25 replies to this topic

[Fabbrizio]

I'm just here to give my $0.02 on a common notion that has been bugging me for a while.

 

Time is not "the fourth dimension". Let's just establish that right now. It has dimensionality, sure enough. But it does not obey the same laws as the three established dimensions. If you want to call time a dimension, it would be more accurately called the first temporal dimension, and in turn, our three primary dimensions would be best categorized as the (first) three spatial dimensions. Each set of dimensions would be a conductor - spatial dimensions conduct matter, and temporal dimensions conduct change. 

 

But why does this matter, you ask? Because there is likely to be a fourth spatial dimension.

 

Consider this. A zero-dimensional concept would be an infinitely small point in space time. When you place an infinite number of these tiny points directly on top of each other, you create the first dimension. When you put an infinite number of these first dimensions on top of each other, you create the second dimension. When you put an infinite number of these second dimensions on top of each other, you create the third dimension. Simple, right?

But then, what happens when you place an infinite number of these three dimensions on top of each other? You'd get the fourth dimension, correct? This leads to my hypothesis, and the subject matter in this thread - layered space. When most people think of infinite 3-dimensional spaces layered on top of each other, the image conjured is probably one of alternate universes - commonly regarded as a multiverse. But I dislike this term, as it carries the implication that every realm (a tentative term I will use for alternate 3-dimensional spaces in the 4th dimension) might contain its own universe and be anti-social to each other. This doesn't quite stand to reason.

 

Consider how the first three spatial dimensions interact with each other. Each additional dimension interacts with itself in multiple layers. One dimensional lines interact in the second dimension. Two dimensional planes interact in the third dimension. So it would stand to reason that three dimensional realms would interact in the fourth dimension.

 

In my hypothesis, this fourth dimension contains an infinite number of realms which contribute as an extension of our 3-dimensional view of the universe. Say you've got a door. Next to the door is a switch. When you flip the switch up, the door leads to one room. When you flip the switch down, the door leads to a completely different room. In both situations, the door would open the same way.

 

This is what I mean by layered space. In the example, the door is a simple 4-dimensional barrier, and the switch is the control. One room would exist in your realm, the other room would exist in another realm at the exact same point in euclidian space. Both exist in the same exact spot, and both are equally real, they simply hold different spots in the fourth dimension.

 

Obviously it would not be this simple. An open gate is potentially dangerous given how much of the universe is a vacuum (which therefore means that any random spot in another universe has a high probability of being within a vacuum). A gate such as the one I described is also excessively idealistic as it requires the two rooms to have the same orbital speed and trajectory in euclidian space, as well as the same location. If they were moving in different directions or at different speeds, the gate would only last a moment at that exact spot before the alternate realm room fell out of the range of the gate.

 

If anyone has any thoughts on this hypothesis, I'd love to hear them.

[Aevin]

Consider this. A zero-dimensional concept would be an infinitely small point in space time. When you place an infinite number of these tiny points directly on top of each other, you create the first dimension. When you put an infinite number of these first dimensions on top of each other, you create the second dimension. When you put an infinite number of these second dimensions on top of each other, you create the third dimension. Simple, right?

But then, what happens when you place an infinite number of these three dimensions on top of each other? You'd get the fourth dimension, correct?

But then, couldn't you conclude that you could place an infinite number of fourth dimensions to get a fifth, and so on? By your logic, it seems to follow that there would be an infinite number of spacial dimensions, not just four. Maybe I just lack imagination, but I have trouble believing the idea of infinities upon infinities, and it seems more likely we can't see a fourth or fifth dimension because they're not there.

 

It's like looking at a pokemon and going, "A first evolution exists, a second and third evolution exist, so clearly, a fourth evolution must exist!" Because, obviously, pokemon is the best possible metaphor for dimensional theory.

Edited by Aevin, 15 October 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[strike]

This doesn't make any sense. Time is the fourth dimension. Period. The end. You say that it would have to be classified as a temporal dimension, but it IS classified as a temporal demension. Look it up. As the whole "stacking on top of" to find a new dimension, well, that assumes one can comprehend that there is an up or even that an up exists. By your logic there would be an infinite amount of dimensions which is factually untrue. The nature of reality would be far too unstable. In fact if there were any more than three dimensions, the universe (as we know it) would be unstable.

Look it up.

-Strike

Edit: Sorry, I sound like a science maniac in this post.

Double Edit: I really shouldn't be criticizing you for crazy theories. I do that all the time. O.O

Edited by strike, 15 October 2013 - 05:53 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

This doesn't make any sense. Time is the fourth dimension. Period. The end. You say that it would have to be classified as a temporal dimension, but it IS classified as a temporal demension. Look it up. As the whole "stacking on top of" to find a new dimension, well, that assumes one can comprehend that there is an up or even that an up exists. By your logic there would be an infinite amount of dimensions which is factually untrue. The nature of reality would be far too unstable. In fact if there were any more than three dimensions, the universe (as we know it) would be unstable.

Look it up.

-Strike

Edit: Sorry, I sound like a science maniac in this post.

 

 

 

Nothing in science is ever "This, period, the end." Everything is always up for criticism.

 

And in case it has gone unnoticed, our reality IS unstable. Despite starting as a uniform singularity, it distributed unevenly. Gravity, though a fundamental force, cannot be explained by the theories that explain electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. Once you get to the very polar ends of general relativity and quantum physics, our unverse actually makes NO sense at all. It's quite obvious we're missing a piece of the picture.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

My take:

Time is no more a dimension than weight.  It isn't even technically there, per se.  It is a simple measurement.  Sure, length, width, and depth, the titular 3 dimensions, can be considered measurements too, but they can all be measured in the same manner.  That is to say, you can measure them all in inches, feet, miles, or centimeters.  Time fails this test, ergo, it is not a dimension.

 

As for temporal dimensions, I tend to dismiss it entirely.  Until there is some basis for how time can be altered, beyond "theoretically, you could change time IF", I wouldn't pay it any mind.

[strike]

You're right, nothing in science is as straight forward as I made it out to be. Also, I'm well aware that the universe could be called "unstable", though not to the extent I was talking about. I may be wrong, but at the beggining of the universe were there not almost infinite dimensions but as space cooled and expanded they were eradicated?


However, dude, there's just no way there are infinite dimensions. Or at least in the present refence frame of knowledge sceintists currently operate under. Here's a shoddy refence you could refer to:

http://www.askamathe...her-dimensions/

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

I assume that this is not what you're talking about when you talk about extra dimensions, but I'm not perfectly sure what you are talking about. The door examples are not very clear. Could you elaborate? Also, why would anyone believe this hypothesis? What evidence is there?

Sorry I'm so pessimistic.

-Strike

Edited for clarity.

Edited by strike, 15 October 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

My take:

Time is no more a dimension than weight.  It isn't even technically there, per se.  It is a simple measurement.  Sure, length, width, and depth, the titular 3 dimensions, can be considered measurements too, but they can all be measured in the same manner.  That is to say, you can measure them all in inches, feet, miles, or centimeters.  Time fails this test, ergo, it is not a dimension.

 

As for temporal dimensions, I tend to dismiss it entirely.  Until there is some basis for how time can be altered, beyond "theoretically, you could change time IF", I wouldn't pay it any mind.

 

I'm definitely in tentative agreement with this mindset as well. It would be well and good to classify time as a dimension if it behaved like a dimension, but it doesn't behave at all like a dimension. We only think it does because our brains are wired to imprint moments in time and extrapolate the changes that happened between them. That doesn't mean the universe does the same.

 

You're right, nothing in science is as straight forward as I made it out to be. Also, I'm well aware that the universe could be called "unstable", though not to the extent I was talking about. I may be wrong, but at the beggining of the universe were there not almost infinite dimensions but as space cooled and expanded they were eradicated?


However, dude, there's just no way there are infinite dimensions. Or at least in the present refence frame of knowledge sceintists currently operate under. Here's a shoddy refence you could refer to:

http://www.askamathe...her-dimensions/

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

I assume that this is not what you're talking about when you talk about extra dimensions, but I'm not perfectly sure what you are talking about. The door examples are not very clear. Could you elaborate? Also, why would anyone believe this theory? What evidence is there?

Sorry I'm so pessimistic.

-Strike

 

I never called it a theory. I quite clearly called it a hypothesis.
 

It's not an easy thing to describe in text alone, so fairly soon I'll be putting together a video with 3d renderings to help demonstrate.

[strike]

That would be awesome and very helpful for explaining. Why should I believe this hypothesis?

-Strike

Edit: How do you explain stuff like light getting trapped in black holes if you don't believe time is a dimension?

Edited by strike, 15 October 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

That would be awesome and very helpful for explaining. Why should I believe this hypothesis?

-Strike

 

You shouldn't believe this hypothesis. In comparison to the vastness and complexity of the universe, humans are so absurdly primitive that you'd actually be better off never believing anything, ever. Not wholeheartedly, anyway. I'm just asking that people entertain the notion for a moment. Aside from the pending video, I've already presented my entire case.
 

Edit: How do you explain stuff like light getting trapped in black holes if you don't believe time is a dimension?

 

Just because time isn't a dimension, doesn't mean it doesn't exist conceptually. Time OBVIOUSLY exists. We can measure time. We can measure time in proportion to space. We can measure time in proportion to mass in the context of space. That doesn't make it a dimension. That just makes it quantitative.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 15 October 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[strike]

I know, but how do you explain light getting trapped in black holes? Am I missing something? What does time being quantitative have to do with this?

-Strike

[Timelord]

To be frank, this isn't a new theory. In fact, multiple dimensions consisting of three-dimensional space, conjoined in some way is a very popular hypothetical situation, and the Planck length between them is both very small (estimated at <6ℓP IIRC), and very undetectable at our present state of development. (A singularity could, under this model, in theory, not be reduced below 1ℓP.)

You see, the reason we associate the fourth dimension with time isn't because of an ordering of the cosmos, but because it is the fourth dimension that we can perceive; under that concept, thought and imagination may be a fifth dimension.

With each dimension of space-time interconnected, and inseparable, you cannot order them in a logical manner. How do you determine of length, width and height, which is the first, second, or third order of dimensional facets?

Here, again, numbering of the three visually detectible and ordinary dimensions is unnecessary, but adding time to any concept, such as strategic planning, requires a fourth dimension of thought and perception.

In M-Theory, space-time may consist of 11-spacial dimensions--which may be internal, or external, such as the component dimensions of matter, or the external dimensions beyond perceivable space-time--and of which time may be one of, or an external and conjoined dimensional force, or magical cheesecake. As we cannot observe anything outside of the normal space-time environment, and don;t even have a valid proof for what creates gravity, anything else we may consider is pure speculation.

It does however make for good science-fiction, and a reality conjoined in layers is a common theme therein, whether being distinctly related, or consisting of external physics models.

I should also note that time can be measured in lengths, which is why it is considered to have 'dimensional scale', but that in the same context, all ordinary measurements that we employ are an analogue concept created by humans, each making a finite space of infinite components; we can break down each measurement into smaller sections, which is why the ℓP model become so important, as it is the smallest possible size in this reality, then we can use it as a finite standard, rather than an arbitrary standard.

This is comparable in a way to the difference between measuring temperature by degrees on a scale, and measuring it in Kelvins, although even Kelvins have an infinite floating point, and a theoretical negative value (which is essentially approaching infinite entropy). The only comparison to ℓP for thermal units would be by measuring exact entropy based on the minimum amount of entropy possible in a closed system. (Good luck with that.)

I suppose my point is that both are based on absolutes, but that Planck length is a true absolute value, versus a floating value. I am not sure if it is possible to have, for example, 1.5ℓP, versus 1 or 2 ℓP, but then again, astrophysics is not my main field of expertise.

Supergravity in a singularity can be postulated [i[without time[/i], as the effect of super-condensed matter as mass, reduced to the size of a few ℓP, as long as you have a graviton or similarly based model. As to general relativity, the quasar at the centre of our galaxy should be causing a temporal distortion that extends out, tot he point that we should notice temporal distortions as we observe points in space closer tot hat quasar, and that spherical galaxies without a quasar core would experience a different relative time flow than we do, as their proximity to such a gravitic phenomenon is far less severe.

You can also expect photos to be attracted to super-gravity if you do not allow them to be massless, and instead attribute their seeming massless properties to a ratio between their internal constituents and the spin of their quanta. As something that interacts with matter, can be slowed by matter, and thus shows signs of behaving as if it is affected by mass, it is hard to estimate that such a particle must not have mass, as a truly masslss particle should ignore the mass of other particles, unless both contain another form of particle that generates mass, or negates mass. Thus, positive and negative gravitons, or some other unnamed quanta that generates mass and gravity, and such observable interactions.

In a condition such as this, the value of C is based on interactions with exotic particles that all matter and energy must contain, and if negative and positive values of such quanta exist, it should be possible to accumulate the opposing force and therefore there should be something that exceeds the relative velocity of C. If such a thing exists, we cannot observe it, but if it does not exist, then it puts possible merit on the concept that the spin of quanta create gravity.

Then again, we don't even understand 'dark matter', which seems to interact with gravitic force, but passes through all other matter, and thus we cannot positively observe its velocity, as we have no way to detect it--as yet--except by its gravitic interactions with other matter and energy.

By the by, none of this should be construed as an attempt to dissuade you from following through with your ideas; in fact, please do work on your physics model, and perhaps you could find reasons for phenomena that we do not yet have.

Edited by ZoriaRPG, 15 October 2013 - 08:13 PM.

[strike]

I've heard of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions, but infinite dimensions? Never heard of that. String theory is very intersting; I'd love to learn more about it.

-Strike

[Fabbrizio]

I know, but how do you explain light getting trapped in black holes? Am I missing something? What does time being quantitative have to do with this?

-Strike

 

I didn't see what light getting absorbed into black holes had to do with dimensional time nor multiple dimensions in general, but I didn't want to regard you as an idiot (I don't believe you are) so I tried to connect the dots. The first thing that came to mind was that you were referring to the power of gravity counteracting the speed at which light travels (which is an effect of temporality). 

Light gets trapped 'in' black holes because the mass of a black hole is upwards of 25 solar masses (roughly 1.9891 × 10³⁰ kilograms), meaning its gravitational force on photons is enough to counteract the speed of light (roughly 299,792,458 meters per second) and reduce it significantly enough to make an entire section of the sky appear black (even if the photons weren't being pulled back into the black hole, it would still appear black because the photons from the black hole would reach us long after the photons from its surroundings would).

 

To be frank, this isn't a new theory. In fact, multiple dimensions consisting of three-dimensional space, conjoined in some way is a very popular hypothetical situation, and the Planck length between them is both very small (estimated at <6ℓP IIRC), and very undetectable at our present state of development. (A singularity could, under this model, in theory, not be reduced below 1ℓP.)

You see, the reason we associate the fourth dimension with time isn't because of an ordering of the cosmos, but because it is the fourth dimension that we can perceive; under that concept, thought and imagination may be a fifth dimension.

With each dimension of space-time interconnected, and inseparable, you cannot order them in a logical manner. How do you determine of length, width and height, which is the first, second, or third order of dimensional facets?

Here, again, numbering of the three visually detectible and ordinary dimensions is unnecessary, but adding time to any concept, such as strategic planning, requires a fourth dimension of thought and perception.

In M-Theory, space-time may consist of 11-spacial dimensions--which may be internal, or external, such as the component dimensions of matter, or the external dimensions beyond perceivable space-time--and of which time may be one of, or an external and conjoined dimensional force, or magical cheesecake. As we cannot observe anything outside of the normal space-time environment, and don;t even have a valid proof for what creates gravity, anything else we may consider is pure speculation.

It does however make for good science-fiction, and a reality conjoined in layers is a common theme therein, whether being distinctly related, or consisting of external physics models.

I should also note that time can be measured in lengths, which is why it is considered to have 'dimensional scale', but that in the same context, all ordinary measurements that we employ are an analogue concept created by humans, each making a finite space of infinite components; we can break down each measurement into smaller sections, which is why the ℓP model become so important, as it is the smallest possible size in this reality, then we can use it as a finite standard, rather than an arbitrary standard.

This is comparable in a way to the difference between measuring temperature by degrees on a scale, and measuring it in Kelvins, although even Kelvins have an infinite floating point, and a theoretical negative value (which is essentially approaching infinite entropy). The only comparison to ℓP for thermal units would be by measuring exact entropy based on the minimum amount of entropy possible in a closed system. (Good luck with that.)

I suppose my point is that both are based on absolutes, but that Planck length is a true absolute value, versus a floating value. I am not sure if it is possible to have, for example, 1.5ℓP, versus 1 or 2 ℓP, but then again, astrophysics is not my main field of expertise.

Supergravity in a singularity can be postulated [i[without time[/i], as the effect of super-condensed matter as mass, reduced to the size of a few ℓP, as long as you have a graviton or similarly based model. As to general relativity, the quasar at the centre of our galaxy should be causing a temporal distortion that extends out, tot he point that we should notice temporal distortions as we observe points in space closer tot hat quasar, and that spherical galaxies without a quasar core would experience a different relative time flow than we do, as their proximity to such a gravitic phenomenon is far less severe.

You can also expect photos to be attracted to super-gravity if you do not allow them to be massless, and instead attribute their seeming massless properties to a ratio between their internal constituents and the spin of their quanta. As something that interacts with matter, can be slowed by matter, and thus shows signs of behaving as if it is affected by mass, it is hard to estimate that such a particle must not have mass, as a truly masslss particle should ignore the mass of other particles, unless both contain another form of particle that generates mass, or negates mass. Thus, positive and negative gravitons, or some other unnamed quanta that generates mass and gravity, and such observable interactions.

In a condition such as this, the value of C is based on interactions with exotic particles that all matter and energy must contain, and if negative and positive values of such quanta exist, it should be possible to accumulate the opposing force and therefore there should be something that exceeds the relative velocity of C. If such a thing exists, we cannot observe it, but if it does not exist, then it puts possible merit on the concept that the spin of quanta create gravity.

Then again, we don't even understand 'dark matter', which seems to interact with gravitic force, but passes through all other matter, and thus we cannot positively observe its velocity, as we have no way to detect it--as yet--except by its gravitic interactions with other matter and energy.

By the by, none of this should be construed as an attempt to dissuade you from following through with your ideas; in fact, please do work on your physics model, and perhaps you could find reasons for phenomena that we do not yet have.

 

My hypothesis is largely based on my limited knowledge of string theory - though as string theory is unto itself currently unobservable and unprovable in the current state of science, it's not out of the question to take the notion in another direction and adjust as new information arises.

 

I've heard of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions, but infinite dimensions? Never heard of that. String theory is very intersting; I'd love to learn more about it.

-Strike

 

Here's my thing: if the universe can stretch out infinitely in the three known dimensions, and nobody has a problem with that, then I don't see why there's a problem with infinite dimensions. Of course, there was a time just a few thousand years ago when people thought that space was finite, and when presented with the idea that space is infinitely large, might have responded with a public stoning.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 15 October 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Timelord]

Infinite dimensions, are different from an infinite number of a specific number of dimensions, linked to other sets of constrained dimensions. Think of it this way, in one context, you would have an infinite number of cubes occupying the same space, each of infinite size; versus an infinite number of cubs stacked up on top of each-other, with each having infinite size.

Both are possible in theory, but without the ability to observe from outside the cube, you cannot say if other sets of dimensions are coterminous, or extensional. Dimensions can also exist internally that you cannot observe, and while there is no way to define a finite set of them at present, mathematical models exist that calculate specific sets of possibilities that are finite, in this extent.

It comes down to the same problem as specific measurement, as even if space is an analogue, the internal measurements of a specific point may have a constraining minimum, or they may not. If they do not, than every point is of infinite size, and therefore its own dimension of infinite proportion, as an extension of every other point, and coterminous points may exist compounding these.

If there is an absolute limit on point size (i.e. Planck Length), then we can determine that other dimensions must either be coterminous, or external dimensions that are not necessarily contiguous, but cannot be infinite to the internal.

That has practical value when measuring how much energy and entropy exists in any single dimension or point, as the main practical reason for this level of cosmic modeling is for measuring energetic reactions, and again, from our perspective, we cannot directly observe these other higher or lower dimensions without the applied use of technology beyond our present scope.

It's certainly possible that all of these possibilities exist, but we have no way to deduce which if any may be, without the aid of sophistication far beyond our present level of technological advancement.

I very much doubt that we will have any such technology within the next few dozen generations, given the decline in interest in such matters, coupled with the state of decay of our educational system, and our high probability of destroying ourselves, either via entire extinction, or merely to the point of societal collapse, before we can achieve the state of mathematics required to produce technology capable of observing the super-microscopic or the macroscopic levels required to determine which models are true or false, that would be required in order to build devices capable of observing the more exotic levels of reality that at present we can only imagine and postulate may be.

[JetBox]

Okay, this is a little out of line, but if there were to be a fourth spacial dimension as you suggest, wouldn't we be able to tell of it's properties? I mean, we live in a three dimensional world, but we see in two dimensions. But because of our vision with light, we can determine that objects are behind, ahead, above, below, to the left, or to the right of an other object. If there were to be a fourth spacial dimension, we would be able to prove it by viewing a black hole, which is essential a fourth dimension like object, as for us, light can't pass through it. Maybe light can pass through per say, but since it is traveling through a dimension we don't live in, a fourth dimension, our eyes and brain try to find a meaning for this strange occurrence, and make it appear as refracted light. I don't know if this is true, but it seems accurate. I think there is a fourth spacial dimension. 

 

About the fact of time being a dimension, I think that maybe that is a first dimension so to say. It's not the first spacial dimension, but the first of the temporal dimensions. It's like there are two categories of dimensions: spacial and temporal. Spacial having three in which are confirmed, and temporal having one in which we know. Again, not sure about this, but just a thought.

 

Also, this is something my Physics teacher had to say about a fourth dimension:

 

"There is not fourth dimension. Science is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Since we have no way of proving a fourth dimension, to a scientific mind, there is none until we have a way of proving it. Just like religion and the Big Bang Theory, until we can run tests and repeat the process of what is done, it is not real. It's just belief."