Picture this, a two dimensional object has no height. If it dosen't have height, it can't exist as far as I know. There wouldn't be any length or with to go along with it.
Picture this, if there was a world where objects didn't have height, there wouldn't even be a plain for it to sit on. It would totally dissapear, from the side, and overhead. You couldn't measure it's length or width.
Please try to understand what I'm saying. But if what I just said is true, is it possible for there to be a fifth dimension of space?

I believe the fourth dimension is time, so maybe what we wanna tackle is the fifth dimension (no, not the band, those that would seek to make a joke I've heard dozens of f*cking times).

I'd make a guess that being able to move through the fifth dimension is like being able to move through time the same way we move forwards and backwards and left and right. Just as easily, too.

No, I haven't been reading flatland, I just thought of this a few days ago. I know that the fourth dimension could be time, but I'm talking about the dimensions of space.

Time is a dimension of space. Four coordinates (x, y, z, time) and you can precisely locate any event in the universe.

I'd make a guess that being able to move through the fifth dimension is like being able to move through time the same way we move forwards and backwards and left and right. Just as easily, too

Yes, but wouldn't there be an new way to travel?

Not by any way that we can easily comprehend, much less theorize. If beings do this, it's because they were born into a world that allows it. Our four dimensional one, so far as we know, does not.

Time allows you to determine when the object will be in place. Miss it by a few hours and there is nothing there.

Picture an orbit where a planet goes around the sun for clearer picture.

Why would there be a fifth dimension?

Maybe there isn't. Does there have to be?

If other dimensions exist, we have only the mathematical tools to theorize, and not the tools to detect them.

The Kaluza-Klein model predicts a fifth dimension in which a circle exists at each point in four-dimensional spacetime. Using the analogy of a hosepipe; at large distances, it looks like a line, but closer inspection reveals that at every point on the line, there appears a little circle.

String theory hypothesises 10 dimentions. It says that the other 6 dimentions (besides our 3 and time) are "small", which is to say less than the diameter of an atom.

If there are X number of dimentions in real life, than there can be no object with less or more than X dimentions, because they would not exist as far as I know. At the very least, if it were possible to have more or less dimentions than X, we would not be able to interact with it, we would go right through it as if it was a ghost.

Another idea, why does time have to be the fourth dimention, it could be the first or the 30th, the idea is that it is a dimention, not The Fourth Dimention.

Why does time have to be a dimention anyway?

How can there be dimensions smaller than an atom? :confused:

Popcorn:

Ok, this is how it would work. Lets just say we were 2 dimentional and lived on a peice of paper. We could theorize that there were three dimentions and our paper world was unimaginably thin, so if an atom was, say, 1 at. in lenght 1 at. in heigth, then the third dimentional theory might say that an atom had .000001 at. in width.

It is like saying the atom would fit one way but not another. So if we were living on our three dimentional paper, then the width of our paper in a fourth dimention would be very thin, like a piece of paper...

Misconception: Time is the "fourth dimension."

Time is considered alongside space in Einstein's general theory of relativity. That is to say, his equations were designed around a four-vector of three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. It was a mathematical concoction used so that the equations could be described with only one metric tensor (a mathematical machine that operates upon vectors). Einstein used a metric tensor to work upon the four-vectors in order that effects like time dilation would be easily calculated -- for example, time slows down in highly curved space, as predicted by the mathematical concoction.

An "event" is simply one such four-vector. 4:00 PDT at my house is one such event. Nothing necessarily happens at an "event." It's simply the poorly-chosen name given to a four-vector of three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. The "space-time" distance between two events is called an interval, and is the analogue of a line drawn between two points on a piece of paper. This is all mathematical hocus-pocus, though -- intervals aren't real!

Do not take the intellectual leap to think of time and space as peers. Space dimensions and time dimensions are entirely different physically. The formalization of general relativity simply unifies them mathematically so that only one metric tensor is needed, and both space and time effects are simultaneously represented by it. Indeed, the calculation of an interval's length treats the spatial dimensions and the time dimension differently. Forget completely this idea that time and space are the same thing, for they simply are not, and no one (especially not Einstein) ever said they were. All that's done is to take space and time, glue them together temporarily so that they may be shoved into a machine, then separate them again when they emerge from the other side of the machine.

Now, to get this discussion on the right conceptual footing, we have to agree that we're talking about extra spatial dimensions. There very well could be extra spatial dimensions, and we very well might never be able to detect them -- not with our human senses anyway. As Frencheneesz said, an extra spatial dimension might be so tiny in extent that we can't even perceive the particle moving through it. If we lived in a "mostly" 2D world with a tiny third dimension (like on a piece of paper), we might not be able to detect the tiny motion through that third dimension. Particles moving through it might just appear to sit still to us in the "big" two dimensions.

Let's also keep in mind that string theory's dimensionality is also only a mathematical tool. Those extra dimension are not physical! String theory simply uses a multi-dimensional space as a mathematical tool to for formalizing a complex mathematical system. Infinite-dimensional "Hilbert" spaces (spaces of functions) are also routinely used in quantum mechanics. You don't see anyone worried about any real infinite dimensions, though, for two reasons:

1) They're just mathematical intermediaries.
2) The media didn't glom onto the idea and popularize it as poorly as it has done with string theory.

- Warren

chroot:

I understand the idea that time is a dimention, but I don't think it accurately describes how the universe is in reality.

Contrary to what you said, Einstein did in fact say that time and space where the same thing. Where do you think the word space-time came from?

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
chroot:

I understand the idea that time is a dimention, but I don't think it accurately describes how the universe is in reality.

Contrary to what you said, Einstein did in fact say that time and space where the same thing. Where do you think the word space-time came from?

Contrary to what you think, neither Einstein, nor any other trained physicist, has ever said that space and time are the same "thing." Game over; insert quarter, play again. Relativity expresses that space and time are intimately related, but not identical. You obviously know nothing of relativity. Please buy a book. The word space-time, as I have so painfully tried to explain, describes the technique of using four-vectors to represent events and intervals -- space-time is every bit as mathematical as are other spaces used elsewhere in physics. It has no physical meaning or connotation whatsoever that space and time are the "same."

- Warren

I agree with you that they are two completely different things, but I think you would come to some opposition when saying that einstein did not say space and time were different aspects of the same quantity.

This is analogous to matter-energy (which i also don't believe in).

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
I agree with you that they are two completely different things, but I think you would come to some opposition when saying that einstein did not say space and time were different aspects of the same quantity.

This is analogous to matter-energy (which i also don't believe in).

A) Your propositions are slipping. First, you claim Einstein said space and time are the "same thing." Now, you have weakened the claim to one that Einstein merely said they are "different aspects of the same thing." In fact, you are still wrong. You lost again; game over; you'll have to waste another quarter.

B) I don't really care what you believe.

- Warren

i belive thed (i think it was him) posted a hypothisis of a black hole where time and space are reversed

hence you cant escape because you cant go backwards through time normally and in a black hole you cant go backwards through space

you will need someone much smarter than me to describe it fully but thats what i rember

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
"I don't really care what you believe. "

Heh, if you didn't you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to convince me of something. I'll find a heart in there somewhere.

Let me just quote Machio Kaku for one sec:

"Now if time is the fourth dimension, then it is possible to make "rotations" that convert space into time and vice versa. These four-dimentional "rotations" are precisely the distortions of space and time demanded by special relativity. In other words, sace and time have mixed in an essential way, governed by relativity. The meaning of time as being the fourth dimension is that time and space can rotate into each other in a mathematically precise way. From now on, they must be treated as two aspects of the same quantity: space-time. Thus adding a higher dimension helping to unify the laws of nature."

- Machio Kaku, Hyperspace

"nor any other trained physicist, has ever said that space and time are the same "thing.""

Sorry if thing was a little vauge. Machio kaku is definately a trained physicist and thus a very good source.

"The meaning of time as being the fourth dimension is that time and space can rotate into each other in a mathematically precise way."

What part of the word "mathematically" are you incompetent to understand? He didn't say space and time are the same thing -- they are only "unified" for the sake of performing math on the two of them simultaneously. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING, AND NO ONE, INCLUDING MICHIO KAKU, EVER SAID THEY WERE.

- Warren

This may help...

click here (http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/dim.html)

Take care:)

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
This may help...

click here (http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/dim.html)

Take care:)

That's almost as bad as timecube.com. :rolleyes:

- Warren

That's almost as bad as timecube.com.

Your welcome:rolleyes:

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Your welcome:rolleyes:

You were kidding, weren't you?

- Warren

Wouldn't care to place a bet, would you?

*I love easy money*

Take care :cool:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01)

Alright Chroot:

Im not going to waste my time trying to convince you of something so trivial. Machio kaku's book had no math equations in it. The book was written entirely for a visual view of the universe.

I understand your point of view, but I wonder is it possible for you to give any evidence on your behalf. If not its kinda useless to debate.

Oh by the way, its very impressive that you can copy and paste my ENTIRE previous post.

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Alright Chroot:

I understand your point of view, but I wonder is it possible for you to give any evidence on your behalf. If not its kinda useless to debate.


You made the statement, thereby taking on the burden of proof. I simply corrected you, since you are wrong. Despite your insistence that, indeed, some trained physicist has claimed time and space to be "the same thing," you have yet to provide an example.

- Warren

"You made the statement, thereby taking on the burden of proof. "

If you debate, you are also taking on this burden. I don't really care to discuss this though, it makes almost no difference to me.

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
I don't really care to discuss this though, it makes almost no difference to me.

You're asking me to disprove a negative -- you want me to check every single reference to space and time ever written to verify that, indeed, no trained physicist has ever claimed them to be one and the same? This, you must realize, is impossible.

I'm asking you to find one single counterexample that will demonstrate that I am wrong. That task is far easier than the one you would have me do.

I'm sure you read through your whole library of books on Hyperspace and Time Travel and Star Trek after I made the assertion that no trained physicist have ever said time and space are "the same." Apparently you found no evidence of the contrary, so now you're grasping at straws with the "no YOU prove it" crap.

- Warren

Dang, I was afraid youd say that. And your right, heh. Its impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. But nevertheless, I still don't care to discuss it anymore, so unless you do want to give me a detailed desription of what they mean by space-time, ill just leave it as it is.

I already gave you a precise definition. The use of space-time refers to use of four-vectors composed of three spatial and one temporal dimension, and the use of tensors which operate upon those four-vectors. That's it. It's a mathematical construct.

- Warren

i havnt read this thread at all, but i knew where a 4 dimensional game was. unfortunatly the computer crashed and i lost the bookmark, meaning i will have to find it again.

why can't there be four dimensions in geometry. give me a reason that isn't based on physics.

example for why. a point is a 0-dimensional object. split and connect the resultants and you get a line, a 1-dimensional object. split and connect that and you get a square, a 2-dimensional object. so on and a cube results, a 3-dimensional object. why does it have to end with the cube. can't you split that and connect the resultants along an imaginary fourth-axis? why not. if so, you can go into n-dimensions where the only limitation is your imagination.

Einstein was a dreamer in his time, why can't we dream now?

(goto http://users.hughestech.net/scottjohnson/WebPage/povray/Povray6.html for a 4-D example.)

time is fourth dimension:D

Of course they are possible and tangibly real in mathmatics and in conscious awarness. Our wiring allows us to easly see the shadows that 4D elements would cast in 3D space, ie. the hypercube. Dali painted Christ cruxified on a hypercube cross.

Perhaps the best primer one should begin with is Flatland.

I had 2 occaisons where I was mentally seeing 4 D

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/flat3.jpg

why should we stop at 4 dimensions? why not continue into n-dimensions? let us not be hindered by the limitations of the minds of some. all that we must remember is that all dimensions beyond the third are imaginary and cannot be shown using conventional techniques. contact me at cassius1802@hotmail.com if you wish to assist in my search for the laws of n-dimensional space.

Originally posted by cassius1802
why should we stop at 4 dimensions? why not continue into n-dimensions? let us not be hindered by the limitations of the minds of some.

I notice that chroot has given up trying to convince amateurs - albeit enthusiastic amateurs - that he knows what he's talking about. Let me add my tuppence:

Three space dimensions and one time dimension to describe the physically observable universe. Space is not time and time is not space but they are related in 'spacetime', which is not entirely one nor the other. These four 'dimensions' (let's use the word loosely) are sufficient to model the large scale behaviour of the physical Universe. And bear in mind that maths is only a way of modelling the universe and is absolutely essential if you want to do useful things with your model. There are no simple mental images that permit that.


all that we must remember is that all dimensions beyond the third are imaginary and cannot be shown using conventional techniques. contact me at cassius1802@hotmail.com if you wish to assist in my search for the laws of n-dimensional space.

The maths of N-dimensional spaces and even infinite dimensional spaces is well developed (though a mathematician might use the word 'space' in a more general sense than a layman). These tools are used to model other aspects of the Universe - even such a mundane thing as the position and orientation of a simple rod needs six dimensions to describe it. Whether extra dimensions are needed to model physical space at the small scale is still up for grabs.

The problem is not that we are being hindered by the limitations of the minds of some but rather that there are too many who adopt mysticism because it's easier than trying to describe reality.

Cheers,

Ron.

Aplogies if this posts twice - I'm getting paging errors.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cassius1802
why should we stop at 4 dimensions? why not continue into n-dimensions? let us not be hindered by the limitations of the minds of some.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I notice that chroot has given up trying to convince amateurs - albeit enthusiastic amateurs - that he knows what he's talking about. Let me add my tuppence:

Three space dimensions and one time dimension to describe the physically observable universe. Space is not time and time is not space but they are related in 'spacetime', which is not entirely one nor the other. These four 'dimensions' (let's use the word loosely) are sufficient to model the large scale behaviour of the physical Universe. And bear in mind that maths is only a way of modelling the universe and is absolutely essential if you want to do useful things with your model. There are no simple mental images that permit that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all that we must remember is that all dimensions beyond the third are imaginary and cannot be shown using conventional techniques. contact me at cassius1802@hotmail.com if you wish to assist in my search for the laws of n-dimensional space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The maths of N-dimensional spaces and even infinite dimensional spaces is well developed (though a mathematician might use the word 'space' in a more general sense than a layman). These tools are used to model other aspects of the Universe - even such a mundane thing as the position and orientation of a simple rod needs six dimensions to describe it. Whether extra dimensions are needed to model physical space at the small scale is still up for grabs.

The problem is not that we are being hindered by the limitations of the minds of some but rather that there are too many who adopt mysticism because it's easier than trying to describe reality.

Cheers,

Ron.

Sorry - I'm getting page errors when trying to view the original thread. I'll try a new one.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cassius1802
why should we stop at 4 dimensions? why not continue into n-dimensions? let us not be hindered by the limitations of the minds of some.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I notice that chroot has given up trying to convince amateurs - albeit enthusiastic amateurs - that he knows what he's talking about. Let me add my tuppence:

Three space dimensions and one time dimension to describe the physically observable universe. Space is not time and time is not space but they are related in 'spacetime', which is not entirely one nor the other. These four 'dimensions' (let's use the word loosely) are sufficient to model the large scale behaviour of the physical Universe. And bear in mind that maths is only a way of modelling the universe and is absolutely essential if you want to do useful things with your model. There are no simple mental images that permit that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all that we must remember is that all dimensions beyond the third are imaginary and cannot be shown using conventional techniques. contact me at cassius1802@hotmail.com if you wish to assist in my search for the laws of n-dimensional space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The maths of N-dimensional spaces and even infinite dimensional spaces is well developed (though a mathematician might use the word 'space' in a more general sense than a layman). These tools are used to model other aspects of the Universe - even such a mundane thing as the position and orientation of a simple rod needs six dimensions to describe it. Whether extra dimensions are needed to model physical space at the small scale is still up for grabs.

The problem is not that we are being hindered by the limitations of the minds of some but rather that there are too many who adopt mysticism because it's easier than trying to describe reality.

Cheers,

Ron.

"Space is not time and time is not space but they are related in 'space-time', which is not entirely one nor the other. "

This is true, in the same way that magnetism is different to electricity, or gravity is to the strong force...

The latest theories of m-theory require at least 10 dimentions...some (6) of which have been compactified and at least one that has acquired the `temporal` aspects of time...

I for one cannot imagine 5 dimensions, but i can realise the extra dimensions with concepts and mathmatics...

The reason you had page errors was because pfcgrogan used improper code. That has been removed and the second thread has been returned to the topic.

First off, thanks to mod for restoring the thread and my apologies for the multiple posting. Back to business...


Originally posted by blobrana
"Space is not time and time is not space but they are related in 'space-time', which is not entirely one nor the other. "

This is true, in the same way that magnetism is different to electricity, or gravity is to the strong force...

Exactly so - and no-one would dream of saying that magnetism was 'the same' as electricity.

The latest theories of m-theory require at least 10 dimentions...some (6) of which have been compactified and at least one that has acquired the `temporal` aspects of time...

I've no problem here either - though, as you say, these are still theories and awaiting experimental evidence.

I for one cannot imagine 5 dimensions, but i can realise the extra dimensions with concepts and mathmatics...

I don't believe anyone can truly imagine more than the familiar number of dimensions - all of the aids to visualisation are, of necessity, simplifications. That's why, if you want to do anything serious, you have to get to grips with the maths.

Cheers,

Ron.

http://ads.web.aol.com/image/7003489/5/aol

*** I will assume that you are using the logo for testing purposes and not commercial endorsement. Please see your pm. Please discontinue the use of html code.***
wet1

OR time could just be a man-made dimension used to measure the distance between actions, and not even a real dimension at all. Everything we abide by could be wrong, we can't even prove what we prove :) Everything we base anything off of, comes from MAN.

... on that note, one could argue that there really aren't any 'dimensions' (spacially, that is). Dimensions are purely abstract concepts that allow for the infusion of mathematics. in reality, no dimensions, just drastic differences in scale.

Rex

Some fields (volumetric imaging - realtime solid 3d imaging) define space as x,y,z,time,color. While this has no use to most people, i think you can define the dimensions however you want... as long as they are not entangled with one another.

Originally posted by Sicksixix
OR time could just be a man-made dimension used to measure the distance between actions, and not even a real dimension at all. Everything we abide by could be wrong, we can't even prove what we prove :) Everything we base anything off of, comes from MAN.

Yes, I think that psychologists have addressed that point in some depth. However, if we can move along...


Some fields (volumetric imaging - realtime solid 3d imaging) define space as x,y,z,time,color. While this has no use to most people, i think you can define the dimensions however you want... as long as they are not entangled with one another.

Agreed - that's what I was alluding to when I said that a mathematician might mean something different by 'space'. A mathematical 'space' is just a set of 'components', usually with some structure to it. In this context, your 'colour' axis is perfectly acceptable but I don't know if you could define a useful metric on this space.

Cheers,

Ron.

whoops

Colour is used by certain branches of quantum mechanics already...red ,green, blue combinations...
better to have a different name for those other dimensions, less confusion. (not flavour or strangeness!).

Hyper is fine for the 4th but i haven't found a nice catchy name for the 5th or 6 th or nth dimension,,,,

loudness? Suggestions?

Originally posted by blobrana
Colour is used by certain branches of quantum mechanics already...red ,green, blue combinations...
better to have a different name for those other dimensions, less confusion. (not flavour or strangeness!).

Wellll, these aren't dimensions - they're attributes of quarks. But I agree that they are just catchy labels - and not related to the common idea of 'colour' etc.

Hyper is fine for the 4th but i haven't found a nice catchy name for the 5th or 6 th or nth dimension,,,,
loudness? Suggestions?

'Hyper' tends to be used for anything above 3 (or 4 in relativity). Just as 'tensor' is used as the label for 2nd order, 3rd order, etc.

Cheers,

Ron.

i was told that time was the 10th dimention and that we cannot idnentify 4-9 dimentions.....:0 are they worng??