Conversation
Notices
-
The first dimension does not exist in reality
-
@renovatedkitchen sandwich is the first dimension
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:44:04 UTC from web -
@renovatedkitchen Well it does, it's just impossible to mentally picture, if the first dimension did not exist nothing would actually be 3 dimensional.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:44:55 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle an atom is 3 dimensional. Therefore, nothing can be one dimensional
-
@renovatedkitchen It's very hard to explain, but yes while atoms are three dimensional, waaaaaaay down the line they are made of one dimensional objects. But this is going farther down than quarks and gluons and and gravitons and neutrinos and many other particles so far down the line that I can't even name them all.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:47:09 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle but even then, it would have to be 3 dimensional. I can't see a physical object being any less than 3 dimentions
-
@renovatedkitchen but that's the problem now isn't it? The brain cannot imagine anything having more or less than three dimensions, but plenty things do. We just can't see them. Something being three dimensional implies that it is made up of three independant dimensions, each with their own plane, the combination of these planes creates the three dimensions we see. And to top that off, our eyes can only see what photons bounce off of, and photons only bounce off of three dimensional particles because they are three dimensional themselves. Of course, to explain this to you fully, I would have to get into quantum mechanics but that would use up too much text space. So yeah, long story short, for something to be three dimensional it has to be made up of three separate dimensions, therefore, logically speaking, a "one dimension" must exist.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:52:49 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle thanks for the detailed reply. Makes sense. Wouldn't it just be that a dimension cannot exist in any form less than 3? I'm no physicist, naturally, just been curious the past couple days
-
@renovatedkitchen ah, curiosity is good for the brain. A dimension mathematically can exist independently, but due to obvious challenges we cannot detect them, or at least won't be able to for a while. And apparently there is supposed to be at least sixteen different dimensions and we only see three out of the sixteen
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:58:40 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle but to be sure, a single dimension cannot exist or be imagined, but 2 can? Because even a line would have a height and a width
-
@renovatedkitchen well, a single dimension can exist but cannot be imagined. Now two dimensions can sortof be imagined, it's basically a flat thing with absolutely no depth. A single dimension isn't even a dot, because that has hight and width, we can't imagine a one dimensional object, because it has no shape that we can imagine.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:04:31 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle but wouldn't some psychic acts prove that we can see more than 3 dimensions?
-
@renovatedkitchen well when I say "see" I refer to with the naked eye. Yes we can get machines to produce a visual output that our brains can process or imagine. But we cannot naturally see any for dimensional objects.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:17:23 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle @renovatedkitchen You see the fourth dimension every day, it's called "duration", something an object needs to exist, unless you like to debate whether or not an instantaneous object exists.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:19:01 UTC from web-
@colfax That's a common misconception, the fourth dimension is actually another dimension of physical form, things begin to get really weird once you pass three dimensions.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:19:59 UTC from web
-
-
-
@renovatedkitchen also I want to point out that I think it is funny that we are discussing physics in a brony social network. I'll be honest, I never saw it coming.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:19:09 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle intelligence: DEPLOYED!
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:24:09 UTC from web -
@muttstuffle I think physics is the most expected thing to talk about here. Other than coloured horses.
-
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:31:50 UTC from web
-
@renovatedkitchen yeah, hey did you see that article that logically proved that MLP takes alot of concepts from Plato's republic?
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:32:21 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle nope. Who's Plato?
-
@renovatedkitchen the guy with large shoulders
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:35:15 UTC from web-
-
@renovatedkitchen according to a teacher of mine, his real name was not plato, that is a nickname given to him because his shoulders were too large
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:38:32 UTC from web
-
-
-
@renovatedkitchen He was a philosipher from a long long time ago(in this galaxy, not a far away one.) That designed the "perfect government" known as Plato's republic, MLP takes alot of concepts from this, or so it seems, here is the article explaining the connection: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2012/11/08/my-little-pony-plato/
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:36:47 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle interesting. What ever happened to his ideas? Other than becoming a tv show
-
@renovatedkitchen Not sure, I don't know much about Plato other than what I just told you, well, Wikipedia is a researchers best friend. To the magic school bus(Wikipedia)!
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:43:16 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@renovatedkitchen It does, but it is a line that you would not be able to see, as it exists with no area despite it being there.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:46:17 UTC from web-
@erak43 but even the smallest things in life are 3 dimensional because atoms are 3 dimensional
-
@renovatedkitchen Not exactly. Matter is made of atoms, but it is mathematically possible for an object to exist without mass or area that could elongate itself infinitely.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:48:49 UTC from web-
@erak43 but then how can we see it if it's infinite?
-
@renovatedkitchen We couldn't, as it has no height or width, and it would be so thin it would constantly be cutting atoms, so an object does not exist, but could exist.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:51:05 UTC from web-
@erak43 but it doesn't exist, therefore in reality, there is no 1 or 2nd dimensions, or at least to me
-
@renovatedkitchen It doesn't exist as far as we know, but it still could somewhere in or out of the known universe, or our own universe as a whole.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:54:20 UTC from web-
@erak43 I love science, science brings up so many hypotheticals and weird things that you could easily have a philosophical debate over science.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:55:51 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle Oh, and we're only talking universe... Think about the outside, where physics do not apply, and you may be able to see TIME ITSELF.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:57:07 UTC from web
-
-
@erak43 so science believes that there can be something that is one dimensional?
-
@renovatedkitchen Yeah, it is possible, and actually fairly likely that somewhere out there, thses things exist.
Tuesday, 27-Nov-12 23:58:39 UTC from web-
@erak43 I wonder what they would be? I know we have a concept of strings, but that is supposed to be THE basic building block of all matter. Do you think there is any one dimensional object excluding strings that is out there?
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:00:12 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle Outside the universe space could exist infinitely with no physical restraints, and anything with perimeter or maybe even objects with no physical form could have a shape and exist.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:03:05 UTC from web-
@erak43 but the thing with going "outside of space" is that there is no space to occupy until you are in another universe, assuming other universes exist, and therefore you cannot be outside of space unless you are in adifferent universe.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:10:40 UTC from web-
@muttstuffle Interesting, idea, but that would mean that we are concealed in this area, and the edge of the universe is just a wall, or if you were to pass beyond such wall, you would practically teleport to another universe.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:13:42 UTC from web-
@erak43 that's basically the idea actually, or maybe if you had a sort of "space bubble" maybe then you could travel outside all universes, but you would still need a chunk of a universe to occupy in order to do so. Who knows? We might discover "junk universes" with nothing in them and then use bits of those to travel outside of reality itself.
Wednesday, 28-Nov-12 00:16:26 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
