Continuance of the INfinity Proposal

[Testlund]

Videos can't be in MP3 format, but thanks for link. Interesting stuff.  

[gymsum]

Videos can't be in MP3 format, but thanks for link. Interesting stuff.  

I ment MP3 as in information wise, the 10th dimensions according to that very abstract way of thinking is all information the universe could ever have.

[Testlund]

Well, when the guy in the movie explained time as a straight line and said it was the 4th dimension I was thinking it could as well be the first dimension. Personally I doubt time exists. It's just because we have memories and the ability to think ahead we think of time. I also doubt the big bang theory. Universe may as well be eternal.

[Numsgil]

The links you posted talk about other universes, so it in fact is talking about more information than our universe could ever have by definition.  When I say "all information", I specifically am limiting it to information in this universe.

The video links are interesting, but you should be careful assuming that it's talking about the same thing that string theory's 10 (11?  12?  They keep needing more) dimensions are talking about.  Those dimensions are compacted, which is a fancy way of saying microscopic essentially.  They aren't the same thing as the other worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

When talking about dimensions in general, there isn't such thing as the first, fourth, or tenth dimension.  Dimension simply means something you can measure with a scalar (ie: number).  For instance, when building the physics for DB3 I had 10 dimensions: position (x, y), velocity (x', y'), acceleration (x', y'), angle (theta), angular velocity (omega), angular acceleration (alpha), epoch start time(t0), and epoch end time(t1).  For string theory, when someone says 10 dimensions they almost certainly specifically mean 10 spatial dimensions, meaning there are 10 different directions you can move in which are independent of one another.

[gymsum]

The links you posted talk about other universes, so it in fact is talking about more information than our universe could ever have by definition.  When I say "all information", I specifically am limiting it to information in this universe.

The video links are interesting, but you should be careful assuming that it's talking about the same thing that string theory's 10 (11?  12?  They keep needing more) dimensions are talking about.  Those dimensions are compacted, which is a fancy way of saying microscopic essentially.  They aren't the same thing as the other worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

When talking about dimensions in general, there isn't such thing as the first, fourth, or tenth dimension.  Dimension simply means something you can measure with a scalar (ie: number).  For instance, when building the physics for DB3 I had 10 dimensions: position (x, y), velocity (x', y'), acceleration (x', y'), angle (theta), angular velocity (omega), angular acceleration (alpha), epoch start time(t0), and epoch end time(t1).  For string theory, when someone says 10 dimensions they almost certainly specifically mean 10 spatial dimensions, meaning there are 10 different directions you can move in which are independent of one another.

yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.

[Numsgil]

yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.

Well actually you can.  That's what I was trying to say in my last post.  Dimension is just a word that means something you can measure that is orthogonal to whatever other dimensions you've defined.  Meaning if I have two dimensions: x, y, I can change x without necessarily changing y.  So distance and time work, but distance measured in meters and distance measured in feet don't, since if I change my distance in meters I have to change my distance in feet as well, so they aren't orthogonal.

Spatial dimensions is different, and is what most people mean when they say dimensions.  Spatial dimensions have special properties which are defined by topology, a unit of mathematics that studies abstract geometry (very abstract).

So that youtube video is technically correct in that you can construct 10 dimensions exactly as it indicates you can.  Whether those dimensions correspond to reality or not is another question.  I think most of them at least could be considered spatial dimensions as well, but I can't say for certain when he goes to his higher dimensions.  I think it was trying to hint that these were the 10 dimensions of string theory, which is patently incorrect.  But since it never really said it (I admit I mostly browsed it, so maybe it did?) I won't fault it for that.

[gymsum]

yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.

Well actually you can.  That's what I was trying to say in my last post.  Dimension is just a word that means something you can measure that is orthogonal to whatever other dimensions you've defined.  Meaning if I have two dimensions: x, y, I can change x without necessarily changing y.  So distance and time work, but distance measured in meters and distance measured in feet don't, since if I change my distance in meters I have to change my distance in feet as well, so they aren't orthogonal.

Spatial dimensions is different, and is what most people mean when they say dimensions.  Spatial dimensions have special properties which are defined by topology, a unit of mathematics that studies abstract geometry (very abstract).

So that youtube video is technically correct in that you can construct 10 dimensions exactly as it indicates you can.  Whether those dimensions correspond to reality or not is another question.  I think most of them at least could be considered spatial dimensions as well, but I can't say for certain when he goes to his higher dimensions.  I think it was trying to hint that these were the 10 dimensions of string theory, which is patently incorrect.  But since it never really said it (I admit I mostly browsed it, so maybe it did?) I won't fault it for that.

Well it gave me headache when they tried to explin all the 3rd dimension were two collapsed points.

[Numsgil]

He had to do that because otherwise he couldn't draw all of his dimensions on a 2D video.  The way he did it isn't quite right, it should collapse a square to a line, instead of a line to a point, since a point is not a 1 dimensional object but a 0 dimensional object...

[abyaly]

Dimensions in physics are almost certainly vector space dimensions, rather than topology dimensions. Topology is just wierd (but in a good way). Calling topology geometry seems a bit of a stretch.

[Numsgil]

Ultimately that's what topology is, though.  It's geometry, but abstracted away from reality to just its core.  That's where the terms like "ball" come from.

[abyaly]

So far, there has been much more mention of balls in real analysis than topology. In general, I don't think it makes sense to apply the word geometry to something without a notion of distance.

[Numsgil]

It doesn't talk about distance directly, but abstracts the concept into a general function relating two elements in a set called a metric.  See metric @ wiki.

[abyaly]

A topological space may not be (and very often isnt) a metric space. That is, there is no metric that can be used to generate the topology. Metrics are another thing that real analysis has talked a lot about and topology has mentioned not at all.

[Numsgil]

A metric space is a topological space (though the reverse isn't necessarily true).  I learned about metrics and metric spaces in my topology class.  Though to be fair I never finished the real analysis class, and didn't do particularly well in my topology class either.  But it sounds like we disagree more just on how the definition is used than anything substantial.  In this post when I talked about topology I meant specifically the branch of topology that deals with euclidean spaces and related non flat metric spaces that can be used to describe possible space times.

BTW, if you know enough to argue with me... were you a Math major?  I can't imagine any other reason anyone would ever learn or care about real analysis or topology.

[abyaly]

I'm currently in my first year of grad school in math. When I mentioned what real analysis and topology talked about, I was using the terms as names of classes rather than names of mathematical fields. I don't disagree with how you used metric, but I don't think calling topology a type of geometry fits because metric spaces are only a part of it. Although I'm fine with calling abstract geometry a type of topology :-P