0 & 1 Dimension; question comment

  1. Ok, how can we see a point (0 dimensions) or a line (1 dimension) without it being 2 dimensional as well, and how can something exist within a 2 dimensional plain if dimensionality doesn’t explain something to exist. How can 3 dimensions exist if dimensionality must be infinite at any point in space (why does that not consume us?)? cause here is the flaw I think, their are only 2 and 3 dimensional states, and time is well yea that +1 thing, but if existence were multiple 2 and 3 dimensional states within a 1d time as distance preceding light, then one might see that humans move through air and water much like electricity moves through power lines only through heavy resistance.

    Funny side note, Microsoft word says its incorrect grammar to have ‘0 dimension’, correct being ‘0 dimensions’, which makes sense.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. arivero

    arivero 2,987
    Gold Member

    Democritus said, you see it with the eyes of the mind.

    "point" is a two-meaning word. It is the point where you point to, and in this case it has not dimensions (or has a infinite potential of them, if you prefer). But it is also the intersection of upper dimensional manifolds; for instance it is the intersection of two lines. A line is the intersection of two planes, and so on, reducing dimension each time. In this way, point has zero dim.

    Another question is visibility. Can we, from earth, claim that we see a whole 3D space of galaxies far away. Or do we see just a 2dim fractal of them?
     
  4. And so on? 2d can = 2 lines = 3 points? 2 lines = 2 planes?
    And to point through the mind is to have an absence of a point? Equation: n0n - by default. Hmm... Nvm I’ll get back to this, I got to think of a way to relate music to dimensional aspects, and then I'll be prepared.
     
  5. LURCH

    LURCH 2,512
    Science Advisor

    Not sure I've got your "point", or if I've followed your line fo reasoning, but regarding the question:
    We can't. We can see in three spacial dimensions; that is both the minimum and the maximum number of spacial dimensions which the human animal can perceive with its senses. ("Three is the number of dimensions thou canst perceive, and the dimensionality of thy perception shall be three...")

    The so-called "points" and "lines" with which you delt in geometry class were only symbolic representations of the idea of a 0 or 1 dimensional object. But for us humans to actually see a thing, it must have five dimensions.

    Oh, sorry! Uh...three dimensions.
     
  6. the words "point" and "line" can be switched in perspective geomerty,
    requires a vanishing point (big bang?)
    daulity reminds me of taking 60's particals to 90's strings

    did i hear someone in the halls at the rad lab mention strings in the 60's
    or am i aging ?
     
  7. A simple question for you. :shy:
    I hope that the formulation is correct (or understandable for you).

    I have two lines from two different hypothetical dimensions.
    A red line (coming from a red dimension, say of order 10^-17) and a blue line (orginate from the blue dimension, say from order 10^-25).
    They meet.
    a. Will you call that an intersection or a joint when they meet?
    b. Will you call that a point, a manifold, a multi-dimensional event or something else?
    c. Would an 'intersection' give lost of the red and blue properties?

    Thanks.
     
  8. pelastration wrote;
    "I have two lines from two different hypothetical dimensions.
    A red line (coming from a red dimension, say of order 10^-17) and a blue line (orginate from the blue dimension, say from order 10^-25).
    They meet.
    a. Will you call that an intersection or a joint when they meet?
    b. Will you call that a point, a manifold, a multi-dimensional event or something else?
    c. Would an 'intersection' give lost of the red and blue properties?""

    (a) Neither, I would call it a "wormhole".
    (b) a multi-dimensional event.
    (c) No, as neither exist as such (in the reciprocal dimension) to begin with. The "coloured" properties would be "translated" as far as that information could be converted into each hypothetical dimension. This may mean the loss of "apparent red or blue properties" to observers, but the blueprint for "recovery" of such property would remain encoded.
     
  9. Ok yea, I related it to music, and well its nothing more then 0d=pitch (frequency) and 1d=volume (amplitude), or the other way around. Like Gene Oldfield said they are pretty much interchange able. but what I guess what I was asking is, If 3d exists only in a +1 instead of a 2d + 2d (which could very well be another option to explain time and formation it would be more E=mc^2'ish) to simulate a 3+1 universe, then why hasn’t anything out of dimensionality answered the something out of nothing question? I like the questions pelastration gave, and am going to spawn a question off of one of 'em. Ok on those whole different waves, a red and blue, at different dimensions, what is the point in which a perception of the 2 lines intersecting could take place? If we could see all dimensionality it would blend from any perception looking at it, and if we couldn’t see all dimensionality then were would and how could such convergences occur? Would this be another infinitum of dimensionality in order for such a combination to be? cause really that’s the whole point, in a synth you can take a single wave and combine it with another, but if some aspect of dimensionality allows a viewing of all dimensions within the limits of physical objects (pretty much can we observe all dimensions and particles/strings/god or whatever while observing the distance in-between dimensionality's as a 3d) That’s about it, and thanks for all who replied. Sorry if this still isn’t clear, I’m just throwing out ideas and questions on the thing.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook