Question about examples used to visualise higher dimensions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the visualization of higher dimensions, particularly how a hypothetical 4D creature would interact with 3D beings, using the analogy of 3D beings interacting with 2D "flatlanders." Participants explore the implications of dimensionality and the nature of dimensions beyond the familiar three.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the analogy of 4D creatures interacting with 3D beings, arguing that just as 3D beings need three dimensions to grip objects, 4D beings would similarly require a fundamental dimension to manipulate 3D beings.
  • Another participant suggests that the understanding of dimensions may be limited by human perception, proposing that other dimensions could represent different characteristics rather than spatial dimensions, citing examples like gravity and the spin of subatomic particles.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that space dimensions should have length units, challenging the idea that dimensions could be represented by internal degrees of freedom such as spin or charge.
  • One participant proposes that the discussion is fundamentally mathematical, suggesting that understanding higher dimensions can be improved through practice with theorems and geometric shapes.
  • There is a reference to Kaluza-Klein theory, which posits that known fields could be interpreted as rotations in extra dimensions, adding complexity to the discussion of dimensionality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of dimensions and the validity of analogies used to explain higher dimensions. There is no consensus on whether dimensions beyond the third can be understood in the same way as spatial dimensions, nor on the implications of Kaluza-Klein theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding higher dimensions, including the dependence on human perception and the challenge of conceptualizing dimensions that do not conform to traditional spatial characteristics.

jamesop
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I've been reading quite a few popular science books (Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking) where the specific example for us to visualise how a 4D creature would interact with us is portrayed through us interacting with 2D "flatlanders".
The specific example is how we would lift a 2D flatlander of its universe and then place him back down in some other location. The problem I have with this is for us to interact with, and pickup something it needs to have 3 dimensions, or else we'd have nothing to grip.
So surely a 4D creature would have the same problem picking us up, as we'd also be lacking a fundamental dimension that they need to manipulate us?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jamesop said:
Hi,
I've been reading quite a few popular science books (Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking) where the specific example for us to visualise how a 4D creature would interact with us is portrayed through us interacting with 2D "flatlanders".
The specific example is how we would lift a 2D flatlander of its universe and then place him back down in some other location. The problem I have with this is for us to interact with, and pickup something it needs to have 3 dimensions, or else we'd have nothing to grip.
So surely a 4D creature would have the same problem picking us up, as we'd also be lacking a fundamental dimension that they need to manipulate us?
Thanks

You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that other dimensions would be like length, width and height in some way. That's because our brains are programmed beginning at an early age to think that those are the only types of things that can be dimensions. The Stephen Hawking of my youth was George Gamow. In one of his books (possibly One, Two Three Infinity) he provided a possible drawing of a 4th dimension super cube in 2 dimensions.

Other dimensions are more likely to be different characteristics. We may already be able to detect other dimensions, but don't recognize them as dimensions. For example, gravity cannot be a function of length, width and height. Although the sun has a greater volume than Earth and greater gravity and Earth is larger than the moon and has greater gravity - a black hole much smaller than the moon could have a gravity of many suns.

The spin of subatomic particles might be a dimension as might be any electrical charge.
 
reasonmclucus said:
You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that other dimensions would be like length, width and height in some way.
...
Other dimensions are more likely to be different characteristics.

...
The spin of subatomic particles might be a dimension as might be any electrical charge.

I didnt quite understand your comment. Since we are talking about space-dimensions, each dimension should have [length] units! It cannot be anything else, a random internal degree of freedom, like spin or electrical charge!
Am i right?
I, also, have a great difficulty in understanding the notion of higher dimensions since there cannot exist more than 3 in this world. The argument "our brain can only see 3" doesn't convince me.. They also say, that these extra dimensions are too small too see. Ok, if we also get small enough in order to see them, how would the look like?
 
Really, except for the confusions induced in #2, this is question of mathematics, isn't it? It is just about training. A good thing is to practice with theorems involving a few dimensions, looking for regular n-gons, etc.

Now, #2 has a point if Kaluza Klein theory happens to be a valid interpretation. In such case, the objects that we usually known as fields are to be interpreted as the "rotations" in the extra dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
11K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
25K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K