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.

throng
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 12/01/08 - 09:47 AM: Subject: Zero Dimensional Point.	#1
With all the noise about extra dimensions I got to thinking that Zero Dimensional Points exist. In the universe, there is the spontaneous creation of volume, which is observed as expansion. I reasoned that volume must start as a point and 'grow' into 3D to expand. I don't doubt zero dimensions, 1D and 2D are natural phenomena within space/time. Could expansion happen without the existance of a point dimension (or immeasurable quantity)?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 12/01/08 - 05:00 PM:	#2
I don't think 1D or 2D can "exist" within our 3D universe. A 2D universe would have to necessarily disobey our laws of physics. However, it is conceivable that a 2D universe could observe a 3D universe and everything would appear to be following 2D physics, (since 2D projects of 3D vectors are still valid). Which raises the interesting paradox that if there were a 4D universe, then our universe is also 4D, (since we can't violate their physics of not having an extra dimension, so we would have to be 4D.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 2042

Posted 12/01/08 - 05:38 PM:	#3
swstephe wrote: I don't think 1D or 2D can "exist" within our 3D universe. A 2D universe would have to necessarily disobey our laws of physics. However, it is conceivable that a 2D universe could observe a 3D universe and everything would appear to be following 2D physics, (since 2D projects of 3D vectors are still valid). Which raises the interesting paradox that if there were a 4D universe, then our universe is also 4D, (since we can't violate their physics of not having an extra dimension, so we would have to be 4D. S/he's talking about a point, or location existing non-spatio-temporally. I tried to explain that this makes no sense on another thread. If string theory is true, then we live in 11 dimensional space, only most of them are too small to be perceived. We might find out if this is true pretty soon once they get the large hadron collider fully operational. I for one can't wait to read about the results of those experiments!
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise. Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power. It all comes down to which you desire most. "Look! There's a newly-married, interracial gay couple burning the American flag!" -- Brian Griffin.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 1111

Posted 12/01/08 - 07:41 PM:	#4
Which raises the interesting paradox that if there were a 4D universe, then our universe is also 4D, Only if our 3D universe overlaps their 4D universe. (I'll leave out arguments concerning whether or not each universe has inter-changeable dimensions as well) I agree mostly with Wosret; The large hadron collider may show multiple dimensions. The question however is whether or not they are naturally occurring dimensions. Sorry for the pseuodness in the next part. It's simply Not very explainable. 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 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
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 12/02/08 - 08:33 AM:	#5
swstephe wrote: I don't think 1D or 2D can "exist" within our 3D universe. THRONG: It is more a that they can only be conceived from our 3D perspective. A 2D universe would have to necessarily disobey our laws of physics. However, it is conceivable that a 2D universe could observe a 3D universe and everything would appear to be following 2D physics, (since 2D projects of 3D vectors are still valid). Which raises the interesting paradox that if there were a 4D universe, then our universe is also 4D, (since we can't violate their physics of not having an extra dimension, so we would have to be 4D. THRONG: Zero dimensions merely means a quantity that cannot be measured, or non scalar quantity. We are conditioned or perhaps bound to conceive a point from our 3D perspective, but it is a very simplified representation.

throng
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 12/02/08 - 08:46 AM:	#6
Simply defined, spacial dimensions are the volume between at least four seperate masses. There's a parady. 2D cannot exist without 3D. Can 3D exist without 4D and 4D without five etc? 0D is non scalar. Can any dimensions exist without it? .

ManiacJack
aka W

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

Posted 12/02/08 - 04:02 PM:	#7
I find you assertion of 0dimension to be patently false, throng; overcoming such notions took me a long while after I left calculus and sought other studies. derivatives, which can be represented as instantaneous change or by points, can actually be expressed in two fashions; the first is already listed. 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. As hypocritical as that sounds, it is only the continual assertion that the zero dimension is in of itself and devoid of context that makes it 'reasonable.' It is impossible to be without space while in space. Thus, measure.
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 12/03/08 - 02:51 AM:	#8
ManiacJack wrote: I find you assertion of 0dimension to be patently false, throng; overcoming such notions took me a long while after I left calculus and sought other studies. THRONG: From a 3D perspective, 0D is the absence of volume and distance leaving only duration. I don't think it is valid for a zero dimension should have no scalar quantity. derivatives, which can be represented as instantaneous change or by points, can actually be expressed in two fashions; the first is already listed. 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. THRONG: Of course, The line is the presence of duration perhaps. Mathematical representations are imaginary constructs explaining the 3D perspective. As hypocritical as that sounds, it is only the continual assertion that the zero dimension is in of itself and devoid of context that makes it 'reasonable.' THRONG: As you add defining qualitys you add dimension. It is impossible to be without space while in space. Thus, measure. IS it possible that an unmeasureable thing exists? Something not relative or scalar? I was reading about quantum dots, but couldn't grasp their 0 dimensionality. I think they use imaginary 3D constructs for the purpose communicating the phenoma. Not sure really, it's a bit over my head.

dgp
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 18, 2008
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 26

Posted 12/03/08 - 05:50 AM: Subject: Theory and Reality	#9
I'm no expert, however I find discussions of dimensions, especially in String Theory, quite interesting. In fact, M-Theory (spun off of String Theory) has zero-dimensional Dirichlet branes. The strings in String Theory are said to be 1-dimensional when opened from a loop. The original post suggested 0-dimensions apart from String Theory, in that the Big Bang began from nothing. I don't think Physicists believe it started from nothing, rather everything in the universe was compressed into a very small space before the singularity. It sounds like science fiction, but think about how little of the atom is made up of matter. The usual analogy is a baseball stadium as the atom, a baseball as the nucleus and protons and a fly as the electrons. Lot of extra space. As for the 11 dimensions of the universe, it comes down to picking your flavor of String-Theory. Physicists suggest 26, 10, 4 and even 2 dimensions make up the universe. Check out the Holographic Principle for a 2-dimensional trip into space. So, when we talk about 0-dimensions, we can refer to theoretical dimensions or actual dimensions, but it is all still just a guess.
Simplicity is the seal of truth

philosofear
Dualist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: My mind
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 325

Posted 12/03/08 - 08:44 AM:	#10
Wosret wrote: If string theory is true, then we live in 11 dimensional space, only most of them are too small to be perceived. We might find out if this is true pretty soon once they get the large hadron collider fully operational. I for one can't wait to read about the results of those experiments! 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? 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?
"The unexamined life is not worth living" -Socrates

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.