EPTOn March 07 2011 23:58 LittLeD wrote:
It jumps through time and space, entering a 4th dimension of sort.
It jumps through time and space, entering a 4th dimension of sort.
As a mathematician of sorts, and a theoretical physicist/stoner, I really hate this layman terminology.
If we were making a mathematical statement, we should treat the space/time which we occupy as one dimension, and then refer to the one that the worm passes through as the second dimension.
This "one dimensional space"- our universe, U - is one dimsional because it's basis consists of one element: Spacetime.
basis(U) = {SpaceTime}
This means our universe is representable by linear combinations of space time. This is probably not true, but in our perception and our minds, it appears to be true.
Therefore, the worm enters a 2nd dimension of our universe, which is likely not even related to spacetime.
More "thinkin too deep" discussion:
+ Show Spoiler +
The reason many people call the mysterious unaccessible space the "4th dimension" is due to there being 3 clear dimensions of space as we percieve it. Einstein then introduced the concept of "space-time", where space and time actually represent the same entity, "space-time". This leads to a question: What is the dimension of space time?
Well, the answer is that the question is flawed:
In our perception, space time has 1 dimension of time and 1 dimension of space, and that space has 3 "sub dimensions". Just like a glass of water has a dimension of volume, which is a cumulative measurement of the 3 dimensions of space it occupies.
Perhaps then, one could be led to say that space-time has 2 dimensions, one of space, and one of time.
This seems true at the moment, but I feel that the complexity of quantum mechanics is likely due to space time having many more dimensions of quantities we cannot comprehend, let alone describe mathematically.
The claim that there exists some sort of fourth dimension is simply a result of misinterpretation of the word "dimension".
Right now, I'm internally developing a proof relating Set-Theory to our knowledge about the Universe:
What can an element within a Set deduce about the definition of that Set?
When a Set is defined, is there implicitly elements within the Set's compliment? I find this analogous to matter/anti-matter.
And my most grandiose of all my theories:
Light is the only dimension, the only element, the only particle, the only wave.
Space, what we see, is merely motion and stillness, induced by the existence of Light and matter respectively. Light is the basis of motion through the ethereal background of our universe, while matter is the basis of the opposite. Gravity is an intrinsic property of matter. We cannot perceive light, we can only perceive it's effects on matter. This explains why it seems as though light is affected by gravity. Gravity is, of course, the distortion of the ethereal background of "space-time" caused by matter.
The biggest reason why we perceive light as travelling in one direction is because we progress time in one direction.
Also,
Solid, liquid and gas are 3 states of plasma. Plasma is not a 4th state of matter.
