/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2046513]

Often times I find myself thinking about the nature of the universe when I'm at work, since there is really nothing better to zone out to, and I feel like I had an interesting thought inspired by Carl Sagan.

I remembered an episode where he was talking about the nature of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dimensions, and how they'd interact with each other.

At one point he demonstrates that when shadows project themselves, the shadow loses a dimension. In the case of a three-dimensional object casting a shadow, it's two-dimension; it has a length and a width, but no discernable depth.

From there, I thought about the "Flatlanders," scenario. What would it be like to be a Flatlander in the event that a three-dimensional object casts a shadow. The shadow, being two-dimensional, would be at the very least observable, but otherwise, there would be no way to interact with it, since, as a shadow, it has no substance.

Then I started thinking about the shadow of a fourth dimensional object.

If it worked the same way, wouldn't we see a "Three-dimensional shadow" of a fourth dimensional object? Would we not percieve the shadow as an object with mass?

Then I started thinking about dark matter.

TL;DR: Could dark matter be the shadow of a fourth dimensional object?

[Anonymous No.2046519]

It could be, but I hope not, as that would sort of preclude practical applications. It would put off mankind's harnessing of dark matter for another century or two at least.

[Anonymous No.2046524]

shadows are not two dimensional objects, they are a optical effect of light occlusion

[Anonymous No.2046526]

>>2046524
That's what I'm getting at. A two-dimensional creature can't interact with a shadow because it isn't an object, but they would know that it's there in one way or another.

In a way, this is similar to our understanding of Dark Matter. We know it's there, but we can't see it, interact with it, or even measure it, much like a shadow.

[Anonymous No.2046527]

Only if this four-dimensional object was made of dark matter to begin with.

When Carl Sagan put the apple into Flatland, if the Flatlanders were capable of it, they would see a segment of an apple appear that would hold all the properties that a full apple would, except it's only a segment of it.

If a four-dimensional bowl of chicken noodle soup were to manifest itself we would have a three-dimensional bowl of chicken noodle soup, albeit with unusual physical properties, most likely shape. As such, dark matter could very well maintain itself dominantly in the fourth dimension, but it's properties would be the same there as we observe them here.

[Anonymous No.2046533]

does light have dimension?

[Anonymous No.2046541]

>>2046533

>Light as a dimension

[Anonymous No.2046543]

>>2046533

[Anonymous No.2046544]

>>2046541

I read something once about light being 5th dimensional vibrations... where the fuck was that at...

[Anonymous No.2046548]

>>2046541
This post made me laugh more than it should have.
Like you're suddenly struck by the brilliance of the statement and are on the edge of your seat in anticipation.

[dolan !Uq56cE.45s No.2046549]

>>2046544
>string theory

[Anonymous No.2046551]

>>2046548

Pretty much, man.

[Anonymous No.2048246]

Interesting setup. I doubt dark matter exists, but shadows of higher dimension objects is an interesting idea. Wouldn't the shadow be the result of "immersing" a higher dimensional object in a lower dimensional space? Like a Klein bottle in 3D.

[Anonymous No.2048279]

>>2048246

>doubts dark matter exists
>scientific models that show that it must exist

You're either dumb or trolling.

[Anonymous No.2048288]

yesterday called, they want their thread back

[Anonymous No.2048401]

>>2048279
Appropriately skeptical of an alternative explanation for an unsolved problem in astrophysics. Dark matter is a widely accepted theory, but it has not been directly demonstrated in any lab on Earth. There exist acceptable alternatives which do not require the multiplication of entities.

As far as I am concerned, the logical necessity of dark matter has been obviated by MOND. It is the simpler of two alternative theories that still accounts for the anomalous data.

Models can show any number of things. It doesn't mean they are right nor does widespread acceptance by any group of people. The proper qualification is "in some scientific models..." as not all models outstanding logically necessitate dark matter.

[Anonymous No.2048407]

>>2046519
It is perfectly possible to travel through time and the fact that everyone is SO FUCKING CLOSE to figuring that out is giving me the most enormous case of blue balls in recorded history.

[Anonymous No.2048416]

>>2048279
>doesn't understand how we know dark matter exists himself
>mocks others for questioning it

[Anonymous No.2048430]

>>2048401

No, MOND is entirely ad hoc and does not explain phenomena such as the bullet cluster. Dark matter in the form of heavy, cold, non baryonic particles explains all of the observables and is predicted independently by the standard model (neutralinos from supersymmetry)

[Anonymous No.2048438]

>>2048430
Most of that was right, but neutralinos and supersymmetry are not a part of the Standard Model; they are part of a hypothetical, untested extension to it (the MSSM) motivated by the hierarchy problem and other issues.

[Anonymous No.2048466]

>>2048430
I rejected string theory on similar grounds plus the falsifiability criterion. String theory is not even in principle testable. It is a deductive theory which is true by definition if we accept it's axioms.

[Anonymous No.2048627]

>>2048466
WTF? No one is saying the MSSM is right or wrong, just that it hasn't been tested yet. You don't reject theories until you do the experiments to test them. And the MSSM is much closer to being tested (already much of the parameter space is ruled out, so technically it's the MSSM with specific models of SUSY breaking that are interesting) than string theory, but neither are in principle untestable.

[Anonymous No.2048798]

>>2048627
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy

I eat my words. I was of the impression that string theory had been shown to be non-falsifiable.