Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: www.tenthdimension.com
Rob wrote: > Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way > to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is > impossible.
This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data endlessly, but never shows anything.
>> Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way >> to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is >> impossible.
> This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data > endlessly, but never shows anything.
Mike Schilling wrote: > "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1151647258.102606.201770@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data > > endlessly, but never shows anything.
> It works fine for me. I'm using Firefox.
I'm using Firefox also, and have a pretty fast connection.
So, what does the tenth dimension look like, and what happened to the previious nine?
Did you create the flash animation, and do the voice over?
10 dimensions...mmm, wasn't it 11 at one time? Wikipedia tells me there's 10 to 11 dimensions in various string theories.
Also, in the flash animation, the narrator says that the 4th dimension is - basically - like the 2nd dimension is to the point-like 1st dimension....does this mean that the popular concepts of multiple "space dimensions" and a single "time dimension" are wrong? That they are all just "dimensions" and that to categorize them as spacial or temporal is but an artifact of everyday human sensorium?
>> > This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data >> > endlessly, but never shows anything.
>> It works fine for me. I'm using Firefox.
> I'm using Firefox also, and have a pretty fast connection.
> So, what does the tenth dimension look like, and what happened to the > previious nine?
It's a big dot, which apparently subsumes the first nine. If I'd had the pateince to watch the whole thing, instead of skipping to the end to find out whodunit, I might know more.
Thanks, Penn! A few people have noted slow load times, I guess I should apologize for not mentioning that the site doesn't work very well if you're on dialup.
When M-Theory says 11 dimensions, most physicists still qualify them as being 10 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time. I believe science has a bit of a split personality when it comes to discussions of time: in some situations it is purely a quality you lay over the other "full" dimensions, while in others it is something that can be stretched or compacted (relativity), reversed (time-reversal symmetry), or folded (wormhole theories, which as you probably know are not just a science fiction concept). My "way of imagining" is not what most modern physicists are teaching. By insisting that time is a full spatial dimension that the one-way chemical processes of our bodies force us to experience in a deceivingly limited way, I have a way to then get to a version of the tenth dimension which I believe ties a lot of different schools of thought together: not just in science, but in questions of consciousness, memes, and spirituality, and the relationship between free will and quantum indeterminacy.
But all I can really claim is that, like any good science fiction, I have created a way for people to imagine something that they probably couldn't have before: the tenth spatial dimension.
> Did you create the flash animation, and do the voice over?
> 10 dimensions...mmm, wasn't it 11 at one time? Wikipedia tells me > there's 10 to 11 dimensions in various string theories.
> Also, in the flash animation, the narrator says that the 4th dimension > is - basically - like the 2nd dimension is to the point-like 1st > dimension....does this mean that the popular concepts of multiple > "space dimensions" and a single "time dimension" are wrong? That they > are all just "dimensions" and that to categorize them as spacial or > temporal is but an artifact of everyday human sensorium?
Hey Penn, you win the prize. Thousands of people have viewed this site since I put it up a week ago, and you're the first person to point out that error. Thanks for your help!
Oh sorry, I didn't answer one of your previous questions - yes that's me talking (what can I say, I needed someone who would work for cheap, and free is about as cheap as it gets). I created the script, the storyboards and final audio with sound effects, then gave all that to the talented group at OH! Media who created the flash animation, as well as doing all the programming for the site.
Rob wrote: > By insisting that time is a full spatial dimension that the one-way > chemical processes of our bodies force us to experience in a > deceivingly limited way, I have a way to then get to a version of the > tenth dimension which I believe ties a lot of different schools of > thought together: not just in science, but in questions of > consciousness, memes, and spirituality, and the relationship between > free will and quantum indeterminacy.
Uh oh. Red flags pop up. I choose to ask: what are your physics credentials? Are you a Ph.D. string theorist?
Hi. Let me say this as clearly as I can. This is a science fiction discussion group, and I am in absolutely no way pretending or claiming to be a physicist. What I have created is a mind-expanding exercise which people enjoy watching because it gives them a new way of imagining something which they previously probably could not have. Physicists say our reality is created in ten spatial dimensions, and my "new way of imagining" the ten dimensions arrives at the same conclusion using a methodology which is different from the one embraced by modern science. Some people feel a strong affinity for the ideas I present, and some people will not, but thats all I'm trying to do: this is a discussion of ideas. I include a "Preamble" link on my site and at the start of the book which makes it very clear that these animations do not present the viewpoint of mainstream physics, and which points people to the popular books from string theory experts such as Kaku, Greene and Randall... with the hope that my flight of fancy will have tweaked some people's interest in learning more about this fascinating topic.
Thanks for asking this important question. I thought this was clear enough already, but I definitely do not want to appear to be misleading anyone here.
ewo...@aol.com wrote: > Rob wrote: > > By insisting that time is a full spatial dimension that the one-way > > chemical processes of our bodies force us to experience in a > > deceivingly limited way, I have a way to then get to a version of the > > tenth dimension which I believe ties a lot of different schools of > > thought together: not just in science, but in questions of > > consciousness, memes, and spirituality, and the relationship between > > free will and quantum indeterminacy.
> Uh oh. Red flags pop up. I choose to ask: what are your physics > credentials? Are you a Ph.D. string theorist?
> Physicists say our reality is created in ten spatial dimensions, and my > "new way of imagining" the ten dimensions arrives at the same > conclusion using a methodology which is different from the one embraced > by modern science.
Okay, so let me ask a question as a non-scientist (well, social scientist, anyway). :-)
My first thought upon viewing this was that it might make a neat model for my high school students to understand how divergent history can be; that there might exist, for example, a world in which the Cuban Missile Crisis led to all-out thermonuclear war. The idea here would be to drive the point home that we don't necessarily exist because we're good but maybe just because we're lucky (and maybe we should strive to be better to ensure our collective, continued good fortune).
So it doesn't really matter to me if it's accurate in terms of modeling the universe but would using this presentation be in any way irresponsible? Will the Science teachers start yelling at me? What caveats should I discuss before introducing this material?
>>Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way >>to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is >>impossible.
> This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data > endlessly, but never shows anything.
That is the tenth dimension
-- "The most convoluted explanation that fits all of the made-up facts is the most likely to be believed by conspiracy theorists. Fitting the actual facts is optional."
Rob wrote: > Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way > to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is > impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a > lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm > presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their > descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: > www.tenthdimension.com
I once, for a very brief moment, actually fully understood a fourth spatial dimension. Then half of my brain exploded into it, and the rest of me was left stuck here :)
-- "The most convoluted explanation that fits all of the made-up facts is the most likely to be believed by conspiracy theorists. Fitting the actual facts is optional."
Mike Schilling wrote: > "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1151648273.274034.34440@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > So, what does the tenth dimension look like, and what happened to the > > previious nine?
> It's a big dot, which apparently subsumes the first nine. If I'd had the > pateince to watch the whole thing, instead of skipping to the end to find > out whodunit, I might know more.
Dang. Why not a Calabi-Yau manifold instead of a dot? That might be worth waiting for.
Rob wrote: > Hi. Let me say this as clearly as I can. This is a science fiction > discussion group, and I am in absolutely no way pretending or claiming > to be a physicist. What I have created is a mind-expanding exercise > which people enjoy watching because it gives them a new way of > imagining something which they previously probably could not have. > Physicists say our reality is created in ten spatial dimensions, and my > "new way of imagining" the ten dimensions arrives at the same > conclusion using a methodology which is different from the one embraced > by modern science. Some people feel a strong affinity for the ideas I > present, and some people will not, but thats all I'm trying to do: this > is a discussion of ideas. I include a "Preamble" link on my site and at > the start of the book which makes it very clear that these animations > do not present the viewpoint of mainstream physics, and which points > people to the popular books from string theory experts such as Kaku, > Greene and Randall... with the hope that my flight of fancy will have > tweaked some people's interest in learning more about this fascinating > topic.
> Thanks for asking this important question. I thought this was clear > enough already, but I definitely do not want to appear to be misleading > anyone here.
> Rob
Well, fine, I guess. Although I can't then understand why you think your "flight of fancy" has anything to say about "consciousness", "spirituality", or "free will and quantum indeterminacy".
> Well, fine, I guess. Although I can't then understand why you think > your "flight of fancy" has anything to say about "consciousness", > "spirituality", or "free will and quantum indeterminacy".
LOL. Have you seen the books on quantum and string theory out there? There's some prety weird stuff.
I suggest reading the chapter descriptions on Rob's site, and then making your own mind. If still unsure just look up the book on amazon.com and 'Look Inside'.
Unless I'm shown why I should, I currently see no problem with a book that pertains to describing links between facets of our everyday world and a higher dimensional count than what our sensorium informs us exist. Some of it will be philosophy, some scientific speculation, some - I guess - actual results of a 4 or 5+ dimensional count.
My "way of imagining" I would say, is completely compatible with cosmology's conception of what is now called the "multiverse", which was originally proposed by Hugh Everett as the "Theory of the Universal Wavefunction". There is also the oft-maligned "anthropic principle" which says we are in a hugely unlikely universe where a statistically almost impossible number of constants and events have been put in place that allows us to exist as living creatures in a hospitable universe. If all of those events had created a less hospitable universe, we would not be here to ask the questions we are asking. I am using the version of the anthropic principle which says that all of those other universes that we do not find ourselves in do actually exist; and this aligns with Everett's "multiverse", which says that all of those other potential states for matter exist as a wavefunction. This is the start of a very complicated and far-reaching discussion, which is why I ended up writing the book.
Okay then, here's my simple answer. There are parts of science that say time is not a dimension, but there are also string theorists who are convinced that time is nothing more than an illusion. The animations on my website present a new way of thinking about time, space, and string theory which is not the commonly accepted viewpoint of mainstream physics, but which may be useful as a tool for trying to imagine how there could be other universes out there which are just as real as ours but are invisible to us. As the creator of this "new way of thinking" and holder of the copyright on the animations, I would only ask that you give credit to me as the author of these ideas when you show these animations to your students.
El Puerco wrote: > "Rob" <r...@tenthdimension.com> wrote in message > news:1151687272.003034.14470@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Physicists say our reality is created in ten spatial dimensions, and my > > "new way of imagining" the ten dimensions arrives at the same > > conclusion using a methodology which is different from the one embraced > > by modern science.
> Okay, so let me ask a question as a non-scientist (well, social scientist, > anyway). :-)
> My first thought upon viewing this was that it might make a neat model for > my high school students to understand how divergent history can be; that > there might exist, for example, a world in which the Cuban Missile Crisis > led to all-out thermonuclear war. The idea here would be to drive the point > home that we don't necessarily exist because we're good but maybe just > because we're lucky (and maybe we should strive to be better to ensure our > collective, continued good fortune).
> So it doesn't really matter to me if it's accurate in terms of modeling the > universe but would using this presentation be in any way irresponsible? > Will the Science teachers start yelling at me? What caveats should I > discuss before introducing this material?
Rob wrote: > Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way > to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is > impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a > lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm > presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their > descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: > www.tenthdimension.com
> Rob
Another way is to dig up an excellent but strange little book called "Flatland", whose author is given either as A Square or Edwin A Abbott. It takes you into a world of only 2 dimensions, and then back to three. It helps to visualize 4 spatial dimensions, and you can expand from there with sufficient imagination.
> Rob wrote: >> Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way >> to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is >> impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a >> lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm >> presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their >> descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: >> www.tenthdimension.com
>> Rob
> Another way is to dig up an excellent but strange little book called > "Flatland", whose author is given either as A Square or Edwin A Abbott. It > takes you into a world of only 2 dimensions, and then back to three. It > helps to visualize 4 spatial dimensions, and you can expand from there > with sufficient imagination.
There's a sequel called _Sphereland_ by <mumble>, narrated by A. Square's grandson the hexagon, which goes on to four dimensions in a closed universe.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:43:01 -0700, Jon Schild <j...@aros.net> wrote:
>Rob wrote: >> Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way >> to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is >> impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a >> lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm >> presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their >> descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: >> www.tenthdimension.com
>> Rob
>Another way is to dig up an excellent but strange little book called >"Flatland", whose author is given either as A Square or Edwin A Abbott. > It takes you into a world of only 2 dimensions, and then back to >three. It helps to visualize 4 spatial dimensions, and you can expand >from there with sufficient imagination.
I wish there was an equivalent book for Relativity and/or QM.
Jerry Brown -- A cat may look at a king (but probably won't bother)
>> Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way >> to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is >> impossible.
>This web site is basically broken; my browser sits there loading data >endlessly, but never shows anything.
Well, now you know what the tenth dimension is like.
I also really like Ian Stewart's "Flatterland", another book written as a sequal to Abbott's classic. It gets into branes, complex topologies, ideas about "partial" dimensions, and other modern geometries, written in a style that is about as light as you can get when discussing such complex ideas.
> > Rob wrote: > >> Greetings, here is a new website I've created which gives people a way > >> to imagine the tenth dimension, something most people would think is > >> impossible. There's an eleven-minute set of animations there which a > >> lot of people are responding to: perhaps with the concepts I'm > >> presenting here future sf writers could use it as a guide for their > >> descriptions of time travel. I hope you enjoy my little labor of love: > >> www.tenthdimension.com
> >> Rob
> > Another way is to dig up an excellent but strange little book called > > "Flatland", whose author is given either as A Square or Edwin A Abbott. It > > takes you into a world of only 2 dimensions, and then back to three. It > > helps to visualize 4 spatial dimensions, and you can expand from there > > with sufficient imagination.
> There's a sequel called _Sphereland_ by <mumble>, narrated by A. Square's > grandson the hexagon, which goes on to four dimensions in a closed > universe.
Jon Schild wrote: >> Another way is to dig up an excellent but strange little book >> called "Flatland", whose author is given either as A Square or >> Edwin A Abbott. It takes you into a world of only 2 dimensions, >> and then back to three. It helps to visualize 4 spatial >> dimensions, and you can expand from there with sufficient >> imagination. Jerry Brown wrote: > I wish there was an equivalent book for Relativity and/or QM.
What about the well-known Gamow and Lieber/Lieber books, or the more recent book by Rudy Rucker?
|
