cox.

Things Can Only Get Better for Horizon whilst he's on board.

Sorry.

LMAO. True though his stuff is great, did you watch his TED talks on CERN? Infact saying that have you ever watched any TED talks? They're fucking fantastic!

Recommend that site to anyone some seriously mind blowing ideas on there and great ways to search through videos too.

http://www.ted.com/

Yessss... love Ted. My housemate got me into it a couple of years ago I suppose... so handy living with a webgeek. Totally unrelated, but one of my favourites on there was a woman talking about Body Modification - explaining how she'd grafted a magnet into her finger tip, which was then spontaneously met by her nerves and gained the ability to "sense" magnetic fields - including determining if a wire was live or not by hovering her hand over it.

TOO AWESOME

[a of dkr]

magma, that sounds deadly.
love ted.com
do u remember the name of that woman or anything that might help identify the video as i dont think iv seen that one.

[DRTY]

magma, that sounds deadly.
love ted.com
do u remember the name of that woman or anything that might help identify the video as i dont think iv seen that one.

Use this page:

http://www.ted.com/talks/tags

Try stuff like evolution, biodiversity, bioengineering, modification, etc etc

[magma]

magma, that sounds deadly.
love ted.com
do u remember the name of that woman or anything that might help identify the video as i dont think iv seen that one.

It was Quinn Norton and the speech is covered on this link, but I can't find a link to the video on Ted. Looks like it was at an event that Ted were covering, rather than a "For Ted" speech: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005748.html

If you look slightly harder than I did there's probably a link to the presentation on there somewhere... it was sweet.

[magma]

Found it!

Body Hacking: http://www.youtube.com/user/GoldMopp#p/ ... zPKRD1Qczw

[a of dkr]

ah, thanks a lot, will get on it tonight.

[kay]

Have you guys read Flatland? It's an attempt at visualising how hypothetical creatures of a given number of dimensions would perceive their dimensionality as well as higher and lower spatial dimensions. It basically involves a 2 dimensional being named A. Square, his description of how he would view his world and distinguish between different Flatlanders and their shapes. And his experiences when visited by a three dimensional being, as well as a visit to a 1-dimensional universe.

More recently, about a hundred years later, it was expanded by someone else to Sphereland, where it is brought to higher dimensional space. It also describes how a 4 dimensional hypersphere moving through a 3 dimensional volume of space would look like. And a few other interesting concepts on spatial geometry and dimensions. It's all written in a very straightforward fashion so anyone can understand it. Flatland was probably more well written and Sphereland a bit drier, but they're both still decent reads.

It does not delve into time as a dimension, so it remains safely within spatial waters.

Regarding time as a dimension, I guess it all boils down to whether one believes that the universe is expanding or changing in size. If one agrees with most of what human physics currently tells us, then the universe is expanding. Expansion implies that something has grown from a smaller size to a larger size. So under one set of circumstances it was a given size, and under another set of circumstances it was a different size. What links one to the other? Lets call it Quantity X. So when Quantity X = a number M, space has a volume of A. When Quantity X = a number N, space has a volume B. Since M is not equal to N, and A is not equal to B, the universe has changed in going from state M to state N. Quantity X is a measure of change. Now, it may not be entirely similar, but it seems to act suspiciously a lot like time. So until a better definition for Quantity X is described, it may be appropriate to approximate it with time (similarly, Newton's Laws can be used reasonably well to calculate celestial mechanics and interactions. But if you want to be very precise and take time dilation into account, you need to use Einstein's Relativity. However, for everyday matters up to and including the planning of interplanetary spacecraft trajectories, Newton's Laws are more than adequate).

Now, on the other hand, if you don't believe that the universe is changing in size, then there's no real need to believe in time. Except for the apparent reality that under a given set of conditions you were born. Under a different bunch of conditions you came to read through this rather longwinded thread. Under a different group of conditions, you were buried in the ground having died. Each location of your body could very well be defined by the spatial dimensions we all know and love (and I assume no one is in complete disagreement that those exist...). But a quantity is still missing to separate the 3 states of your body as we perceive them. So either our minds are artificially compartmentalising each of those states separately so that they appear to us to occur as differentiated events when in fact they all occur simultaneously, or there is truly a measure that can be used to separate each of those states, a measure which is in addition to the 3 known spatial dimensions. Were it to be possible for us to travel up and down this 4th measure, it would be a 4th spatial dimension. However, it does not appear that we are able to (at least not yet) so it remains a fairly nebulously-defined dimension.

There is no point in believing in pretty much any scientific concepts if one does not believe in a quantity similar to the one known as time. There would be no need to believe in evolution, which is based on time. There would be no need to think about motion, because speed would not exist. There would be no music, as all sounds would happen in a discordant non-instant. Time is simply the measure which distinguishes state A from state B.

[alien pimp]

Have you guys read Flatland? It's an attempt at visualising how hypothetical creatures of a given number of dimensions would perceive their dimensionality as well as higher and lower spatial dimensions. It basically involves a 2 dimensional being named A. Square, his description of how he would view his world and distinguish between different Flatlanders and their shapes. And his experiences when visited by a three dimensional being, as well as a visit to a 1-dimensional universe.

More recently, about a hundred years later, it was expanded by someone else to Sphereland, where it is brought to higher dimensional space. It also describes how a 4 dimensional hypersphere moving through a 3 dimensional volume of space would look like. And a few other interesting concepts on spatial geometry and dimensions. It's all written in a very straightforward fashion so anyone can understand it. Flatland was probably more well written and Sphereland a bit drier, but they're both still decent reads.

It does not delve into time as a dimension, so it remains safely within spatial waters.

Regarding time as a dimension, I guess it all boils down to whether one believes that the universe is expanding or changing in size. If one agrees with most of what human physics currently tells us, then the universe is expanding. Expansion implies that something has grown from a smaller size to a larger size. So under one set of circumstances it was a given size, and under another set of circumstances it was a different size. What links one to the other? Lets call it Quantity X. So when Quantity X = a number M, space has a volume of A. When Quantity X = a number N, space has a volume B. Since M is not equal to N, and A is not equal to B, the universe has changed in going from state M to state N. Quantity X is a measure of change. Now, it may not be entirely similar, but it seems to act suspiciously a lot like time. So until a better definition for Quantity X is described, it may be appropriate to approximate it with time (similarly, Newton's Laws can be used reasonably well to calculate celestial mechanics and interactions. But if you want to be very precise and take time dilation into account, you need to use Einstein's Relativity. However, for everyday matters up to and including the planning of interplanetary spacecraft trajectories, Newton's Laws are more than adequate).

Now, on the other hand, if you don't believe that the universe is changing in size, then there's no real need to believe in time. Except for the apparent reality that under a given set of conditions you were born. Under a different bunch of conditions you came to read through this rather longwinded thread. Under a different group of conditions, you were buried in the ground having died. Each location of your body could very well be defined by the spatial dimensions we all know and love (and I assume no one is in complete disagreement that those exist...). But a quantity is still missing to separate the 3 states of your body as we perceive them. So either our minds are artificially compartmentalising each of those states separately so that they appear to us to occur as differentiated events when in fact they all occur simultaneously, or there is truly a measure that can be used to separate each of those states, a measure which is in addition to the 3 known spatial dimensions. Were it to be possible for us to travel up and down this 4th measure, it would be a 4th spatial dimension. However, it does not appear that we are able to (at least not yet) so it remains a fairly nebulously-defined dimension.

There is no point in believing in pretty much any scientific concepts if one does not believe in a quantity similar to the one known as time. There would be no need to believe in evolution, which is based on time. There would be no need to think about motion, because speed would not exist. There would be no music, as all sounds would happen in a discordant non-instant. Time is simply the measure which distinguishes state A from state B.

nice reading man, but you call time whatever misses a better name, it's just a personal choice, i don't see the necessity to assimilate that change with time
also i hope you realise this doesn't answer my dilemmas
but yeah, you bring something to the table

imagine fractal animations with an infinite number of frames tending to zero as duratio
this is what i see time like, and it's no film, each frame once gone from the screen is gone forever, we are only what's shown on the screen
would be interesting to get into how the brain deals with time as well...

[alien pimp]

btw, infinite x 0 = ?
X>0 infinite x X = ?
some fun

[kay]

imagine fractal animations with an infinite number of frames tending to zero as duratio
this is what i see time like, and it's no film, each frame once gone from the screen is gone forever, we are only what's shown on the screen
would be interesting to get into how the brain deals with time as well...

That's an interesting take, I see where you're coming from. But a measure of some sort still separates 1 frame from another, otherwise there wouldn't be any differentiating 1 frame from another, they would all be superimposed. And it isn't a spatial measurement. So perhaps it isn't time, but there is something there. At least in the way our brains decide to perceive things anyway. Reality could be a different can of worms.

infinite x 0 = 0
X>0, infinite x X = infinite
This is based on number infinities. There are other types of infinities. Check out The Infinite Book if you're interested in that area of maths.

[parson]

flatland is also a full length animated feature