Zero Dimensional Point.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Zero Dimensional Point. » Zero Dimensional Point.

Zero Dimensional Point.
An Unmeasurable Quantity.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Zero Dimensional Point.

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2437

Posted 12/03/08 - 01:06 PM:	#11
philosofear, I know physicists talk about other dimensions and since my physics is shit, ill take their word for it. However, the statement that "most of them are too small to be percieved," is just incoherent to me. Doesn't a dimension (atleast the way I understand it) identify what size is? How can something be the definition of size, or quantify size, and at the same time be a size? How can a dimension be small, or big, it creates small or big. I understand the mathematics works for eleven dimensions, but in mathematics there are great number of possible universes, so just because the math works, doesn't necessarily mean thats the way that it is. So my question is, how does it make sense to call a dimension small? You can think of it this way: Imagine the universe is a two-dimensional disk, with diameter = 1 unit. Now imagine another universe that is the volume of a three-dimensional cylinder, with diameter = 1 unit and thickness = 0.0001 unit. These two universes will appear somewhat similar. Now shrink the thickness even more. As it becomes very tiny compared to the diameter, it becomes more and more difficult to tell that you even have a three-dimensional universe, and not just the disk universe. In the case of quantum mechanics, you can sort of imagine it as the size of the universe along these other dimensions being smaller than the wavelengths of the fundamental particles. So you never observe any movement along those directions. Instead they just play a role in how matter interacts. Of course, both of these descriptions are highly metaphorical, but they should give a general idea of what is meant by saying those dimensions are small. The results from the collider experiments will be sweet indeed, but I doubt that they will find the Higgs, and if they do, won't they just wonder what that particle is made of? According to the standard model, the Higgs boson is a fundamental particle. The importance of observing it is to either confirm the standard model, or obtain data that would allow an alternative theory to be developed instead. If our observations indicate that it is not a fundamental particle, as was the case with Protons and Neutrons, then just as happened with quarks, the model will be adjusted accordingly. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/03/08 - 03:58 PM:	#12
In bringing up the subject of matter, and the Higgs boson, I'd say that 0 dimensions could consist of a single (or possibly more than one) boson (massless particle). A singular boson would have no yardstick because it is the measure and the measured. In the same way, distance exists in one dimension but has no relative distance by which to measure it. In this way there is existence which is unmeasurable. In the same way, if three dimensions consisted of four equally spaced points (tetrahedron), relative distance is equal hence unmeasureable. If five points are used, they can't possibly be equally spaced in 3 dimensions, only then would the measurement of existing distance be possible as we have a relative (and different) distance by which to measure. I think these concepts represent the possibility of existence without measure.

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/03/08 - 04:02 PM:	#13
Death Monkey wrote: philosofear, In the case of quantum mechanics, you can sort of imagine it as the size of the universe along these other dimensions being smaller than the wavelengths of the fundamental particles. So you never observe any movement along those directions. Instead they just play a role in how matter interacts. DM Does the size of the said dimensions defy plannk's constants, do you know? I've forgotten how Plaank is spelled.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2289

Posted 12/03/08 - 04:56 PM:	#14
philosofear wrote: I know physicists talk about other dimensions and since my physics is shit, ill take their word for it. However, the statement that "most of them are too small to be percieved," is just incoherent to me. Doesn't a dimension (atleast the way I understand it) identify what size is? How can something be the definition of size, or quantify size, and at the same time be a size? How can a dimension be small, or big, it creates small or big. I understand the mathematics works for eleven dimensions, but in mathematics there are great number of possible universes, so just because the math works, doesn't necessarily mean thats the way that it is. So my question is, how does it make sense to call a dimension small? Imagine that people live in a piece of paper. To them, "x" and "y" are normal dimensions that extend pretty far, (at least 8.5" x 11"). They have no concept, other than mathematical, that a "z" dimension exists. Now someone from our world comes along and decides to mess with their universe, so they take the piece of paper and fold it. Two points in the paper-universe that used to be separated by vast distances are actually influencing each other through this unconfirmed "z" dimension. Because it is folded, (and this is very thin paper), the "distance" along the fold, in this extra dimension, is very short. The confusion is probably over the use of "dimension", in the Cartesian sense, (a vector along an axis), and in the special relativistic sense, (a line that follows warping and folding of space. Now -- change the word paper to "membrane", then shorten it to "brane", (to sound too-cool for multiple syllables), and you are on your way to understanding superstring superposition, (string theory).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/04/08 - 12:00 PM:	#15
swstephe wrote: Imagine that people live in a piece of paper. To them, "x" and "y" are normal dimensions that extend pretty far, (at least 8.5" x 11"). They have no concept, other than mathematical, that a "z" dimension exists. Now someone from our world comes along and decides to mess with their universe, so they take the piece of paper and fold it. Two points in the paper-universe that used to be separated by vast distances are actually influencing each other through this unconfirmed "z" dimension. Because it is folded, (and this is very thin paper), the "distance" along the fold, in this extra dimension, is very short. The confusion is probably over the use of "dimension", in the Cartesian sense, (a vector along an axis), and in the special relativistic sense, (a line that follows warping and folding of space. Now -- change the word paper to "membrane", then shorten it to "brane", (to sound too-cool for multiple syllables), and you are on your way to understanding superstring superposition, (string theory). That is a metaphorical representation of the concept of folding space/time where a two dimensional plane (brane) is folded in a higher dimension. There is no reason to think of zero dimensions as infinitely small, it isn't defined by size, it defies all gauge. A line of one dimensional distance is only measurable in a higher dimension too, meaning nothing is measurable. But time would be required to establish distance, a single moment. Is a single moment stopped time? Remembering these constructs only have meaning from the perspective of 3D

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/04/08 - 07:05 PM:	#16
Cadrache wrote: The large hadron collider may show multiple dimensions. THRONG: I believe the intention is to show that gravitons will disappear. There is no way of locating them afterward so it only strengthens the premise of extra dimensions and is not proof. Could be wrong. It may be that some of our 'passive' designs are not so passive. The collisions and whatnot at the small of space might leave a 'hole' in reality that allows certain wave functions to materialize within our viewable spacial ability; allowing the appearance of an extra dimension or 6. Now to answer Thongs' question. Look at it this way. Find a piece of air. Find 2 sticks. Cross these 2 sticks together at the same location as your piece of air. That is the summation of zero point dimension theory. Now reverse zero-point dimension theory is suppose to create infinite energy.. that's more fun THRONG: Thanks, that's a thing too, the quantum dots are in relation to 'holes'. Maybe similiar to above mentioned holes, I'll just wildly speculate. In other words; dimensions do not have to grow from a point of nothingness; only that at some point in time;your nothingness suddenly contains something. THRONG: I don't consider it nothingness, thats a space/time concept. It is unmeasurable so notions such as size or duration arn't applicable at all.

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/04/08 - 07:18 PM:	#17
ManiacJack wrote: The second, however, examines the area under a curve. When that curve a point, you have a line. Thus, any zero-dimensional metric can be represented as a length, or simple one dimensional measure. Yep, I was thinking, Zero dimensions is undefinable. When we represent 0D as a line or a point, we actually observe one dimensiom, Whether a point or line is used conceptually, the dimension of time is required for our perception in 3D space time.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2289

Posted 12/04/08 - 08:29 PM:	#18
throng wrote: That is a metaphorical representation of the concept of folding space/time where a two dimensional plane (brane) is folded in a higher dimension. There is no reason to think of zero dimensions as infinitely small, it isn't defined by size, it defies all gauge. A line of one dimensional distance is only measurable in a higher dimension too, meaning nothing is measurable. But time would be required to establish distance, a single moment. Is a single moment stopped time? Remembering these constructs only have meaning from the perspective of 3D We weren't talking about 0 dimension. We were talking about the dimensions beyond our 3 dimensions, (4...11), which some have theorized are "tiny" in comparison to our relatively linear and infinite 3 dimensions. Sorry to digress away from your zero dimensional point.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 588

Posted 12/05/08 - 08:44 AM:	#19
The way I see it, Plank gave Substance to Leibniz's Monads. throng wrote: Yep, I was thinking, Zero dimensions is undefinable. When we represent 0D as a line or a point, we actually observe one dimensiom, Whether a point or line is used conceptually, the dimension of time is required for our perception in 3D space time. lets say I draw a point and call it zero-dimensional. This happens only within the context of more dimensions [time, as you posit and I concur]. This means that around this point I can draw a circle along its edge, and this circle can be stretched flat and measured [see any wave description]. So, as to your seemingly contradictory statement: There is no reason to think of zero dimensions as infinitely small, it isn't defined by size, it defies all gauge. I have to agree. Isn't that what a Plank is?
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

throng
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 336

Posted 12/06/08 - 09:28 PM:	#20
ManiacJack wrote: The way I see it, Plank gave Substance to Leibniz's Monads. lets say I draw a point and call it zero-dimensional. This happens only within the context of more dimensions [time, as you posit and I concur]. This means that around this point I can draw a circle along its edge, and this circle can be stretched flat and measured [see any wave description]. So, as to your seemingly contradictory statement: I have to agree. Isn't that what a Plank is? I thought if expressed in size or duration wouldn't that be quantifying the dimension as zero. I think dimensionless says it better than 0D. I think plaank length is (10^-43)M and plaank time is a similar boundry, It isn't 0. I'm no physicist, just a dreamer that dwells on weird notions.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.