What does it mean there are Four Dimensions?

Nice link, isought . . . the soap bubbles and a spinning top are favorites for Physics (math) theory but then i do like to relate to particle systems.
Not to offend, Just my desire to keep it as simply as i can.
To look within the mirror?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

i found that link momrnts before i posted it, looked up 11 dimensional shizznat as a result of a program over dimensions on the sciense channel. although i haven't heard any talk over sciense and physics, whatnot, describing those ideas...

"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."

You should talk to my friend, michio kaku, he has also theroized the 11 dimensional theroy, as well as quantum states at the different levels of existance, tiny-small-medium-large-X-large. depending on what level of existance most of the forces of the universe have some what different characteristics. for example gravitational fields appear flat on a solar level but at pico level gravity becomes violent and distorted. this is the reason why we still do not have a unified field theroy and a combining of general relativity and quantum mech.

quote:

---

i found that link momrnts before i posted it

---

quote:

---

sorry if I'm repeating something... We exist in the forth "spatial" dimension. 1 of time, and 3 of depth.

---

quote:

---

dimensional theroy, as well as quantum states at the different levels of existance,

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

have you looked into frequency and wavelengths. everything seems to opperate off of them.

"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."

Part & parcel to the continum theory, all matter [mass] is reduced to energy [mass => energy] therefore all have related frequency & wave length which form the continum of energy ranging from cosmic rays [high freq=>short wavelength] to gravitational waves [low freq=>long wavelength].
An easily understood concept but rather miss leading as all energy doesn't reduce to electromagnetic radiation. Sound waves are a form of energy but it doesn't propagate through space, it needs a medium [matter] for one.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

so they are a result of the operation of "it". makes sense since we detect "it' by "them"

"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."

In the case the chemistry, we have Ionic (electrostatic) & Covlaent (elcetromagnetic) bonds which give form of the electron orbitals & inertial mass (molecules) of our composition.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

Who knows what the Universe has to offer in terms of evidence of such ponderings, we haven't really set foot outside of our own solar system. But I did watch this documentary back in high school about the fourth dimension and some idiots trying to map the entire thing out graphically through a computer program - basically, the object kept disappearing and coming back as it twisted around, which didn't phase me as particularly fascinating.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

quote:

---

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..

---

quote:

---

.. maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Astarte, nice to hear from you even if I am being obsessive.

quote:

---

I think what cturtle was going off of scientifically is enough for me on the subject of dimensions - the fact that the position of an electron within an orbital is not just a number, but a wave function, shows that there are probably more than 11 dimensions ..maybe infinite. And the probability of calculating the position of an object at any given period is so difficult to do because of all the factors involved. So why do we even bother? Because it affects some sort of bigger picture, somehow.

---

quote:

---

Xerxes, your change to the intro:

In particle physics, an elementary particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the fundamental particles from which all larger particles are made.

makes it seem as though fundamental particles were smaller than elementary particles. According to at least three sources that I've read today the term "elementary particles" came of use in 1934 and the "fundamental particles" came of use in 1947 (source Merriam-Webster); yet in present use all entries on fundamental particles list see: elementary particles. Hence, they are synonyms with elementary particles being the favored term. I will amend this to clarify.--Sadi Carnot 01:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that particles thought to be fundamental are called elementary. Particles that are actually fundamental are called fundamental. Thus the list of elementary particles keeps changing and the list of fundamental particles is unknown. -- Xerxes 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You could be right; however, I feel that presently we are in a terminology transformation window. I suppose that it will be some time before the public intuitiveness as to the difference between these two terms arrives. --Sadi Carnot 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the aspect & extension of particles is to define what a particle & the system to which it is a member or element {in the mathematical sense} or form vs function in the physical sense. The aspect of where does a particle exist relates to the how does it manifest it's existance? The Math aspect of sets need to be applied to the concept of particles as well the the Physics aspect of form & function. Which for the present version, science isnt even sure of their existence, let alone established any real sense of function. Clay 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Having promoted an alternative model (perception, understanding, abstraction, etc.), Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I thought I should go over the precepts that arise relating them to the general perception of the theories of Chemistry & Physics.

Duality
The historical aspect of the atoms extended into sets of relationships (Laws of Physics) based upon distinct particle & specific actions
(changes in potential [positional] energy or the changes in energy) relative to that system. Which gives continuity to the various conceptualizations relating to these (math) functions, ie. => Particles in Motion => the action/reaction nature of the Duality (mass/energy).
Example: H˛O, the water molecule is composed of two atoms of hydrogen chemically bonded to an oxygen atom is a general ionic solvent that plays a significant role in chemical reactions. Beyond those aspects is the rather unique characteristic relating to the liquid/solid phase change, ice floating in water relates chemical bond length & angle to the physical form (3-dimensions) of the (real) macro-identity of our world.
The concept of the atom produced the perception of electron(s) forming orbital(s) => shell(s) surrounding the nucleus. This precept extends that these (at this level) particles (inertial masses) obey (act) in accordance with the Laws of Physics. That electron orbitals & planetary systems adhere to the same set of rules but because the electrons have a charge then they must obey the Laws of Electromagnetism as well deriving two separate forms or functions which are resolved as simultaneous equations, those values which are consistent to the inertial masses & the charged particles => (energy) functions, ie. field fluctuations => Charged Particles in Motion => the action/reaction nature of the Duality (mass/energy).

Note: Into general conceptualization the rigorous mathematical model gave way to the Quantum Theory, deeming that only (smaller) simplest of systems (atoms) could be defined therefore conceptualizations become more accepted as a generalization for the rigorous mathematical model and the spin factor of the electrons.
While this seems contrary to our normal aspect or conceptualizations of our existence, it does extend from the aspect that at some point the division of particles into smaller particles form or function produces the effect or aspect of our 3-d & time.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

A conditional statement is implied (like the unspoken STP) that the molecular nature of atoms gives rise to those characteristics of our existence including the aspect of Inertial Mass , an extension of atoms being the center around which our construct of 3 dimensional space => matter.
Inertial Mass 1
Aspect of Relativity revolves around an extension derived from the 'Speed of Light'
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/67241/question-about-the-speed-of-li
ght.htm

quote:

---

”Hmm i was thinking of this the other day... Einstein once said that matter can never travel the speed or faster than the speed of light...Does this mean it is possible to Infinitely Travel closer to the speed of light? Light travels 186,282.397 miles per second...What i mean by this is if Man Kind can ever harness an energy source to ever get that far in technology you could travel 186,282.39699999 repeating forever and ever or would it eventually just round itself up?”

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Inertial Comedy

quote:

---

Years ago when I was young, I worked a construction job in a distant town, right on the river. My nephew & I were staying together in a cabin so it wasn't long till we had are fishing gear with our tools, I even borrowed a flat bottom skiff with a outboard motor. Which turn into a problem as the little 7 hp. kicker tends to over power that size of the boat . . . So there we were out on the river, early in the morning and . . it is colder than a 'witch's *!**'! . . . I mean the coldest day of the year & we are out on the water. We anchored in a bend in the river setting up our lines. And wouldn't you know it, we no more than wet our lines when some other people show up and anchor right in the spot we had been planning to drift into . . .Anyway at this point we decide to move & my nephew wanted to captain the ship so to speak. He fired up the engine and pointed the bow upstream & poured on the steam. Now, of course, this course (event2) of actions had some consequences or reactions . . . I had moved to the bow of the boat & weighed anchor, he being bigger moving to the sturn2 had produced the effect of being stern heavy (ie. relative ✥ ).
The bottom, being nearly flat, the bow had a slight taper so the hull raised & this surface acted as a air foil. So too, the stern sank as it pushed forward & the inertia of the water piled up as a wave as the stern sank, increasing the angle of attack, lifting the bow nearer to vertical so I was leaning forward as the boat rose before it came down to plane . . . the lid of the styrofoam cooler started to blow off. As he reached forward to hold down the lid, his hold [against the twist] of the throttle slipped. Our acceleration not only stop but it became negative!
The inertia that he had struggled with was gone as his momentum pushed out a piece of the sidewall of the cooler . . . as the wake swept over the stern of the boat, we slipped, boat & all, into the briny deep [actually it was in a fresh water river]. I guess you could say it was a matter of perspective that I had neglected to mention the effect of the bottom of the boat as a hydrofoil but being oblivious to these events had transpired, I was still leaning forward, trying to counter balance these lifting forces and the thoughts I had were that we were going to flip over . . . in fact, I reached down to the lip & grasped the curved metal of the bench seat but as the momentum crested, I felt my hold slip as the inertia cast me out of the boat. The water was shallow as we were over a shoal in the bend of the river. Standing up I looked around, my nephew was behind me as it hit me that everything, not attached to the boat itself, had been catapulted from the boat. The parts of the Styrofoam cooler floated near our sunken but upright boat, but all our gear, every hook, line & pole had disappeared from our sight and brother was that water a cold!

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

If you want to really understand what the "fourth dimension" is, simply study the properties of lower dimensions in relation to higher, and then take it one step further to determine the properties of a four-dimensional figure, which is called the tesseract by some. What's interesting is that this tesseract, once actually illustrated, is really only one cross-section of reality, a frozen moment in time. The "real" tesseract extends beyond the moment, existing simulaneously in the past, present, and future. Of course, this is more a logical and psychological analysis of our relationship to the fourth dimension, which is generally viewed as the phenomenon of time, although it's much more than that. Once understood, you come to the conclusion that the the universe is "at least" four-dimensional and that, due to limitations of our minds, we can see, or experience, only one cross-section, only one infintessimal "slit" (we call the present) of a reality that exists beyond the "now," simultaneously in the past, present, and future. Our experience of time is determined "internally," not externally. The fourth dimension may be interpreted as the phenomena of motion requiring time, but I tend to think that these phenomena are nothing more than our experience or perception of time due to limitations in that experience or perception, and that the "real" world without "motion in time" is the true so-called fourth (or possibly higher) dimension.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"