Posted by: Anonymous

dimensions - 08/02/06 08:52 PM

my theory about dimensions is totally far out. i believe that is if u shot an atom through a sheet of sumthing and had a wall behind it. (i have researched this study) it would appeer different when watched. for example, when u shoot the atom thru the sheet and examine the after aftect on the wall behind it you would see multiple dots on the wall becasue atoms move in waves. Then u shoot another atom thru the sheet while watching it, it changes bak to its original state which is, only one dot on the wall behind it. therefore atoms change while being watched my the human mind causing different dimensions for every different possibiliy that the atoms can change to when not being watched by the human mind.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: dimensions - 08/02/06 10:40 PM

what evidence is there for this
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: dimensions - 08/03/06 03:21 AM

Thank you Melock for your valuable contribution.

Never before was I aware that an atom could tell that one surface was a sheet and another a wall.

I guess you can learn something new every day.

You might wish to read something about the double slit experiment. What you propose does not happen.
Posted by: Andist

Re: dimensions - 09/07/06 03:43 PM

I'm not too great on duality, but I thought it was consisered to be a way of looking at things using the 4 dimensions (including time) which we have.

Extra dimensions might allow for a singular dialectic.
Posted by: jjw

Re: dimensions - 09/09/06 02:04 AM

Hi Melock, welcome.

You broach one of the many areas about which I know nothing. To that extent you are ahead of the game. I hear that in quantum physics it is belived that the results of an experiment can be effected by the presence of an observer. I have not heard how they know the results in the absence of an observer for a comparison!

Your key words in you word experiment appear to be "while watching it" and that may be worth a serious view. Does it boil down that you also feel that we effect things with the application of vision? I do not have a reference at hand but I think some rustic types thought the same so you have a precident to rely on.

Nice. jjw
Posted by: Te Urukehu

Re: dimensions - 09/10/06 07:38 AM

Does not the Theory of Relativity imply that perception is a relative thing. The "observer" will perceive the "observed" differently to how the "observed" will view the "observer." The difference becoming more acute as speeds approach the speed of light.
Posted by: samwik

Re: dimensions - 10/10/06 06:57 PM

I liked your idea, but it's hard to read. Anyway it seems simple enough to test. I think there are ways to measure a single atom as you are suggesting, but actually watching it is beyond our eyes abilities. But the measurement is the important part.
Over the past couple of years, with Einstein's E=mc2 centenary, I thought alot about dimensions. Are you familiar with the new 11 dimensional theories and other multidimensional theories that they are using to generate grand unified theories?
I have wondered if some of these dimensions might actually be such things as thought, intention, love/hate, imagination, gestalt, etc. I think there was an episode of StarTrek:tng where Wesley was exposed to that concept too.
Posted by: jjw

Re: dimensions - 10/20/06 12:43 AM

Topic: Dimensions:

I know there are clever ideas about multiple dimensions but I always wonder why there would be a need for more dimensions than what we live in?

If these speculative dimensions exist and if they overlap our own dimension, what purpose are they intended to serve? What about conservation of energy and matter and gravitational effects of multiple sources of gravity occupying the same space. Or, possibly we should look for these other dimensions adjacent to our own so there are no conflicts with known physics. Possibly each secondary dimension will consist of stuff as far removed from reality as we know as the conception itself is.

My point; What is the motivation for conceiving of multiple dimensions?
Posted by: samwik

Re: dimensions - 10/20/06 05:46 AM

cool re: My point; What is the motivation for conceiving of multiple dimensions? -jjw

Hope I can come close to answering this great question. Basically, and the math is way beyond me, by representing extra dimensions mathmatically, they can model a reality that recreates many of the physical laws and properties of our experience. Already they have concocted several models which claim to explain everything (Grand Unified Theory); but of course if you come up with competing models, then you have to disprove the other and that's where no one can go yet (hard to prove/disprove other dimensions). Usually these models predict other effects or consequences for which they are trying to think of ways to test or detect. It's amazing to see how these models can bring together the 4 forces, particle decay, relativity, space expansion, etc. I think though that Gravity is sometimes not considered a force, but more of an effect of the higher dimensions "leaking through" to our 4-D universe.

Short answer is: extra dimensions help generate unified field theories.
Thanks again,