Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

5th Dimension theory


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Ken2535

Ken2535

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 09:59 PM

No one knows exactly what the 5th dimension is.
1. a line
2. A flat object(width and hight)
3. Width hight and depth
4. Time itself
and what i think is that the 5th dimension is Time Travil

Does anyone beleave my theory?

#2 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 02:56 AM

What theory?

#3 Becca

Becca

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 11:23 AM

We will probably never know much about any of those higher dimensions because we can't perceive them in any way that we can with the others. I don't think time travel would be a dimension though, it's a movement through some or all of the others.

#4 UncleAl

UncleAl

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1212 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:05 PM

If you want a physical dimension the math is explicit and trivially manipulated. If you want compactified dimensions you have one charge dimension, two isospin dimensions, and three color dimensions atop the usual three plus time. Their physical meaning is debatable. If you want to play games like Heinlein's Number of the Beast you have three space axes (x,y,z) and three time axes (t, tau, teh). Time travel violates causality. The universe does not tolerate contradictions.

You cannot expect an answer of any better quality than that of the question you ask.

#5 Ramkumara

Ramkumara

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:23 PM

UncleAl, your reply is perfect. Time travel violates causality. Eisten has theoritically proved its practical impossibility. Well, I have heard about the three time axes (t, tau, teh)... never understood though. Also I have heard about theories that has more dimensions. Say M-theory that has 11 dimensions defined. Are these theories proven? Can you throw some light on this.

#6 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 07:13 PM

UncleAl, your reply is perfect. Time travel violates causality. Eisten has theoritically proved its practical impossibility. Well, I have heard about the three time axes (t, tau, teh)... never understood though. Also I have heard about theories that has more dimensions. Say M-theory that has 11 dimensions defined. Are these theories proven? Can you throw some light on this.


Time travel violates causality only if you think there is only one version of reality. If you think that quantum theory should be taken literally then time travel does become possible. When you go back in time you would start a new time line separate from the one you were in before you went back. In fact you have instantly created a new time line separate from the other. In the old you never went back in time, in the new one you did. This of course would set the stage for even more time lines as you move around and disturb the new time into separate time lines. It just depends on whether or not you take your quantum mechanics straight or mix it with parallel worlds.:):hihi:

#7 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 07:28 PM

No one knows exactly what the 5th dimension is.
1. a line
2. A flat object(width and hight)
3. Width hight and depth
4. Time itself
and what i think is that the 5th dimension is Time Travil

Does anyone beleave my theory?

ooo, ooo, ooo I know, I know! :hihi: The fifth dimension is what ever is at right angles from the forth dimension!
No really, there is no reason to say there cannot be a fifth dimension and time is an illusion we create to help us see the infinite number of three dimensional moments in 4D space time. The fourth dimension is simply what is at right angles from the third. But time is a good way to think of the fourth dimension and the fifth would allow for an infinite number of four dimensional space times as the fourth allows for a infinite number of three dimensional moments in time. It's so easy when you are as uninformed as I am:eek_big: Actually there are many ways to look at the extra dimensions but I like the brane theory types my self. Curling dimensions up into infinitely small regions or tubes or whatever can still be done inside the bigger spatial dimensions. I can work this out to ten or eleven dimensions but the they all have the similar effects. If you like to think of time as the fourth dimension them the fifth would be similar to the fourth dimension as the fourth is to the three we are completely aware of.

#8 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:47 AM

One way to look at the fifth dimension is connected to two different space-time references interacting. The more contracted reference sees things different in space and time. If we didn't know it was in another reference, but it was interacting with our reference, the affects would appear to be off in terms of cause and affect in our reference. For example, time dilation within the fast reference makes a person appear to age slower. If we didn't know he was in a fast reference, but assumed he was in our reference, it would appear like he had new virtual biology. If one is aware of the reference difference, and can compensate for these differences, the fifth dimension can be factored out.

It is possible we are not fully aware of all reference interactions since high GR is different than low GR. While, by convention, we only use the zero reference to coordinate universe gravity. If there was reference interaction this assumption may create anomalies needing the 5th D.

#9 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 06:06 PM

No one knows exactly what the 5th dimension is.
1. a line
2. A flat object(width and hight)
3. Width hight and depth
4. Time itself
and what i think is that the 5th dimension is Time Travil

Does anyone beleave my theory?




Tell me what you have perceived that leads you to believe that the first three spatial dimensions are real physical things? After you answer that then we can proceed to talking about the dimensions beyond that.

#10 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 06:10 PM

We will probably never know much about any of those higher dimensions because we can't perceive them in any way that we can with the others. I don't think time travel would be a dimension though, it's a movement through some or all of the others.




Read post #9. Same goes for you. What makes you think the first three spatial dimensions are physical things?

#11 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 06:12 PM

If you want a physical dimension the math is explicit and trivially manipulated. If you want compactified dimensions you have one charge dimension, two isospin dimensions, and three color dimensions atop the usual three plus time. Their physical meaning is debatable. If you want to play games like Heinlein's Number of the Beast you have three space axes (x,y,z) and three time axes (t, tau, teh). Time travel violates causality. The universe does not tolerate contradictions.

You cannot expect an answer of any better quality than that of the question you ask.


Do you even know what you are saying? Tell me, are spatial dimensions physical things? Yes/no.

#12 Ramkumara

Ramkumara

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 09:29 AM

Time travel violates causality only if you think there is only one version of reality. If you think that quantum theory should be taken literally then time travel does become possible. When you go back in time you would start a new time line separate from the one you were in before you went back. In fact you have instantly created a new time line separate from the other. In the old you never went back in time, in the new one you did. This of course would set the stage for even more time lines as you move around and disturb the new time into separate time lines. It just depends on whether or not you take your quantum mechanics straight or mix it with parallel worlds.:doh::)


I do not understand you. How will you go back in time? Objects that has inertial mass cannot reach the speed of light itself. Let alone crossing it. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant. Electromagnetic radiations of all wavelengths travel at the same speed as that of visible light. What you think can travel faster than light and will take you back in time. That is why I say time travel is not possible and it violates causality as well.

#13 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:04 AM

I do not understand you. How will you go back in time? Objects that has inertial mass cannot reach the speed of light itself. Let alone crossing it. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant. Electromagnetic radiations travel at the same speed as that of light. What you think can travel faster than light and will take you back in time. That is why I say time travel is not possible and it violates causality as well.


Time travel doesn't necessitate traveling faster than light and traveling faster than light doesn't necessarily mean time travel. A "time machine" could, at least in theory be made but it would require things we cannot reproduce or build at this time (maybe never) things like negative mass, worm holes, rotating super dense cylinders, cosmic strings. Lots of theoretical ways to bend space time back on it's self, there are even theoretical ways to travel faster than light. Some scientists are actually beginning to think it might an engineering problem rather an impossibility. The main thing about time travel is you probably couldn't go back in time any further than the instant the machine was turned on. That kind of takes the fun out of it but doesn't make it impossible. Even if actual time travel of a person is impossible sending signals back wouldn't as difficult but it would be just as damaging to causality. I try to keep an open mind about these things but not open enough that my brain falls out. I'll wait until some smart guy actually does it before I will totally commit my self. BTW quantum mecahnics does provide for a way for causality to be preserved but as I said that would be a "many worlds" type problem.:)

#14 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 07:15 PM

We will probably never know much about any of those higher dimensions because we can't perceive them in any way that we can with the others. I don't think time travel would be a dimension though, it's a movement through some or all of the others.



Tell me how you percieve dimensions. Go ahead and tell me what perceptics you use to percieve dimensions. Also, look in any scientific reference book and see if you can find a definition for dimension that states they are physical things.

#15 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 07:20 PM

Time travel violates causality only if you think there is only one version of reality. If you think that quantum theory should be taken literally then time travel does become possible. When you go back in time you would start a new time line separate from the one you were in before you went back. In fact you have instantly created a new time line separate from the other. In the old you never went back in time, in the new one you did. This of course would set the stage for even more time lines as you move around and disturb the new time into separate time lines. It just depends on whether or not you take your quantum mechanics straight or mix it with parallel worlds.:doh::eek_big:


Time is a consideration, not a physical thing. Show scientific evidence that says otherwise. What you said in the above quote is your concept, not based on reality.

#16 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 07:22 PM

One way to look at the fifth dimension is connected to two different space-time references interacting. The more contracted reference sees things different in space and time. If we didn't know it was in another reference, but it was interacting with our reference, the affects would appear to be off in terms of cause and affect in our reference. For example, time dilation within the fast reference makes a person appear to age slower. If we didn't know he was in a fast reference, but assumed he was in our reference, it would appear like he had new virtual biology. If one is aware of the reference difference, and can compensate for these differences, the fifth dimension can be factored out.

It is possible we are not fully aware of all reference interactions since high GR is different than low GR. While, by convention, we only use the zero reference to coordinate universe gravity. If there was reference interaction this assumption may create anomalies needing the 5th D.


Go define dimension. What is this high Gr and low GR stuff? Show a reference that states this.

#17 Ramkumara

Ramkumara

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 09:28 PM

Time travel doesn't necessitate traveling faster than light and traveling faster than light doesn't necessarily mean time travel. A "time machine" could, at least in theory be made but it would require things we cannot reproduce or build at this time (maybe never) things like negative mass, worm holes, rotating super dense cylinders, cosmic strings. Lots of theoretical ways to bend space time back on it's self, there are even theoretical ways to travel faster than light. Some scientists are actually beginning to think it might an engineering problem rather an impossibility. The main thing about time travel is you probably couldn't go back in time any further than the instant the machine was turned on. That kind of takes the fun out of it but doesn't make it impossible. Even if actual time travel of a person is impossible sending signals back wouldn't as difficult but it would be just as damaging to causality. I try to keep an open mind about these things but not open enough that my brain falls out. I'll wait until some smart guy actually does it before I will totally commit my self. BTW quantum mecahnics does provide for a way for causality to be preserved but as I said that would be a "many worlds" type problem.:eek_big:


You yourself contradict your statement. As you say even if you have those things that do not exist today or cannot be produced in the future, you probably couldn't go back in time any further than the instant the machine was turned on. I appreciate you keeping an open mind about this. But for now or in the future (theoritically), it is impossible for anything that has inertial mass to travel at the speed of light. But only with those with mass can measure time. Photons or radio waves has no inertia and they travel at a velocity that is equal to c. Time is insignificant for these as they do not travel at a velocity other than c. You need an inertial reference frame to measure the time it travels that simply do not exist.