I was sleeping through school today when I had an interesting thought. The basis of everything in the universe is a point, in that it is the basic unit of space. Simply giving the point depth creates a line, in first dimension. Giving the line depth would be the second dimension, and giving that depth would be the third. So our 3-dimensional reality is a cube (or a circle or a cone or whatever, but it's easier to imagine a cube). I have often heard that the fourth dimension is time. So logically one would have to give the "cube" depth to achieve that. So I started thinking about the cube as a point, and stretching that point to a line. So now you have a time line. Wouldn't it then be possible to give that line depth and form a time square? Or a time cube? I began to think of a colored in square on a piece of paper as only a series of parallel lines, that run extremely close together, like a tight grid. Does that mean that the fifth dimension, the "time square", would be a series of timelines? Now I'm getting into alternate universes, or rather the same universe with different states of being. And what would happen if in the sixth dimension you stretched the time cube and gave that depth? I don't even know if that makes sense, but there are some smart folk on this page, so I'm hoping someone can figure it out. If anybody understands what I'm talking about, or knows someone who might, could I get some feedback here? It's driving me crazy.
Hi The_Bean, There's nothing mathematically wrong with that idea. However, there is no experimental indication that there is need for extra dimensions so far. Bye! Crisp
Exactly crisp! we are good with our familiar 3 dimensions, and time as a real dimension, well that's arbitrary for me maybe time is only an abstract mathematical unit (het kunnen maar niet genoeg dimensies zijn tegenwoordig!!) cheeriosss :bugeye:
Crisp, Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. Almost everything in subatomic physics points to the fact that there has to be more than three spacial dimensions. It is likely that subatomic particles have four or more spacial dimensions, while complex objects have only three. If there were only three spacial dimensions, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics would be one and the same. Tom
I beg to differ Hi Tom, Being a theoretical physicist in education, I agree that from a theoretical point of view there are indications that elementary particles might need more dimensions (string theory). However, to the day, there is no experimental evidence (to my knowledge) that these extra dimensions also exist. I totally disagree with the fact that classical mechanics and quantummechanics would coincide if there were only three spatial dimensions. They both work out fine in one, two and three dimensions, and they are most definitly not the same. Bye! Crisp
Crisp, I am surprised to find out that an actual physicist is on these forums. I always thought that the forums were only filled with wanabee physicists like myself. How would you explain the total difference between classical and quantum mechanics?? As you know the rules are almost completely different between the two. Rules that apply in quantum mechanics are almost idiotic compared to the rules of classical mechanics, and vice versa. If there were only three spacial dimensions wouldn't classical mechanics be just an extension of quantum mechanics?? And wouldn't all complex matter behave at least similiar to subatomic particles? From how I see it, there can be only one explanation: Subatomic particles have more than three dimensions, but when they interconnect they produce three dimensional objects. The question would be where do these other dimensions go??I've heard crazy theories that state that these other dimensions curl up into themselves. Personally, I believe that subatomic particles, even though they consist of more than three dimensions, can only stack themselves in three. Note: Maybe our misunderstanding stems from my definition of quantum mechanics. By the term "quantum mechanics" I mean all the rules and behavior that apply to subatomic particles. Tom
Hi Tom, You might be suprised to learn that there are quite some scientists on the forums here: physicists, engineers, mathematicians, ... "How would you explain the total difference between classical and quantum mechanics?? As you know the rules are almost completely different between the two. Rules that apply in quantum mechanics are almost idiotic compared to the rules of classical mechanics, and vice versa." I think the difference between classical and quantum mechanics is mainly a conceptual difference: classical mechanics treats matter as point-like particles, QM works with the particle-wave duality of matter. From a mathematical point of view (after all, QM is a highly mathematical theory), there are also many fundamental differences that give rise to the totally different rules. Most notably the commutation relations for x and p : in classical mechanics [x,p] = 0 while in QM [x,p]=ih', with h' being Planck's constant divided by 2Pi. This formula comes down to the following relations between the position and the momentum: in CM, the product xp = px, in QM xp = px + ih'. The maths are not easily explained in words, but things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle all follow from the mathematical relation of x and p. Perhaps it is important to emphasize that the difference between both theories is not as large as you might think. Essentially, classical mechanics can be completely derived from quantum mechanics by putting h' = 0 (in that case, the [x,p] relation I noted above is the same for QM and CM). This is called the "classical limit" since quite some results from classical mechanics can be deduced that way. "If there were only three spacial dimensions wouldn't classical mechanics be just an extension of quantum mechanics?? " Actually it is the other way around: quantum mechanics is an extension of classical mechanics (since classical mechanics can be derived from QM and QM holds much more). However, QM also works with three spatial dimensions. I think the dimensional confusion perhaps arises because QM talks of multi-dimensional space everywhere (eg. the 8 dimensional SU(3) group for spin, isospin, ... descriptions). However, these are just mathematical dimensions to describe extra parameters of particles, and are not related to spatial movement. "And wouldn't all complex matter behave at least similiar to subatomic particles? " There's a large (LARGE) difference between complex matter, the macroscopic world, and subatomic particles, the microscopic world. The study of this difference happens to be the field of physics I am currently working in, so I can give you numerous examples of collective phenomena: phase transitions, irreversibility, ... that are totally unexplainable in the microscopic world and can only be explained when working with macroscopic samples. Essentially it comes down to this: one subatomic particle has a number of properties and behaves in a certain way; when you throw together billions and billions of those particles (typical number: 10<sup>23</sup>), this collection still has some properties of the original particles, but a lot of new phenomena appear. The transition from a solid state to a liquid state cannot be explained with only one particle (or even 100, how would they know they suddenly have to go from a steady crystal (solid) to a more fluid phase?). "I've heard crazy theories that state that these other dimensions curl up into themselves. Personally, I believe that subatomic particles, even though they consist of more than three dimensions, can only stack themselves in three." I believe string theory states that the extra dimensions (needed to make it consistent) are curled up to a very small scale. What concerns the stacking only in three dimensions: if that is the case, I guess it will be really hard to discover those extra dimensions, which brings me back to the point that there is no experimental evidence yet for the extra dimensions. Bye! Crisp
2 dimensions of time? Hello, I've been pondering something I'd like some input on. Since we know that that volume is 3 dimensional because: volume = height*width*length Could it also be said that because V=d/t and therefore t=d/V that time actually consists of 2 dimensions? One of distance and one of velocity? If so could that be used to reconsile the EPR expirement? To be truthful I'm not sure that I comprehend EPR really. As I understand it, two photons become entangled somehow (I don't know how that works at all) and then travel a certain distance apart. Next the spin is determined on one the photons which in turn causes the other photon's spin to become the opposite instantaneously. This causes a problem because it would mean that some form of information about the one photon travels a certain distance instantaneously to affect another photon, which vilolates relativity's speed of light barrier. Now, I read somewhere that spin refers to angular momentum, and momentum works out to be: p=mv (unless angular momentum works out differently?) And I assume mass remains constant, so it can be ignored. therefore if velocity is one of two dimensions of time, the spin info wouldn't need to travel across space at all because it could take a shortcut through the velocity dimension? I'd appreciate any input someone could give me about it. Thanks, Matt
Hi Matticiousg, "... t=d/V, that time actually consists of 2 dimensions? One of distance and one of velocity?" It doesn't quite work that way. The number of dimensions is equal to the number of independent variables you need to locate an object uniquely. For example, in space that would be X,Y,Z (you perfectly know where an object is if you know how far away it is to your left, on your front and above you). For time, only one parameter is needed to "locate" an event. 'p=mv (unless angular momentum works out differently?)" That formula only works in Newtonian mechanics. For quantum mechanics, things are a bit more complicated. Without going into much detail, the momentum is defined there as: <w|P|w> = Int( w(x)' P(w(x)) ) where the integration goes from -infinity to infinity, w(x) is the wavefunction that describes the system and w(x)' is its conjugate. P is the momentum-operator, i.e. what you could call a mathematical way to force the integral to give the momentum from the wavefunction. But that's not the only complication: the EPS paradox refers to a quantity called "spin", which is a form of angular momentum (which differs from "regular" momentum), and is not as logical to reason with as one might expect. I'm afraid I can't go much deeper into this without dragging a whole lot of maths in, but if you are really interested in understanding the EPR paradox, I suggest you check out an introductory course to quantummechanics (those mostly handle spin and the conservation laws that apply to it). Bye! Crisp
Either you will end up with a spiral and college students majoring in math will begin blowing their brains out because calculus would lead up to the infinitieth semester and nobody would ever get a degree , or it curves back in on itself, because it is reasoned that a straight line in space is curved geometrically speaking of cousre, and that you wind up right where you began if you left in a straight line. Kind of sound like someone had a bad acid trip when they wrote that theory.
Either you will end up with a spiral and college students majoring in math will begin blowing their brains out because calculus would lead up to the infinitieth semester and nobody would ever get a degree , or it curves back in on itself, because it is reasoned that a straight line in space is curved geometrically speaking of cousre, and that you wind up right where you began if you left in a straight line. Kind of sound like someone had a bad acid trip when they wrote that theory. It's been discussed as Einstein's space time geometry theory, but I'm sore with it, because I have the same problems identifying with modern space time geometry as you do, I simply can't understand it.
Crisp, Thanks for setting me strait on that. In hind sight I realize that it is too much of an oversimplification. -Matt
Hi matticiousg, No problem; don't forget that the most genious ideas in science were probably formulated at first with the sentence "Hey guys, want to hear something really wierd?" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Bye! Crisp
There's no need for extra-dimensions in our everyday life. Newton's Laws function perfectly in 3 dimensions. The need for more dimensions is only increased when we start to deal with the Universe as a whole and to a possible highter interaction with it. Then, the need for more and more dimensions become necessary. How would we use more dimensions? Perhaps with space travel... Or with a better way to get energy... Then, how it would help us? Improving our energy range... and the distances we can travel... The problem is how to imagine such thing... I don't know how can someone imagine a cube that strech its lines to form more and more dimensions... I guess they are invisible when we look in short range, and as we get bigger and bigger ranges it get more clear... Perhaps we are looking too close to see it... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A little suggestion... Gravity and mass should be dimensions too. If gravity creates black holes, can it "create" "new" dimensions? Love, Nelson
Experimentally no one has demonstrated other dimensions however as in Flatland an incursion of 3D sspace appears as a circle. Incursions of 4D space in 3D space is a sphere. Having had an experience of seeing two nebulous slightly glowing globes float right through brick walls I have to withold judgement as to the possiblility of seperate dimensional interaction. I even touched the following globe before it went through the opposite wall. No shock. There was no obvious electric potential to the thing but it sure the hell keeps me wondering.
Well, from my basic, BASIC, understanding of how gravity works, here is the best way to visualize it: Imagine a mattress, representing the fabric of space (we will forget time for now). Say I take a heavy bowling ball, and put it in the middle of the bed. Now, obviously the area under the ball is going to be pressed in, and the area surrounding the ball is going slope downward to the ball. So, if I where to lay a golf ball on the same mattress near the bowling ball, the golf ball would roll down the slope towards the bowling ball. The only way the golf ball wouldn't immediately start to funnel down towards the bowling ball was if you rolled the golf ball around the mattress like a ball on a roulette wheel. I imagine gravity to work the same way. Now lets imagine the mattress is 3 dimmensional (the fabric of space from what we can perceive), instead of 2. When we put a heavy bowling ball like object (such as the Sun) in the middle of it, it is obviously going to press inward on the fabric of space. If there was a golf ball like object (such as Earth) near the Sun, the Earth would funnel down towards the Sun in a similar fashion. The only way it is escaping is by being whirled around like a roulette ball. This is why I disagree with calling gravity a dimension. I see it as the bending and curving of regular space-time (3-d space-time), where less massive objects that don't bend space-time as much, falling inward towards the more massive objects. As for black holes, think of this scenario. Imagine if that bowling ball on the mattress was SO heavy and massive, that it completely ripped through the center of the mattress to the floor and permanently bent the mattress in a funnel shape (3-d parabola). If you were to place anything on that mattress, it would fall through the hole created to the floor. In real space-time, I believe that this hole would lead to either another layer of space or dimension of some sort. Imagine if we put 2 mattresses flat on the floor, side by side, to form one bigger mattress. Say we put a black hole in each of them. Like I mentioned before, if you put anything in the area of the hole, it is going to fall through to the floor. Each black hole is still going to lead to the same floor. Could this "floor" be a possible 5th dimension? Seeing as how time is considered a 4th dimension, could a whole new universe exist, using that 5th dimension, and 2 others of our own (equaling 3 dimensions)? Just keeping out of our range of perception? Also, seeing as how time is considered a 4th dimension, could a black hole be connecting different points in time? I am no expert physicist, but if anyone has any views on any of this please share...hey, maybe I am completely wrong and the Earth is just a marble in some other being's marble bag.....
~alicia~ Crisp mentioned: That should explain what most Physicist class as the definition for multiple dimensions. Although there other understandings of dimensions that involve hypothetic paradoxical folds, but that just takes the original dimensions and multply's since they are now new dimensional measurements.
I know there hasn't been any proof to indicate the existence of multiple dimesions (over our 3). But does anyone know of any experiments that were done to even try to gain some proof on string theory, or the existence of the 5th or more dimensions? (personally I like the idea of how the original post for this thread layed it out....the concept of a time-square or time-cube...)
I've given the concept of there being more than one temporal dimension a good deal of thought lately. Specifically, that there may be more than one dimension of time, and that what I perceive as a single dimension of time is actually the superposition of time. In electronics classes, we learn how one dimension (voltage) against another dimension (time) is observed as a probability curve of frequencies at single moment. What I'm envisioning is a universe that has no spatial dimensions. There is only one particle in this universe and it is the point of observation. This particle has a single dimension which I am going to call "state." This state can vary over a dimension time. So far, I've described a world similar to all analog electronics. Here's where my concept gets a little mind bending: What if the state of this particle was influenced by additional dimensions of time? How could a power spectrum of voltage versus multidimensional time even be represented?
