It came from the fourth dimension!?

[morningstar2651]

Let's assume that there is a 4-dimensional being located upsilon or delta from the three dimensional space we exist in and is watching us. What happens if the being enters into our 3-dimensional space. What would the being look like to us?

How would a four dimensional being percieve a four dimensional space? Would a four dimensional space have different laws of physics, such as gravity?

Related reading: Flatland

 

[Abbadon]

I always thought the fourth dimension was time, which would mean we're just 3.5 dimensional beings, so I guess the creature wouldn't be too different.

I guess this is what it would look like:

Ia! F'thagn Cthulhu!

 

[Patzak]

Let's assume that there is a 4-dimensional being located upsilon or delta from the three dimensional space we exist in and is watching us. What happens if the being enters into our 3-dimensional space. What would the being look like to us?

Depends on its four-dimensional shape. If the being was a 4D sphere, then we'd always perceive it as a sphere (because any cross-section of a sphere is a circle - which carries to higher dimensions as well). If it were any other shape, I can't really imagine how it would look like. But an analogy with a 3D entity entering a 2D world is perfectly valid - what you would see is an n-1 dimensional cross-section of an n-dimensional body.
IOW imagine yourself sticking a hand through a two-dimensional surface, then think about what it looks like from any point inside it.

How would a four dimensional being percieve a four dimensional space? Would a four dimensional space have different laws of physics, such as gravity?

Yes, the known forces would behave differently. Basically, gravity decreases with the square of the distance because it propagates through three dimensions - if you visualize the force-lines coming from the centre of gravity, you see that their density decreases as the surface of the bounding sphere increases. I forget the actual formula for the surface of a sphere, but it's pi something something r squared. If you had 4-dimensional space, gravity (and all other forces) would be weaker because it would have to propagate into one extra dimension - it would probably decrease with the cube of the distance.

 

[Maxwell511]

I always thought the fourth dimension was time

It is time and we are four-dimensional beings. I think the OP was suggesting a four spacial dimension being.

I think it would look just like us but there would be aspects of it that we would see. And it could I suppose look as though it is two seperate beings in three dimensional space while in four dimensions it is actually one.

 

[morningstar2651]

This projection might be fun to fiddle with.

 

[psychedelicist]

It's rather like asking "What would a color look like that you have never seen". I assume that in order for a 4D being to exist in a 3D world, it would make the transition from 4D to 3D upon entering our reality, like we might become 4D beings if we were to enter into a 4D universe. Because logically, a 3D being could not exist in a 4D universe just like a 2D being could not exist in our 3D universe- in order to exist in our universe at all it must be 3 dimensional.

Isn't one of those quantum physics theories (the M theory I believe?) that the most stable universe would be a 10 or 11 dimensional universe? Now that would be interesting.

Of course it would be good to first decide if we're talking about spacial, temporal, or some other kind of dimension before we decide what some N-Dimensional object would look like.

Flatland was a good book, there's also a game that dealt with the idea of other dimensions called the star ocean series (or star ocean 3 as the first 2 games didn't realy go into it that much). Star Ocean 3 was more of a disappointment, though. The storyline was that a 4D being had created this 3D universe that they lived in, and that being had the power and intention to destroy the world it had created, now. So now they have to find their way into 4D space and destroy the creator. Very bad plot twist about halfway through it, when they finally realize what the 4D world is, and it's relation to their 3D world, but a semi-interesting ending.

 

[The Seeker]

It's rather like asking "What would a color look like that you have never seen". I assume that in order for a 4D being to exist in a 3D world, it would make the transition from 4D to 3D upon entering our reality, like we might become 4D beings if we were to enter into a 4D universe. Because logically, a 3D being could not exist in a 4D universe just like a 2D being could not exist in our 3D universe- in order to exist in our universe at all it must be 3 dimensional.

But isn't our universe 11 or 12 dimensional? As I understand it, its just that we can move freely in three dimensions.

IMO, the cross-section thing is a good analogy, the creature would look the same as long as it stayed still in the fourth dimension, which we can't percieve, if it were to move, it would appear to change in form (hmm, that gives me an idea for a short story, probably already been done though).

 

[Yamialpha]

But isn't our universe 11 or 12 dimensional? As I understand it, its just that we can move freely in three dimensions.

IMO, the cross-section thing is a good analogy, the creature would look the same as long as it stayed still in the fourth dimension, which we can't percieve, if it were to move, it would appear to change in form (hmm, that gives me an idea for a short story, probably already been done though).

Has someone been reading superstring theory propaganda?

 

[morningstar2651]

prop·a·gan·da
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

I prefer objective sources myself. I'm curious how the theory could have propeganda associated with it if they call it a theory rather than a proven fact.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'm curious how the theory could have propeganda associated with it if they call it a theory rather than a proven fact.

Well in science calling something a theory does not really have any bearing on how well proven it is, for one. If anything calling it a theory actually adds to the image of truth, rather than taking away from it. Saying "String Theory" puts it into the realm of things like atomic theory, the theory of evolution and electromagnetic theory, which are all very well understood and supported in comparison. It would be better to call things that are as of yet unsubstatiated hypotheses or perhaps conjectures.

It would be a bit like calling a conjecture in Math (say, for instance, the Hadamard conjecture) a theorem, though the error is not as great as science does not treat theories as proven facts. (As a side note mathematics actually did this for quite some time in regards to Fermat's last theorem, which was actually an unproven conjecture until very recently, but it was always referred to as a theorem). But certainly it is the same type of thing.

 

[morningstar2651]

Scientific theory ought not be confused with scientific law. I hope that the majority of people that regularly read or participate in philisophical debates can distinguish theory from law.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Scientific theory ought not be confused with scientific law. I hope that the majority of people that regularly read or participate in philisophical debates can distinguish theory from law.

Scientific theories and laws don't really have much to do with each other. A scientific law usually is a generalization of observations, without explanation for the observations. So a law could be something like "falling objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared towards the Earth." It wouldn't include something like this being due to the curvature of space, or even due to a force. It's just an observation of something that happens. If you drop something it will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. Regardless of why, it happens.

Laws quite often take the form of equations, such as Boyle's law which states that the pressure of a gass times the volume will be a constant, given constant temperature. We can take conclusions from this law such as decreasing the volume of a gass will increase the pressure at an inverse rate, but we can't extract an explanation for why this occurs from the law.

A theory on the other hand is a model or framework for explaning our observations. Saying that a force compels objects to earth, which is why they fall, is the start of a theory.

The only real relationship between theories and laws is that theories can explain why laws work, and that laws often are the basis of theories. But there is no relationship in the manner of a theory becoming a law, or a law becoming a theory as they are different categories of things. Electromagnetic theory is still a theory, not because we lack evidence for it, but because that's just what it is.

There will never be anything called "String Law." Even if we knew String Theory to be true for a fact, it would still be a theory in a scientific sense.

This is all logical if you realize that theory is being used in a more mathematical sense. Theories in mathematics can be often thought to be branches of mathematics. A good example is Set Theory. We call a Set Theory a theory, even though every single thing that it states has been objectively proven. That is because theory is just a classification, not a statement about our certainty. The same is true in science.

Really, I don't know where this "a theory is just a law that hasn't been fully proven yet" way of looking things came about. Theories and laws are two seperate classes of things. A theory can't become a law and a law can't become a theory. Look up some scientific theories and some scientific laws and the distinction is clear.

By the way, I'm sorry if you already knew this (though I still think that this distinction needs to be cleared up, because it is a frequent misinterpretation), but unless you thought that laws were theories that we were more sure about, I can't decipher your reply.

 

[The Seeker]

Has someone been reading superstring theory propaganda?

Kindly refute string theory for us all then, I'm sure you've already published your work on the subject in a respected journal, so you don't have to worry about us nicking your own divised theories.

 

[TeddyKGB]

While string theory does posit additional spatial dimensions, they are inhospitable to anything bigger than Planck-length. No unimaginably powerful beings hiding there, I'm afraid.

 

[Patzak]

While string theory does posit additional spatial dimensions, they are inhospitable to anything bigger than Planck-length. No unimaginably powerful beings hiding there, I'm afraid.

Well, one of the variants actually takes the additional dimensions to be quite large and not folded unto themselves at all. So why don't we see them? Because all matter (including photons) is constrained to a 3-dimensional "brane" floating in a more-dimensional universe. Only gravitons supposedly propagate through other dimensions as well, which is why gravity is so weak when compared to the other forces.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I suspect that it would look rather like a pair of white mice.

 

[Yamialpha]

Kindly refute string theory for us all then, I'm sure you've already published your work on the subject in a respected journal, so you don't have to worry about us nicking your own divised theories.

Uh-oh my sarcastic monitor is beeping again! I never said anything about refuting string theory nor did I say that I believed string theory is wrong-it does have its merits. Or perhaps I offended you? If that's the case, what I said wasn't intended to offend or start a going-nowhere-fast argument.

 

[one love]

Delta is 4. A theory in science is an excepted law. And sillystring theories are for the elite who want to be like the Heisenbergs and Diracs and try to separate themselves from the rest of the scientist/physicist because they have some egotistical problems which can only be satisfied by this.

There is no 4th dimension, or prove it.

 

[psychedelicist]

I'm curious how the theory could have propeganda associated with it if they call it a theory rather than a proven fact.

The difference between theories and laws:

A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. Laws of nature are conclusions drawn from, or hypotheses confirmed by scientific experiments. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified.

There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.

(taken from wikipedia)

The main (and probably only) difference between laws and theories is that a law is very general and simplistic, with only enough information included so that it is logical and self-consistent. A theory is much more in depth and goes moreinto just how and why.

The 'theory' of relativity, for example, is also accepted as a law. As is the 'theory' of gravity. And, in most educated circles, the 'theory' of evolution.

Now, the string theory is actually a super-theory, to speak, consisting of many other theories- open-string theory, closed-string theory, superstring theory, etc. (the same way that the theory of relativity is actually 2 theories- general and special relativity). Indeed, it would be best described as the 'theory of everything', for all the various topics it covers.

I am not sure whether it is still in the hypothesis period, as I understand it it has been used to make great advancements in euclidean geometry and algebra, so there must be some substance to it. However, as wikipedia says:

String theory remains unverified. No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or falsified. Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not yet a falsifiable theory in the sense of Popper.

Calling it a law might be a stretch, since it is nowhere near simplistic, complete, or able to be verified or falsified (but it seems like an all-incluseive theory toward all existence would be rather hard to prove or disprove, so such a thing might not even be possible). But, to call it mere propoganda would be far more ignorant.

 

[Abbadon]

I suspect that it would look rather like a pair of white mice.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DailyBlessings again.


42!
​