next »

[fox]

A fascinating video that tries to help our 3-dimensional minds understand what the tenth dimension might look like. Pretty trippy!

i got confused as to why the ant didnt fall off the newspaper. But also the girls on the top of the page were distracting me too.

http://www.geekarmy.com/science/1626/the-tenth-dimension/

[Day Dreamer]

I was okay with it until the 7th dimention. It said assume that all the infinate possible endings for the universe to be a single point. Hell of an assumption.

Intriguing

[fox]

I was okay with it until the 7th dimention. It said assume that all the infinate possible endings for the universe to be a single point. Hell of an assumption.

Intriguing

yeah, it all gets a bit baffling like i remember things to the power of multiplied again and again, it just gets too big to comprehend.

I kind of think of it like we have finite minds so how can we understand things beyond our capacities, isnt it enough just to be in awe of it. A bit like space, its bloody huge and we cant really understand it, but i suppose its fun to try to. and of course there are degrees of capacity in people. It must be incredibly humbling to realise and understand something great because you can then appreciate how much you actually dont know.
in the meantime im content to be the happy fool. 

[mlaeux]

I had to digest the information in "chunks." It was too much for me to absorb in one sitting.

[kitano]

too early in the morning

i think i need to read up on that, i don't understand why subatomic particles collapse dimensions by being observed, that seemed like a weak way to add an extra dimension

i might do a class on that

[Mr Nobody]

Um, they are mixing Einsteinian dimensions with Euclidian dimensions. Or perhaps not differentiating between them. Nice set of analogies, but a bit misleading.

Then they put in the Copenhagen interpretion of multiple worlds (shrodinger's cat idea) which is largely discredited for very good reason. Shrodeinger suggested it as a kind of joke.

I guess as a metaphor it's good. But it is so oversimplified that perhaps it's losing the plot.

It's not big, it's quite simple. We use multiple dimensions all the time.

It's jist a graph, with many axes, rather than 2-3. ( I nearly said only 3 or 4, which goes to show) Time is an Einsteinian dimension, but simple measurements are Euclidian.

For example, a plant is growing at some place. This point can be divided into 3 dimensions easily. but then there is the fact that this reference frame is moving throughout the universe, at a certain rate. That's Einsteinian.

Then, the plant is growing due to things like nutrients in the soil, water levels, soil constituents and so on. That's Euclidian.

Dimensions are simply measurements. Hard to visualize, perhaps, but the concept isn't that complicated.Used to regularly use 10-15 dimensions for description of phase space.

And I am just a biologist. Phsycists get more experience at this.

[Invictus]

Great share! Man, I love stuff like this.

Now...all I have to do is step into the fifth dimension, fold it, and I step into a new time line where I am already teaching in China, my students love me, the administration thinks I'm awesome, I am housed in a penthouse, get paid 20,000 yuan a month plus a harem and complementary monthly supply of Viagra from the head of the province—oh! oh! and I have a guest spot of honor every Sunday night on the local news channel, where I expound upon the wisdom of my laowainess.

@Mr. Nobody: You're not the first to notice a lack of consistency and mixing of ideas. The author, Rob Bryanston, is not a scientist but a musician and his book upon which the video is based, Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way of Thinking About Time and Space, actually falls more in the category of self-help motivational books (The Secret et al) than hard science. Which is okay, 'cause I like books like Bryanston's. They can indeed by enlightening as well as entertaining as long as one doesn't run off with them and start preaching them as gospel—then one becomes a weirdo and the object of the neighbourhood children's snickering.

Here is an interesting negative review (as well as an equally interesting response directly below it) of the book:

Reader Review @ Amazon

[kitano]

on a sort of related note

http://htwins.net/scale/

[Con ate dog]

Very cool.  I need to look into these titles.  I feel very strongly that the future of education will be radically different: using multimedia, learning will be faster and easier.  It's already started, in fact: the ecosystem of the Sarangeti (sp?), lions, hyenas, antelope, elephants, we know tons about that, despite never having taken it in school.  TV taught us.  Similarly, most of what the average Joe (read: me) knows about theoretical physics comes from science fiction, scoff as that "A Student" dude will.

These folks who explain shit in plain English are a boon to mankind.  I'll keep an eye out for the books the various commentators mentioned.  In fact, we should alert each other to these.  I'll start:

Philosophy: Sophie's World, Everything I Need To Know I Learned From TV.  The former tells the story of the evolution of philosophy throughout history, in a digestible, tasty prose; this guy explains it all better than most of the thinkers ever did.  The latter book discusses Modernity by using popular TV shows; sounds trite, but it's amazing.

[kitano]

Very cool.  I need to look into these titles.  I feel very strongly that the future of education will be radically different: using multimedia, learning will be faster and easier.  It's already started, in fact: the ecosystem of the Sarangeti (sp?), lions, hyenas, antelope, elephants, we know tons about that, despite never having taken it in school.  TV taught us.  Similarly, most of what the average Joe (read: me) knows about theoretical physics comes from science fiction, scoff as that "A Student" dude will.

These folks who explain shit in plain English are a boon to mankind.  I'll keep an eye out for the books the various commentators mentioned.  In fact, we should alert each other to these.  I'll start:

Philosophy: Sophie's World, Everything I Need To Know I Learned From TV.  The former tells the story of the evolution of philosophy throughout history, in a digestible, tasty prose; this guy explains it all better than most of the thinkers ever did.  The latter book discusses Modernity by using popular TV shows; sounds trite, but it's amazing.

i'm convinced that iPad or the next thing after iPad will replace markers etc for teachers

imagine how much time you could save explaining concepts if you had images and charts etc at your fingertips

[Tai_Li]

That was really interesting. I've always wanted to get into String Theory, but I have basically no math skills, so I'd end up drooling and hitting myself in the head with blunt objects later on. But yeah, thanks for the link.

[Damballah]

Very cool.  I need to look into these titles.  I feel very strongly that the future of education will be radically different: using multimedia, learning will be faster and easier.  It's already started, in fact: the ecosystem of the Sarangeti (sp?), lions, hyenas, antelope, elephants, we know tons about that, despite never having taken it in school.  TV taught us. 

And the problem with TV is that it doesn't teach you about the 'real' Serengeti - spelling and all.  So... what is education about?

The same forecasts were made about so many innovations - and yet, being able to work one-to-one with students is still the most effectie teaching method. 

Powerpoint is a prime example. for those of you who love PP presentations it might be worth looking at this.  http://www.schmedlap.com/Archive.aspx