Scientists have already proven that certain subatomic particles can flit into and out of existence. Without other dimentions, where do you suppose they come from?

I have no idea... but nor do you. No thats not true... you may know, but have not been able to convey this.
If sub atomic particles appear to zip in and out of existence I have not the faintest idea what is actually happening here. I am not going to be drawn in to the idea of dimensional shifting as I know not of such other dimensions. I challenge the very idea of such. We do not know all of the facts in this case and would be foolish to leap to any definite conclusion. The jury is still out.

For the most part, you are right.

In your lack of knowledge (No insult intended) on the subject, it would, indeed, be foolish to jump to conclusions.

Theoretical physics is the most fascinating, because it gives us room to speculate and wonder a bit.

However, simply handwaiving it away is foolish too.

I also lack knowledge on the subject and would need to continue studying for quite a while before I could make a serious attempt at conveying it to you.
So Astromark, it seems there lies a choice:

To study up and read and see whether or not you are missing something.

Or to handwaive it away dismissively.

But claiming that you are familiar with three dimensions only, so any other dimensions must be utter rubbish- Is not scientific by any means. It is dismissive, lacks scientific curiosity and is also pompous.

Right now we have clues. Some evidence, but a lot of clues. Particles flitting in and out of space time is a clue. Let's figure out what those clues mean. Follow the bread crumbs and see where it leads.

Yes I except that as its meant... I do want to know more about this subject. You obviously understand me well enough. I will give away the pompous attitude and except that I do not know any where near enough of this to argue about it. Common sense must prevail however. I see a lot of this as non scientific fiction. I have not yet been convinced by anything yet said regarding outside of this universe being in a state we could call real. I have the thought that anything beyond the expanding universe does not yet exist. You already know how I feel about other dimensions. Thanks for your tolerance. If you come across information that might alter my 3d view do not hesitate to private mail me., or post it in here. mark.

I'd like to post it here. Simply put, I'm pretty ignorant about it too.

After reading Michio Kaku's Hyperspace book, I only found myself thirsty for more.

presumeably out of existance doesn't mean they have to exist somewhere when not apparent in our universe... like clouds they could be a local manifestation of the energies/matter/strings of our universe.

__________________
plenty of woo, at the hotel hoagaland...

I was also thinking of a misconception:

In science fiction, fiction and fantasy- Dimensions are referred to as "Alternate Dimensions" where people look like us but have purple hair and tiny elephants that fly and such.
"Alternate Universes" take on this role too- including realities that are exactly like ours- but opposite of ours. Or they all have a Goatee.

I do find these concepts rubbish in the extreme.

However, the dimensions we refer to here in this thread is the scientific definition- not the Sci Fi one.

Dimensions in our own reality.

Time is considered a dimension. We do not three dimensionally percieve it- nor do things flit in and out of it.

Dimension refers to an extension of state- not another reality.


ETA: Rubbish in the extreme because of accountable production of events. In order for an alternate universe to have evolved an Earth and humans and the like- would be the same as saying that the bacteria living on my skin is actually little humans building cities- but they are so tiny I canont see that.

Without an inherent reproducing effect- evolution will not magically copy- or reproduce an event or a creature- outside of the framework in which that event or creature evolved.

Not quite.

Clouds change state and appearance, but the matter and energies involved are all observable through-out and accountable for.

People tend to have a very sci-fi/pop-science understanding of what theoretical physicists mean when they refer to "other dimensions."

They are almost always referring to abstract topographic vectors.

I never said where I thought they came from. I left the door wide open as an example fo things that seemingly cannot be...being.

As far as extra dimentions, I don't think of them as another place.
I prefer to think of them all part of this universe, but invisble to us because we cannot experience them with the senses we have.

And maybe (just a hunch), we never developed higher senses (or even had them and lost them) because the universe would be too exceedingly confusing to exist in a normal everyday manner. Congruency would no longer exist, and we would have to spend all our time making sense of what we experienced from moment to moment.

I don't want to experience a 4th spacial dimention, but it would be cool to know if did exist.

But that has nothing to do with the original argument Astromark was against... that our 3 dimentional universe is flat, but in 4 dimentions.

I think if you could experience 4-D it would seem normal to you.

3-D seems normal to you right?
Maybe a 2-D guy would say what you just said.

Imagine a 2-D guy on a piece of paper. (Yes, assuming he is sentient somehow) You poke a pencil through the paper. He will not see a pencil. He will see a dot. then the dot will expand into a circle. Then as the eraser passes the point of observation, he would see the circle rapidly decrease into a dot- then disappear.
Or think of elevation lines on a contour map.

If a 4-D being pushed his "pencil" through our dimension, we would percieve what appeared to be blobs or three dimensional parts of his "pencil" comming into being, then disappearing again without a trace.

Sure sounds like what could be described as a flitting particle.

Lets state the facts as we know them... thats as I see them...
Three dimensions.
Length, breadth, depth., and I can not let time be forgotten as it does matter as to when you were where. good grief I'm confused already...
We have no knowledge of a two dimensional reality, but can envision it.
We have no proof of any other dimensions. ( still looking for this)
Sub atomic particles under special circumstance can be made to disappear and reappear. Where do they go? WE DO NOT KNOW.
I trust I have made myself clear.... I have not a closed mind to this subject.
I am actively attempting to extract more information on this subject. If you can enlighten me further please do.

There is a clear fundamental difference.

The "greatest scientific minds" are basing their speculations on known evidence, mathematics, principles etc.

Idle speculation that does not account for the math involved, that discounts the known or that does not have a solid foundation- can, indeed, be wrong.

In order to create a theory or model- you start with the known.

You do not speculate to the point where you are basing assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions.

This enables us to come up with ideas- so we know what direction to look in.

If you lost your wallet- then you don't know where it is- What will you do?
You start with the known- You retrace your steps...

You don't go swimming in the ocean speculating about a pickpocket flying fish.

ETA: Being human, we tend to place almost emotional value on our theories. Having them thrown back as wrong can almost be 'hurtful.'
Take the moment to appreciate that people are helping to guide you toward where you need to be in order to speculate successfully, instead of feeling that your pride has been wounded

The only problem with a rotating universe is that it would have to have a center.

Like a ferris wheel with the point of rotation being at the axis.

The universe was all "begun" at once, and is expanding...

That is... ALL of it is the center, the outside, and the inside. There is no part of our universe that started at a point in space and moved away from THAT point like an explosion. The point itself is growing.

Without a center, it cannot rotate around an axis. To have an axis, there has to be a center.

Can it churn and move around within itself? Sure... that's easy.


Here... take a glass of water and contemplate where the center of the water is without regard to the glass.

It is ALL water. The problem is the glass. We have no glass. Space itself only exists within the universe. Space and everything in it is the water.

It can't rotate, because no matter which way you look, you are looking back into TIME.... not a place. (on large scales)

Edit to add - try to find the center of the surface of a bubble.

This is good...

The point being,. We have no knowledge of what might be beyond the universe. We in fact doubt that there can be a outside.
This will stand as fact until we find another....
We can make the assumption that all galaxies and clusters of are involved in the ever moving gravitational dance... Gravitational forces and motion are curved and the apparent rotation of all the components of the universe is a conclusion of the motion we understand. It does not sagest the whole universe is rotating or even orbiting some mythical central mass. That would not seem to be the case. A very interesting set of questions.

Thank you Astromark...

I do have an aside question...

And this is not meant in any way other than helpful. (Because I don't know if you are using a language translator)

Shouldn't "sagest" should be "suggest"?