0
   

11 Dimensions and Cycloptic Vision

 
 
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 05:57 pm
If we could see the way a cyclops could, could we see normally, or would our depth perception be limited?

Is it possible to see beyond 3 diminsions?

The string theorists concocted the notion that there are 11 dimensions all together-the 3 we know and time, and 8 more that were don't see. Still, the string theorists are thinking on planar terms. Suppose there are are dimensions that go beyond that realm of thinking?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,830 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:06 pm
A) Close one of your eyes and find out
B) If you have an eye that extends into the fourth dimension
C) Time is a dimension, so there are only 7 more we don't see.

Another topic, if you think about it, wouldn't a 4 dimensional object would have infinite volume, implying infinite mass, much like a 3 dimensional box has infinite area? Thus, if gravity "leaked" through the dimensions, the box would instantaneously suck everything around it into our dimension. Maybe I just solved an advanced physics problem. On the other hand, probably not.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 08:09 pm
Maybe I'm different, but I see 5 of them.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:22 pm
JGoldman

I raised the issue of connectedness through hidden dimensions some time ago.

Without going underground we may not be certain if two stalks belong to the same or separate plants.
By extropolation all "life forms" might be linked through invisible dimensions. (...resistance is futile !)
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:01 pm
When I said cycloptic vision, I was referring to the fact that cycloptic creatures have eyes that are postioned in the middle of thier face/head. Would their eye be designed and or developed differently?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:28 pm
With more eyes around the head we would simply be expanding our field of view, but we would still only be looking at a 3 dimensional world. Having more eyes doesn't allow us to see more dimensions. It is possible to see 3 dimensions using a single eye if algorithms are used to interpolate based on the data between successive snapshots, as is done by BIRDS.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:37 pm
A compound eye has depth perception, but a single human eye certainly doesn't.
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 12:19 pm
So a cycloptic creature would have a compound eye?

Why is time considered a dimension? I know it's possible to go foward in time, but theorically impossible to go bakcwards.

The string theorists discussed the possibility of two dimensions called branes. Still, is that still thinking in planar terms?
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:50 pm
I believe it's impossible to move forward or backward in time. Assume everything has an x, y, z and coordinate and that there are no further dimensions. This means every point in our universe is uniquely defined by those three numbers in some frame of reference, but if we don't have a t dimension, everything is static and unmoving.
Now, imagine a 2-dimensional universe, and add a third dimension we'll call time. Imagine a triangle that is in a certain place in one moment of time, but all of its points are in a different place in the next. This same thing can be expanded to a three dimensional universe with an extra dimension of time, it's just much harder to visualize.
I hope that makes some sense.
I know hardly anything about the branes though.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 02:43 am
No, unless the eye is composite like a fly's

Yes, unless the above is true or we have other senses that allow the brain to model depth (i.e. its our brain that inverts the eyes image - it's upside down - creates depth amd a dynamic 3d perspective)

Yes if your brain is wired this way, no for most living things I presume - they live in the moment and can't hope to see the incredibly small.
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 05:21 pm
If we had an eye like a cyclops, would that overwork our brain?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 12:48 am
GDay, you gave 3 yes/no answers but what are the questions?

DrewDad,

a single eye does not "see" depth perception, but neither does an eye "see" without a brain. Using a brain, and a single eye, it is easy to calculate depth like I already explained.

The field of vision between eyeballs on a bird, for instance, overlap only slightly yet they can individually use either eye and have depth perception.

If you record the image taken by one eye, move the eye a precise amount (fast jerky head motion required like that of a chicken) you can take another snapshot with the same eye and use the composite data to generate depth perception using the brain.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 12:53 am
JGoldman,

JGoldman, human cyclops do not develop the ability to have depth perception because our visual cortex isn't wired for it.

So no, this doesn't overwork the brain.

It also depends at what age the person loses the other eye. If they lose one eye very early after birth, their visual cortex will develop fully to cater to the single eye...patterns of ocular dominance form in the visual cortex using cellular automata much like that of zebra stripes, so a zebra-striped pattern in the cortex would remain unused.

i believe that there is also evidence to show that some of the neurons in the visual cortex area might switch over to being used by the other eye, or even start helping with audio interpretation
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 04:54 pm
The 3 questions where JGoldman's - a reply just snuck in before I pressed submit!
0 Replies
 
crayon851
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:52 am
How does a 3 dimensional box have infinite area? i dont understand...can you please explain this to me? And i thin khaving 11 dimensions is possible since there is so much we dont know, and for example ghosts and the after life if it really exists is possibly another dimension as well as limbo is also a dimension and ithink space is a dimension
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 07:54 am
Its easily possible to have a object with finite volume and infinite surface area or indeed.

This all stems from the question how long is England's coast line? Answer = infinite, becuase at the atomic level its very rough so you are measuring a fractal, which has infinite, detail.

Imagine two infinite symbols placed against each other. The surface area will be finite if the curve is say z = 1/abs|x^2 * y| but the volume is finite, and rather small.

A box with a fractal surface pattern will have finite volume and infinite surface area too.
0 Replies
 
crayon851
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:53 pm
Did they just right englands coastline as infinite because they were too lazy to tabulate and calculate everything?

Cany ou exlpain what you said in simpler terms ? please ? Im really really really really dumb you know, I lack knowledge of england and so yeah please ?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:32 pm
Sure, it goes like this.

Lets say you look at a box that is 1 m square and someone hands you a 1 metre ruler and asks you its circumference. You measure it and say 4 metres.

Easy huh?

Now take the same box and a large magnifying glass and look more closely. The box is wood and largely gouged and badly sanded. Someone gives you a micrometer capable of measuring down to a thousandth of a millimetre. So you re-measure taking into account the extra length provided by the valleys and troughs and you get a surprising 4.25 metres!

Well amazing, but now someone gives you an even better electron tunneling mircoscope able to discern down to 10 ^ -18 metres and after a few years you have a better feel of the surface topology and find at this level of measurement the box is on average 5.7 metres around!

But before you're retirement you get a quantum level measuring tape, suddenly you are measuring at or below an atomic level slightly below electron size but well above quark size. Now even a mirror flat surface looks like the Himelayas, suddenly the circumference looks like 34.6 metres! Wow!

But you wonder does this limit figure stablise or get worse as your unit of measure approaches infinite accuracy? This goes towards asking at a quantum level how rough and ill-defined (uncertain) are the edges of anything.

Well as you get down to the quark level, and well, well below, what to a quantum ruler looked like the Himelayas now looks like a trip to Pluto and back only much larger at every step of the journey!

The answer is the edge is so fuzzy at this level of reality it distils down to measuring the surface area or circumference of a fractal and the limit on circumference goes to infinity!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 11 Dimensions and Cycloptic Vision
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 03:36:46