Four dimensional figures, are they really possible???

Five dimensional figures, are they really possible???

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you been reading Flatland?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

 

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).

 

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

 

"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

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!