the Magicball Network Forums

the Magicball Network Forums (https://forum.magicball.net/index.php)
-   Off topic (https://forum.magicball.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   The Hi-tech thread (Hoverboards,slowmos and Spaceeeeee) (https://forum.magicball.net/showthread.php?t=9247)

ChaosFish 2010-02-04 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393289)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEpZFEIDHdc
Cool documntary about Chaos, Alan Turing, Mandelbrot Fractals, self organizing systems, increasing complexity arising from simple systems and Evolution.

Just watched it (not through YouTube, ew. got a decent HDTV rip), it's awesome, very interesting facts there. I especially loved the part with the evolution simulator. I don't agree with the dude on the thought that some things are entirely unpredictable even if you have all the information. Obviously, if there's something unpredictable, there's more information that you don't have, or that you don't know is relevant.

Jasiek 2010-02-04 01:20

I had my doubts about that too. And I always though things are predetermined that way. But for instance if you look at that experiment with the unstirred fluid sprouting patterns, it does it differently each time. Of course we can argue there's something happening in there that we do not know about, however I'm not so sure anymore.

Right now I'm going towards the idea that order comes from the quantum chaos naturally. So that at the most basic, fundamental level nothing is 100% predictable. And that it's the interference of that chaos, that produces order in the macro scale.

ChaosFish 2010-02-04 11:55

I have an explanation for you, and I probably sound like a broken record. The 5th dimension - the second time dimension. Matter not only moves forward (and backward) in time, it moves "sideways" in time too. The matter particles that are less influential move faster in the 5th dimension and the particles that are more influential move slower. That's the reason for when you do exactly the same procedure, you can have different results depending on your location on the 5th dimension.

If you thinks that's bullshit - watch the part about what happened to the Russian scientist again.

Darkflame 2010-02-06 20:13

Choas, in contradiction to your post in the other thread though, that version of 5D space would encompass all possibility's :?
To move sideways implies a continuous dimension, like width if you get different results at different positions, and there's infinite positions, you get all possibility's.

Also, remember; we never see any particle pop out of existence. If things moved though a dimension we are not ourselves moving in at the same rate, or can observe directly, from our point of view they would blink out of existence. So if there is a 5dimension either we are the ones moving in it, or everything including ourselves are moving in the same way though it.
(ok, theres a last possibility; that if something moves sideways in 5D when we do not, then we see something else take its place instantly and identically and we cant tell the difference...but I think Occam's razor should kill that idea).

If things moved in 5D independently from us, it would be like a 2D creature seeing a cross-section of a 3D shape, it would appear change and vanish..seeming to break the conservation of mass law, amongst other things.

---
As for predictability, I personalty think things are 100% predictable if you know the rules and the state of mater/energy precisely.
However, I think some of the information will always be fundamentally impossible to get, so you have "effectively unpredictable".
----

Anyway;

Google expirementing with quantom computers;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ge-search.html

ChaosFish 2010-02-06 21:27

No separate universes.

Let's forget about the 5th dimension for a second a assume the universe is only 4 dimensional.

Let's say a moving point (P) is located on X=4,Y=8,Z=15,T=16. That's our location too.

Now let's change P's value to T=17. We have to wait a little and than we'll see it. (...time passes...) We arrived! We're on T=17 and we can now see P!

...but wait, it doesn't work like that, does it? No. Because P's value doesn't ever change from T=16 to T=17. The same point exists both on T=16 and T=17. That's why we're able to see it both in the past and in the future.

We can also say that P exists both on X/Y/Z=1 and on X/Y/Z=2. But T has to have different values in both of them, because we don't just see one matter particle existing on two different points in space at the same time. Or do we? Recent studies in quantum physics actually proved it IS possible.

Yes: There's still a lot left to think about it. I shall ponder about it some more.

Anyway to sum this up: At no point should a matter particle blink out of existence. Just because it was in a point in time while it was in a certain point on the 5th dimension, doesn't mean it can't be in the same point in time while it's in a different point on 5th dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkflame (Post 393617)
To move sideways implies a continuous dimension, like width if you get different results at different positions, and there's infinite positions, you get all possibility's.

Have this: Three different straight diagonal lines on an infinite 2 dimensional space still won't hit all possibilities.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 15:44

...any thoughts?

I can't figure it all out by myself :p

Jasiek 2010-02-10 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 393618)
...but wait, it doesn't work like that, does it? No. Because P's value doesn't ever change from T=16 to T=17. The same point exists both on T=16 and T=17. That's why we're able to see it both in the past and in the future.

The concept of a "past" is only a consequence of the existence of memory. It is an artificial language construct, created for the benefit of easier communication. You're not able to see it in the past, you are able to remember it because of the evolutionary development of memory. I would say it would be also impossible to assign any given number to the "present" either. It would probably be an equation with an ever changing outcome, or a time frame (like year 2010). I do think however that you can assign a value that way to a point in the future, 0 being a symbol encompassing the values derived from our equation for the time spanning the duration of time needed to imagine that point in the future.

There is no past, just as there is no definite present. Even if you somehow create a machine that will disrupt the direction of time, you will only be able to travel back in time to the moment the machine was turned on. Otherwise, the universe would have to have a memory system, in which it would store it's state at any given point in time. I think you could definitely slow time down, even stop it locally (for an outside observer), but not reverse it, as there is nothing for it to reverse to.

Unless there is a definite dimension of time along which you could move. Which has yet to be proven directly or indirectly through an experiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaosfish
Anyway to sum this up: At no point should a matter particle blink out of existence.

If a fundamental particle, is a "shadow" or a manifestation of an object existing in a 4 or 5 dimensional space (not time, dimensions of space), then if something happens to it in the 4th dimension, it's shadow in the 3rd dimension should also disappear. If you hold a cube up against a wall it creates a two dimensional shadow, if you destroy (or convert to energy) that three dimensional object, it's shadow will be gone too. But that will happen only with the assumption that particles are indeed manifestations of other structures existing in more dimensions of space then three. Then their behaviour would be utterly unpredictable without the understanding of the physics governing the fourth dimension.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 20:52

Assuming we actually observe the universe, and we aren't just a static defined thought, there is a past. We're able to see the observed universe in the past just as well as we're able to see it in the present - through our brains. Memories are there to let us see the past, even if not perfectly.

From our point of view the past disappeared when we went past it, but it isn't so from a neutral point of view.

Height
Width
Depth
Time
(again ignoring 5th dimension for now)

Why is Time different than, say, Width? If you stand outside of the world - outside time and space - you see the world as a static, never changing, 4 dimensional object: like a chunk of crystal. This chunk of crystal has its particles (or, more like waves) coordinated on 4 dimensions - and time is just like width. Why should dimensions even be separated into space dimensions and time dimensions? I don't see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393688)
then if something happens to it in the 4th dimension, it's shadow in the 3rd dimension should also disappear.

You can say all dimensions are "shadows" of each other. But what I was trying to say is that moving in the 5th dimension doesn't mean it's disappearing from from any part of the 4th dimension.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 21:01

Btw, a video showing the wonders of microorganisms cooperating with each other: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZZspuAa44

Jasiek 2010-02-10 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 393691)
Memories are there to let us see the past, even if not perfectly.

The memory "describes" the past, but it is also the only remnant of the past. From your own limited point of view too. There is no other level to it then that. If there was, then A) we would be able to remember all the past, and not only the moments of importance that our brain singled out to be stored and B) our memories, even hours after they have happened would not start to diverge. 1's and 0's and signal intensity are the components of your memory. There is no evidence for any other layer to it then that.

The memory is there, is "designed" so that you know where food is, what kind of food made other animals die, where your breeding ground is and where predators wait. That's it. Calling it something that "lets us see the past" implies it's a window, when it's not. It's an account, and a very subjective one at that.

You're trying too hard to make a simple and understood concept something it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 393691)
You can say all dimensions are "shadows" of each other. But what I was trying to say is that moving in the 5th dimension doesn't mean it's disappearing from from any part of the 4th dimension.

Imagine you live on a piece of paper, in a 2-dimensional world. And there is an artists hand floating about. Each time he draws a line, or a dot, you will "see" structures appearing, you will "see" the pencil making contact with your dimension (despite not really knowing, or understanding what it is, or it's rationale for doing what it is doing), and then disappearing completely from it.
Let's say you live in XY and the pencil lives in XYZ, it can move in all two dimensions as well, but removed from them by the dimension of Z, despite it moving in the same dimensions you live in, you will never see it, or be able to interact with it. You will only see the part of the object currently moving through your dimension. A 2 dimensional cross section of a 3 dimensional object.

I would rather have dimensions of Space, and the phenomena of time. All dimensions would be subject to it's flow. That's why when you see the electron cloud, you observe the electrons from a single time. Otherwise, we would have electrons popping in and out of nowhere. Despite the position of the electrons in the atom being random, their amount is always proper.

If time was just another dimension to move freely through, elements could change into other elements or change properties in our dimension, when electrons and other particles in them would move freely through time.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393693)
The memory "describes" the past, but it is also the only remnant of the past. From your own limited point of view too. There is no other level to it then that. If there was, then A) we would be able to remember all the past, and not only the moments of importance that our brain singled out to be stored and B) our memories, even hours after they have happened would not start to diverge. 1's and 0's and signal intensity are the components of your memory. There is no evidence for any other layer to it then that.

The memory is there, is "designed" so that you know where food is, what kind of food made other animals die, where your breeding ground is and where predators wait. That's it. Calling it something that "lets us see the past" implies it's a window, when it's not. It's an account, and a very subjective one at that.

I didn't mean to imply it's a window. It still does let you see the past just as well as you see the present - not perfectly. You can't really see the present either, what you observe goes through filters in your brain and arrives to your consciousness somewhat biased. So what's the difference really between now and the past? You observe them both just the same.

Yes, you can say that the only thing you know for sure is that you are thinking RIGHT NOW, and there is no proof for anything else. But we must assume there is, otherwise we won't get anywhere.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393693)
You're trying too hard to make a simple and understood concept something it isn't.

I try to describe ideas as simple as I can and in few words and count on the reader to do a lot of the processing in between, that's the best way I know to express ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393693)
Imagine you live on a piece of paper, in a 2-dimensional world. And there is an artists hand floating about. Each time he draws a line, or a dot, you will "see" structures appearing, you will "see" the pencil making contact with your dimension (despite not really knowing, or understanding what it is, or it's rationale for doing what it is doing), and then disappearing completely from it.

If it's just a piece of paper and I'll see it happen, then the 3rd dimension is time. So it's 3 dimensions really, and the artist is within one of them - so he's not really outside.

Jasiek 2010-02-10 21:22

No, the third dimension is also space. if you where to move through the third dimension, or the artist would pick you up and show you your world from XYZ, you would still see time in XY moving, the same way it would move in XYZ. Of course the artist is not "outside", but he is outside of your set of XY, he can live in a set of XYZ removed from your XY by the dimension of Z. he lives in XYZ so he can see you, you live in XY so you can only see him when he makes contact with your own XY.

Like people living in a building with floors, they can occupy the same XY space, but separated by Z. You will not tell me, that the person living above me, occupying the same space of XY as I do, has a different position in time. There could be multiple sets of XYZ too, occupying the same space in XYZ, but separated from each other by a fourth physical dimension - and that is not necessarily time.

EDIT:

Let's say someone lived in my apartment 30 years ago, before I was here, he shared the same space as I do, but was removed in time by T=-30. But that's not what I'm talking about here. There is no reason why no one could be living here right now, separated from me by a fourth physical dimension.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 21:35

Ah, you edited your post after I posted.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393693)
Let's say you live in XY and the pencil lives in XYZ, it can move in all two dimensions as well, but removed from them by the dimension of Z, despite it moving in the same dimensions you live in, you will never see it, or be able to interact with it. You will only see the part of the object currently moving through your dimension. A 2 dimensional cross section of a 3 dimensional object.

I would rather have dimensions of Space, and the phenomena of time. All dimensions would be subject to it's flow. That's why when you see the electron cloud, you observe the electrons from a single time. Otherwise, we would have electrons popping in and out of nowhere. Despite the position of the electrons in the atom being random, their amount is always proper.

If time was just another dimension to move freely through, elements could change into other elements or change properties in our dimension, when electrons and other particles in them would move freely through time.

If there are 3 dimensions and I only move in 2 of them... then I don't progress in time. So I won't see the hand doing anything - everything it will do will change myself and my world, and I won't know anything different.

I will not see the pencil (or part of it) moving through my dimensions.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393695)
Let's say someone lived in my apartment 30 years ago, before I was here, he shared the same space as I do, but was removed in time by T=-30. But that's not what I'm talking about here. There is no reason why no one could be living here right now, separated from me by a fourth physical dimension.

You mean fifth physical dimension?
Yes - there is someone living with you right now - or more precisely, a wave is arranging yourself and the particles that surround you in an ever changing order right where/when you are now across the fifth dimension.

Jasiek 2010-02-10 21:47

Yeah, I do that a lot :p
You have to wait at least 15 minutes ;).

No. Of course you are progressing through time, or rather with time, or at the top of the "time wave". You're assuming there is no more dimensions of space, and the next available dimension is automatically time when A) you have not proven time is actually a dimension and B) that it is entirely impossible for there to be more dimensions of space.

As I said, I do not think time is a dimension to move in but a phenomena (like gravity, or electromagnetism). This way, you can have many dimensions of space, all penetrated by the phenomena of time. Or even multiple sets of three dimensional space, occupying the same XYZ space, but removed from each other by a fourth physical dimension, all experiencing time the same way.

If you live in a 2 dimensional space, you are a subject of time's passing, as is the person observing 2D from 3D, as is the person observing both 2D and 3D from 4D (dealing in physical dimensions here all the time).

Time can also be a phenomena existing only in 3D, as an effect of some other phenomena happening in 4D. That way a being living in four physical dimensions, is not a subject to time.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 22:00

My proof that time is a dimension: It has all the same attributes as width, height, and depth. It simply answers to the definition of a dimension.

I still think there is no "space dimensions" and "time dimensions" - there is simply no difference between them. Just as gravity pulls objects together across space, it pulls them together across time.

Gravity Activated! The collusion will occur in 2:00AM, at that point the two objects will be at the same point in space (x14y14z14).
-or-
Gravity Activated! The collusion will occur in x14y14z14, at that point the two objects will be at the same point in time (2:00AM).

Jasiek 2010-02-10 22:21

It's not really a proof it's an assumption, a hypothesis at best. You cannot test for time. Thanks to relativity we know there is some sort of a phenomena that we describe as time, and we know that travelling at any speed will be observed from outside as time locally slowing down. But that's just about it.

You assume that there are three dimensions of time, but we have never observed anyone, or anything move through time like it was a set of dimensions. Everything we observe flows on the wave of time, rather then moving through it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 393699)
Gravity Activated! The collusion will occur in 2:00AM, at that point the two objects will be at the same point in space (x14y14z14).
-or-
Gravity Activated! The collusion will occur in x14y14z14, at that point the two objects will be at the same point in time (2:00AM).

Assuming they travel at the same speed, in the same medium (like the galaxy moving at a constant speed). They are at the same place in time regardless of their position in space. If you where to place a measuring device at both of them, and measure the time, it would show the same thing...

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 22:29

I hypothesize there are 2 dimensions of time (or more correctly, "2 more dimensions"), I never said anything about a 3rd one :p

We experience time as a phenomena. We also experience space as a phenomena. What's the diff?

edit:
ah, I missed your last line, hold on.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek
but we have never observed anyone, or anything move through time like it was a set of dimensions. Everything we observe flows on the wave of time, rather then moving through it.

Same object exists as a wave across time, and not just as a pixel in one point on it.

But isn't it true for space too? Same objects exists across space, as a wave. It's not just in one point in space - it's in different points in space relative to the what the current time is. It's also in different points on a horizontal line relative to what your location on the vertical line is.

Jasiek 2010-02-10 22:41

The difference between time and a phenomena would be it's origin and motion I guess.
We move in three dimensions of space more or less freely, we at least perceive them.
We cannot move "through" gravity, or "through" electromagnetism. Like a lightning storm, all these things are phenomena, effects of forces or forces either originating from a three dimensional space, or being projections (like the string theory claims) or caused by vibrations of objects existing in more physical dimensions then three.

Look at gravity, relativity claims that any object with a mass bends space into a fourth physical dimension, creating a gravity well in that dimension. You perceive it as being attracted towards the object, when in reality you're falling towards it in the fourth physical dimension.

That would be a fundamental difference. There is no evidence of anyone or anything moving through time. In a XY of time, or a XYZ of time.


As for your last post, a wave travels as long as there is a source. A light wave will project a star as long as it shines. Once it stops, the waves will continue going through space, but no new ones are produced, they can move past you and you will no longer see the star. It's not the same object existing in all of space at once. It has a definite place in XYZ. You can miss a wave, you can bend a wave with gravity. The mere fact you wilfully move through space, walk up the stairs proves to you that you move in a three dimensional space. No one can reproduce that same action, but with time.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393700)
Assuming they travel at the same speed, in the same medium (like the galaxy moving at a constant speed). They are at the same place in time regardless of their position in space. If you where to place a measuring device at both of them, and measure the time, it would show the same thing...

So: The location in one dimension is irrelevant if you don't have a second dimension to put across it. Makes sense. A single point in Width, Height, Depth, Time: the center of an asterisk made of four lines.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393703)
The difference between time and a phenomena would be it's origin and motion I guess.
We move in three dimensions of space more or less freely, we at least perceive them.
We cannot move "through" gravity, or "through" electromagnetism. Like a lightning storm, all these things are phenomena, effects of forces or forces either originating from a three dimensional space, or being projections (like the string theory claims) or caused by vibrations of objects existing in more physical dimensions then three.

Look at gravity, relativity claims that any object with a mass bends space into a fourth physical dimension, creating a gravity well in that dimension. You perceive it as being attracted towards the object, when in reality you're falling towards it in the fourth physical dimension.

That would be a fundamental difference. There is no evidence of anyone or anything moving through time. In a XY of time, or a XYZ of time.

There is no evidence of anything moving through time, just as there is no evidence of anything moving through space. Our perception is all we got to work with, unfortunately.

I accept what you say about the difference between a phenomena and a dimension, but then time isn't a phenomena because we are moving through time.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 393703)
As for your last post, a wave travels as long as there is a source. A light wave will project a star as long as it shines. Once it stops, the waves will continue going through space, but no new ones are produced, they can move past you and you will no longer see the star. It's not the same object existing in all of space at once. It has a definite place in XYZ. You can miss a wave, you can bend a wave with gravity. The mere fact you wilfully move through space, walk up the stairs proves to you that you move in a three dimensional space. No one can reproduce that same action, but with time.

You are moving freely/willfully in space - but what does "freely" mean, in this context? Psychologically or physically? Because psychically, you are aren't in control at all, you are simply a chain of reactions. You are moving forward and backward across space just as you are across time.

It's difficult to think of time as a simple line on a paper because we tend to think "along with" time.

...
A wave has a source, as you said. (What is the source? I have no idea. But it must be a fundamental "building block" of the universe.) A wave is not the same object existing in more than one place because we don't tend to consider a wave to be an object.

Jasiek 2010-02-10 23:10

That's just it, I don't think we are moving through time. Nothing I observe tells me so. I think it's a phenomena like gravity. In fact, it might just be imaginary. We think there is a real past because we have memory, that tells us that things have changed, and we can plan ahead, so we think there is a future. We can also make decisions and act more or less now, so we think there is some sort of a present - even if it is a vague region between past and future. We invented a clock which "measures time" so we somehow think it's a quantitative substance you can measure, or a dimension through which you move.

I think that is all an illusion. Gravity works because it's a force and it pulls objects together through the bending of a fourth physical dimension. Bodies are pulled together because of gravity, not because of the passage time. We are born and we die because of cell divisions, mutations caused by erroneous transcription of protein and space radiation and we die because of telomeres or other outside factors caused by different forces. We are surrounded by forces at work, by motion, radiation, laws of chemistry and physics so we assume it all works in some other medium - that we move through time, that we ride on time.

I think we are deluded to think so. In my opinion, that sort of thinking about time is an effect of our primitive beginnings, of ideas of destiny and gods having a plan for everything. While in reality as long as there are other forces at work, there will be a cause and effect, no matter in which physical dimension you exist, as long as there are any such forces at work, you will perceive a change in the reality that surrounds you. Time is a concept we imagined for the benefit of planning ahead (which is only an intuitive understanding of cause and effect of other forces), and visualising the "past" to learn from it (and gain that intuition).

And in regard to time dilation, the effect may be that it appears that time "slows down" locally, however I think it doesn't have that much to do with a dimension of time and travelling through it. Especially since the effect is in regards to a different object, and locally you perceive time at the same pace as you would outside.



A wave can be made out of particles (photons, electrons), it can be a propagation of a medium, or in the vacuum, a self-propagating magnetic/electromagnetic field. They carry energy rather then mass, and always have a source.

ChaosFish 2010-02-10 23:41

For things to change there needs to be a line.

----------

This line is time.

You say Peteto, I say Potato.


(sorry, I should answer some other stuff too, but my head is starting to hurt... gtg to sleep)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:42.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, the Magicball Network