# 5th Dimension theory

49 replies to this topic

### #18 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:37 PM

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.

Why do you find my statement contradictory? If you were able to use negative mass or energy to make a worm hole to create a time machine you couldn't travel back any further than the instant the machine was turned on? Is this the statement you mean? This is why time travel wouldn't be as much fun as most people would think. As long as the machine exists you could travel back and forth through that time period. Most people think of seeing the dinosaurs or watching ancient history but unless your machine was built before those time periods you couldn't go back that far. As for faster than light, you do have a point, you cannot, through what we would call normal means, accelerate a material object to or faster than the speed of light. But if you create an isolated pocket of space/time around your vessel and then expand space behind the space/time pocket and compress it ahead or your space/time pocket you could accelerate to any speed you wanted without breaking the universal speed limit (Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), while this is a theoretical way to go faster than light it is still far beyond even knowing if the engineering can be done or not much less doing it. Then of course you have worm holes which are just as difficult to make and use. Heim theory suggests it might be a little bit easier but it is still an unconfirmed theory. (Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New Scientist) While none of these things can be used or even known if they could ever be used they do point out that the speed of light may one day be, if not broken then at least cheated.

### #19 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 05:22 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.

This strays from the type of "time travel" that is being discussed. You are refering to traveling to new realities... not in the past of the current on you reside within.

So if you were to travel into a "new time line" how would you know you were going into the past or the future in respect to that timeline? Especially when you are not traveling in time any differently that you are today as you hop along 1 second every 1 second.

### #20 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 05:36 PM

This strays from the type of "time travel" that is being discussed. You are refering to traveling to new realities... not in the past of the current on you reside within.

So if you were to travel into a "new time line" how would you know you were going into the past or the future in respect to that timeline? Especially when you are not traveling in time any differently that you are today as you hop along 1 second every 1 second.

You misunderstand what I was saying. The act of traveling back in your own time line would cause it to split into two timelines, one where you never went back in time and one where you did. I'm not sure that raveling to a complety new timeline is covered by time travel.

### #21 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 08:59 PM

The act of traveling back in your own time line would cause it to split into two timelines, one where you never went back in time and one where you did.

Precisely. The moment you split the one timeline into having a 2nd timeline, how could one prove they have traveled in time in the new timeline? In any case you end up in a place of now, what proves it is the past, present, or future? And if so relative to what, where, when?

Suppose we travel 'back in time' in a new timeline and we find ourself at a younger age. Does this prove it is the past? If you are not experiencing what this person is experiencnig (through feelings, emotions, memories) than this person really can't be you, other than them being akin to your clone. Similar to you, but not you that is you.

Thus, what proves time has been "traversed"?

What could we use to prove it?

### #22 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 07 April 2008 - 10:10 PM

Precisely. The moment you split the one timeline into having a 2nd timeline, how could one prove they have traveled in time in the new timeline? In any case you end up in a place of now, what proves it is the past, present, or future? And if so relative to what, where, when?

Suppose we travel 'back in time' in a new timeline and we find ourself at a younger age. Does this prove it is the past? If you are not experiencing what this person is experiencnig (through feelings, emotions, memories) than this person really can't be you, other than them being akin to your clone. Similar to you, but not you that is you.

Thus, what proves time has been "traversed"?

What could we use to prove it?

### #23 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 01:18 PM

What would prove you went back into the past? At the instant you went back you would start a new timeline. It would appear to be your past due to the historical things that would be taking place but your presence would cause it to start to diverge from the old time line where you started out.

Right, I follow.

To travel back in time in concept you it is required that you travel through a demension.

For example.. If a time line were a 1 dimensional line with the future end as "A" and the past as "B", and we may call the present moment "C". Then to travel in the past you would have to travel in the B direction.

However, in the method you state you open or enter a new timeline in which you are traveling relative to your perspective in the A direction untill you finally arive in a new C location which there is no way I can see that one can prove is located within the universe you originated from and that the experiment was performed in.

And because you are attempting to travel in the B direction, and following the logic of creating a new timeline each time period you attempt to travel in the B direction, it should be true that you will infinitely branch into a new timeline never infact going in the B direction.

if theoretical or possible time lines were aranged in a parrallel fashion like so:

"|"||||||||||||||

Where the bottom is B (past) and the top is A (future) and you started in the one that is in quotes( "|" ), then it would only be possible for you to travel in a 90 degree direction "paused" in a specific C location, skipping across infinitely in what are preposed as identical timelines. In this case you have achieved nothing other than being surpassed by your surroundings (being less aged in a relative to you future world)

### #24 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 02:31 PM

Right, I follow.

To travel back in time in concept you it is required that you travel through a demension.

For example.. If a time line were a 1 dimensional line with the future end as "A" and the past as "B", and we may call the present moment "C". Then to travel in the past you would have to travel in the B direction.

However, in the method you state you open or enter a new timeline in which you are traveling relative to your perspective in the A direction untill you finally arive in a new C location which there is no way I can see that one can prove is located within the universe you originated from and that the experiment was performed in.

And because you are attempting to travel in the B direction, and following the logic of creating a new timeline each time period you attempt to travel in the B direction, it should be true that you will infinitely branch into a new timeline never infact going in the B direction.

if theoretical or possible time lines were aranged in a parrallel fashion like so:

"|"||||||||||||||

Where the bottom is B (past) and the top is A (future) and you started in the one that is in quotes( "|" ), then it would only be possible for you to travel in a 90 degree direction "paused" in a specific C location, skipping across infinitely in what are preposed as identical timelines. In this case you have achieved nothing other than being surpassed by your surroundings (being less aged in a relative to you future world)

I'm not sure why we are having such a difficult time communicating. time travel is traveling at 180 degrees from your own time lines progression. Or if you prefere bending your time line back on it's self. I'm not sure where you get the 90 degrees direction. going from one timeline to another is quite different from traveling back on your own time line. If you travel to another time line you really cannot tell where you will end up or even if the time line will be familar at all. If you do travel back to the past of your own time line you would create a new time line seperate from your own but indentical at first. Am I understsnding your point at all or are talking about differnt things?

### #25 Jay-qu

Jay-qu

Ancora Imparo

• Members
• 6340 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 06:34 PM

I think a solution to the time traveling paradox that uses multiple time lines is ugly and troublesome - its like invoking dark matter to explain gravitational anomalies

I would tend to believe a little more elegant of a solution, one that I have toyed with but being unable to mathematically formalize is that if one travels backwards in time then you may only move outside your past light cone and not within it. Making yourself spacelike separated from your past self.

To put it another way, if you traveled back in time you would wind up greater than c*t distance away from the point you started at. This means that even traveling at the speed of light you would not be able to make it back to a point where you can effect your past self. Thus preserving causality.

### #26 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 06:47 PM

I think a solution to the time traveling paradox that uses multiple time lines is ugly and troublesome - its like invoking dark matter to explain gravitational anomalies

I would tend to believe a little more elegant of a solution, one that I have toyed with but being unable to mathematically formalize is that if one travels backwards in time then you may only move outside your past light cone and not within it. Making yourself spacelike separated from your past self.

To put it another way, if you traveled back in time you would wind up greater than c*t distance away from the point you started at. This means that even traveling at the speed of light you would not be able to make it back to a point where you can effect your past self. Thus preserving causality.

How would that preserve causality? I could go back 500 and a few years and sink the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Would this not be just as damaging to causality? I think the time line might miss Columbus. Save Lincoln From being assinated? No mater how old my sons seem to think I am that was before my life time. Causality will be affected no matter how far back you go. Either you get multiple timelines or you get a paradox, I don't see a way around it.

### #27 Ramkumara

Ramkumara

Curious

• Members
• 5 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 03:29 PM

Why do you find my statement contradictory? If you were able to use negative mass or energy to make a worm hole to create a time machine you couldn't travel back any further than the instant the machine was turned on? Is this the statement you mean? This is why time travel wouldn't be as much fun as most people would think. As long as the machine exists you could travel back and forth through that time period. Most people think of seeing the dinosaurs or watching ancient history but unless your machine was built before those time periods you couldn't go back that far. As for faster than light, you do have a point, you cannot, through what we would call normal means, accelerate a material object to or faster than the speed of light. But if you create an isolated pocket of space/time around your vessel and then expand space behind the space/time pocket and compress it ahead or your space/time pocket you could accelerate to any speed you wanted without breaking the universal speed limit (Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), while this is a theoretical way to go faster than light it is still far beyond even knowing if the engineering can be done or not much less doing it. Then of course you have worm holes which are just as difficult to make and use. Heim theory suggests it might be a little bit easier but it is still an unconfirmed theory. (Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New Scientist) While none of these things can be used or even known if they could ever be used they do point out that the speed of light may one day be, if not broken then at least cheated.

Honestly I do not understand what negative mass or a Worm hole is. But as the, speed of light cannot be broken. It can only be cheated. But what you achieve will not be what is desired. You will end up diproving Einstein. Or you will end up cheating yourself trying to disprove Einstein.

### #28 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 03:57 PM

Honestly I do not understand what negative mass or a Worm hole is. But as the, speed of light cannot be broken. It can only be cheated. But what you achieve will not be what is desired. You will end up diproving Einstein. Or you will end up cheating yourself trying to disprove Einstein.

These things are basically thought exercises on how to get around the speed of light without violating Einstein's theory. Heim theory is the only one that is in direct conflict with relativity. Heim theory is only considered because it predicts the mass of certain elementary particles that no other theory did or does. (Heim theory was first proposed in the 1950's but it was never translated to English. To really understand how Heim's theory could have gone so long without being in the mainstream you really need to look up the detail of his life.) This prediction makes Heim theory very interesting but the jury is still out. But some people are gearing up to test it. Negative mass and negative energy are just ways to express ideas that cannot be thought of in any other way. Like imaginary numbers, there is no reason why they cannot exist but no real reason to think they do either. Actually negative energy is what is thought to be pushing the universe apart but it is so diffuse it is unknown if we can ever generate such a thing. I think you are hung up on the faster than light equals going back in time. Since accelerating an object in real space, even to the speed of light cannot be done, this effect is just as imaginary as the square root of negative one. If you can be separated from real space by warped space or leave it entirely by going into a worm hole the time travel part doesn't apply.

### #29 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 12:28 AM

I'm not sure why we are having such a difficult time communicating. time travel is traveling at 180 degrees from your own time lines progression. Or if you prefere bending your time line back on it's self. I'm not sure where you get the 90 degrees direction. going from one timeline to another is quite different from traveling back on your own time line. If you travel to another time line you really cannot tell where you will end up or even if the time line will be familar at all. If you do travel back to the past of your own time line you would create a new time line seperate from your own but indentical at first. Am I understsnding your point at all or are talking about differnt things?

We are not having a difficult time communicating at all in my opinion.

The questions I put for are rhetorical questions. I am not expecting you to come up with an answer that proves your idea as much as I am expecting you to ask yourself the same question.

I am also trying to point out the flaws that I see in the theory and or logic you are putting forth.

Allow me to sumerize my previous post in a more mathematical form.

I am seeing two options at the base of this concept of a new timeline.

You stated, although not formally, a basic rule that: For any physical object that exists within a forward moving timeline (our timeline) and attempts to travel into the direction of the past of this particular timeline a new timeline will be formed.

This being said, moving backward in time equals a new timeline. T(time) tL(timeline) -T = tL

Therefore it is impossible to move backwards in time without infinitly creating new timelines for every attempt to travel backwards.

However this is only true when we state that a timeline is primary and fundamental entity in and of itself that a secondary and non-fundamental observer resides within, as opposed to a timeline that is secondary to the primary and fundamental observer.

The second option is:

The observer travels forward in time through the particular timeline it has created to a destination that exists now but replicates a moment we know as the past and could be mistaken for the past.

However, it is not the past, but a jump that takes time (t=n,1,2,3,) in the forward direction to an entirely seperate universe/timeline in respect to our original.

I hope this is undestandable..

My attempt is to realisitcally apply this theoretical concept you have put forward.

Is there a way out of these two options to possibly provide a 3rd?

### #30 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 04:53 PM

We are not having a difficult time communicating at all in my opinion.

The questions I put for are rhetorical questions. I am not expecting you to come up with an answer that proves your idea as much as I am expecting you to ask yourself the same question.

I am also trying to point out the flaws that I see in the theory and or logic you are putting forth.

Allow me to sumerize my previous post in a more mathematical form.

I am seeing two options at the base of this concept of a new timeline.

You stated, although not formally, a basic rule that: For any physical object that exists within a forward moving timeline (our timeline) and attempts to travel into the direction of the past of this particular timeline a new timeline will be formed.

This being said, moving backward in time equals a new timeline. T(time) tL(timeline) -T = tL

Therefore it is impossible to move backwards in time without infinitly creating new timelines for every attempt to travel backwards.

However this is only true when we state that a timeline is primary and fundamental entity in and of itself that a secondary and non-fundamental observer resides within, as opposed to a timeline that is secondary to the primary and fundamental observer.

The second option is:

The observer travels forward in time through the particular timeline it has created to a destination that exists now but replicates a moment we know as the past and could be mistaken for the past.

However, it is not the past, but a jump that takes time (t=n,1,2,3,) in the forward direction to an entirely seperate universe/timeline in respect to our original.

I hope this is undestandable..

My attempt is to realisitcally apply this theoretical concept you have put forward.

Is there a way out of these two options to possibly provide a 3rd?

The theory of time travel (more correctly hypothisis, although time travel is so filled with "ifs" I'm not sure if even hypothisis is the right word. Maybe wish is better:hihi:) can be discribed in almost as many way as there are poeple who are thinking of it. time travel is almost mind bending because of the possible paradoxes involved.

You said:
The observer travels forward in time through the particular timeline it has created to a destination that exists now but replicates a moment we know as the past and could be mistaken for the past.

However, it is not the past, but a jump that takes time (t=n,1,2,3,) in the forward direction to an entirely seperate universe/timeline in respect to our original.

The new timeline isn't created until you arrive in the past, when you arrive it is indeed the past of your time line. Once you arrive the old time line splits and you continue on in the new time line. The destination isn't created, but a new future is. One version of this says no new time line is created but the old is simply changed but your presence would be unexplainable much like a singularity that spits out something from nothing.

If you try to travel back to your starting point you would arrive in a new present that contains the fact of your trip. Unlike the old present that did not. The changes you made by your trip would change the new present, maybe to an extent that it wouldn't be recognizable when compared to your former present but it would still be the same distance in time from the moment you arrived in the past of your former present.

A time jump would be instantaneous so you wouldn't have to take into account the time your trip took. Are you assuming that travel backwards would take the some amount of time that it had taken to make it to the present you had left? In other words if you went back ten years it would take tens years to get there? (wouldn't that take the fun out of visiting the dinosaurs?) You could of course be correct, no one really knows the nuts and bolts of what time travel would be like. I was assuming time travel would be instantaneous because a worm hole bends space so that two separate places or times meet with no time or space between them. I think I have a headache.

### #31 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9031 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:45 PM

On the lighter side of time travel:

http://www.creators....16857_image.gif

### #32 dolphin

dolphin

Curious

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 04 May 2008 - 10:40 AM

Greetings,

Newbie here.
If I may -the fifth dimension is analagous to-

1st D.) A man.
2nd D.) A man stands on a stage.
3rd D.) A man stands on a stage in front of an audience.
The audience is aware of man on stage and other audience members.
4th D.) A man stands onstage in front of an audience and balcony patrons.
The balcony patrons are aware of audience below, and man on stage.
5th D.) A man stands on stage in front of an audience and balcony patrons.
Everyone is aware of everyone. Everyone generates positive energy
towards everyone else. Evidence of positive energy can be seen by
Kirlian photography. The triangulation of this positive energy creates
a field where everyone is aware of the shared connection to each
other. If the guy in seat 12b punches the guy in 12c, the entire theater
will instantly be aware, react in united condemnation, which in turn
will instantly be felt by the attacker in 12b. This type of behavior
quickly becomes unthinkable throughout the theater. Once this field
of shared connection of positive energy remains constant, a 5th
dimension portal is established and 3rd dimension "laws" are
routinely broken.

A current example of the 5th dimension is the Brazilian healer,
"John of God" uses a grid of 60 devout meditators who sit in white,
next to 20 even more devout meditators, who sit in white,
next to John of God, who heals people all day long, 3 days a week.
On the other side of John of God is a room piled high with wheelchairs,
crutches, and braces no longer needed by the people he has healed.
That is one explanation for the 5th dimension.

With Respect,
Dave

### #33 Jay-qu

Jay-qu

Ancora Imparo

• Members
• 6340 posts

Posted 04 May 2008 - 08:44 PM

Greetings,

Newbie here.
If I may -the fifth dimension is analagous to-

1st D.) A man.
2nd D.) A man stands on a stage.
3rd D.) A man stands on a stage in front of an audience.
The audience is aware of man on stage and other audience members.
4th D.) A man stands onstage in front of an audience and balcony patrons.
The balcony patrons are aware of audience below, and man on stage.
5th D.) A man stands on stage in front of an audience and balcony patrons.
Everyone is aware of everyone. Everyone generates positive energy
towards everyone else. Evidence of positive energy can be seen by
Kirlian photography. The triangulation of this positive energy creates
a field where everyone is aware of the shared connection to each
other. If the guy in seat 12b punches the guy in 12c, the entire theater
will instantly be aware, react in united condemnation, which in turn
will instantly be felt by the attacker in 12b. This type of behavior
quickly becomes unthinkable throughout the theater. Once this field
of shared connection of positive energy remains constant, a 5th
dimension portal is established and 3rd dimension "laws" are
routinely broken.

...

If I make a mental stretch and go along with your person on stage analogy, I agree with the first 4, but certainly not the 5th - would it not just be some outside observer that can see all within..

Why complicate it with an analogy when it can be more directly accessed:

0D

.

a single point

1D

__

a line

2D

__
|_|

a box

3D

a cube

4D

a hypercube
or also called a tesseract

get a better feel for the geometry YouTube - Tesseract / Hypercube

5D would be a hyper-hypercube, which becomes very messy in 2D. Here is a site the attempts such a feat
Viewing Hyperspheres, Hypercubes, and other 4-D Objects
• freeztar likes this

### #34 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:53 PM

Good stuff Jay-qu! I just fried my mind going through that last link.

It's the best description I've found of envisioning dimensions higher than three. It's still a fuzzy concept for me, but this certainly helped.

I would recommend that readers check out the last link first, and then play the youtube video. As it is playing, pause the video from time to time and try to apply the resulting 2-d image to the idea of envisioning a 3-d image in a 4-d space. That helped me a little anyways.