Comments on: The Shape of Things https://globalspin.com/2004/04/the-shape-of-things/ a glimpse into the tiny mind of Chris Radcliff Sat, 01 May 2010 03:53:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8 By: Deana https://globalspin.com/2004/04/the-shape-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:14:31 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/16/316/#comment-368 I’ve changed my mind. After looking at that image, it’s obviously a Bugle, not a Ruffles or a Pringle.

http://theimaginaryworld.com/crk10.jpg

]]> By: Deana https://globalspin.com/2004/04/the-shape-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-367 Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:47:20 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/16/316/#comment-367 The universe is not a Pringle. It’s a Ruffles – they have ridges.

]]> By: Chris https://globalspin.com/2004/04/the-shape-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-366 Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:10:25 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/16/316/#comment-366 Not necessarily. It’s the difference between “finite” and “bounded”. Finite means that the area is a defined number, while bounded means the area has edges. For instance, the surface of the Earth is finite in 2 dimensions, but no matter how far you travel you’ll never find the “edge” — it’s unbounded.

The illustration with the article isn’t very helpful, because it makes the Picard topology look like a 3-dimensional horn. The actual shape is a 4-dimensional volume, so it connects to itself in ways that can’t be shown on the 3-dimensional figure. They tried to note that (with the space ship description) but it’s hard to visualize when it looks like there are hard edges.

We have a pretty decent book by Rudy Rucker about this, _Spacetime and the Fourth Dimension_. It’s his master’s thesis, actually, but still a good description (if I remember correctly.) He has another one called just _The Fourth Dimension_ which is longer but more entertaining.

]]> By: karen https://globalspin.com/2004/04/the-shape-of-things/comment-page-1/#comment-365 Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:49:20 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/16/316/#comment-365 Okay, call me unimaginative, but I don’t understand how the universe could be finite. Wouldn’t that indicate an “outside” as well as an “inside”?

]]>