0848: "3D"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

MacFreek
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby MacFreek » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:03 pm UTC

phillipsjk wrote:Most "3D" movies are simply stereoscopic.


Thank you. I was brainwashed by some colleagues too on this distinction. [rant]These movies are not 3D, they are stereo, the pun makes no sense![/rant]

I wonder if a real 3D movie is possible. Would a holographic (or otherwise waveform reconstructing) movie be possible? What would that entail?

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5181
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Felstaff » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

MacFreek wrote:I wonder if a real 3D movie is possible...What would that entail?

  • Stage
  • Curtain
  • Actors
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:20 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:
MacFreek wrote:I wonder if a real 3D movie is possible...What would that entail?

  • Stage
  • Curtain
  • Actors

Ya, but that setup tends to have really, really crappy special effects.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Alm123
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:51 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Alm123 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:18 pm UTC

Actually, many people here are wrong including the stick-figures.
The movies you call '2D' are actually three-dimensional; time is also a dimension.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:37 pm UTC

Alm123 wrote:Actually, many people here are wrong including the stick-figures.
The movies you call '2D' are actually three-dimensional; time is also a dimension.
Sure, but I think that's pretty well captured in the fact that they're called "movies". As in, they move. Through time.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Alm123
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:51 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Alm123 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Sure, but I think that's pretty well captured in the fact that they're called "movies". As in, they move. Through time.

Indeed. It's like saying polygon with depth instead of polyhedron.
What you said reminds me of http://xkcd.com/209/
By the way, explaining that 3 dimensional movies are created by a series of 2 dimensional pictures helps explaining the idea of dimensions to some people.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby bmonk » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

I'm just left wondering why the movie producers didn't go all the way and film in 11 dimensions...the ultimate extra-dimension experience!
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Diadem » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:04 pm UTC

Alm123 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Sure, but I think that's pretty well captured in the fact that they're called "movies". As in, they move. Through time.

Indeed. It's like saying polygon with depth instead of polyhedron.

No, no, no, time and space are not of the same kind. Time is not just a dimension, it is a very special one. 3 space and 1 time dimension is entirely different from 4 space dimensions. Or 2 time and 2 space dimensions, for that matter.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

jfriesne
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:00 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby jfriesne » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

willpellmn wrote: And why exactly did they decide exactly 11 dimensions anyway? Once you've got your basic 3 space and 1+ time dimensions, what are the other 7 or less for? Again, seems like they just made up a number at random..."Well, nobody's doing 11 of anything, how about that?"


I apologize for giving you a hard time when you were slow to understand 11D space. I sympathize now.

Edrees
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Edrees » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

I'd still be able to observe the third dimension in that movie. I'm just that good at seeing objects despite their tightly packedness or discrete energies.

rcox1
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby rcox1 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:08 pm UTC

willpellmn wrote:How exactly anyone takes that idea of a "rolled up dimension" seriously I don't know. It seems like a pretty obvious "the math doesn't work out so let's make up some nonsense about how it does and assume people less smart than us will believe it" to me. And why exactly did they decide exactly 11 dimensions anyway? Once you've got your basic 3 space and 1+ time dimensions, what are the other 7 or less for? Again, seems like they just made up a number at random..."Well, nobody's doing 11 of anything, how about that?"

Time to feed the trolls?

Math is used to not only to create models for what we see, but also to predict what we expect to see. We do not say a model works simply because the math works. What we do say is if the math does not work, then there is something wrong with our modeling, usually that we have left the domain of out experiments. For instance, given thermodynamics among other things, it makes not sense that one can travel at unlimited speeds. Therefore if we move Newtonian mechanics beyond the domain of v<<c, it becomes unreliable. The model needed to be adjust from m being a constant to m(v). There was no experimental data to support this, but the math worked. This was a silly thing, done to make the math worked, but turned out to be ok.

Then we get to another model, the black box radiation. It worked fine for the domain at the time, but under certain conditions it would result in the ultraviolet catastrophe. Max Planck worked tried several conventional methods to fix this, but eventual had to make a leap that energy is quantized. Again, no direct experimental evidence, at least not until EInstein did work on the photoelectric effect.

Now we have an issue of Quantum mechanics and relativity not playing well together. We also have the issue of the Higgs Boson, which the standard model predicts but we have not observed, making it one of those mathematical thingies Then they are black holes. That time stops to outside observers leads to uncertainties that point to the need for another level of physics.

Most Physicists seem to think that gravity and quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled using our current understanding of the universe. Fermi predicted, in effect, that if we have quantum gravity we would live in a universe that does not exist, which tends to contradict the stipulation that we do exist. String theory is one leading theory that allows quantum mechanics, relativity, and the universe to all exist at the same time. Seeing how all three do seem to be valid, it would seem foolish to simply throw our the theory simply because it requires six extra dimensions. I mean we have already accepted 12 sub atomic particles that for all we know could be artifacts of the mathematics and equipment built on the mathematics. We all seem to accept that the center of our universe has a black hole that stops time. We have accepted that energy is quantized though none of use see any evidence of it. The acceptance of these results have allowed us to do some pretty remarkable things. It could that string theory, or one of the competing and no less weird theories, allows us to do even more remarkable things.

Of course string theory is going to be very difficult to prove experimentally, and that may mean that another formulation might emerge that might be easier to prove. This might, however, mirror the development of Quantum mechanics in which there were different formulations, later to be show equivalent.

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

rpgamer wrote:I read the first panel, got a little distracted by something, and still started laughing before I finished the comic.

And since this looks like it's going into an actual string theory discussion, I'll link a fun video. Maybe not entirely related, but it's all I've got to add, and it seems somewhat related...

That video isn't even internally consistent. Its representation of a 6-dimensional point only uses 5 dimensions and it skips right over the 8th dimension without an explanation. To me, it seems like the 5th dimension and the 7th dimension shouldn't be separated. Does anyone else think that? Also, that bit with the jumping from reality to reality in the 6th dimension was hilarious. Anyway, that's not an official explanation of string theory, just a stupid video.
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

Mekmek
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Mekmek » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Felstaff wrote:
MacFreek wrote:I wonder if a real 3D movie is possible...What would that entail?

  • Stage
  • Curtain
  • Actors

Ya, but that setup tends to have really, really crappy special effects.


Lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfDk3I6di5E

Nevermind that (funny but mediocre) rip-off youtube video. If you know the actual episode you'll know what i mean. :P

User avatar
SpringLoaded12
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am UTC
Location: Guarding the Super Missile
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby SpringLoaded12 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:17 pm UTC

SO MANY jokes for me to not understand. Yaaay
"It's easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield." "Opposite over hypotenuse, dipshit."

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:51 pm UTC

mowdownjoe wrote:
Tyrannosaur wrote:yes,yes you did get the sarcasm

black_hat_guy wrote:There is still a lot of science that will have practical applications. Just not string theory.

thats what they said about lasers you know...

Really? No one thought about using lasers for killing in their early stages?


How are you supposed to kill anyone with a beam of light, anyway?

Soon after inventing the first laser, Theodore Maiman called it a multimillion dollar "solution looking for a problem" --what use could anyone have for a beam of single-wavelength light?

my point is that things get developed often without knowing the applications or consequences
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Eternal Density » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:17 am UTC

Finally a comic containing win! And BHG! :D
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

wiserd911
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:26 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby wiserd911 » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:38 am UTC

0848: Soon after inventing the first laser, Theodore Maiman called it a multimillion dollar "solution looking for a problem" --what use could anyone have for a beam of single-wavelength light?

my point is that things get developed often without knowing the applications or consequences


The thing is, String Theory isn't developing anything physical. It's a concept that isn't even currently testable. A concept only contains information to the degree that it's testable. An untestable concept contains no information since it makes no predictions about the physical world.

You'd have been on firmer ground with your analogy, perhaps, if you'd referred to Ramanujan's work in numbers theory which now has applications in cryptography, even though it was useless at the time, as opposed to giving an example from applied science/technology.

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:47 am UTC

You do also realize i also referenced QED, which is also only testable to a point, which has reallife application. And do you know how long relativity was around before it was testable? Give us a while; we'll get there.
Last edited by Tyrannosaur on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

User avatar
Alm123
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:51 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Alm123 » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:15 am UTC

Diadem wrote:No, no, no, time and space are not of the same kind. Time is not just a dimension, it is a very special one. 3 space and 1 time dimension is entirely different from 4 space dimensions. Or 2 time and 2 space dimensions, for that matter.

Really?
Ignorance is bliss.

ijuin
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ijuin » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:43 am UTC

Tyrannosaur wrote:How are you supposed to kill anyone with a beam of light, anyway?

Soon after inventing the first laser, Theodore Maiman called it a multimillion dollar "solution looking for a problem" --what use could anyone have for a beam of single-wavelength light?

my point is that things get developed often without knowing the applications or consequences

It has been known since James Maxwell's 1873 theory on electromagnetism that heat = infrared = electromagnetic wave = light. Now, what can you do with a beam of heat that spreads out very little over multi-kilometer distances? The ability to melt/burn military targets becomes immediately obvious, if only you can build a suitably powerful and compact/lightweight version of such a device. Science fiction writers as far back as H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds had ray/beam weapons in them. Other applications however (such as rangefinding and data storage, the two current most common uses of lasers) were less intuitive. To quote Michael Faraday when he presented his electric motor to the Royal Society, who questioned its utility, "Of what use is a newborn baby?"

Anyway, to get back to the 11-dimensional theory stuff. just as Maxwell's theory opened up all of the things that we can do with electricity and electromagnetic waves (radio, microwaves, x-rays, etc.), a theory of gravity that can supersede General Relativity (which we know breaks down at quantum scales) can potentially open up the path to technology that manipulates gravity, and if we become able to add gravitational attraction and repulsion wherever and whenever we wish, both weight and inertia become irrelevant for engineering and transportation purposes (e.g. use artificial gravity to make an object "free fall" towards its destination). As electricity freed us from the "tyranny of distance" through telecommunications, gravity control would free us from the "tyranny of mass".

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby phillipsjk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:25 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
phillipsjk wrote:Most "3D" movies are simply stereoscopic.



"Most"? Can you name one which isn't?


It is my understanding that this is an active area of research. Google returned about a least 3 examples of "Holographic video":
Did you get the number on that truck?

Brian-M
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:31 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Brian-M » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:23 am UTC

dr7 wrote:3d didn't work for me as a kid with the ViewMaster. I don't expect 3d movies to be worth my time.

What's sad is that we seem to be heading in the direction of "every movie will be 3d, 2d is dead". And they'll lose me as a customer. Not that I went to many movies anyway, but whatever.

To be fair, those VeiwMasters had very low-quality images. Don't judge 3D movies by them. And there's no chance that every movie will become 3D. Unless it's an action movie with great visual effects, 3D is pretty pointless.

phillipsjk wrote:Most "3D" movies are simply stereoscopic.

Real "3D" like holograms or 3D renderings in hardware allow you to choose the viewing angle.

Please explain to me how stereoscopic images are any different from 3D images viewed from a fixed position? Your brain perceives depth by the slight differences in position seen in each eye in both cases. Effectively, it's the same thing.

Mazuku wrote:Only when they can make it that you wont get a headache, need special glasses and make movies where 3D really does add to it instead of just having stuff appear to fly at you... shit like that gets old very quick, only then will I be converted to 3D.

I don't watch lot of 3D movies, the last one I saw was Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. That didn't have a lot of stuff flying at you, and didn't cause headaches.

Asking for no glasses (at least in the cinema) is asking a bit much, because they have to get a separate image to each eye somehow, and I doubt that any home TV 3D system that doesn't require glasses (such as lenticular 3D) will ever be able to be successfully scaled up to cinema-sized screens for large audiences.

Besides, it's not like they're using the old headache-causing red-blue analgraph 3D glasses that were popular in the 1960's, or even the old linear-polarized 3D glasses popular in the 1980's that made the picture go fuzzy if you didn't keep your head level. The only way modern circular-polarized 3D glasses will cause headaches is if the two images become slightly out of synch, which doesn't happen except on rare occasions nowdays.

If you really hate 3D movies, but really want to see the movie for it's own sake, and there's no 2D screening available, there is one last resort you could try....

Take two Real-3D glasses (the circular polarizing 3D glasses currently in vogue), remove the lenses from opposite sides of each frame, and switch them over. You now have two pairs of 2D glasses that let you watch a regular 3D movie in glorious crystal-clear 2D. :)

(Or you could just cover one eye to transform a 3D movie into a 2D movie, but that would get kind of annoying.)

Kanonfutter
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:40 am UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Kanonfutter » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:18 am UTC

Not bothering to say anything about string theory and the science therein contained, philosophy of science, or the current state of 3d movies. But given that string theory, as a theory, exists, the joke is awesome.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:38 am UTC

ijuin wrote:It has been known since James Maxwell's 1873 theory on electromagnetism that heat = infrared = electromagnetic wave = light.


The first identity there is a common misconception. Infrared light is no more "heat" than any other frequency of light, or for that matter, any other manner of energy transfer. Infrared just happens to be the predominant frequency of black-body radiation (i.e. radiation due to temperature) for objects at temperatures common on the surface of the Earth. A blue star is much hotter than any infrared-luminous human body or piece of metal left in the sunlight or what-have-you, but the bulk of its heat is transmitted at frequencies much higher than infrared.

The knowledge that really matters, which the first cave man to ever stand in the sun on a cold winter day (or the shade on a hot summer day) realized, is that light conveys heat. The neat thing about lasers is they let you send a bunch of light all in one direction instead of scattering it around, letting you convey all the heat you can muster with much more precision than just making a big light bulb. But the frequency of that light is much less important; in fact, a visible-light laser puts out much more heat per photon than an infrared-light laser does.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby phillipsjk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:50 am UTC

Brian-M wrote:
phillipsjk wrote:Most "3D" movies are simply stereoscopic.

Real "3D" like holograms or 3D renderings in hardware allow you to choose the viewing angle.

Please explain to me how stereoscopic images are any different from 3D images viewed from a fixed position? Your brain perceives depth by the slight differences in position seen in each eye in both cases. Effectively, it's the same thing.


In a movie theater setting, the "fixed position" is assumed to be the center of the theater. The distance between the cameras is chosen with "average" eye spacing in mind. For most people there will be error. You can limit this by limiting the audience viewing angle.

I disagree with the bolded text anyway. Assuming everybody sits perfectly still is not a valid assumption. Tilting you head while wearing the old polarized glasses would severely diminish the stereo separation (should not be a problem with circular polarization). Even with the new glasses, there will be a certain "skew" where the stereo separation does not line up with you eyes. Then there is the problem where the audience may not be focusing on the object you expect in the scene. The practice of blurring objects you don't want people to look at is likely headache-inducing for the people focusing on the wrong object (Even with the approximately infinite view distance). In closing, not all of us have good depth perception: if I want to see distance without my glasses, I need to physically move my head a few inches. I have seen a video were a bird (of prey) with working stereo vision still moved its head for route planning (navigating an obstacle course).
Did you get the number on that truck?

ramparts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ramparts » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:40 am UTC

Tyrannosaur wrote:You do also realize i also referenced QED, which is also only testable to a point, which has reallife application. And do you know how long relativity was around before it was testable? Give us a while; we'll get there.


I find all the comments trying to justify string theory by saying "maybe some day it'll be useful!" really troubling.

Yeah, we don't know if we'll find a use for it, and we certainly know from experience that it's far too early to make a judgement on that now. But it's not the potential applications that justify doing physics, it's our discovering more about the world around us. We had to wait a long time to find a marketable application for general relativity, and GPS is still pretty much the only one, but the fact that GR is useful for helping our cars find that out-of-the-way restaurant isn't what justifies working on it - the fact that it's the most beautiful physical theory we know of and describes the fabric of our universe is what justifies working on it.

Similarly with quantum gravity. Potential applications are what you use to justify research grants to the bureaucrats who give out the money, but when you're having a discussion with intelligent people, the potential to gain a deeper understanding of nature should trump the potential to make better crap you can buy :wink:

ramparts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ramparts » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:41 am UTC

Alm123 wrote:
Diadem wrote:No, no, no, time and space are not of the same kind. Time is not just a dimension, it is a very special one. 3 space and 1 time dimension is entirely different from 4 space dimensions. Or 2 time and 2 space dimensions, for that matter.

Really?
Ignorance is bliss.


Timelike and spacelike dimensions are quite distinct mathematically: timelike dimensions have opposite signs in the metric, which leads to qualitative differences in the way objects travel along those dimensions. In particular, the sign of time in the metric tensor plus the condition that timelike paths move along geodesics constrain (massive) particles to always be moving through time while giving them the option to stop in space (in a particular coordinate system, of course).

That was somewhat technical, but given the arrogance of your answer it seems safe to assume you're well-versed in the relevant mathematics!

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9121
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:57 am UTC

phillipsjk wrote:
Brian-M wrote:
phillipsjk wrote:Most "3D" movies are simply stereoscopic.

Real "3D" like holograms or 3D renderings in hardware allow you to choose the viewing angle.

Please explain to me how stereoscopic images are any different from 3D images viewed from a fixed position? Your brain perceives depth by the slight differences in position seen in each eye in both cases. Effectively, it's the same thing.


In a movie theater setting, the "fixed position" is assumed to be the center of the theater. The distance between the cameras is chosen with "average" eye spacing in mind. For most people there will be error. You can limit this by limiting the audience viewing angle.


Viewing angle...might this explain why I got a horrific headache sitting way to one side of the movie theater? The movie was Avatar - saw it twice, each time in Real-D, and the second time I had no headache at all. That second time I was sitting much closer to the center of the theater. I figured the first time was my first 3D movie, thus the headache...but now I wonder if this might have been the issue.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:52 pm UTC

Tyrannosaur wrote:And do you know how long relativity was around before it was testable?
A decade or so.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ARandomDude
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ARandomDude » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:04 pm UTC

I can't believe I just noticed that was BHG.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:14 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyrannosaur wrote:And do you know how long relativity was around before it was testable?
A decade or so.
Actually, General Relativity was only around 4 years before the famous eclipse observations confirmed at least part of it, and the precession of Mercury was known even before GR came out and gave exactly the same results as had been observed. So I'll alter that previous post down and say "zero to four years". As in, GR made at least some predictions which were already testable with technology that existed when it came out.

Now remind me again how long string theory has been around?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ramparts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ramparts » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyrannosaur wrote:And do you know how long relativity was around before it was testable?
A decade or so.
Actually, General Relativity was only around 4 years before the famous eclipse observations confirmed at least part of it, and the precession of Mercury was known even before GR came out and gave exactly the same results as had been observed. So I'll alter that previous post down and say "zero to four years". As in, GR made at least some predictions which were already testable with technology that existed when it came out.

Now remind me again how long string theory has been around?


Yeah, we get it, string theory is, like, hard to test, more so than any physical theory to date. And the time it took to test GR is apparently some magical measuring stick by which we decide whether a theory is worth our time.

So what's your point?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

ramparts wrote:And the time it took to test GR is apparently some magical measuring stick by which we decide whether a theory is worth our time.
Tyrannosaur is the one who seemed to think that, and who furthermore seemed to think it's a measuring stick that would make us look more favorably on string theory. My point was simply that that isn't remotely the case.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kyro
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Kyro » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

Someone please tell the string theorists that dimensions are orthogonal by definition.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:52 pm UTC

Kyro wrote:Someone please tell the string theorists that dimensions are orthogonal by definition.
No, they're not.

If we're talking about something like curved manifolds (which we probably are when talking about space-time), you only need local homeomorphism to Euclidean space when talking about the dimension of that manifold.

And coordinate bases need not be orthogonal even when describing completely flat Euclidean space. Any set of linearly independent vectors can give a coordinate system for the space they span, which has a dimension equal to the number of vectors.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ramparts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby ramparts » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:23 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
ramparts wrote:And the time it took to test GR is apparently some magical measuring stick by which we decide whether a theory is worth our time.
Tyrannosaur is the one who seemed to think that, and who furthermore seemed to think it's a measuring stick that would make us look more favorably on string theory. My point was simply that that isn't remotely the case.


Got it. You get used to seeing people say something along the lines of "string theory sucks, it's not testable!!1" and I assumed that from your comment too, but yeah, your comment to Tyrannosaur was correct.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby bmonk » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Tyrannosaur wrote:
mowdownjoe wrote:
Tyrannosaur wrote:yes,yes you did get the sarcasm

black_hat_guy wrote:There is still a lot of science that will have practical applications. Just not string theory.

thats what they said about lasers you know...

Really? No one thought about using lasers for killing in their early stages?


How are you supposed to kill anyone with a beam of light, anyway?

Soon after inventing the first laser, Theodore Maiman called it a multimillion dollar "solution looking for a problem" --what use could anyone have for a beam of single-wavelength light?

my point is that things get developed often without knowing the applications or consequences

Especially in math--mathematicians sometimes rather are disappointed when someone comes along and figures out a real-world application for their more esoteric and beautiful but unpractical constructions.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

nealh
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:20 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby nealh » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:56 pm UTC

I've learned so much from this thread. I hope that some people who have posted here teach / study physics, or are even better at their chosen profession.

Kyro
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Kyro » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kyro wrote:Someone please tell the string theorists that dimensions are orthogonal by definition.
No, they're not.

If we're talking about something like curved manifolds (which we probably are when talking about space-time), you only need local homeomorphism to Euclidean space when talking about the dimension of that manifold.

And coordinate bases need not be orthogonal even when describing completely flat Euclidean space. Any set of linearly independent vectors can give a coordinate system for the space they span, which has a dimension equal to the number of vectors.


I should probably shut up before I realize I don't know what I'm talking about...

Even if you use non perpendicular vectors as the basis of your coordinate system, you still draw parallel grid lines. Therefore the dot product of the axes is 0. Therefore the dimensions are orthogonal.

It seems to me the notion of manifolds would suggest very large other dimensions, not small ones. I don't think the process is reversible.

Kyro
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

Re: 0848: "3D"

Postby Kyro » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:19 pm UTC

I'm not saying there aren't more than 4 dimensions, just that describing the other dimensions as "too small to observe" is nonsense.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acunning40 and 97 guests