Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

5th Dimension theory


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#35 steve 9

steve 9

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 01:36 AM

Alright, So everyone who thinks that the first three dimensions are real physical things that exist in space, please show any evidence of this. What do they look like? Do they have a color? Are they a wave or a solid? From where do they eminate? What influence(if any) do they have on other physical objects? How much space do they occupy?

For each of the three dimensions the following questions apply: For example the 1st dimension.

How long is it? How wide is it? What perceptions do you use to detect the presence of (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,) dimensions?

Remember, to have EXTRA dimensions, you need to have at least one dimension. So what is it going to be? What makes you think that any spatial dimension is a real physical thing?

#36 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 12:27 PM

This truly is a 'trippy' animation... but please hold on.. Remove the glassy looking membrane... Why? because it is meerly put there for a more dramatic visual experience, and can not truly behave as a side because it allows itself to pass through itself...

replace that image with metal teliscopic tubes aranged in the same manner underwater...

If we watch the joints of the tubes, meaning the corners that are attatched we observe that they can not be mechanically connected, at least not in a way I was able to understand by any kind of exotic hinge or swivel... if such a thing were built it may require a magnetic ball at each corner that the ends of the teliscopic tubes are attracted to.

This is not a true attatchment... Instead, we have seperate relationship occuring between the shape as a whole and the corners. The tubes ends would have to slide around the magnetic ball in an entirely random manner. Where as the machine as a whole is not random but predictable and certain.

If we translate this into a mathamatical logistical language, should we not define this so called 5th dimensional object as an illusion as a whole? due to the source of its connection parts acting in an incalcuable random manner?

Are we able to get away with plugging uncertainty, randomness, and illusions into reasoning of mathematics and dimensions?



...

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
Posted Image
a cube

4D
Posted Image
Posted Image
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



#37 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 05:20 PM

arkain,

It’s not a real 3D object and it shouldn’t act like one. It should act like a projection or a shadow from 4D to 3D. Think of projecting a normal box onto a 2D wall. Parts of the shadow will pass through other parts. The shadow won’t act like a real 2D mechanical construction - but a shadow, as it should. Same goes for a tesseract projected into 3D space.

Are we able to get away with plugging uncertainty, randomness, and illusions into reasoning of mathematics and dimensions?


There is nothing uncertain or random about the projection Jay-qu links. It is mathematically well defined and makes good sense.

~modest

#38 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 08:29 PM

true I understand how mathamatically it can make sense.

I was simply just relating it strictly to the 3D world we see..

#39 Kaesey

Kaesey

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:30 PM

Alright, So everyone who thinks that the first three dimensions are real physical things that exist in space, please show any evidence of this. What do they look like? Do they have a color? Are they a wave or a solid? From where do they eminate? What influence(if any) do they have on other physical objects? How much space do they occupy?

For each of the three dimensions the following questions apply: For example the 1st dimension.

How long is it? How wide is it? What perceptions do you use to detect the presence of (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,) dimensions?

Remember, to have EXTRA dimensions, you need to have at least one dimension. So what is it going to be? What makes you think that any spatial dimension is a real physical thing?


We think they are real things because it has been proven that they are real. And your thinking too specific: forget shape and color. Listen. Dimention 1: a straight line. Dimention 2: a flat representation i.e. a drawing. Dimention 3: anything with depth. Dimention 4: Supposedly time, I myself don't know how it works, ask one of the more esperienced members on here.

and obviously if its a SPATIAL dimention it takes up SPACE. SPACE is PHYSICAL. :)

#40 DFINITLYDISTRUBD

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

    tsilcycrotom live

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2291 posts

Posted 28 October 2009 - 06:30 PM

I know! I know!;) The Fifth Dimension is the dimension of really cheesy music!!! :D
This is the dawning of the age of aquariums age of aquariums....AQUARIUMmmmmmS....aquareeeeummmmms ;)

(I blame Mr Moon for inspiring this somewhere's about his first or second post here)

#41 lawcat

lawcat

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 768 posts

Posted 28 October 2009 - 07:51 PM

In mathematical sense, I can picture more than 3 dimensions only through the use of integrals.

More than 3 dimensions, plus time, makes no sense whatsoever.

As matter of fact, I would venture to say, the 3 dimensions are 2 too many. It would be of great benefit to have single dimension system.

#42 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 09:53 AM

If you cover one eye, we will lose depth perception. To compensate the one eye has to shift back and forth to simulate 3-D. If humans only had one eye, the third or z-axis would be somewhat fuzzy. It would need to be modeled conceptually and mathematically, since although it does exist, the one eye is having problems with clarity. The math would create a way to visualize this third dimension within the imagination, to assist with the limitation of this particular sensory system. This is where mental constructs are important. These would emulate a second eye or mind's eye, i.e., in the imagination.

With two eyes we can see much better in 3-D, but looking at the fourth dimension of time also has a perceptual problem for this particular sensory system. We needed to develop the math and the concepts of time or the 4th-D, to allow us to see reality using 4-D, with much of the processing done within the imagination's virtual eye, to assist the limitations of just two eyes. This gives us three eyes, one virtual, to see 4-D.

I suppose we could also add mental constructs and math for 5-D and orientate the mind within the imagination using two mind's eyes or two virtual eyes. But without any of these mental constructs, two eyes only sees 3-D with certainty. Under these primitive conditions the mind would still try to fill in 4-D, with trial and error data. One can still throw the spear at the animal moving in space-time, even without understanding time. This empirical data was later made more rational, due to the efforts of science, replacing the uncertainty with a cleaner mental construct for 4-D.
  • Hasanuddin likes this

#43 Adamdellow86

Adamdellow86

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 November 2009 - 11:34 PM

Mathematically, time exists in all 11 dimensions, and in fact, according multiple articles and videos on the subject, what makes up the space in 4th dimensional objects would be duration. The best way I've ever seen 11 dimensions explained was in this video YouTube - Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2 , which is a video on 11 dimensions (the 5th one included). It explains that the 5th dimension would be '...The Multitude of paths in any given direction that we can branch to at any moment.'
Those paths expressed most likely at right angles from every point of the 4th dimensional space (if you have a good understanding of a Hypercube,

#44 Yoron

Yoron

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 20 February 2010 - 12:27 AM

Now :)

Ah yes, dimensions :)

Let's look at a two dimensional object inside 3D+times arrow.

As I'm God in this system I will give it length and height..
Width? Uhhu, no way, bad idea. And I'm God here.

So i'll take this object and put it on a table. Now, as it has no 'width' I can only place it securedly in one way, flat along its 'height' or 'length', were I to place it by its non existing width, it would just fall right through the table, and the floor, and probably not stop until somewhere in the middle of our planet.

As it from some angles would exist, but from others wouldn't. So what do you think? Do such objects exist inside SpaceTime? Why haven't we seen them if so. We would have a statistical sixty six point six percentage to observe them, two chances in three which seems like quite good odds.

But we haven't, have we?. When people discus two dimensional systems they mostly refer to very small quantum mechanical lattices, but the same reasoning will make sense there. Do they disappear from certain angles showing you what's 'behind' them while simultaneously existing from other angles (as seen by two observers simultaneously being in same 'frame of reference') . If they don't, I say that they can't be a true 'two dimensional' object inside our SpaceTime.

So, does this have anything to tell us about dimensionality?
I think it does, dimensions, just like our SpaceTime is a 'whole'. Dimensional systems may exist from, ah, possibly one-dimensional, up too ??? dimensions (inside times arrow). But only as 'whole systems' nota bene. I have severe problems accepting the idea of dimensionality as something you can 'copy and paste' as needed.

So what would that do to string theory? Well, I can only see one solution to that, if so, that is a one-dimensional reality, but knotted into what we see as Space and matter by our arrow of time. Not as dimensions you 'put together' as needed. And then our SpaceTime won't exclude other SpaceTimes built on other diminsionalities, but they will all be whole concepts, as I see it that is :)

#45 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 08:23 AM

A member sent me a personal message saying that I ought to check out this thread and that maybe the question of a 5th dimension could be addressed via the Dominium Model. I’m glad I followed that recommendation. To address this question I will pay respects to the views/insights posted thus far. [quote=HydrogenBond; 214043] 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.[/quote]
To this insight, I whole-heartedly agree. The Dominium model would see the 4th dimension as the interactions with the supermatrix of galaxies. Forces of magnitude beyond anything achieved in a lab must be interplaying between galaxies. Those forces would have been strongest during the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. I hope this sounds a bit familiar folks, but these assertions are the heart of the Dominium model. http://hypography.co...html#post259329 So, I suppose it is safe to conclude that the Dominium model is truly an examination of necessary interaction within the 5th dimension. I have no problem with that; the Dominium model is a 5th dimensional analysis. Cool

[quote name='steve9'] Do you even know what you are saying? Tell me, are spatial dimensions physical things? Yes/no.[/quote]
Not fun to bring in philosophy and semantics. To steve9, I hope when you redefine an English word, like “dimension,” that you do so explicitly. Under lay terms, the lead post of this thread is satisfactory. After all, it is worded as a question

[quote name='Moontanman'] 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.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree, though with a cautionary note. One important aspect of arbitrarily assigned mathematic labeling to non-mathetmatical, but physical, particles, then one risks transposing the mathematical constraints where they don’t apply. For example, one simplistic argument initially leveled against the Dominium: if you call antimatter the “negative” mass then that means you’d have a “negative” KE, because KE=0.5mv^2. But that’s a paradox because you can’t have negative energy. In fact, no paradox exists, because the mistake comes from the assumption that assigning a mathematic label assumed transfer of mathematical traits. I don’t think that is what you are implying. But I just wanted to insert clarification for those reading.

I must say that I am not quite sure what to make of Yoron’s poetic post preceding this one. I’m not sure I agree or disagree with any of his points because it is unclear to me what was asserted and what could have a factious jest. Or maybe I was just derailed by the God-statement [quote name='Yoron']As I'm God in this system I will give it length and height. Width? Uhhu, no way, bad idea. And I'm God here.[/quote]

I guess in summary, the Dominium model is not only compatible with the understanding of a 5th dimension, but the fundamental inquiry is one of 5th dimensional interaction. Where the 5th dimension is understood to be the interactions and interrelationships between "particles," i.e., galaxies, within the supermatrix of galaxies. Let me extend my sincere thanks for the PM and to its sender. For what it's worth, some truly cool corroborating forms of evidence have been published in the last few months. Ironically, the best evidence comes from the initial papers published by LHC which have offered the strongest support in favor of the Dominium model and against status quo assumptions. See full details at http://hypography.co...html#post292328 where it was stated: [qutoe=Hasanuddin;292328]Results of LHC are being released with interesting implications for the Dominium Model. BBC News - High-energy Large Hadron Collider results published

Let us focus on the "surprises" because those are always the most important things when it comes to scientific inquiry. [/quote]

#46 Yoron

Yoron

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:15 PM

My point goes back to how I see dimensions inside SpaceTime. If you can 'copy and paste' them to suit a theory. (And no, I wasn't really discussing your Dominium Model.) I was just reacting to the idea of 'dimensions'. Why isn't there any two dimensional objects observed inside SpaceTime if 'copy and paste' is true?

One dimensional I can understand that we won't 'see', but two dimensional we should have a fair chance to observe (ca 66%). And what would prove to us that they were 'two dimensional' is the simple fact that they would disappear from some angles, becoming 'invisible'. It's one of the things I'm fairly certain of. Read the post and then use your imagination, it's easy to see how i think there (hopefully:).

To my eyes you really need to prove the main stream idea of 'copy and paste' before I can accept it. There are other ways to create a 3D system as I see it, which doesn't exclude other 'dimensionality's' although I then would expect them all to be 'whole systems' in themselves, just as I think SpaceTime is :)

The fact that we call certain QM latices for 'two dimensional' doesn't make them true two dimensional objects to me, it's just a way to come around certain behaviors in a lattice as a 'system', describing it as 'two dimensional'. And if they don't exist inside spaceTime, what makes us so sure that this is the way dimensions work?

#47 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:27 PM

Why isn't there any two dimensional objects observed inside SpaceTime


There are two dimensional objects in space time, any projection on a surface is two dimensional, a movie is a good example but any reflected projection is two dimensional. A laser dot is two dimensional, when we look at the surface of the earth we are seeing two dimensions, the surface of any three dimensional object is two dimensional.

#48 Yoron

Yoron

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 05:01 PM

Not as i understands it Mr M.

Photons are dimensionless point particles. Waves are? Don't know there, but I would assume them to be 'dimension less' too. And that's another mystery to me :) How we can have something intrinsically 'time less' and 'dimension less' and 'mass less' still interacting in our macroscopic times arrow. That we define a 'photon' as a particle doesn't give it a rest mass, neither does it give it a 'size' and the momentum isn't rest mass, even if we find an equivalence in it.

You can if you like see it as 'frames' and then tell me that one behavior is from the' view point of a photon' and the other is from the frame of the 'observer' but. We also have radioactive particles like alpha particles which are helium nuclei, beta particles who are electrons and gamma radiation which are consisting of extremely energetic photons. But if you look at a electron f.ex it can be superpositioned in two orbitals simultaneously, and the gamma will have to be 'dimensionless' as it is a photon. As for alpha particles :)

#49 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:40 PM

There are two dimensional objects in space time, any projection on a surface is two dimensional, a movie is a good example but any reflected projection is two dimensional. A laser dot is two dimensional, when we look at the surface of the earth we are seeing two dimensions, the surface of any three dimensional object is two dimensional.

While I get your meaning, Moontan, I think it’s important to note that while 1 and 2 dimensional shadows of 3 dimensional objects such as you describe exist as mathematical abstractions, they’re abstractions, not physically real. The image on a movie screen, either the screen material that reflects the projected light, the complicated structures of our eye’s retinas, and the nerve processes and brain structures that perceive them are 3-dimensional. You cannot make a physically real 1 or 2 dimensional body, only a 3 dimensional one that is very thin in some of its axes.

Photons are dimensionless point particles. Waves are? Don't know there, but I would assume them to be 'dimension less' too.

All fundamental particles in the Standard Model of particle physics – which include photons and electrons, but not protons and neutrons – are point particles. To have extent – length, width, and depth – a particle must be a composite of fundamental particles. Protons and neutrons are composites of quarks and gluons.

All particles are both – not either or – waves and particles. Which one considers them to be depends on the kind of measurement one wishes to make of them. This is know as wave-particle duality, a central concept in particle physics.

And that's another mystery to me :yes: How we can have something intrinsically 'time less' and 'dimension less' and 'mass less' still interacting in our macroscopic times arrow. That we define a 'photon' as a particle doesn't give it a rest mass, neither does it give it a 'size' and the momentum isn't rest mass, even if we find an equivalence in it.

Although photons, alone among the gauge bosons, have zero rest mass, (in a sense, all the gauge bosons are required to have zero rest mass, but non-photons gain rest mass via a complicated mechanism) they have non-zero energy and momentum, so in many practical senses can be considered to have non-zero “pseudo-mass”.

Whether a fundamental particle has non-zero rest mass or not, it’s point-like, and exhibits wave-particle duality.

In short, like macroscopic particles, all the fundamental and composite particles of the standard model, and their associated quantum wave functions, exist in 3, not fewer, spatial dimensions.

Many theories beyond the Standard Model, notably string theories, require additional spatial dimensions.

#50 Yoron

Yoron

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 03:01 AM

Yes Craig, that's what I thought too. Although when it comes to waves and wavepackets its a little like walking into a minefield for me :) I have mostly looked at light from its 'particle' duality and as waves secondary. And now when I find so many defining a 'photon' as a wavepacket I find myself forced to look into it, to see what I'm missing :) So far I've been trying to understand how they can make the 'cut offs' to 'capture' a photon as an ensemble of waves, not with any particular success I might add :) It seems a very diffuse business to me. But I do understand the enticement of doing so, as well as defining dimensions as 'cut and paste'. It's all about 'forces' and the best definitions for them. If we f.ex could prof once and for all that the photon duality is a specific behavior of a wave then we only would have one definition to care for.

But for myself I have no trouble seeing dimensions as 'emergences'. And as I see it it won't exclude different dimensionality's, as long as we don't expect them to 'whisk' around in a 'whole' like SpaceTime seems to be, to me that is :) You can very easily have a five dimensional system if you like, but it won't be ours, and we won't notice it. At least I don't think so now, although I may change my mind, again ::))

But I can see why we use the expression 'two-dimensional' for some things. I've seen it used in graphene ("a one-atom-thick planar sheet of sp2-bonded carbon atoms that are densely packed in a honeycomb crystal lattice. It can be visualized as an atomic-scale chicken wire made of carbon atoms and their bonds." ) and it makes sense to define it that way, as it behaves only in one plane. but it have nothing to do with its dimensions, well, not as long as we expect an atom to be a 3D object.

It's called 'archetypes' when we start from what we experience to be a 'selfclear' observation, like one and one makes two, and the older I get the more I'm starting to question how true those archetypes really are. Most of what we expect to be comes from those definitions, and even in the possibility of them being 'universal' I still expect them to be limited to what we actually can observe. We have other things that we only can observe indirectly, like a vacuums negative energy and virtual particles, that we also deem to be true even thought they don't really 'exist' inside our arrow. I think that we will find more and more of those indirect evidence as we keep on, and that those will help us redefine a lot of ideas we have.

My view naturally :)
==

Now, when it comes to stringtheory they start with 'one dimensional' strings. And I have no real adversity to that, even though I have a he** of a time seeing how they expect such a string to to 'create' three dimensional objects. But my guess is that, if my view was correct, there only would need to be some adjustments made to it to make it work for dimensions as 'whole packet deals' too. Not that I know of course.

As a mathematical tool string theory offers a lot of solutions as I understands it. But it won't be anything more until they can make a testable prediction. When they do it will be very interesting, not that it isn't now too :)
===

And if that isn't enough :)
Take a look at graphene.
There you will find Massless Dirac Fermions aka, as I understands it, massless electrons