The epic tale of many dimensions hits the big screen!

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
peri_renna
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:52 pm UTC
Contact:

The epic tale of many dimensions hits the big screen!

Postby peri_renna » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:14 pm UTC

Flatland: The Movie. Based on Edwin Abbot Abbot's original book.

Discuss.

User avatar
Frankeinstein
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:39 pm UTC

Postby Frankeinstein » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:23 pm UTC

Reminds me of this. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

I got stuck playing with the navigation buttons.

User avatar
ulnevets
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:45 am UTC
Contact:

Postby ulnevets » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:06 pm UTC

i love that book

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:38 pm UTC

Frankeinstein wrote:Reminds me of this. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

I got stuck playing with the navigation buttons.


holy pooper that is awesome... that is why i want to study physics :D

thankee for link ^_^
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

TheReverend
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:08 pm UTC
Location: most likely at work
Contact:

Postby TheReverend » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:31 pm UTC

Frankeinstein wrote:Reminds me of this. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

My whole world has just changed. This book will one day rest comfortably next to my Fletch series. It's worthy.

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:42 pm UTC

I'm probably on this one, but when there was the whole thing talking about how we're collapsing the wavefunctions, blah blah in "The Tenth Dimension" (the animation on the site)...I had to shudder. Seriously, that reeks of the whole "let's try bringing free will into physics, as if it's a well-defined concept in the first place let alone the realm of physics" thing...and no. Please, please, nothing that sounds like it could have any remote resemblance to the pseudoscience of "quantum consciousness".

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:00 pm UTC

Frankeinstein wrote:Reminds me of this. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

I got stuck playing with the navigation buttons.

That's kind of neat from a sci-fi perspective, and the interface is slick. You shouldn't take it too literally, though. The fifth dimension is not really probability, the sixth dimension is not really alternate timelines, etc. The first-second-third naming scheme is just a historical artifact. A more accurate description is that the universe has one dimension (i.e. degree of freedom) of time, and nine or ten of space. The latter aren't distinguished from each other in any fundamental way, except that three of them happen to be really big.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:06 pm UTC

I never really liked the Flatland book, and the movie seems to be equally... silly. Come on, "a secret prophecy"?

It would have made for a more accurate movie if they had represented the world the way the square sees it- i.e., a straight line with variable color. Incidentally, it would also make the point that the jump from 2d to 3d is an artifact of our abstract way of looking at the world, and so jumping from 3d to 4d is a similar artifact. But that's just my bias :P

User avatar
Frankeinstein
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:39 pm UTC

Postby Frankeinstein » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:48 pm UTC

wisnij wrote: The fifth dimension is not really probability, the sixth dimension is not really alternate timelines, etc. The first-second-third naming scheme is just a historical artifact. A more accurate description is that the universe has one dimension (i.e. degree of freedom) of time, and nine or ten of space.

I agree, I never quite understood why time is interpreted as the fourth dimension either.
Anyway, once you get down to metaphysics, everything semantic loses it's meaning, you just cannot communicate that stuff.

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:53 am UTC

A more accurate description is that the universe has one dimension (i.e. degree of freedom) of time, and nine or ten of space.


9 or 10 dimensions is pretty iffy really... you're assuming that string theory has something to do with reality, and we don't have any proof of that... Go with 4, everybody's agreed on at least that many...

Edit: [Rant] Just went and viewed the flash.... Gotta say, it sounds like really crackpot science to me. His explanation for dimensions 4-10 don't make much sense. Even his description of 3 dimensions is flawed: he says that an ant walking around a rolled up newspaper would appear to teleport to another part in his space... it's like saying circumnavigating the globe is teleporting across the international date line...

I think the dude needs to study some proper differential geometry before he tries to educate others...

He's also making big assumptions about quantum physics & observations. Feynman has given us an example where wavefunctions can collapse without us directly observing them, so I wouldn't say we are "quantum observers selecting the future"... it's something else we don't understand yet.

that's why philosophers shouldn't pretend to be physicists...[/Rant]
Last edited by SpitValve on Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

EM-002.rv-L "Tem Cu
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:30 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Postby EM-002.rv-L "Tem Cu » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:01 am UTC

For some reason, when I see the word "Dimensions", I think TARDIS. And I start humming the (original) theme. Am I alone in thinking like this?
When you have at your disposal a hammer made of three spacefaring battleships, do you still need to pay taxes?

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:24 pm UTC

wisnij wrote:
Frankeinstein wrote:Reminds me of this. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

I got stuck playing with the navigation buttons.
...the universe has one dimension (i.e. degree of freedom) of time, and nine or ten of space...


Part one of a Space-Time hypothesis I posted on another forum (which has now gone down :() after reading Science of the Discworld II (or maybe III, can't remember) all night (literally, 6 hours... slow going due to being half-asleep)

There are four basic Dimensions known to most humans at the current time, Height, Width, Depth and Time.
-Height- is up and down,
-Width- Left to Right,
-Depth- (or Length) Further away and Closer to a point.
-Time- Measures how long such a point exists.

Problem!

"How Long" ? So Time must also have Three Dimensions, also Height, Width and Length, yes? The problem here is that we only know of length for time... Okay, I'm, not explaining myself well here. So I'll try to explain in way at least I understand.
Imagine a multi-dimensional grid, which, although is multidimensional, has no dimensions. ERM... Imagine a non dimensional White Space. Imagine an infinately small point that has no Height, Width, or Length.
Now, Imagine the point grows into ans infinatley thin line. Now the point has become a line with one dimension, Which we will say is width. Now imagine the line expands upwards, so it has now has height and is no longer a line, but a square. Now imagine the sqaure expands away from you. The Sqaure is now a Cube. Unfortunatley, there are more than just 3 dimensions. The Cube has had another Dimension since it expanded from the non-dimensional point. Time. However, As far as human knowledge has evolved, we only know of one Dimension of Time -- Length. So currently we call Time-Length just time. So we know of Four Dimensions and can control (to a limited extent) three of them. Correct?
Sorry, no.
We know of another Time-Dimension. Width. (Yes, This is the Quantum Bit.) With Multiple (Read, Infinite) Universes Existing at the Same Time-Length, Variations are are non existant, because the universes are Simultaneous. Exception, Time travellers. Yes, Time Travellers are allowed with this theory. Said Time Traveller would be pushed into a new universe. BUT this time traveller is not pushed into a simultaneous unverse as they cannot. Time travel is only possible IF time ALSO has depth. Depth means that Time travellers can travel through time, not just universe. This Is because every Time-Universe has infinite height also. For this to be explained, we must use a universal smallest unit of time. We will use the "Jiffy" because... because it is an actual unit of time, everyone is familiar with the term, and it's funny. (even though there is smaller time- stuff :lol: )
Okay. Every Time-Universe has infinite height. The height is divided into infinatley thin universes still infinately long, and neigbored infinately by more universes side by side. the difference is, Each universe that is underneath another is behind it by exactly one jiffy, and every universes above another is exactly one jiffy ahead. So to travel backwards in time, a traveller moves X amount of Universes Down and one Universe across. (Which Direction is irrelevant, methinks). Actual (first three) Dimensions is irrelevant, as each time-universe, while infinatley long and thin (both ways) along Time Dimensions (4th, 5th and 6th), are infinatley high, long and wide among the first three dimensions. I wont discuss Infinity here, that's for another post.

The "Grandfather Paradox" is impossible here, because you are not traveling in the same Width-Universe, which means that although you could kill your own grandfather, it wouldnt be Your grandfather, just another-your grandfather,so YOU would still exist, but the Other you wouldnt.

And now, more Simply.
Time Length = Linear Time going forward normally
Time Width = Infinite universes existing side by side.
Time Depth = The way in Which "Time" is travelled through.

Now, how close/so, so far from anything resembling correctness or accuracy is this?

(Part two however, is AWOL...)
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:44 pm UTC

Part one of a Space-Time hypothesis I posted on another forum (which has now gone down ) after reading Science of the Discworld II (or maybe III, can't remember) all night (literally, 6 hours... slow going due to being half-asleep)
<snip>
Now, how close/so, so far from anything resembling correctness or accuracy is this?


Pretty inaccurate :P It's not a good idea to build theories off popular physics books. Here's my understanding from a couple of semesters of General Relativity & Differential Geometry.

If you want to believe in string theory and that there are more than 4 dimensions (of which there is absolutely no proof), it is generally accepted that they are space dimensions.

Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this. Just take your normal 3-dimensional geometry, then extend it to extra dimensions and add time on top if you're in the mood.

Physically of course there is the problem that it doesn't actually look like we have more than 3 spatial dimensions. So people say they're "wrapped up in themselves", that there is some extra level of "breadth" to the universe that we can not directly observe.

Of course, nobody has any proof that this has anything to do with reality. It's just what string theorists are into. However the many dimensions of time thing is not part of it, that's just science fiction...

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:31 pm UTC

SpitValve wrote:If you want to believe in string theory and that there are more than 4 dimensions (of which there is absolutely no proof), it is generally accepted that they are space dimensions.


Ok, I'm going to throw my thoughts into this...the whole "multiple time dimensions" thing isn't really any more unrealistic than several new space dimensions, general acceptance be damned. Neither idea, as far as we know, has any connection to reality at the moment; at best, any result in an experiment where string theory and its extra dimensions MIGHT lead to some effect just constrains the constants in the theory a little more. In short, no interpretation of additional dimensions has anything physical going for it at the moment.

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5130
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:50 pm UTC

In short, no interpretation of additional dimensions has anything physical going for it at the moment.


Fair enough. Maybe my opinions would change if I actually studied string theory, but 4 dimensions is enough for me. String Theory is becoming increasingly unpopular anyway, at least from the opinions of the academics I know...

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby no-genius » Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:46 am UTC

why 10 dimensions? seems completely arbitrary to me
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:10 am UTC

SpitValve wrote:
In short, no interpretation of additional dimensions has anything physical going for it at the moment.


Fair enough. Maybe my opinions would change if I actually studied string theory, but 4 dimensions is enough for me. String Theory is becoming increasingly unpopular anyway, at least from the opinions of the academics I know...


Agreed on 4 dimensions being enough. When I heard about noncommutative geometry it sounded like one of those "duh" things since it's the simplest way that comes to mind for combining aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics...

And no-genius: If I remember rightly, since I don't feel like doing a lot of research, there was an attempt by Kaluza almost as soon as relativity came out to couple it to electromagnetism by adding a fifth dimension. It seemed intriguing to some people since the equations decoupled basically correctly, but it gave incorrect results regarding the electron, so it was eventually thrown out. Eventually people looked back into theories with extra dimensions and found out that that number turned out right for 10 and 26 dimensions. Hence people tried dealing with those.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:14 pm UTC

why 10 dimensions? seems completely arbitrary to me
And that's the problem- some people want 6, some want 13, some want 8, some want 10. Then they get together and talk about it, and realize, "oh crap... if we're all saying different things, that means all but one of us is wrong".

User avatar
peri_renna
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:52 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby peri_renna » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:23 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:I never really liked the Flatland book, and the movie seems to be equally... silly. Come on, "a secret prophecy"?

It would have made for a more accurate movie if they had represented the world the way the square sees it- i.e., a straight line with variable color. Incidentally, it would also make the point that the jump from 2d to 3d is an artifact of our abstract way of looking at the world, and so jumping from 3d to 4d is a similar artifact. But that's just my bias :P


I'd like that too, except that it'd be horrible to watch.

Teaspoon
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Where you least expect me

Postby Teaspoon » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:17 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
why 10 dimensions? seems completely arbitrary to me
And that's the problem- some people want 6, some want 13, some want 8, some want 10. Then they get together and talk about it, and realize, "oh crap... if we're all saying different things, that means all but one of us is wrong".


That should probably be "all but at most one of us is wrong."

It's possible that everyone's wrong. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, one of the great generalists (a specialist knows nearly everything about something, while a generalist knows something about nearly everything), has claimed on a few occasions that "if there are two different treatments for a disease, neither of them work."

He's also suggested this applies to other sorts of theories. Both will probably include important points that the other missed. Either that or one of them will include everything the other theory does plus a bit, in which case the larger one is just a more complete version of the smaller one.

Tangent time:
Dr Karl is awesome! He's a medical doctor and a physicist, among other things. If you don't already listen to him, you should. He's on Triple J radio at 11am-12pm on Thursdays, Canberra/Melbourne/Sydney time (GMT+10(or GMT+11 when the southern hemisphere has daylight savings)). You can stream it from triplej.net.au and I think they also put up MP3s on the "Mel in the Morning" part of their site.

Charon
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:54 am UTC

Postby Charon » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:22 am UTC

no-genius wrote:why 10 dimensions? seems completely arbitrary to me


The interesting thing is that it's not arbitrary, it's exactly required by the theory. (I'll cite Alex Vilenkin's lay book Many Worlds in One for that. An interesting book, though much of it is speculative.)

SpitValve wrote:Feynman has given us an example where wavefunctions can collapse without us directly observing them, so I wouldn't say we are "quantum observers selecting the future"... it's something else we don't understand yet.


While I would agree that we don't understand the philosophy of quantum mechanics yet, there are good ideas floating around. Victor Stenger's The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology is an easy read for someone with some physics background, and I thought it was a good introduction to QM interpretations. These actually become important when talking about quantum cosmology (see Vilenkin's book above), since Copenhagen fails (nothing "classical" outside the universe to collapse its wave function).

myoumyouou
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: perth. wa.
Contact:

Postby myoumyouou » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:10 am UTC

i made music with teh buttons. when u run ur mouse over them they play notes, so i made a song. :D
everything you've ever thought about has been thought about before. think about it

User avatar
Verysillyman
"Do me! Do me!"
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:25 am UTC
Location: Drinks Cabinet.
Contact:

Postby Verysillyman » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:48 am UTC

so... I haven't read the books. Or even the thread. But i have seen two seperate videos for 'They might be giants's 'particle man', and read several possible explanations, one of which was related to a novel about a two dimensional triangle man going to the three dimensional world or somehting. Is this related? or am i connecting things that shouldn't be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnUXZlatV6Y[/url]

User avatar
T3m3r1ty
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 pm UTC
Location: The 'verse
Contact:

Postby T3m3r1ty » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:08 am UTC

Teaspoon wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
why 10 dimensions? seems completely arbitrary to me
And that's the problem- some people want 6, some want 13, some want 8, some want 10. Then they get together and talk about it, and realize, "oh crap... if we're all saying different things, that means all but one of us is wrong".


That should probably be "all but at most one of us is wrong."

It's possible that everyone's wrong.


The that should be "we honestly don't have a clue, we're making it up as we go along and until they stop paying us to come up with this stuff we will keep on disagreeing about it because although maybe one of us is better at guessing and is closer to the truth than the rest of us the rest of you are too dumb to figure it out"

Lets see... we got them to buy 10 dimensions. We got them to buy dark matter and dark energy. Let's see if they will go for "most of the dark matter is in a different dimension and that's why we can't detect it.... yet.... but if you give us some more research grant we will try to build an experiment that can."
River: Noah's Ark is a problem.
Book: Really.
River: We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit five thousand species of mammal on the same boat.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests