2D beings and 4D beings

Ideas about how a world with more than three spatial dimensions would work - what laws of physics would be needed, how things would be built, how people would do things and so on.

Do you think 4D being and 2D being actually exist?

Poll ended at Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:37 pm

Yes
2
29%
No
5
71%
 
Total votes : 7

2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Nothingness Forever » Tue May 08, 2007 7:37 pm

I've noticed that a lot of the time you are talking about 4D beings and how to get through to them, and other topics like resources being recieved by them, but how do you know there are living things in the fourth dimension and 3D is not where only living beings are?

To go along with this, much like 4D beings, which we can't see, there are 2D "beings" which we should be able to observe? right? Where are the 2D beings? how come we can't see them (if they do exist)?

BTW I'm pretty sure that Fred and Emily (2D and 4D) are just examples to get the concept of dimensions.
If I could read your mind, would you feel a disturbance in your thoughts?
User avatar
Nothingness Forever
Nullonian
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 12:17 am
Location: My desk, my room, my house

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Keiji » Tue May 08, 2007 10:34 pm

Nothingness Forever wrote:how do you know there are living things in the fourth dimension and 3D is not where only living beings are?


We don't. The idea is, we speculate here, throwing out all realism.

BTW I'm pretty sure that Fred and Emily (2D and 4D) are just examples to get the concept of dimensions.


Yeah, that kinda was the point.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby Nick » Wed May 09, 2007 1:26 am

That depends.

The idea of higher dimensions are being considered by theoretical physicists. Mainly because the idea explains dark matter and dark energy, and because String theory and Superstring theory require higher dimensions. There is little evidence for or against the idea.

"Beings" can be misinterpreted. If you refer to single celled organisms, then it may be possible for them to exist in higher dimensions. If you are referring to multi-cellular intelligent species', then that is more unlikely than likely.

Overall, I choose "no", but that's only because I'm skeptical in nature.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby bo198214 » Wed May 09, 2007 8:04 am

Nick wrote:The idea of higher dimensions are being considered by theoretical physicists.

Absolutely not! Physicists consider additional curled up dimensions and time dimensions. This has nothing to do with the 4th (or higher) spatial/geometric dimension which we consider to behave equal to our already known 3 dimensions (for example in the geometry section).

"Beings" can be misinterpreted. If you refer to single celled organisms, then it may be possible for them to exist in higher dimensions. If you are referring to multi-cellular intelligent species', then that is more unlikely than likely.


Hello Nick! We dont talk about life on Mars!
We have already seen that physics would be quite different in 4 dimensions (for example no stable planetary orbits and no stable atoms).
So how the hell can you make assertions about cellularity of life in higher dimensions?!
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby headcircus » Mon May 14, 2007 4:49 am

Nothingness Forever wrote:I've noticed that a lot of the time you are talking about 4D beings and how to get through to them, and other topics like resources being recieved by them, but how do you know there are living things in the fourth dimension and 3D is not where only living beings are?

To go along with this, much like 4D beings, which we can't see, there are 2D "beings" which we should be able to observe? right? Where are the 2D beings? how come we can't see them (if they do exist)?

BTW I'm pretty sure that Fred and Emily (2D and 4D) are just examples to get the concept of dimensions.


I don't mean to "bill clinton" your answer but it depends on what "is is". Or, it depends on what you mean by "being". One of my ideas is that all dimensions are already represented for all objects. But you only see what god set out for you, and that would be 3 for us.

So you cant see a "2d" being because every time you look at a 3d being, you are seeing all the 2d instances of that being rolled up into one, without time being a factor, aka, "instantaneous collapsing".

You would have to peel back the 3rd dimension to see a 2d being, and even then you are only seeing a 3d being with one dimension removed. To see a 2d being as you are describing would be to have a limitation of 2 dimensions in your eyeballs and brain, and we don't. Essentially, you would have to be not a human being, or at least en entity that has a limitation of 2 (the poor things)

But I never met a dimensionally-challenged being I didn't like, I know that.
The avatar is an 11-cell (hendecachoron) (Computer model courtesy of Carlo Sequin, UC Berkeley, styled by Jaron Lanier)
User avatar
headcircus
Mononian
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 4:36 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby ossium70 » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:28 am

I don't believe in beings existing just in a 2D or 4D plane, as I said in a previous post, http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/vi ... 2923#12923 .

Everyone analyzing all these dimensions are not looking at the bigger picture. There is one dimension that consists of every possible direction or dimensions. But due to our logic, we divide it up into a first, second and third dimension, and then try to understand these higher like the fourth, fifth dimensions etc. I do believe that these exist and that our knowledge and awareness of them will slowly unfold as our understanding of the universe progresses.

Fixed your spelling and grammar again. ~Keiji
ossium70
Mononian
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 5:47 am

Postby blazes816 » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:28 pm

I don't, as I believe that anything and everything are all the same number of dimintions. Weather that's 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765....etc, or anything inbetween.
blazes816
Mononian
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:12 am

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby papernuke » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:43 am

Nothingness Forever wrote:To go along with this, much like 4D beings, which we can't see, there are 2D "beings" which we should be able to observe? right? Where are the 2D beings? how come we can't see them (if they do exist)?


Yea but just because you cant see them in your (our) universe dosent mean they dont exist. i mean they can exist in a paralell universe, exept that the universe is 2D or 4D or YD (y is a variable).
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby itzclay » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:07 am

Surely by now people must realize the dimensions are merely perspectives, and you therefore not only exist in the 3rd dimension, but all dimensions.
itzclay
Mononian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:23 am

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby prime » Mon May 19, 2008 10:40 am

Well this is my 3rd post and i hav just registered yesterday..I think that the theory of the 4th dimension can solve the mystery of the existance of parallel worlds.As in 3d space,,,there are infinite no of 2d worlds(planes),and similarly in 4d ..
there are infinite no of 3d spaces(or 3d worlds)...So ther can exist other 3d worlds just like ours..
prime
Mononian
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 4:02 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby prime » Mon May 19, 2008 10:42 am

about 4d and 2d beings...........the question is that why cannot we see the 2d beings if they exist...There should be no 2d world hidden outside the 3d space...All 2d worlds should be present in 3d space and similarly all the 3d worlds should be included in 4d space i.e.4d space should contain all 3d worlds.then we should be able to see atleast 3d projections of 4d beings...
prime
Mononian
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 4:02 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby papernuke » Sun May 25, 2008 4:32 am

I do beleive that 4D and 2D beings exist, but i also belelive that they are on a seperate plane of existance from ours,
so we can't do anything to them, or them to us.
For example, i beleive that the 4D beings live on a paralell universe, and cannot access us in any way.
I think that's true for us and the 2D beings also.
i mean, if there we are in a universe with three spatial dimensions, then why can't there be universes with only 1 or 2, or 4 or 5 dimensions?
only their universes are paralell to ours.
if a 2D universe was housed in our universe, however, then their universe would almost immediately blow up. that is because they are a plane.
in our dimension, a plane has no breadth, so it is infinitly sharp on it's edges. So, when an object, or atom passes through it, it will have split the atom.
then, the atom would cause a nuclear explosion.


P.S. got a new laptop :D
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Keiji » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:35 pm

Even if a 2D universe /was/ physically inside ours, we wouldn't be able to see or interact with it at all, due to Planck reasons as it's infinitely thin.

If it was outside ours, then we obviously wouldn't be able to anyway.

On the flip side, a higher dimensional universe couldn't interact with ours either for the same reason.

Infinitely many other universes however probably exist, for the same reason as this one, whatever that reason is, and there's nothing stopping them having different numbers of dimensions. We just cannot ever interact with or observe them.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby papernuke » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:34 pm

Hayate wrote:Even if a 2D universe /was/ physically inside ours, we wouldn't be able to see or interact with it at all, due to Planck reasons as it's infinitely thin.

When you say that, do you mean that a 2D universe has a thickness of planck length?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Keiji » Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:05 pm

No, it has a thickness of zero, which is less than Planck length.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Rkyeun » Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:55 pm

We can't touch dimensions less than ours because they don't have a Planck thickness for us to grab. Every cross-section of us that passes through their plane has zero realm-mass and zero realm-force and cannot exert any realm-like effect. Maybe we have plane-mass or plane-force there by virtue of their universe's physics, but we'll never know it because they can't emit any realm-photon back to tell us and even if they had an infinite planespace energy weapon to laser us to death with it would hit exactly zero of us.

The same might not be true of a 4D world. Their physics might not have a Planck thickness problem in the same sense that we have, and so they can craft objects of zero bulk. They then interact with us using that construct in ways we can both perceive, and carefully they request us to stop accidentally stirring their little brother's planespace universe through multiple big bangs which we cannot perceive. Hopefully they provide us with some kind of monitor so we can avoid it. Hopefully they don't just reach into our skulls and stir our brains from the middle.

Filled in your missing word ~Keiji
Rkyeun
Dionian
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby anderscolingustafson » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:48 pm

I think there have to be parallel universes including the ones with a different number of dimensions than ours in order for uncertainty to exist, the universe split creating a universe for every number of dimensions. I also believe there is a universe for every outcome so of curse there's a universe for the outcome of 2d/4d beings.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
anderscolingustafson
Tetronian
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby PWrong » Fri May 07, 2010 9:23 am

I think there have to be parallel universes including the ones with a different number of dimensions than ours in order for uncertainty to exist, the universe split creating a universe for every number of dimensions.


The multiverse idea is plausible, but what makes you think it has to be true? Why couldn't there be just one universe, or even a small finite number of universes?

I also believe there is a universe for every outcome so of curse there's a universe for the outcome of 2d/4d beings.

Unless it's impossible for life to exist in a 2D or 4D world. 2D might not have enough complexity to get interesting replicators, and we've proven on this forum that neither solar systems nor atoms can be stable in 4D. Inverse cube laws don't lead to simple harmonic motion, which is bad news for 4D life.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby anderscolingustafson » Wed May 12, 2010 2:36 pm

The multiverse idea is plausible, but what makes you think it has to be true? Why couldn't there be just one universe, or even a small finite number of universes?


The multiverse idea has to be true because the universe is asymmetric showing that things cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, and there must be many universes averaged together to get symmetry. The only 2 ways to have symmetry are to have a large or perhaps infinite number of universes or to have no universe at all.

Unless it's impossible for life to exist in a 2D or 4D world.


There would be an enormous number possibly even an infinite number of sets of physical laws a 2d/4d universe could have so even life would be impossible in some 2d/4d universes there would be an enormous number of other 2d/4d universes that would have the laws of physics and chemistry just right for life to exist.

2D might not have enough complexity to get interesting replicators, and we've proven on this forum that neither solar systems nor atoms can be stable in 4D. Inverse cube laws don't lead to simple harmonic motion, which is bad news for 4D life.


I believe I read the thread about solar systems being unstable in 4d and it said planets would be unstable unless they were extremely close to their star, which would imply that gravity is week because of having one more dimension to travel through. This is not necessarily true however because that fact would be counteracted by the fact that more mass than our entire universe has could fit into a single 4d planet. So I still believe 2d and 4d life exist in parallel universes.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
anderscolingustafson
Tetronian
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Keiji » Wed May 12, 2010 6:49 pm

anderscolingustafson wrote:The multiverse idea has to be true because the universe is asymmetric showing that things cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, and there must be many universes averaged together to get symmetry. The only 2 ways to have symmetry are to have a large or perhaps infinite number of universes or to have no universe at all.


What makes you think symmetry is a necessity?

anderscolingustafson wrote:There would be an enormous number possibly even an infinite number of sets of physical laws a 2d/4d universe could have so even life would be impossible in some 2d/4d universes there would be an enormous number of other 2d/4d universes that would have the laws of physics and chemistry just right for life to exist.


The problem with 2d life is simply that the complexity required for life simply cannot happen. As for 4D, physics would have to be radically different in order to come up with a set of laws of physics which were consistent and supported life.

I believe I read the thread about solar systems being unstable in 4d and it said planets would be unstable unless they were extremely close to their star, which would imply that gravity is week because of having one more dimension to travel through. This is not necessarily true however because that fact would be counteracted by the fact that more mass than our entire universe has could fit into a single 4d planet. So I still believe 2d and 4d life exist in parallel universes.


Mass affects nothing but the optimal distance from the star. In 3D, moving a planet further away from or closer towards its star only slows down or speeds up its orbit (respectively). In 4D, a planet would have to be at the perfect distance from the star. If it was any closer, it would spiral towards and be devoured by the star; if it was further away, it would spiral away from the star (and most likely towards some other demise). The mass would only affect how far out the perfect distance was; it would not make it any more likely to not lose control.

Now a universe which behaved like a cellular automaton could easily exist in any dimension >= 2 and support life, but we aren't talking about that...
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby anderscolingustafson » Fri May 14, 2010 3:33 pm

What makes you think symmetry is a necessity?


Because the multiverse would become unstable without it.

The problem with 2d life is simply that the complexity required for life simply cannot happen.


A 2d universes lack of complexity would make it difficult for life but it is still complex enough for life to get around that. For instance life might use "zippers" that open in close to prevent the organism from falling apart as one of the threads in the practical effects forum says. I personally believe that only a one dimensional universe is to simple for life.

As for 4D, physics would have to be radically different in order to come up with a set of laws of physics which were consistent and supported life.


True but there would be a universe for every possible set of physical laws so no matter how low the chances would be of any individual 4d universe having the necessary laws of physics to support life there would be so many of them that at least a tiny fraction of them could.

Mass affects nothing but the optimal distance from the star. In 3D, moving a planet further away from or closer towards its star only slows down or speeds up its orbit (respectively). In 4D, a planet would have to be at the perfect distance from the star. If it was any closer, it would spiral towards and be devoured by the star; if it was further away, it would spiral away from the star (and most likely towards some other demise). The mass would only affect how far out the perfect distance was; it would not make it any more likely to not lose control.


If mass does not stabilize the planet, another thing that could potentially stabilize a planet could be that even though the gravity decreases far faster with distance in 4d than in 3d a 4d planet might be able to be stable at a wider range of amounts of gravity due to the extra dimension. A planet in 4d might still orbit were the gravity would be so week that a 3d planet would be unaffected by the amount of gravity because the planet would have so much more surface volume to "detect" the gravity. On the opposite end a planet could get to were the number of times stronger the gravity would be than for the farthest 4d planet would be far greater than the number of times stronger the gravity would be for the nearest 3d planets than for the farthest 3d planets because of how week the gravity would be in fact.

Another thing that might stabilize a 4d planet could be having a spherical orbit rather than a circular orbit like our planet has because of the extra dimension that a sphere has. It might also spin in a spherical shape since that might be more stable for it. So perhaps instead of all planets orbiting in the same plane like the planets of our solar system do perhaps the planets of a 4d solar system might orbit in the same realm since that's more stable for them. Perhaps stabilizing the orbits of 4d planets is as simple as adding another dimension to their orbits just as they would have a dimension added to themselves.
EDIT: ended quote for the word "detect"
Last edited by anderscolingustafson on Mon May 17, 2010 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
anderscolingustafson
Tetronian
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby PWrong » Sun May 16, 2010 10:44 am

Another thing that might stabilize a 4d planet could be having a spherical orbit rather than a circular orbit like our planet has because of the extra dimension that a sphere has. It might also spin in a spherical shape since that might be more stable for it. So perhaps instead of all planets orbiting in the same plane like the planets of our solar system do perhaps the planets of a 4d solar system might orbit in the same realm since that's more stable for them. Perhaps stabilizing the orbits of 4d planets is as simple as adding another dimension to their orbits just as they would have a dimension added to themselves.


In a system with two objects, orbits always happen in a plane. You've got the vector from A to B, and the vector of B's velocity from A's point of view. These vectors span a plane, and the forces are always confined to that plane. So there's nothing to cause either object to leave that plane. You might find some stable orbits with three bodies, but it's unlikely because the 3 body problem in 3D is not just unstable but chaotic. I don't know what you mean by a spherical orbit, orbits are always curves when time is 1-dimensional.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby PWrong » Sun May 16, 2010 10:46 am

the planet would have so much more surface volume to "detect the gravity

That's not how gravity works.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby anderscolingustafson » Mon May 17, 2010 9:50 pm

I don't know what you mean by a spherical orbit, orbits are always curves when time is 1-dimensional.


What I mean by a spherical orbit is basically an orbit in, which the planet is not were it started it's orbit even after it has gone the distance to complete a circular orbit because it is in a different plane from the plane it started in and each sub orbit is in a slightly different plane from the last and it will keep going through all the different sub orbits until it reaches the first orbit. One analog to this is a twisted up rubber band because the rubber band is a circle yet when twisted up it becomes like a sphere.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
anderscolingustafson
Tetronian
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby anderscolingustafson » Mon May 17, 2010 10:56 pm

PWrong wrote:
the planet would have so much more surface volume to "detect the gravity

That's not how gravity works.


I must have forgotten to end the quotes around the word "detect", but I went back and edited my post and ended the quotes around the word detect.

What I actually meant was that the larger surface volume would make it easier for a 4d planet to get caught in one of the warps in space time, because there would be more surface volume to get caught.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
anderscolingustafson
Tetronian
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby A_Square » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:59 pm

I think it's totally possible that we (3D beings) are just like pond skaters.. completely unaware of anything beyond our slice of the universe.

Image
User avatar
A_Square
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Halfbaker » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:09 am

Keiji wrote:No, it has a thickness of zero, which is less than Planck length.


You misunderstand. The two can be said to be one & the same due to the uncertainty principle. It is also incorrect to say that we couldn't interact with an object of zero thickness. Particles are traditionally said to be of zero dimensions and strings are supposed to be one dimensional, but we can't interact with something two dimensional?
Halfbaker
Dionian
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:15 am

Re: 2D beings and 4D beings

Postby Mrrl » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:34 pm

Life in 2D can exist in form of clouds of communicating centers, or blobs of liquid, or so on - not solid bodies. Than there may be enough freedom for complexity of objects.
Example of 5D universe is described in Greg Egan's "Diaspora". Life in that universe exists on islands floating on star surface (star is cool enough), and electrons in atoms are also "floating" inside the nucleus - so they don't need stable orbits.
Mrrl
Trionian
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:37 am


Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron