Tormod Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 little ray - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Either it is way above my head or it is because I am totally stuffed because of a cold... Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Regarding the concept of 5th dimensionality. When imagining the first dimension, we have a point, or a complete vacuum. The "point" (when envisioned as a linear smear, like a tracer) becomes a line, a length, which envisioned from different angles would also be height= 2 dimensionality. Adding one more dimension creates an axis, which implies volumetric space= the third dimension. At this phase there is no such force as time interactions, there is only potential. The instant there is a particle in this space the potential for entropic interaction increases, but would still, hypothetically be unable to take place until the acting of a second particle occured (luckily particles are encountered in pairs). It is only through these relativistic interactions that any sense of time could start to be measured. Appreciably then, the acting of particles on one another in a space by the force of a vacuum is the 4th dimension of time. There is ,arguably, another dimension of reality not apparently deducible by the rest. An interesting conceptual quality of dimensional thinking is that none of the dimensions can be deduced by their prior dimensions except in hindsight. Once seen from the benefit of hindsight, all the dimensions seem to logically correlate in logically more complex synthetic envisionments, they all seem to lead to each other successively. And it also seems you can't really skip a conceptual step and still get the necassary correlation. Anyway, our subjective, arbitrary senses are the 5th construct of reality comprehension. It is the ever-so insubstantial realm of limited perceptions, memory-reality enhancement, and non-linear dreamhallucination states that could be called the 5th dimension, and it only exists as long as there are somewhat sophisticated neural configurations to spur it. The laws that govern the airy realm of (specifically) human perceptual and memory processes can be likened to a controlled illusion that is constantly endeavoring to derive itself from the other dimensional concepts, obviously showing its estrangement from them. So then, a perception-device capable of storing its data comprising of delusional biases regarding the constant entropic interaction of force acting on matter due to a vacuous attractor is the "sense" of time's passage, or the 5th dimension. There are, of course, other viable dimensional concepts that may exist as subconstructs of the first 4 dimensions, but not the fifth. Thus you could say there are 3 outer dimensional concepts, then a fourth dimensional concept of forces interacting within the first three, and finally the inner dimension which consists of the awareness of the other four, which gives rise to non-linear thinking or equations that could only happen in a symbolic oriented dimension not bound by the observational restrictions of known reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbench Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 The way i think of each dimension is the 1st dimension is just a line. The 2nd dimension is where the line is placed in a plane. The 3rd dimension is where the 2nd demesion is placed in a depth perseptive view. The 4th demension would defenitly be time because it shows where the 3rd demension is. The 3rd demension can be now in the past or the future. So, if you follow the pattern then the 5th demension would be where our demension of time is places. If you were in the 5th demension the you would be able to go to different "times". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Here is an article from the AAAS, February 2002: In search of extra dimensions: Hang on-a new reality may be around the corner BOSTON, MASS. - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one," according to the late Albert Einstein. But, "if everything is an illusion and nothing exists," humorist Woody Allen has observed, "I definitely overpaid for my carpet." Hang onto your carpet receipts: Our understanding of reality - that is, a world where events happen over time within a three-dimensional space - may be turned on its head by the year 2005, scientist Maria Spiropulu said today during the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting. "The way we think about things is about to change completely," said Spiropulu. "This is truly a revolution in the way we understand our world." Spiropulu, a 32-year-old scientist with the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago, is hot on the trail of extra dimensions. She's using new methods to prove, experimentally, whether our reality is more complicated than we previously assumed. "We are very close" to a new reality, she said. "Right now, we imagine space and time as a static question, and we solve equations as a function of space and time. But, what we're learning is that, at the very large scale or the very small scale, space and time are dynamic. What is happening at those scales, we cannot explain. So we have to wonder, do these scales hold some extra dimensions?" Traditionally, physicists have mathematically explained all that happens in the world by using a "standard model." In this system, all matter is made of lightweight "leptons" (such as electrons and neutrinos) and quarks. Three forces manipulate these particles: electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear reactions. But, this traditional approach doesn't explain gravity, the fourth force. The conventional rules of quantum mechanics have been successfully married with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which explains the behavior of very fast objects-but not with his Theory of General Relativity, the guidebook to gravitational force. Mathematical gobbledygook usually results from trying to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity. Consequently, we still don't know, for example, what happens to particles sucked into a black hole. In an effort to uniformly explain all events, physicist Gunnar Nordstrom (1881-1923) first introduced the notion of an extra dimension at the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps, he thought, gravity happens in a realm we don't understand and can't mathematically define. Some 10 years later, Theodor Kaluza (1885-1954) and Oskar Klein (1894-1977) took Nordstrom's ideas another step forward: An extra dimension may be curled up like an unimaginably small ball, they said, on the order of the Planck scale-the smallest unit of length in the universe (10 to the minus 33 centimeters). The idea of an extra dimension was resurrected yet again in the late 1990s, as scientists began to ask whether Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation reliably predicts gravity's behavior below the centimeter scale, Spiropulu explained. Physicists were energized in 1997 by the discovery of possible links between the standard model and "superstring theory"-the notion that a series of extremely tiny, vibrating strings may lurk beneath the level of quarks and leptons. Researchers Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Gia Dvali then caused further excitement, by suggesting that at least one of these tiny dimensions might, in fact, be large enough to measure. Still, no one has produced undeniable proof of superstrings, and many questions persist. Since then, Spiropulu reported to AAAS attendees, experiments have shown that Newton's Law is valid down to the 200-micron level. That is, gravity "follows the rules" at that scale. But, the physical reality below this level remains a mystery. Somewhere within the Planck scale, or at extreme energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Tormod, it seems that between the two of us this subject has been effectively dealt with until more advanced observational tools and methods can be discovered. Also realize, that if there can be a previously undiscovered dimension of force interactions, then there can be limitless such steps beyond even the here-to-fore unknown one. A linear mind seeks always to make peace with its non-linear world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 @transient, I thought the article was kind of fun, actually. There are so many theories on this subject that it is hard to keep up with them. Now if only someone would find out we had not only a number of spatial dimensions but several time dimensions as well...that would make linearity a non-issue. I don't believe in limitlessness, though...I think it is a construct of the mind. Cosmologist John Barrow has written some great stuff in infinities, and even a play ("Infinities") which I hope to see one day. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 The speculation of finding anything fundamental about reality sounds very much like just another more finite level of Leibniz's monadology hypothesis, which was just a deeper understanding of the ideas of Democritus' atoms. Sometimes I think that, once Occam's razor starts to cut, any notions of other universes or dimensions or realities seems to become trivial. However, if anything is governed by the mechanics that comprise it, then those forces can be laid open and manipulated. Chaos theories allude to an infinite progression of self-similar phases, which could be applied to particles, dimensions, galaxies, universes, and the notion of what this playing-field called reality is. Also, how can there be anything that is ultimately finite, that would imply it was created ex-nihilo, or from nothing, and how could "nothing" come to be, even nothing would be a state, and states arise from other states! Lastly, I've heard ideas of 8, 9, 10, and 26 dimensions curled very small within sub-atomic particles, does anyone know what these dimensions are alluding to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Yeah, Occam's Razor is a cool concept, but it does not necessarily hold true. Look at DNA and self repair - I think you could easily find examples like that were complexity, not simplicity, is the norm. As for string theory, which is the part of physics that require 11 or 26 dimensions, that is a good example. They have yet to predict anything at all - except perhaps that they need 11 or 26 dimensions (now that's a catch 22). I interviewed Michael Green, one of the fathers of string theory, last year and must admit I had a real hard time understanding it. But it is a truly marvellous idea, though. Check out our hypography on superstringsfor some more info and links. Michio Kaku has written a lot on this stuff. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Transient, to claim that "something cannot come out of nothing" is a typical empirical statement. You can, of course, not prove it. However, one theory which is gaining ground is that of a multiverse, in which our universe is just one of an ensemble of universes (we have discussed the before in this forum). It would obviouvsly just move the point of "nothingness" even further back (a classical problem in cosmology)- but it would easily explain that indeed, our universe did not spring from nothing but from something. How can there be anything that is ultimately finite? A human life span is finite. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Tormod, I am indeed familiar with the multiverse concept ( the roots of which stretch as far back as 250 b.c.). However, the linguistic assigning of arbitrary quantifications like this is the parameter of "this" universe as opposed to the other phenomena that might be synthesizing into it, or trickling into it, is alot like all of the other fallacious limits in understanding the true size of reality that we've made in the past. As to the empiricist nature of my assessment of nothing, I find it reflects more the idea of chaotic infinitudes of dimensional interactions. I do not believe in the limitation of mans neural network to understand the most ultimate complexities if only given sufficient time to develope, both technologically and psychologically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 What is a human life-span , just an illusion of seperation. A human life-force on the other hand, indeed its very energy, is as limitless as the whole of reality's mysterious energy interactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 You can easily show that something always leads to something else, and never will something produce no other state. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 No, you can't prove that. You can only say that because that is how you perceive the world. You said: Nothing is finite. I said: A human life span is finite. Yes, a human can create offspring, and the remains of the human being will eventually become dust. But even if the end of a life span "produces another state", the life span is over. So it is finite. Quantum physics has shown that the link of causality does indeed appear to break in many cases. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Correction to myself: A human cannot create offsping. Two (or these days, three) human beings can create offspring. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleray Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Thanks for the link to String theory, It explains a lot on where the extra dimensions some from...(Even thought I don't understand it yet.) I was wondering that those people who purpose all those string theories? Are they Mathematians or Phsyics? As you know that I was interested into Dimension....and string theories helps...a lot... by giving me more dimension to try to figure out. I guess I need to read more thesis on String theories, before I can catch up with you guys. There are so much maths in the theories...is there a short cut...and help ..like dummy's guide to string theory...for people like me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 This is a response to longbench. You stated that if you were in the 5th dimension, you would be able to go backwards or forwards in time. I've stated that the 5th dimension is the mind. The brain's components may follow the "laws" that govern such constructs, but the wispy by-products (our thoughts) are not governed by laws, only by imagination and delusion ( I say delusion because we never see reality for what it is). The perception of time is indeed maleable in a human mind ( as can be readily shown with trauma victims, drug-induced states, dying-brain processes, and non-linear sense of dreamtime). Therefor, in the imagination, anyone can time travel backwards or forwards in time, if only given sufficient information to envision such, for the 5th dimension is only what we percieve. When you're in a dream, rarely do you realize it's not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 @littleray - you ask a lot of very good questions. Thank you! That's what these forums are for. Here is a good site for learning about string theory:The Official String Theory Website Hope that helps a bit. String theory is immensely exciting - but also incredibly confusing. I've read at least 5 books on the issue but can't honestly say that I understand the point of all the dimensions etc. But then again - I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician. *edit* I should point out, however, that what got me interested in physics in the first place was an article about string theory in Scientific American some ten years ago! It is a truly marvellous concept. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts