BCphoton

Sorry for my late reply! I have been very busy with many things lately, and hope to pick up here again.

 

I await further discussion, but it is your idea to develop so we can only open doors for you to explore further, we can't do your work for you.

I will, of course, happily explain anything I've suggested in more detail.

 

 

I am a bit concerned by this idea that you have multiple points that are different, but the same point.This idea is ill formed at the moment and needs sorting out properly. Some of my suggestions actually offer something similar, a mapping or connection so that different points are mapped to one point.

I know it is not well developed yet, and hope to achieve that soon enough. My way of wording it isn't the greatest, but I just cannot think of another way to say exactly what my thoughts here are, so that is the closest representation.

That's essentially just an intersection from a higher dimension or the warping of the coordinate system. Mathematically it would most easily be described as the severe warping of space, though that specific warping hasn't been observed in real life. To explain how that would happen, start with a plane, just a regular old square and imagine that it represents the fabric of space-time. Then, fold the plane over itself 1-6 times and poke a single hole through it.

When you unfold the plane again, you'll find that one poke made several holes in the plane at once and that's essentially how a wormhole works. It's more complicated of course because you're talking about warping 4 dimensional space, not just a plane though mostly what you're doing is just saying two different locations are brought together via the warping of space. So mathematically you could have the space of the sphere be bent and warped to allow a path through one point to lead to another part of the sphere's surface. All your doing with these points that have different spacial locations that are all connected in 4D space is the same as with a plane; folding sections sections of spacetime so they meet in one place.

You could also describe it more as the higher dimensional pathway doing the work of bending instead of space itself, like if you took a wire in 3d space and poked both ends through a 2D plane, the electricity traveling through the wire from the reference of the merely 2D plane would appear to start in one point of the plane and pop out in the other end without traveling through the intervening area as if it teleported or conservation laws were violated, even though all the electricity did was travel in a third dimension.

Not coincidentally, this higher dimensional model is exactly the sort of thing scientists use to uphold conservation laws in sub-atomic physics in new models because of the principal I just demonstrated wherein energy or a particle simply travels through another higher dimensional path rather than just a regular 4d path instead of inventing some new and unmeasured particle. Whether or not that is what's actually happening is up for debate, we don't have a strict "need" for higher dimensions beyond 4 but it's convenient to use higher dimensional models to achieve accurate results in some cases.

Right, that does make sense. My idea here though is similar but different from that, being what if said point works by having fewer dimensions than what we see, rather than more. I do have a question for everyone as well. If there is in fact a realm where there are fewer dimensions than what we perceive, what do you think that would look like to us?

Babylon 5 had some pretty believable tech: even rotating ship segments to simulate gravity and aliens that had to wear encounter suits in human created environments.

 

But Firefly would get my vote too: can't believe they pulled that - by far the best sci-fi show at the time.

Good points! I have to say the only two parts of Star Trek tech I think are totally implausible are the Intertial Dampners and Gravity Plating.

 

 

You're weird...

I’m a fan of both but I think Star trek has influenced science the most and, with the exception of ‘Q’, completely ignores the idea of a deity, whereas Star wars is based on a deity.

That is very true. I had actually not thought of it like that before!

Call me weird, but I quite liked the animated series.

I have never actually seen it myself, but honestly, I heard it was pretty bad. May have to give it a try sometime though

I have not thought too hard about it, but for sure Star Wars has many basic physics flaws in it. Anyway, I an a Star Trek fan

Same here! I love Star Trek. Which series is your favorite?

Spock Roolz.

\\ //_

I don't understand the question.

 

 

All I can say is that we have black hole (and more exotic things) as solutions to general relativity and supergravity in higher dimensions.

Okay, that is basically what I was asking. Sorry about my poor wording, I had to finish my post up before leaving to go do some things.

Right, and the realm/world/universe is a subspace of that coordinate system in a typical multiverse model. Just like with where I said the universe could be treated as a plane, well, maybe some of dimensions of the multiverse are at an angle and allow some universes to intersect to create wormholes. Maybe there's a way to construct a line from one plane to another.

Right, but what if there was a collection of 'points' on that plane that are the same? For example, imagine a plane with multiple points labeled as A, but on different coordinates. They are all still point A, but yet when put onto a plane occur at multiple points. That is basically what I am trying to explain, is what if there exists a realm of a 'point' like that, and shows up at multiple places in our universe?

 

I rather suspect what you are trying to describe is what is known as a source or sink, which is a point in a flow pattern where charge or material enters or leaves the manifold (often 2 dimensional) in question. This means that conservation laws are not observed, amongst other things.

 

For instance the outlet hole in your bath is a sink as the water exits the bath.

 

I think, perhaps, you are speculating that there are points like this in our universe that are connected to other 'universes'

 

How does that sound?

 

 

Is projective geometry and cartography not a form of overlap of dimensions?

Ah, okay. Good to know, I will keep that in mind for future posts. That is somewhat that I am trying to say, but did explain it a bit more in detail above.

We need some context here, so I will assume by singularity we are talking about the kind of singularities found in general relativity. The answer is no, we can and do have singularities that are not 'isolated points'. We have ring singularities for rotating black holes.

 

In higher dimensions (>4) we can have even more strange shapes for the singular regions.

 

 

 

 

Classically yes, but in reality people think that such singularities are not physically realised. At high curvatures near the singularity we expect general relativity not to be a 'good' theory. It is thought that a quantum theory of gravity will 'kick in' and regulate these singularities. But right now we do not have a full quantum theory of gravity and so it is hard to say much more.

 

 

 

Defining mass/energy of a space-time is not easy and in general there is no clear notion. But for things like black holes we have several working definitions that agree. In particular an isolated black hole has finite mass.

Alright, also good to know. Are black holes thought to have higher dimensions?

Hello all! Wanted to hear opinions as to if you feel the various technologies in Star Trek or Star Wars are more plausible. Granted, they are all long shots, but which makes more sense to you all?

For example, I feel that warp drive from Star Trek is more plausible than hyperspace in Star Wars.

Also, this is just intended for fun, so please don't get too heated!

 

I was just about the exit the site but I couldn't help but browse around a little bit. Dimensions don't overlap in the way you're describing. If they do, they aren't dimensions. An example of something that acts like a dimension but isn't and overlaps is polar coordinates, i.e. angles. Angles can overlap themselves like when you go around a circle multiple times where different angles give you the same position, like 0, 360, 720...Dimensions by definition do not do this, they are meant to be linearly independent basis for which to locate objects according to a certain coordinate system. It is possible to have a coordinate system in which one dimension is at an angle greater or less than 90 degrees to another dimension, but, for the purposes of modeling our universe, this is often only the case in Special Relativity. At rest, space is flat and the dimensions are all perpendicular to each other. Within multiverse theory, it is simply stated that our entire universe is either just one subspace or coordinate of a higher dimensional space with an orthogonal basis depending on the exact definitions used for what a universe is.

If you can imagine a Cartesian coordinate system with an x and a y and a z axis, just imagine each universe as a 2-dimensional x-y plane or a "slice" within a higher 3D space for every z coordinate and that's essentially all multiverse theory is, nothing spectacular at all, the entire universe is just one relative plane among many others that fits into a higher dimensional space. Do only interval coordinates matter in multiverse theory? Are there universes for irrational coordinates relative to us? Can you go in between universes? Mathematically any of those circumstances could be the case, but no one really knows the actual answer because there's no experimental evidence of any of that.

 

Oh yeah also, for gravitational theories, they're finally saying "ok, infinite anything in a finite volume doesn't make sense..." There shouldn't actually be "infinite" time dilation and length contraction inside a black hole. In fact inside a black hole everything should be normal for someone who fell in. So one solution to that which fits everything else is that space is quantized and that the interior of a black hole is made up of plank lengths and plank time because you simply can't have an amount of space less than a plank length...according to our models.

 

Sorry for the confusion, but I did use the word dimension incorrectly in multiple instances in my first post. As I cannot edit it again, it remains so. When I said dimension in a few cases there, I was meaning realm/world/universe, not the coordinate system. However, I do get what you are saying there.

As for those gravitational theories, I know that they have changed the theory as to being infinite mass. However, they remain to be thought of as very great mass correct? If only we could explore a black hole... pretty frustrating to think we may well never be able to. Hopefully not the case though!

 

Maybe 4 or 5 people out of the four or five billion on our planet think that.

 

I think it would be a good idea if you studied up on the big words you are using by listening to the professors of maths and science you have access to here, rather than Marvel comics.

 

Singularities are common in everday life and in many branches of science and technology.

As such they are extremely well studied mundane entities.

 

There is, for instance, one in your bath as well as in complex analysis, fluid mechanics, electrical engineering, to name but a few.

 

Have you studied graphs as plots of functions, for instance y = x² and so forth?

Seven billion, but I get the point.

Is that not true for gravitational singularities? I know about mathematical singularities and some of their applications, but I am is a college astronomy class, and learned that black holes do likely contain a gravitational singularity. Either way, when it comes to learning new info, I'm all ears.

I have studied those, though not extensively.

Does it?

 

And where would I find one?

Well, that is the current theory anyways. Mathematically you can find them anywhere, but in science they are thought to be in the center of black holes

You can think of branes in any dimension, but there are some 'better' dimensions that come from string and M-theory. With no details at all, you can have various dimensional branes in 9+1 and 10+1 dimensions (you could look up the superbrane scan, but it won't help you at this stage (nonminimal extensions of the super Poincare algebra and Lie algebra cohomology are needed!!!!!!!))

 

 

 

Singularities in this contexts are points or regions where the smooth structure of space-time breaks down. This is taken as a signal that the classicl theory does not hold at and near these regions.

I gotcha. While I do not believe the brane theory is the same as what I proposed, I do think it would help to learn more about it to further my ideas. I plan on researching more into it.

Alright, that makes sense. However, isn't the current theory of singularities that they are a dimensionless point?

---

Also a side not here, I do not seem to be able to edit my original post, so unfortunately the poor use of the word dimension is stuck there.

 

Do you know what a singularity is and of any real world singularities?

Well yeah, a singularity has no volume and infinite (or very large) mass. In the real world, it would be a point.

 

I would recommend that you tried to use your idea to explain proven phenomena before offering a speculation to explain a speculation.

 

If you can achieve that, then is the time to move on to predict/explain new phenomena and see where that takes you.

I do see what you are saying. The only reason I included the link to wormholes is because I think it would make sense if they were in fact true. However, my main point being the part behind singularities.

It seem that you do not really discuss dimensions in the sense we usually mean. However, the initial idea reminds me of brane worlds where it is possible to have branes overlapping.

I plan on fixing my wording shortly. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the brane worlds theory have to do with a 5 dimensional world, or is there more to it?

 

1. "These thoughts" haven't been peer-reviewed, so if they've been published, it wasn't in any reputable journal.

2. Unfortunately, you've skipped over a lot of connective science that would have shown you how to better approach your ideas. I really wish we could talk you into going back to school for science classes. We need people who are interested and educated in mainstream science to help further our understanding. Unfortunately, popsci offerings are appealing more than they are informative (their goal is to make money, not to teach science), and they sometimes cause more harm than good.

 

The cosmological models we currently have reflect our best explanations for the phenomena we observe. Learning these, and the science behind them, allows us to use their awesome information to predict where the next pieces of knowledge are. Many phenomena were predicted before they were ever observationally confirmed.

 

I hope you'll continue to discuss and learn with us. You may have skipped some science classes, but you're smart enough to come to a place like this to ask questions. You didn't go to some Wild West Guess Factory where the science is secondary to vivid imaginations and what-if leaps over contradictory evidence.

 

As ajb mentioned, you might want to research a bit on branes and String Theory. Shore up some of the gaps in your idea, then assess whether you think it's still viable or not. Most ideas are wrong, even from professionals. Good luck!

Alright, good to know.

I will look into those sorts of things for sure. As for going back to school for science classes, well, I am a Junior in high school, so that is a future plan for me. I plan to minor in science in college, and major in computer science.

That is a valid point, and I have always been interested in discovering more about the universe we live in.

I do plan on it! I am liking these forums quite a bit, full of very intelligent people. Most of my science education in this area is self taught, honestly. However, I do always get my information from reputable sources, and will continue to look into sciences such as these until I reach college.

I will do so, and look forward to it as well! I do know new ideas like these are a long shot, but hey, it is worth the chance in my opinion. Thank you!

Dimensions overlap? Are you using the right definition of dimension? Dimensions aren't like multiple universes.

 

We use dimensions to determine where and when something is. The first dimension is length (x), and a line can have many points along it. 90 degrees perpendicular to all those points is the second dimension, width (y). You can't have the second without the first. The third dimension is height (z). Together with the temporal dimension, time (t), we can plot anyplace in the universe using this coordinate system. If you tell me to meet you at a certain latitude, longitude, altitude, and local time, I'll know you want to meet on the 27th floor of the Empire State Building in New York tomorrow at 09:00.

No, I did look at the theory of Dimensional Overlap, and it is not quite the same as what I am thinking.

Also, I do see what you are saying. I believe I used incorrect terms on a few instances there, and will fix that soon. I am far from a scientist, so I don't know what would be the correct term for what I am trying to explain. Thank you for your feedback!

How would you go about testing your hypothesis?

I do not yet know, as I just thought of this not even 24 hours ago. It is a work in progress though

Hello everyone! I am new here on the forums, and have created my account to propose an idea I had recently. My main goal here is to first see if these thoughts have been published elsewhere before, because I could not find anywhere in which they had been. That being said, I figure someone else out there has thought this up prior to me, so please do inform me if that is the case. Second, I would like opinions as to if this would make sense and explain a few phenomena in our universe.

My idea is not unlike a few theories out there, such as a few variants of the Multiverse theory. However, my proposal is that unlike those current theories, that we live in a universe where different dimensions overlap. For example, in the case of singularities, what if they are all points of a one-dimensional universe/realm, and they are all the same point? This would explain the idea behind the wormhole, as an object entering into that realm would no longer experience distance and could travel anywhere instantly. This could also explain phenomena such as Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation. The various dimensions would all have specific properties to explain them. Additonally, what if light exists in a realm of no time, explaining why reaching those speeds is unachieveable. If we in our time based universe see light as going x distance in y time, what if it travels timelessly, explaining why it travels the same speed no matter what speed the observer is going.

Please share your thoughts! However, if this is total hooey, please go easy on me, I am pretty new at this after all

Thanks all, have a good one!

-Ben