What happens to 3-dimensional objects such as humans if they

>>8704074
Can't really parse it, we don't have the equipment. I read a very long... thing about why. Here's the link --
http://www.urticator.net/maze/notes.html
Here's the game --
http://www.urticator.net/maze/

VERY interesting to play. As soon as you feel like 'you get it' it fucks your head again. If you have them VR headset give it a run.

>>8704079
I just gave it a go and wow, when I thought I got it, it just straight up does something unexpected right afterwards. I guess I'm too much of a brainlet to fully comprehend the child prodigies who can think in a 4 dimensional way.

>>8704089
You can kind of develop /some/ thinking. Read the site, it gave me lots of insight. In and out are a whole new dimension.

>>8704074
there is nothing that is 1 or 2 dimensional in our universe. the fundamental particles are probably dimensionless.

Which means that things are either 0-dimension or 3-dimension. In a 4-dimensional universe you would assume there are only 0-dimensional things and 4-dimensional things.

Adding another dimension is just adding another position axis. So if you force a 3-dimensional thing in a 4-dimensional world it would have an undefined 4th dimensional position, which would mean you could locate it in 3 axes but it would not be anywhere on the 4th or everywhere, this might either collapse the universe or simply make the object invisible and non-interacting, depending on how you construct your dimensions. It could behave like a singularity, which has a somewhat defined position in space but the event horizon is the point of no return.

If you believe our universe is an overlay over a 2 dimensional universe that is invisible to us, which is an overlay over a 1 dimensional, over a 0-dimensional primordial soup of quarks, leptons, bosons, photons, this logic works upwards also to n-dimensions all above our 3rd spatial one, all invisible to each other.

Position by itself is useless without some time to relate objects with different positions to each other, so time must be supra-dimensional and exist in every dimension. As such it probably doesn't exist unless something happens, like relative motion. This requires velocity or some original momentum or impetus to perturb your closed system.

Maybe black holes are pockets of 4 dimensional space, with the 4th dimension being beyond the event horizon and inaccessible to us. So the big ones are at the centres of galaxies as a technical challenge to intelligent species to study them, reach them, and enter into a higher dimension. BAD BAD BAD. See how easily you walk down the road towards religion, aliens, god?

No evidence for 4th spatial dimension, simply a mathematical construct.

>>8704094
>No evidence for 4th spatial dimension, simply a mathematical construct.

Is String Theory just all a big meme?

>>8704102
I think it's bullshit desu, but afaik they say something like if you go below the 0-dimensional fundamental particles you get the:

>bosonic string theory spacetime is 26-dimensional
>superstring theory it is 10-dimensional
>supergravity theory it is 11-dimensional

spacetime here is just the aether that scientists during the enlightenment were struggling to understand, it's the background on which everything else is set, call it reality, call it a closed manifold, call it interstellar space, CMBR, whatever.

and dimensions are just mathematical constructions to fit in with their assumptions about what it's made of, extrapolated from our common sense every day of objects at a position x,y,z.

So what really makes up an electron is strings which are X-dimensional and that's what spacetime is and that's what everything is.

Same chicken and egg problem to describe empty space and quantum states of energy.

Physics is in real crisis, ever since the 70s. If you go big galaxies make zero fucking sense because of the missing mass and energy problem. If you go small subatomic particles make no fucking sense because of the measurement problem (ie how do you measure a ruler without a smaller ruler).

These were just theoretical problems, but they are quickly becoming engineering problems as computers are now too small to work properly due to interfering quantum effects, so we either stop developing them or we invent a new system of computation.

A theoretician never really wants a solution, most are just searching for God and too self-conceited to admit it. An experimentalist spends his entire time trying to fuck over the theoretician by proving to him there is no God because man can build a machine just as good.

This pretty much describes the past few hundreds years of scientific development, it's these two camps fighting. This distinction wasn't always there, Newton is the memelord we remember for ruining it for everyone else (action at a distance).

>>8704120
Thanks for making the explanation simple enough for a brainlet to understand.

Just one more thing, can you explain to me multiple time dimensions? I can't wrap my head around thinking how it works at all.

>>8704120
>bosonic string theory spacetime is 26-dimensional

True but bosonic string theory is a toy model

>supergravity theory it is 11-dimensional

11 dim. SUGRA is only one SUGRA theory. And it is the low-energy effective limit of M-Theory.

Each superstring theory has a 10-dim. SUGRA theory as its low-energy effective limit.

>>8704127
>multiple time dimensions?
http://www.gregegan.net/DICHRONAUTS/00/DPDM.html

File: aaaa.jpg (11KB, 285x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 285x242px

>>8704127
Suppose we are in a 3-space 3-time dimensional universe, Tom wants to measure how long it takes to drop a ball from some height h to the ground.

He raises the ball to height h, let's go of it and starts his timer:
(0,0,0) after (3s,4s,12s) the ball hits the ground,

Ah, Tom has one of those old analogdirection-timers, he wanted to know the total time it took for the ball to fall, not the individual directional time.

From his timer we know the ball fell right-time for 3 seconds, then forward-time for 4 seconds and finally down-time for 12 seconds.

We can calculate that the ball took 5 seconds to fall rightforward-time. Therefore the rightforwarddown-time is 13 seconds which is our total time.


This type of universe would look differently than our own, but special relativity holds (probably) for any number of space and time dimensions. I don't know how to begin to describe it to you visually. It's like asking to describe the 4th spatial dimension. Different, but also familiar.

Note that right/forward/down could be interchangeable with any words, I just used those for making the diagram more understandable. In our universe we only experience one type of time, linear one direction forward time, but the size of the universe and limiting properties of light do allow us to peek backwards in time (at objects very far away), as yet we cannot travel there or interact with the past in any way.

>>8704074
I assume with 4D you mean 4 spatial dimensions and not 3 spatial + time.

Actually, not much will change. When a line enters the 3D world, it is still a line. A 2D plane is still a 2D plane. Maybe we (3D) are in a 4D world already, we are just too limited to perceive more than we do.

>>8704074
Nothing changes. We are the 3 dimensional projection of 4 dimensional beings onto the 3 dimensional world.

File: 24-cell hyper.gif (1MB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 256x256px

>>8704074
It's all made up nonsense, using analogy to try and visualize something that is not real.

Makes for cool gifs, though.

File: KT8fo77.jpg (29KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x300px

>>8704074
The 4th dimensional world isn't a place so much as it's a sense of awareness.

>>8704127
>, can you explain to me multiple time dimensions?

It is pretty easy. Just imagine everything around you freezes in time, but you can still move and interact.

>>8704277
So if I wanted to go back in time and kill Hitler, I'd also have to make sure to kill Hitler leftward in time?

>>8704074
Wouldn't all dimensions exist in the same space?
Our 3d vision seems to be subjectively-virtual 3d vision (we can see only 3 sides of a cube at certain angles). We can NEVER see behind objects. Perhaps in 4d we could see top and bottom of cube or front and back?

>>8704074
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285492/

Spoiler alert, a horror movie with three dimensional objects in a four dimensional world.

>>8704089
Understanding the "forward passage" part of the maze explanation is *key*. It looks like shrinking into the center of the cube, but that's just an illusion. It helps if you can think of yourself in two places at once, like as if you had two bodies both sending input to the same brain about different 3D spaces. It takes months of thinking about 4D before you can get little glimmers of intuition about them, but I haven't been diligent about it so it quickly falls apart again.