Theoretical Higher spatial dimensions question

[Ryu]

So I had a topic which I would like to fact check from an informed scientific source.

Basically there is an argument about whether or not an object that naturally exists in a fourth dimensional space, would by default have more than countably infinite times the energy of a 3 dimensional Object that exists in a 3 dimensional space, and so on for higher dimensions.

This topic is heavily debated in certain forums, albeit it's kind of for silly reasons in this case, but it is still being analysed from what is supposed to be an accurate scientific point of view. The below link is the reasoning that has been given for the argument that any higher dimensional construct would have would have uncountable infinite times more mass/energy than any lower dimensional object.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Dimensional_Tiering#.CF.83-Algebra

I was left unconvinced that this was fact. I wanted to know if it is more speculation/misinterpretation on their part, or if the argument presented on this site holds up scientifically as a probable conclusion for the mass/energy of a higher dimensional object compared to that of lower dimensional one.

Thanks

 

[member 656954]

Ummm, @Ryu that link pretty much states upfront that it's a make believe argument created to account for some aspect of VS Battles, which 'index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises'.

Fair enough, the author describes geometric concepts that are correct, but those have no bearing on the premise, which is entirely fanciful. So really, not even speculation, it's just fiction with some expert-sounding words around it.

But if you are interested in multi-dimensional physics that's speculative because experiments don't indicate it exists, but the physics at least has a lot of thought behind it, I'd suggest The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It covers string theory, which is, by all accounts, our best guess at what such a universe might look like.

 

[Ryu]

@Tghu Verd Thanks for replying. And for sure, it is fictional, but it is insisted by the authors that the argument is scientifically plausible, so I would like to separate which parts are fact and which are fiction since as you said, a good chunk of it is simply made up, likely unintentionally however.

If you were to point out some specific issues where their correct descriptions of geometry break down into unsubstantiated leaps in reasoning that are essentially just fiction that would be very helpful for me.

Id be curious to take a look at the elegant Universe. I had watched the documentary of the same name a couple years back, but wasn't aware it had a novel as well. I'll have to give it a read to get some more insight.

 

[member 656954]

Hey @Ryu, the first three paragraphs of the post you referenced are pretty much fine. Set's the scene and I'm assuming is consistent within the framework of the game universe:

"When ranking the strength of characters the natural thing to go by first is physics. However, since infinite force and energy is the highest degree of strength that a character can reach in terms of physics there would be no level of power above what is necessary to destroy an infinite universe, i.e. High 3-A.

Hence, in order to distinguish between the power of characters that are portrayed superior to that kind of power, we use a concept aside from physical strength: The concept of size.

The simple idea is that characters who can destroy much larger structures than others are likely also more powerful than them."

The fourth paragraph is the one that veers off into La La Land:

"Dimensions are strongly related to the notion of size, as higher dimensional objects can be viewed as being infinitely larger than lower dimensional ones. Hence we use them as levels of power in our tiering system."

This links some real-world geometry with the unreal-world of the game, and the mumbo-jumbo follows from there. It is pretty much like me saying my car gets 22 mph and explaining that in detail, and then ending with "and that's why my house is warm."

 

[Ryu]

Yes, basically their site tries to to analyze the fictions with real world physics as much as possible, and I agree that the first part seems perfectly reasonable, as it uses standard Newtonian physics for the most part.

Fair enough. So basically there is no evidence of more spatial dimensions equating to a larger size in the real world, and the statement that a higher dimensional object would be intrinsically infinitely larger than a lower dimensional one in the real world is made up, so that would be where it breaks down form "fact" to "fiction"?

 

[Rive]

So basically there is no evidence of more spatial dimensions equating to a larger size in the real world...

That reasoning is more or less based on the fact that you can pack infinite amount of meters in a square meter.
But while it is indeed true, these kind of facts has very limited amount of 'value'... and they has nothing to say about any 'energy', as it is used in physics.

 

[member 656954]

As @Rive notes, @Ryu, it's not so much that any particular statement in that post you referenced is incorrect, it is more that they don't correlate. So, you initially observed:

an object that naturally exists in a fourth dimensional space

But we don't know of any objects that exist in a fourth dimensional space (I'm presuming from your context that time is not the fourth dimension, but make it 5th dimension, it does not really matter) so the whole premise is scientific make believe. Saying that player power increases as the dimension increases is as valid as saying player power increases with every hair folicle they have. And I could make some scientific-sounding reason for that, but it's not physically true in our 'real' world.

so that would be where it breaks down form "fact" to "fiction"

Honestly, it doesn't really 'break down' because it was never real to begin with.