TeleMad Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Erka: But counting also the allowed dimensions of the small space inside the atom, actually there are 11 known dimensions. No, according to some theories there could be 11 dimensions. Erka: If we are talking abut sensible dimensions (f.e. spins of quarks are physically recognized but not sensible dimensions in our common space) the 5 th dimension is the rest-mass of large bodies astronomically moving in the outer space. Length=1, width=2, height=3, time=4, mass=5. Can you provide references for mass being a fifth dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcole45 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The idea of dimensions is a tool created by humans to better understand the universe. The fifth dimension could really be anything that exponentially expands on the previous dimension and thus fits the definition of a dimension. Maybe the fifth dimension could be "thought," sure, that could be considered an exponential expansion of time. The fifth dimension is whatever the science community decides it is. What is the next Crayola color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The idea of dimensions is a tool created by humans to better understand the universe. Welcome to our forums! It would be a good idea to read our FAQ first - and perhaps also the entire thread you're replying to, since it's been a long while since it was active. What do you base your claim about dimensions on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 @dent - since the chronology protection conjecture is just a figment of Stephen Hawking's imagination I wonder if there is any point in agreeing to it. If it is real, there is no way to prove it (because we would never be able to build a time machine to disprove it!).TormodWhat if such a time machine already exists that we can already use and don't realize it.Consider what if thought themselves are made of a substance that is superluminal innature (tachyonic). Suppose there could be a mechanism in QED whereby currentvisible particles could interact with these tachyonic particles, say like or with virtualparticles. By doing so this would not violate causality. If this were the case thendreaming we could imagine ourselves traveling to another time and actually go there.Just an imaginative conjecture... What if... ;) Maddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 I have already posted elsewhere of the Kaluza-Klien theory that was reviewed by Einstein in 1915. Basically, this is a merging Maxwell's EM equations and Einstein's GR.This was done by adding to Einstein's notion of a 4D spacetime a 5th dimension thatwas rolled up and made very small. This small invisible dimension gave the universethe property of charge for particles with mass (not all). Einstein was impressed andrecommended it for publication. I forget which German journal it got published in thatyear. Do a google search and/or look it up at your local university library (or both). ;) Maddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Hawking, on chronology protection is a whole matter within itself. From time to time the suggestion that thought perhaps transcends time is raised both within the metaphysical debate and within more traditional scientific avenues. Put it this way, if there are ever proved to be quantum processess that trancend normal time/space limits then it in theory would be possible that thought can trancend time. Certain modern theories, mostly multidimensional ones, allow for possible breaking of lorentz symmetry, possible interdimensional barrier crossing, etc. All of this would allow for such. But here is the hard case at the present. No study under parapsychology that has ever been documented has ever been able to demonstrate a consistant experimental evidence that can be duplcated at will in multiple locations, by different teams that would actually give the proper scientific evidence for such. That's the type of "evidence" that real science would require before such would be accepted. Now, does this mean such does not exist? No, I once witnessed some of the work our Military has done in the past as far as experiments go with what the public terms ESP. I've witnessed a few cases that do seem to transcend beyond our ability to explain using the scientific method. As a Scientists I personally suspect there is an answer to all this. But, while the test conducted did follow proper scientific methods of investigation I might also note that none of these where the type of results that could be consistant lab duplicated. As such, while certain theory does allow for such at the present one simply cannot present hard experimental and observational evidence for such. This being the case then in general this type of discussion while interesting more fits under either a discussion of psychology or philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts