I know that there are 3 dimensions, but have heard that there are more than 3 dimensions...

I know that there are 3 dimensions, but have heard that there are more than 3 dimensions, which is the fourth dimension ?

Other urls found in this thread:

maol.fi/fileadmin/users/EDimensio/Dimensiossa_julkaisematonta/2D-atoms.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There is only one dimension. Human brain just likes to organize things into different categories like "object A is in front of object B" or "event C was before event D", so that the reality was easier to grasp.

Pic related.

X - left/right
Y - up/down
Z - back/forth
W - across

It's called the outside your mom's basement dimension, but usually Veeky Forums don't care about this dimension.

There are as many dimensions as you want there to be.

>string theory: the post

there are in fact exactly 87 dimensions

>posts 4th dimensional cube (terrasect)
>which is the fourth dimension ?

>post 2d image of 3d projection of 4d cube
>which is the fourth dimension?

When people are talking about a "fourth dimension" as a real thing our universe actually has, they are referring almost without exception to the time axis.

Einstein's theory of relativity, and all subsequent theories that build on it, treat our universe as having regular "spacelike" dimensions and 1 "timelike" dimension. This is where most of relativity's effects come from - making time and space part of one thing turns velocities (space/time) into *angles* between the space dimensions and the time dimension, and because you're viewing things moving at other speeds from different angles, what's basically perspective foreshortening in the time dimension causes them to appear to experience different durations of time than you (sort of like looking at a meterstick from an angle makes it look shorter than a meter).

(But time isn't exactly like a normal space-type dimension, which is why you can't do stuff like turn around and start going backwards or sideways through time. It's sort of like the relationship of imaginary numbers and real numbers.)

Sometimes people are talking about more abstract mathematical stuff, like that tesseract in your picture, which is intended to represent a cube's relative in a four-space-dimension space. We don't have one of those, at least not one big enough to notice. Some theories like string theory add additional dimensions, in order to add enough room for the complexity needed to accommodate the seemingly-arbitrary structure of the Standard Model within a more fundamental problem, but they have to hide them by rolling them up into very small cylinders that only extend a tiny distance before looping back around. (Like the screen looping in Pac-Man). In string theory, particles that are points in three dimensions turn out to actually be loops, wrapped around these other dimensions in different ways that give rise to the properties and interactions of those fields.

Some theories predicted one or more of the extra dimensions might actually be as large as a centimeter or so before looping around; these were the theories that predicted it might have been possible to make black holes at the LHC. (The large extra dimensions would have explained why particles have so little gravity, compared to the dramatically higher strengths with which they typically interact with stuff like the electromagnetic field, which is frequently considered weirdly arbitrary-seeming. The idea was that at very short distances, most of the gravitational field would "leak out" along the other dimensions, causing the apparent amount of gravity that made it out to large scales to be much smaller than the "true" value. So if you squished two particles close enough together that they could see each other's true gravitational charge, they would attract each other much more strongly, and they might even collapse into a black hole [since the Schwarchild radius would be much larger at those scales than inverse-square gravity would suggest])

Those theories have since been revised, since none of that happened.

Oh, and one more thing - mathematically, *any* object can be described as a point in an n-dimensional space, where n is the number of variable attributes needed to uniquely identify anything in that space. So, like, if you're analyzing some system with 16 variables describing its current state, you might describe that system's behavior at a current moment as a point in a 16-dimensional space where each axis is one of those variables, and its behavior over time as a path through that space. (This is really useful for stuff like machine learning)

I wonder how chemistry in higher dimensions would be.

Anything can be a dimension

Temperature can be a dimension if you want

so now you have
x,y,z,F

and you can also have time
x,y,z,F,t

and then add entropy
x,y,z,F,t,e

and then add the magnetic field sensed in that (x,y,z,T,t)
x,y,z,F,t,e,mf

You see? It's just a function with variables, and the variables relate to each other

problem with anything beyond 3 variables is that we can't make a graphic

but per instance videos are 4d... you are seeing x,y,z as you traverse t (time)

4th is space

5th is time

6th - 11th who knows.

>which is why you can't do stuff like turn around and start going backwards or sideways through time

Technically speaking, you can do this in general relativity. Most people don't think it's actually physically meaningful though.

4 u

i want to do this but im not following how to visualize it

I know a two dimensional universe is possible but can a one dimensional universe be possible

the way I see it, the orbital type dependency looks like this
m=0 -- s
m=+/- 1 -- p
m=+/- 2 -- d
it means that in 2D world p,d,f-blocks are only 4 groups wide, which makes sense, because in 2d plane you don't have your fancy quadratic and cubic functions, but instead only two ways of orientation: x and y
therefore, aromatic structures also can't exist.
if you were to try and draw them, you'd simply run out of orbitals sufficient for that, but having thought about it a bit more, I have concluded that they are indeed impossible, because aromaticity implies third dimension to have the fancy-schmancy pi-bonds perpendicular to the ring plane

but where would the electrons actually configure to in the orbitals? and how would they move?

even if you were able to draw them in some arbitrary configuration that meets the criteria for s, p, and d orbitals its impossible for the atoms to actually exist

and wouldn't the actual d orbital need 3D world rules to even exist? s and p are the only ones that allow for x/y coordinate locations for the electrons

>but where would the electrons actually configure to in the orbitals?
>and how would they move?
what kind of questions is that?
like, 2d space, bruh
how would they move?
>implying we know how they move in 3d

>even if you were able to draw them in some arbitrary configuration that meets the criteria for s, p, and d orbitals its impossible for the atoms to actually exist
>its impossible for the atoms to actually exist
why so? care to back it up with anything aside from groundless assumptions?

>and wouldn't the actual d orbital need 3D world rules to even exist?
well, actual d orbital requires 3D space to exist, but its equivalent in 2D space is practically the same as p orbital, because in 2D we have only two ways to orient it

>s and p are the only ones that allow for x/y coordinate locations for the electrons
s doesn't require neither x or y, it's spherical
I don't understand the rest

>why so? care to back it up with anything aside from groundless assumptions?

we're talking about performing chemistry in two dimensions, which itself is a groundless assumption. are you just looking to argue over semantics or something?

>s doesn't require neither x or y, it's spherical

wut. go find a sphere and tell me if it has an x/y plane and report back

I mean, as an abstraction, nothing really forbids existence of atoms in 2D.
say, in 3D they are spherical
similarly, in 2D they must be circular
(same goes about s orbital, I was implying the 2D analogue of sphere)

also, look what I found
maol.fi/fileadmin/users/EDimensio/Dimensiossa_julkaisematonta/2D-atoms.pdf

>(same goes about s orbital, I was implying the 2D analogue of sphere)
>I was implying the 2D analogue of sphere)
>i was implying
>implying

i deal with two more of them on daily basis

>muh tessaracts
>muh mystery
/thread

>There is only one dimension
What did he mean by this?

It's right there op, just turn around.

>"impossible for the atoms to actually exist"
>he doesn't know that schrodinger's equation is solvable in arbitrary number of dimensions, including one

That physics is bullshit.
Dimensions doesn't exist.
They are all made up.
You can't map reality.
Everything is relative to nothing.

You can't map reality "directly"*

Well, technically every single point in the universe can be arranged in a straight line.

For an easy example, consider the discrete 2D space:

(0,0) (1,0) (2,0)
(0,1) (1,1) (2,1)
(0,2) (1,2) (2,2)

Notice how easily we can arrange it into points of a line.


(0,0) (1,0) (2,0) (0,1) (1,1) (2,1) (0,2) (1,2) (2,2)

And now we can easily assign them a single coordinate in this line.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Mathematicians have proven that this procedure can be done to the real line to fit any dimensional space and the universe is either pseudo continuous but discrete, or continuous, so if we can do it with the real line then definitely we can do it with the universe.

Then user is saying that we actually live in that line but that our brain comes equipped with 1D to 3D bijection-equipped mechanisms that can take this line and then project it and order it correctly in 3 dimensions for our eyes to see.

Obviously he is talking bullshit.

It would be completely impossible to precisely locate a position in reality.

That's why you would need a brain able to immediately compute bijections.

Imagine we lived in a line and our brain knew what the universal bijection was and always knew exactly at what point we are standing.

What it would do would be to put your coordinate (in 1D) through the bijection to get your 3D coordinates.

Then it would do circles around your coordinate in 3D to get all the coordinates around you in 3 dimensional space.

Then because your brain knows the bijection, it also knows the inverse of the bijection, which is also a bijection.

Then it projects all those 3D points back to the 1D line and your clairvoyant brain would look at all those points to see how they look.

(You'd need to do this because a point that is next to you in 3D, could be miles away in 1D. Just look at bijections from 2d to 1d and see how no order is preserved)

Then after gathering how everything point looks it renders a constructed image to your eyes.

And boom, that is what you see. And everytime you moved by even an inch your brain would need to re-calculate all that.

What you are describing is computing.
and computing is intangible. It doesn't exist in or correlate to reality.