Understanding the 4th dimension and higher..

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
In order to travel at, or more realistically in the short term, transmit information, at relativistic velocities; several things will need to happen.

1- We'll need to understand and interface with higher dimensions, particularly 4,5,6.
2- Other scientists will need to understand that relativity only applies to 3 dimensions. Not 0 or 1 or 2, and certainly not with number 4 and onward.

Scientists haven't the slightest clue as to how to accomplish #1. They can only explain it as a tesseract as being an isometric shadow of something we can't see.

Regarding time, it really isn't a dimension, nor does any specific particle in the universe "feel" or "measure" time. It is not conveyed by any particle or wave. As much as I want to believe that is so, there is no such thing as a Chronoton. Not in the 3 dimensions we sense. We don't actually live in 3 dimensions, we just sense them. That's all.

Cue Twilight Zone theme on:
We are multi-demensional, and that means more than 3 in this context. How many? How many are there..?! We create these 3 dimensions because this is the part of us that is aware of these 3, so we blissfully think that there are only 3. Whenever somebody does something dumb and stupid you can be they're being influenced by the other parts of them that exist in other dimensions. We are not always aware of what makes a gut feeling work or why it happens, but this is just your 3D self brushing against and interacting with the 4th dimensional (or higher) parts of yourself. Or accessing and interacting with them.
Music fades to zero volume.

Time is also something we create. Again, it is not a dimension or construct of the so-called space-time continuum. A vibrating particle knows no time. It does not behave differently now or later or then or before. It just does what it does. We create time from a comparative observation of how its interaction with other particles (in a system) changes; against our own internal clock. Or an external clock for that matter. This is especially true when those comparisons are done directly in line with your Telomeres. It also applies to observing the macro scale physical changes that occur in any complex system.

Think of the timeless memories, it happened yesterday, like it was 5 minutes ago. Humans with perfect memories would go insane immediately! It is in fact the subtle fading of memories that act as a master time-illustrator for each of us. The progression of the chemical process of forming them and storing them is like a master oscillator in a traditional semi-conductor based computer, more or less. More appropriate would be the basic sequencers of the first orbital rockets.

Can you remember what it was like before you were born? I didn't think so! No pun intended. No memories = no time perception.

Discussion..
 
1- We'll need to understand and interface with higher dimensions, particularly 4,5,6.
2- Other scientists will need to understand that relativity only applies to 3 dimensions. Not 0 or 1 or 2, and certainly not with number 4 and onward.

No. Just... no. Especially on the second count.

As for point 1, we are interfacing with the fourth dimension. We are moving through it just as through the other three, we are just not free to choose the direction. But it is essential to everything. A 3-dimensional coordinate system gives you position (or movement in a 2-dimensional space). Only a four-dimensional one gives you movement in 3 dimensions.

And as for 2, I wonder wheather you even know what the theory of relativity means. The fourth dimension is as much subjected to the Lorentz equation as the other three, that's why we can even talk about such a thing as time dilation.

nor does any specific particle in the universe "feel" or "measure" time.

So what you are saying is that nuclear decay is caused by... magic?

Time is also something we create.

Utterly, completely and terrifyingly wrong. We don't create time. We perceive it. Just as much as we don't create the first three dimensions, but only perceive them.

I would suggest reading from here on onward. It's a bit lengthy, and make sure to grab a pocket calculator, a pencil and some paper to do the thought experiments yourself (essential to understanding, and the math involved isn't complicated). It gives you a really good grasp of what is actually going on in special relativity (general relativity, alas, will have some higher math involved, which I wasn't able to follow, but it's not part of this particular, excellent tutorial anyways).
 
Last edited:
In order to travel at, or more realistically in the short term, transmit information, at relativistic velocities; several things will need to happen.
1- We'll need to understand and interface with higher dimensions, particularly 4,5,6.
2- Other scientists will need to understand that relativity only applies to 3 dimensions. Not 0 or 1 or 2, and certainly not with number 4 and onward.

Nothing about this makes sense. Radio has been transmitting information somewhat faster than "at relativistic velocities" for over a century now, and I'm pretty certain a gas-core NTR could easily reach "relativistic velocities" given enough reaction mass, our understanding of "higher dimensions" notwithstanding.

So you're a proponent of timeless physics then? Come back when there's a testable hypothesis as opposed to decades of pointless philosophic discussions about what clocks are measuring. The rest of your post makes zero sense.
 
Last edited:
Whenever somebody does something dumb and stupid you can be they're being influenced by the other parts of them that exist in other dimensions.
Sure, by the DEMons in the other DEMensions.

Seriously, for understanding of the 4th dimension all you need is geometry and a little perpendicular imagination:
http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/4d/vis/05-proj-2
http://teamikaria.com/hddb/wiki/Main_Page

Also, try reading the Abbott's classic "Flatland" and no less fun "Spaceland" by Rudy Rucker.
 
Right now, at this very moment we have no concrete way of interacting with the 4th and above dimensions. We can't see it, we can't send signals of any kind to it. We can't effect changes or make observations. All we have is words on a paper.

All the known physics, today, that we can experimentally verify, are valid only for the dimensions in which they are tested. And that means 3. 3 Dimensions..

Relativity is hopelessly confining. It stands up just fine in 3D, but the others? Not a chance! Just as the laws of flatland get all "funky" and make its inhabitants look like psycho cases when they try to describe the 3rd dimension; so would the same happen to us when we try to describe the 4th dimension. It can't be done, not yet anyways.
 
We can't effect changes or make observations. All we have is words on a paper.

And tons of measurements...

We can't see it, we can't send signals of any kind to it.

Dimensions are not parallel realms. This isn't sci-fi. Dimensions are a part of our reality here and now, and they influence us no matter wheather we know or acknowledge their existance. You can't travel to them. you travel through them, and you're doing it right now. If I wouldn't be travelling through the 4. dimension, I couldn't be typing!

It stands up just fine in 3D, but the others? Not a chance!

Relativity does not work at all in 3d. You seem to have no idea what it is about. The fourth dimension is an essential part of it. Without time, there wouldn't be any general nor special relativity, that is the exact point of it. It was the first truly 4-dimensional mindframe. Currently, you seem to be the one that tries to apply 3-dimensional thinking to a four-dimensional space, which is why your reasoning gets all funky, as you put it.

Seriously, read the link I posted above if you're interested in relativity. It's really interesting, and really simple, if you are willing to invest a bit of work on your own.
 
Last edited:
You've been browsing Wikipedia Physics section and watching Star Trek? Always a bad combination. Makes for a bad case of Physics indigestion...
 
You've been browsing Wikipedia Physics section and watching Star Trek? Always a bad combination. Makes for a bad case of Physics indigestion...

Prolonged exposure to sub-par literature on modern physics may also lead to Quantum Mysticism and Everett's Syndrome.
 
Why the hate for the extra dimensions?

I think it is far more interesting to try and figure out what the dimensions actually are, what does it mean when we talk about space and time, does time even exist, let alone have an arrow?

These are more interesting than what OP is worried about
 
I think it is far more interesting to try and figure out what the dimensions actually are

In short, they are mathematical concepts we need to describe things. We want to describe a point in space, so we have to make up 3 dimensions to acurately describe it. We want to describe movement, we need to add a fourth. You want movement in four dimensions, you presumably have to add a fifth to describe it mathematically (although I really can't unravel those graphs in my head anymore. It makes sense on paper, but it's kind of impossible to imagine as a picture. Probably because our visual expierience is limited to four dimensions). It's pretty much as simple as that.
 
In short, they are mathematical concepts we need to describe things. We want to describe a point in space, so we have to make up 3 dimensions to acurately describe it. We want to describe movement, we need to add a fourth. You want movement in four dimensions, you presumably have to add a fifth to describe it mathematically (although I really can't unravel those graphs in my head anymore. It makes sense on paper, but it's kind of impossible to imagine as a picture. Probably because our visual expierience is limited to four dimensions). It's pretty much as simple as that.

What I am talking about is the fabric of space, and the arrow of time. Space is not just a mathematical device that is used for use to describe things. Time is a different story.

Look into Loop Quantum Gravity and you can see what things start to look like when you try to break down the fibers of the fabric of space. Look at M-theory to see how such a concept can work in relation to gravity.

Look at pretty much all the fundamental laws we have thus far, very very closely, and you start to see what time actually is.

Saying they are just mathematical concepts, and it is just that simple, that is a bizarrely foolish statement to make. Of course they are a mathematical concept, you cannot describe space and/or time in any other fashion. The concepts however, simple they are not. Not even close. And we may never truly understand what time is. Ever.
 
What I am talking about is the fabric of space, and the arrow of time. Space is not just a mathematical device that is used for use to describe things. Time is a different story.

Current theories suggest that the universe is quantised, and the quanta - elementary particles - are purely mathematical objects. It makes no sense to ascribe "physical" significance (insofar as physics and mathematics can meaningfully be divided in quantum physics) to phenomena which are fully defined and explained in mathematical terms.
 
What I am talking about is the fabric of space, and the arrow of time.

I wouldn't know anything about the fabric of space, really, so I'll have to pass on that one. Although I wonder, if we cannot describe it other than by mathematics, we cannot really understand it as anything but mathematics. I am pretty convinced that reality in and of itself is not mathematics (the universe doesn't run equations to work, it just does), but I doubt that we'll ever find a meaningful way to describe it using other means. Which in essence means that in the end the universe might just seem to consist of pure mathematics, because that's the only way we have to describe it.

The arrow of time, on the other hand, is hardwired to entropy. If I understood Hawking correctly, he is convinced that it is entropy that causes time to elapse, not the other way around.
 
Time is not like an arrow or a river. We do not travel through time--it travels past us! You could think of it like an endlessly long train going by on a track next to us. Like any other two moving things, the same effect is experienced from the other side whenever one object moves, but you can be assured that one is moving and the other is not.

Time travel is not theoretically impossible--but like me trying to grab the moving train and change it's direction, the amount of energy required to alter the time flow is completely and utterly beyond human means.
 
Time is not like an arrow or a river. We do not travel through time--it travels past us! You could think of it like an endlessly long train going by on a track next to us. Like any other two moving things, the same effect is experienced from the other side whenever one object moves, but you can be assured that one is moving and the other is not.

I...just...what? Where could you possibly get that idea? Why would you think something like that? Analogies aren't explanations. That entire paragraph sounds dangerously close to a mysterious answer, and mystery is a property of questions, not answers.
 
I was trying to say that time is not a place...we cannot travel through it. It is more of a force, like gravity. We could--in really far-flung theory--alter it, but the energy requirement is so enormous as to make the task practically impossible.
 
I wouldn't know anything about the fabric of space, really, so I'll have to pass on that one. Although I wonder, if we cannot describe it other than by mathematics, we cannot really understand it as anything but mathematics. I am pretty convinced that reality in and of itself is not mathematics (the universe doesn't run equations to work, it just does), but I doubt that we'll ever find a meaningful way to describe it using other means. Which in essence means that in the end the universe might just seem to consist of pure mathematics, because that's the only way we have to describe it.

The arrow of time, on the other hand, is hardwired to entropy. If I understood Hawking correctly, he is convinced that it is entropy that causes time to elapse, not the other way around.

Entropy is a good starting point, and I went down that road once, but the conclusions are totally unacceptable, because the laws of thermodynamics can be reversed.

If you think on this, what it means is that at this point in time, looking forward to the future, Entropy is to increase, meaning more chaos, less order, and all that goes with that. But, it means you will see the same thing in the past, more chaos, less order. Looking forward and backward is the same thing, and the results are thus the same.

Think on this some more, and you come to an understanding that this "present" is the anomaly, that the universe is just madness which happened to coalesce to form the world for this moment, including the chemical make up required for us to have the sense of "history", and we will fall apart in just the same manner.

Think on this even more, and you see that we can no longer trust the past for it does not happen, but is rather a random luck of the draw as it were in the coalescence of our "present".

But we of course have no reason to believe that the present time is anything special, it is not like a film reel, that a specific frame is special in that it is exposed to the projector's light. Special relativity would make this reality quite a confusing one, if not flat out impossible. Se, entropy does not help us as much as we would like.

Saying ther was perfect order in the past, and the big bang triggered time's arrow is one way to help sort this mess out, but it does not do it fully.

Thus we see people who espouse claims such as "Time is an illusion". It sounds crazy, but when you start to really dig deep, the idea no longer sounds so nuts, but rather is quite the comforting one.

For why would out of all the dimensions our universe has, some say 9, some 11, maybe more, why is Time so different?


But I do agree with your view of mathematics. I know there are those who think that mathematics is the code of the universe, a great discovery of man. I do not agree. I see it as a tool, invented by man, to institute logic in a way that can be communicated and utilized. It is in this logic that is becomes extremly useful when talking about things of this nature. It is no different in its heart than is English, French, or Italian. It is a means to communicate. It is just when it is turned on itself, English, Italian, Latin, Greek, it is called philosophy. With logic, it is mathematics.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

Time is not like an arrow or a river. We do not travel through time--it travels past us! You could think of it like an endlessly long train going by on a track next to us. Like any other two moving things, the same effect is experienced from the other side whenever one object moves, but you can be assured that one is moving and the other is not.

Time travel is not theoretically impossible--but like me trying to grab the moving train and change it's direction, the amount of energy required to alter the time flow is completely and utterly beyond human means.

Not. Even. Close.
 
I was trying to say that time is not a place...we cannot travel through it. It is more of a force, like gravity. We could--in really far-flung theory--alter it, but the energy requirement is so enormous as to make the task practically impossible.

Nope, you're still not making much sense. Is this your personal hypothesis or something you've read/misread?
 
Time travel is not possible unless you are willing to accept the universe follows a fixed path that was pre-defined and infinite amount of time ago. Just trust me on that, I've done the mental legwork. Of course, that doesn't stop relativity and causality preventing it as well, it just adds to the mix. It boils down to:
If the universe is not fixed:
You can't go to the future because it isn't determined yet, and you can't go to the past, because you'll be coming from an undefined future, and the rest is paradoxes. If needs be I'll try and compress my full logic into readable form later.
 
Saying ther was perfect order in the past, and the big bang triggered time's arrow is one way to help sort this mess out, but it does not do it fully.

Oh, I'm not saying anything of the sort. If relativity is correct, then even time is a product of our universe. It does open the big question of what was before the universe, but I'm a firm believer that we can only physically explain the universe itself, and nothing outside it. Because if we could, that would kind of make it part of our universe by definition.

So if time itself is a product of the big bang, there doesn't really need to be any perfect order before it. The big bang is nothing but the first increase in entropy, and it has been growing ever since.

Ah hell, now I'm really starting to talk philosophy in a science thread. I should really stop now before I make an ass of myself... :facepalm:
 
Back
Top