What is it with the abuse of the word 'dimension' recently? There are more than three dimensions. Mass, is a dimension, for example. Why do people think that space accounts for three dimensions? Space is just one dimension, that manages to express itself in three orthogonal directions.

"Most physical quantities can be expressed in terms of combinations of five basic dimensions. These are mass (M), length (L), time (T), electrical current (I), and temperature." (http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/)

So, while this is the pseudoscience section, please restrict posts to coming up with new ideas, and stop abusing existing definitions.

A dimension is just a quantification of one aspect of a thing.

A one dimensional line requires one number to describe it's length. If it has color, then two dimensions are required - length and color. If it has a smell, then three may be required. If it has a charge, then four, etc.

I can create a valid 23 dimensional array in software. A three dimensional object that takes up space requires three numbers to quantify it spacially.

However you guys put it in words, its all human concepts.

Phlogistician,
Space isn't a dimension. Although you can suggest that Zeropoint energy can be a measurable quanta which in turn gives "dimensions" to space, however if space was void of all energy, it would be unmeasurable and therefore not be a "dimension".

However saying that you could have a box with all quanta removed and state the "Space" to have dimensions, however the dimensions you imply are based upon that of the boxes constraints. Namely you don't measure the inside of the box with space, you measure space with the inside of the box.

Btw Phlog, my reason for commenting and style of writing is never an attack at you, it's just me being Pedantic since such discussion material is far more interesting than some of the other threads (responses as to which threads will probably cause this thread to go awry).

Superluminal,
Matrix Mathematics which is used in both Programming and pure mathematics utilises such arrays and allows the entanglement of multiple dimensional arrays to combine as one single array.

There is occurances when theorists speak of Multiple Dimensions like for instance 7 dimensions (and greater), from my understanding they are talking about two seperate reference of 3 dimensions (Height, Width, Depth) and implying a Fold in Time, which relates to parallels. However I'm not sure how far their(the theorists in question) theories progressed from there.

Phlogistician,
Space isn't a dimension.

The amount of space something occupies, is measurable, however. And being measurable, IS a dimension. What I was saying, is that space isn't three different dimensions, it's one dimension, length, expressed in three orthogonal directions, plus time, etc.

Stryder, I studied a degree in Physics, so please, if you are going to nit pick, keep Zeropoint energy and the other technobabble out of any serious discussion. I was talking about SI Units, and trying to steer us back towards real science, and you mention ZPE. DOH!

i thought it went like this:
a point is the first
area was the second
volume was the third
and time was the fourth

i thought it went like this:
a point is the first
area was the second
volume was the third
and time was the fourth

That is the number of dimensions required to define those things, not the number of different dimensions. The first three are l, l^2 and l^3. Mass is a dimension, temperature is a dimension, when talking about dimensional analysis using SI Units. And I am.

mass would be the third
temperature would be a property of mass

mass would be the third
temperature would be a property of mass

Nope, temperature is a dimension, when talking about dimensional analysis.

However you guys put it in words, its all human concepts.
riiiiiight oooooon. and notice no mention of CONSCIOUSNESS...yet agin. jeeez rthat phlo is old hat init?

thing is space is MULTIDIMENSIONAL. and you cant have matter-energy and space witout consciousness

diemnsions of consciousness is the WAY you see/experience reality.

duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?

That I am a scientist, and you don't understand the first words you use in your technobabble. Invent your own words, and define them. Stop raping ours.

duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?

me)))))that you are an ignoreamous..?

That I am a scientist, and you don't understand the first words you use in your technobabble. Invent your own words, and define them. Stop raping ours.
pis of. and stop playin 'king-of-my-thread'.

that you are an ignoreamous..?

Over ambitious flame, duendy. Stick to stuff you can spell.

duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?

This isn't to side with Duendy or of course flaunt something to enrage you further Phlog, however it could be suggested that Consciousness can be perceived a dimension in relationship to "Observer Theory", Where the Observers Consciousness of what they are Observing can be a trace factor to an experiments outcome.

Admittedly it's usually consigned to Chaos Theory, although it's roots are really down to Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty.

As for your Suggestion of it being SI Units, If you care to check:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

You'll find there is no instance of "Space", The area that Mass occupies in space is measured as a "Volume" based upon the constraints of the mass.

My explaination of ZPE wasn't really too well defined for you, I'm NOT suggesting that ZPE IS a unit of measurement, but instead ZPE can be MEASURED BY UNITS of measurement.

My reasoning for including ZPE was to suggest Space without ZPE can not be measured alone, it either needs something in relationship to measure it with (i.e. mass occupying space) or Energy (ZPE quanta).

Styder, measurements of space don't rely on mass. The dimension, 'l' could be how far a photon travels in the dimension 't'. Of course, photons don't have rest mass, but mass is introduced via momentum.

I never suggested 'space' was an SI unit either, I said space could be quantified by SI units. Can't you understand what people post?

As to the rest of your ZPE bullshit, cut it out, it's tiresome drivel. You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.

Styder, measurements of space don't rely on mass. The dimension, 'l' could be how far a photon travels in the dimension 't'. Of course, photons don't have rest mass, but mass is introduced via momentum.

I never suggested 'space' was an SI unit either, I said space could be quantified by SI units. Can't you understand what people post?

As to the rest of your ZPE bullshit, cut it out, it's tiresome drivel. You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.
EVERYthing's to do with the conscious observer ignore-amous!

EVERYthing's to do with the conscious observer ignore-amous!

I disagree. Science tries it's hardest to remove the human element so experiments are repeatable. This thread is about science, not your drug fuelled mumbo jumbo.

I can show you dozens of formulae which do not require even a constant for 'consciousness'.

You cannot show me a single one that does.

You lose.

have you by chance heard of INTERPRETATION?

You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.

My statement wasn't in regards to Schroedingers Cat (Which I believe was just Schroedingers analogy for expressing why he believed atoms to be made up of waveformations, or at the very least a Particle-Waveform duality).

My assertion was about if a Paradox is observed, it can cause a chain of paradoxes. Admittedly all the analogies are Theoretical, however if you were to receive tomorrows newspaper today, and your Obituary was written in it and suggest you would die, you as a conscious observer would attempt to change what ever you did to attribute to your death.

Which in turn would generate a greater paradox, perhaps knowing of your death attributed to it, perhaps you survive, perhaps you don't etc.

The point here is your reaction in such an instance is measurable by the outcome. Again this isn't measured in SI Units in the Analogy, however other scientific areas that deal with such potential paradoxical dilemmas might well do.

I suppose you could state that any instance is a Factor rather than a dimension, but Factor's are usually just mathematical outcomes of dimensional inputs.

Stryder, leave out the BS please.

have you by chance heard of INTERPRETATION?

Yeah, I need an interpreter to decipher your posts often.

duendy might have a point. Not that the quantification is erroneous but our perception may be one-dimensional from observer. Similar to viewing a hypercube only from one angle. But I think this would more apply to complex multidimensional arrays partly because we really don't know how many dimensions really exist or what they might be.

duendy might have a point. Not that the quantification is erroneous but our perception may be one-dimensional from observer. Similar to viewing a hypercube only from one angle. But I think this would more apply to complex multidimensional arrays partly because we really don't know how many dimensions really exist or what they might be.

Blah Blah Blah. Duendy think that the Universe is conscious. It's some hippie concept based in fantasy and hallucination, not fact.

Blah Blah Blah. Duendy think that the Universe is conscious. It's some hippie concept based in fantasy and hallucination, not fact.

oh yeahhh, it all began wid de hippies didn't it mr phlo-he-knows-yu-no??

did it ek. the idea of an alive universe/Nature goes way back. it is called in modern idiom, 'animism' and 'panpsychism'.

you actually my dear, are NOT an authentic scientsts at all, to of course u tink you are. reason being you've alREADY MADEyer mind up! all you know is ridicule, insult, and wallowing in what you think is 'the truth'-----never do you ASK QUESTIONs. cept only inthe safe remit of your cocksuredeness. a sure sign of closed miiind

"It is the spirit of the age to believe that any fact, no matter how suspect, is superior to any imaginative excercise, no matter how true" Gore Vidal

"It is the spirit of the age to believe that any fact, no matter how suspect, is superior to any imaginative excercise, no matter how true" Gore Vidal

How can a 'fact' be 'suspect'. Facts, are facts. Gore Vidal was always an asshole, and it's fitting that chose that quote. A muddled, senseless sentence is your life!

How can a 'fact' be 'suspect'. Facts, are facts. Gore Vidal was always an asshole, and it's fitting that chose that quote. A muddled, senseless sentence is your life!
Gore would use you for atoothpick!
and 'facts' are your downfall. you cant see the reality for the facts, as it were...

There are only facts, duendy.

There are only facts, duendy.
oh, i thought there were trees and clouds, and laughter, and....etc too. what a sorry world you aspire to, wid yur facts facts facts

what were the 'facts' pre-modern physics??

They were still facts. You really are an idiot, duendy.

Anyway, have a real long hard thought about your witty comeback, because I'm off to the Alps for a week, for a bit of skiing. Toodle-pip!

They were still facts. You really are an idiot, duendy.

Anyway, have a real long hard thought about your witty comeback, because I'm off to the Alps for a week, for a bit of skiing. Toodle-pip!
'solid facts' huh? howcome theen some of thephysicists became really disturbed when they found out that realisty was notas they had imagined it to be. and that yet STILL they do not understand quantum reality??
think on that when yer on the piss, tallyho

'solid facts' huh?

Nope, I said 'still facts', so if you are going to quote, do so accurately.

howcome theen some of thephysicists became really disturbed when they found out that realisty was notas they had imagined it to be.

Who? How disturbed?

and that yet STILL they do not understand quantum reality??
think on that when yer on the piss, tallyho

What is 'quantum reality'? A made up non-scientific term, perhaps? Why would a scientist 'understand' a woowoo corruption?

Jesus, you had a week, and this is all you came up with.

Nope, I said 'still facts', so if you are going to quote, do so accurately.

me))))))ahhhchhhh 'still' 'solid' all he same in yur rigid litte closed-system world dudey


Who? How disturbed?

me))))))oh gaaaawd, he oesn't know. here:
"My interest in he change of the worldview in science and society was stimulated when as a young physics student of nineteen I read Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, his classic account of the history and philosophy of quantum physics. This book exerted an enormous influece on me and still does. It is a scholarly work, quite technical at times, but also full of personal and even highly emotional passages. Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum theory and, along with Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, one of the giants of modern physics, describes and analyzes in it the unique dillema encountered by physicists during the first three decades of the century,when they explored the structure of atoms and the nature of subatomic phenomena. This exploration brought them in contact with a strange and unexpected realiy that shattered the foundations of their world view and forced them to think in entirely new ways. The material world they observed no longer appeared as a mchine made up of separate objects, but rather as an indivisible whole: a network of relationships that included the human observer in an essential way. In their struggle to grasp the nature of atomic phenomena, science became painfully aware that their basic concepts, their language, and their whole way of thinking were inadequate to describe this new reality.
In Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg provodes not only a brilliant analysis of the conceptual problms but also a vivid account of the tremendous personal difficulties these physicists faced when their research forced them to expand their consciousness. Their atomic experiments impelled them to think in new categories about te nature of reality, and it was Heisenberg's great achievement to recognize this clearly. ((Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra)


What is 'quantum reality'? A made up non-scientific term, perhaps? Why would a scientist 'understand' a woowoo corruption?

me)))telll me. what exactly do you Do agin??

Jesus, you had a week, and this is all you came up with.
i see the mountain air hasn't cleared out your waxed-up brain...

ahhhchhhh 'still' 'solid' all he same in yur rigid litte closed-system world dudey


Obviously not, or I wouldn't have pulled you up on it!

oh gaaaawd, he oesn't know. here:
"My interest in he change of the worldview in science and society was stimulated when as a young physics student of nineteen I read Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, his classic account of the history and philosophy of quantum physics. This book exerted an enormous influece on me and still does. It is a scholarly work, quite technical at times, but also full of personal and even highly emotional passages. Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum theory and, along with Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, one of the giants of modern physics, describes and analyzes in it the unique dillema encountered by physicists during the first three decades of the century,when they explored the structure of atoms and the nature of subatomic phenomena. This exploration brought them in contact with a strange and unexpected realiy that shattered the foundations of their world view and forced them to think in entirely new ways. The material world they observed no longer appeared as a mchine made up of separate objects, but rather as an indivisible whole: a network of relationships that included the human observer in an essential way. In their struggle to grasp the nature of atomic phenomena, science became painfully aware that their basic concepts, their language, and their whole way of thinking were inadequate to describe this new reality.
In Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg provodes not only a brilliant analysis of the conceptual problms but also a vivid account of the tremendous personal difficulties these physicists faced when their research forced them to expand their consciousness. Their atomic experiments impelled them to think in new categories about te nature of reality, and it was Heisenberg's great achievement to recognize this clearly. ((Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra)



In what way was any of that 'disturbing'? Scientists understand that new research will cause them to re-evaluate their worldview. These guys were privileged enough to be in the middle of a major re-think. It's not disturbing, it's science. Did you transcribe that quote from a dust jacket, btw?


telll me. what exactly do you Do agin??

I debunk woowoos on the internet. I used to be a physicist, and now I work in IT. I have issue with your term 'quantum reality', and am asking you to define what it means to you, because it means nothing to me.

Obviously not, or I wouldn't have pulled you up on it!

me))smartarse


In what way was any of that 'disturbing'? Scientists understand that new research will cause them to re-evaluate their worldview. These guys were privileged enough to be in the middle of a major re-think. It's not disturbing, it's science. Did you transcribe that quote from a dust jacket, btw?

me)smartarse



I debunk woowoos on the internet. I used to be a physicist, and now I work in IT. I have issue with your term 'quantum reality', and am asking you to define what it means to you, because it means nothing to me.
now would i even WASTE ay effort trying t communicate wid a smartarse? what do you think?

I think I'd rather be a smartarse than a dumbarse!

I think I'd rather be a smartarse than a dumbarse!
dont read things so literally elthicko

So duendy, got that definition of 'quantum reality' for me yet?

I think you're a dishonest person about tea, Mr. Phlogistician. You really shouldn't be saying the things you do, yet, there you go, saying those things you do.

Shame on you, Mr. Phlogistician, shame on you.