Understanding Modern Physics

"Anyone who is not shocked by Quantum Theory has not understood it"-- Niels Bohr


"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"-- Richard Feynman


Physics in general (especially Quantum Mechanics) beyond the level of Newtonian Mechanics is exceedingly hard to comprehend. I don't think that anyone will ever come close to understanding it, but I think that's how it is supposed to be. Either way, there are things that I try to appreciate that frankly blow my mind. Let me give you an example, along with a minor introduction to multiple dimensions.

Nowadays you might hear a lot about "other dimensions" whether in a positive, encouraging tone or a negative, joking, or mocking tone. I honestly take the approach that we have no way to suggest whether more dimensions do or do not exist, but we have actual logical explanations for how they could exist. What do I mean? I don't mean to get into a whole theological debate, but personally I have not seen or heard of any logical proof that there is a god. Normally that would make me indifferent to the situation entirely, but as of yet I have not heard of or seen any possible explanation for how a god *would* exist and what it would do based off of any logical proof. For multiple dimensions the same standard applies, I have not encountered any logical proof that there are multiple dimensions. But, the difference between a god and multiple dimensions is that there are simple logical models* for how/why more dimensions exist and what significance/behavior they have.

*- by simple logical models I mean that they do not have any sort of convoluted logic or logic that can be misinterpreted. This does not mean that they are nonetheless difficult to comprehend. You will see why in a second.

Let's take the first dimension: A line in 'empty' space. This line has one "axis" (let's call it the x-axis). The line can move, but it can only move on one axis (the x-axis), which is why it's called the first dimension (i.e. one dimension/axis). The only special thing about this line is that it has no width or height, only depth, so it would be physically impossible to see.

Now let's consider the second dimension: (to make it simple) a rectangle in 'empty space'. Unlike the line, this rectangle has two axis (blowing your mind yet? No? Keep reading). again, you technically would not be able to see this rectangle that existed only in the second dimension because it has no height, only width and length. How is it not visible? Well let's consider also what it means to have height, and thus we enter the third dimension.

The third dimension is what is easiest for the human brain to comprehend. We grew up in such a "3-D" environment where everything we learn about simply is accepted as existing in the third dimension. These objects that exist in the third dimension also have height in addition to length and width. These objects we can see. Why? Think about it this way: You draw a line on a piece of paper with a standard HB No. 2 graphite pencil. Or a square, or a cube (simply a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object). When you draw, what is happening? (I hate to be scientifically breaking down what art is, but...) As you drag the tip of your pencil across the paper, small particles of graphite are breaking off the big graphite shaft in the pencil. They are caught up on the rough surface of the paper and stay there. When you think about it, these particles are clumps of atoms, and as far as we understand it, atoms exist with a length, width, and height (otherwise atomic physics get COMPLETELY messed up, which would be very very very very very bad...). So even though you have drawn a two-dimensional object, you actually have drawn something in the third dimension, as it also has a height.

So why wouldn't a two-dimensional object be visible?

For an object to be visible in the third dimension, it technically has to have a height, otherwise it simple doesn't appear. A piece of infinitely thin paper is still visible because of that minute thickness. A piece of paper with no thickness simply doesn't exist. AND YET, it is still a two dimensional object. Where does it exist? Technically in the second dimension.

But....where's the second dimension then?

Well ideally it's not in the third dimension. So it must exist somewhere. Unless multiple dimensions don't exist. But they do (simply by the nature that we can draw a representation of something that has only two dimensions). This is the point where my theory runs out. I don't know where it would exist.

So why did I write this? Well here's something to think about that may or may not creep you out and never let you sleep at night again *suppresses evil grin*. Since a second dimensional object has access to a dimension that a first dimensional object does not, the second dimensional object could theoretically use that second dimension in the same space as the first dimensional object. What that means is that the second dimensional object does not have to travel on the same axis as the first dimensional object, it could, in theory, "jump" over the endpoints of that first dimensional object (the line). So the second dimensional object could, by using the second dimension, put a point on any part of the line without going through the endpoints of the line. The same is visible from a third dimensional object (e.g. your finger) using the third dimension in the same space as a second dimensional object (e.g. a square drawn on a piece of paper). Notice how you can take your finger and put it anywhere in the square. And yet you don't have to go through the edges of the square, you simply go over them.

Now here's the hard part (to visualize/accept/think about). A fourth dimensional object (fourth spatial dimensional [the fourth dimension (un)officially is time]) could use the same principle to access the fourth dimension in the same space as a third dimensional object. What that means: a fourth (spatial) dimensional object could put its "fourth dimensional finger" anywhere inside a third dimensional object at will without going through or touching ANYTHING else in that third dimensional object. It's as if the fourth dimensional object could come into contact with one infinitely small point in a proton in the nucleus of an atom in the middle of a wooden cube without touching the cube, any other atoms in the cube, or any part of the atom that the point is in. Hard to imagine, no?

Fear not though. If you remember earlier in this post, theoretically objects that exist in a different dimension than our own actually don't appear in our dimension. So it is virtually impossible to interact (at least purposefully) with an object in a different dimension.

Also, this is my reasoning for why the experiment to determine whether the third dimension is simply a holographic version of the second dimension really is not feasible and it not an effective use of time, money, or resources.

Either way, thank you for reading, sorry about the recent lack of content (although hopefully this starts to make up for it), and as always if you have questions please feel free to comment anonymously (or with a name) or just send me a message on Facebook!

Thanks!

--J