Matt’s Blog

A friend at work gave me a link to an interesting website today. We were having one of our usual conversations involving mostly things we know nothing about, but trying to sound very intelligent about it and pretending we were getting our points across. This time it was quantum physics and relativity (that’s what it is pretty much every time). Nothing really interesting came out of the conversation except that he apparently went and googled for some related topics and found this: The Tenth Dimension

Now, the tenth dimension is much farther than I’d ever considered. I usually stop at trying to convince people that the fourth dimension is not time, but some other in-conceivable something, because the third dimension is actually space time, and not just space. Not that I really have anything to back that statement up with, other than some vague memory of a book I read half of once a long time ago. Of course, if I didn’t have an opinion about it, I wouldn’t be writing this.

Anyways, this website very creatively explains all tenth dimensions ending climactically by stating that the tenth dimension is just another point (kind of poetic in a way if you like to get poetic about the universe, as I do) It throws in the multiverse theory in there around number six or something, and something even cooler than the multiverse which might explain the one plot hole in the book Timeline by Michael Crichton that I’ve been getting a lot of mileage off for the past few years. But it also states quite firmly that the fourth dimension is time, and that dissapoints me greatly. I mean, the whole idea of this study of dimensions is that you can’t really understand or even fathom a dimension higher up than you. A two dimensional being would never stand a chance of understanding us right? So how can we even have a word for time, we certainly don’t have a word for any of the other dimensions, as is obvious by the website author’s proliferous use of the words “point”, and “fold.” I just don’t think that if these extra dimensions really exist we would stand a chance at comprehending them, except ours and the ones below us.

In any case, I refuse to believe that the fourth dimension is time, since we can comprehend it, use it in our math effectively, and even travel through it (at least rudimentarily) If anyone cares to set me straight, feel free.

Slashdot linked to an article in New Scientist today theorizing about a possibility to create a Harry Potter like cloak of invisibility: http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10816.html

I’ve always been pro technology, never counting myself among those who think that creating technology takes something away from humanity (including jobs).  But here is one piece of work that I hope never leaves the realm of science fiction.  A cloaking device could only be used for evil, and most surely would, whatever the practical application intended for.   Perhaps we could beautify our cities by hiding the many less aesthetically pleasing artifacts that we need for survival, perhaps by the time we achieve this technology we would have space ships that need cloaking for protection from alien races, who knows?  But I for one hope that along with the technology to bend light around an object, comes the technology to detect things using techniques more sophisticated than our own eyes.

I’ve often been caught criticizing these two so called scientific phenomenons (oops, I did it again) because of their apparent popularity and lack of evidence.  My skepticism is evidenced by my best friend, who is sure to send me every dark matter/dark energy article he sees.  I appreciate the articles of course, because they are always good reading and very informative.

My main argument against their existence is that scientists theorize about them simply because they make our equations work.  Whether or not that’s true is not what interests me, I’m sure I’m wrong about one thing or another, being that I have only basic backgrounds in math or physics.

What does interest me however, is the amount of coverage these topics receive in scientific media.  While I grant their obvious importance to astronomy and physics (origin and fate of the universe, yada yada), the topics come up again and again with little new information.

Science must be sold like any other commodity however, and I’m certain there’s great pressure at academic levels for grants for funding.  Science has to be new and exciting.  Unfortunately, it’s not always like that, especially with such advanced equipment and precise methods as we have.  Most scientific endeavors are not on the orders of magnitude as they once were.  Yet they are still important, and science and the pursuit of knowledge must be high on our list of priorities, exciting or not.