gobblewobble123 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Ok, so I am trying to imagine up to the tenth dimension. I am stuck on 6. I know that 4 is time, and 5 is the possible sequence of events that could take place in time. I don't really get the 6th. I know that 7 is all the possible events (infinity) considered as one point. I still don't understand 6. Can anyone help me try to understand the 6th and possiby 8, 9, and 10? Any comments are appreciated! Thanks! Gobblewobble123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

gobblewobble123 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Alright, so I figured out dimensions 7, 8, 9, and 10, but not 6. Still need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Schrödinger's hat Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Uhmmm, careful what you mean by dimension. Spacial dimension != degree of freedom. What you appear to be doing is picking (sets of) degrees of freedom and calling them a dimension. I suppose this is a useful exercise in thinking about how the universe could be different but bear in mind it is not what physicists generally refer to as a dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 By dimension people are usually (but not always) referring to the topological dimension of a topological space. Importantly, the Euclidean space [math]E^{n}[/math] has topological dimension n. In essence this allows us to associate with every point on the Euclidean space an n-tuple of numbers, the coordinates. In physics one is often thinking about (smooth, real) manifolds. These are topological spaces that have the property of locally looking like Euclidean space, for some appropriate n. This n, we call the dimension of the manifold. Because a manifolds of dimension n, is locally the same as [math]E^{n}[/math] you can employ local coordinates. That is given an open subset of the manifold, you can always attach an n-tuple of numbers to each point in that open subset. We call this a chart. You cannot do this uniquely nor in general will you be able to do this to the entire manifold in one go. You usually will need a collection of open subsets and an assignment of coordinates: this is an atlas. So, given an manifold of dimension n, you can always describe the points (locally) in terms of n-tuples of real numbers. For example, a 6 dimensional manifold is locally homeomorphic to [math]E^{6}[/math], so you can always find local coordinates such that the points are described in terms of a 6-tuple [math](x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, x^{4}, x^{5}, x^{6})[/math] of real numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

foszae Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) allow me to add a difficult alternate to this discussion. while i support the truth inherent in measuring out manifold dimensionality (particularly when it comes to particles), i will argue vigorously against the limits of that method. if i can be excused for referencing original research, the problem with your initial assumption is accepting only one dimension of Time. and while it is conventional wisdom, it has not actually been proven to be the case. as you start rattling off dimensions, you could just as well count five, six and seven as being precursor dimensions to time or parallel, unseen dimensions of Time. the unknown patterns of quantum space resonating across those barriers, triggering events, and then burning out as the wave function collapses results in what we perceive to be Time washing across the mechanical 4D world. and that's just to support the impression you offered us. in practical possibility, all of the hypothetically enumerated dimensions could be sequence-of-event which filters back to us as time. also, calling it "possible sequence of events" is a bit of a misnomer. it is specifically potentiality, no more no less. when we talk about 'real-world' physics having potential energy (such as what can be unlocked from an atom) there are two parts. one of them we know quite well as 'energy' which is a translation over D4 time of mass to energy. the 'potential' though is a completely different issue. potential follows certain rules (to the point that it may actually have its own physics laws). potential accumulates, prefers likelier potentials and is suggestive of obeying warping as a distinct property disconnected from the realm of spatial, mechanical reality. also, potential undergoes energetic transformation as its events decay into our D4 world. the interference of measurement burns off potential and results in spatial reality (as in the momentum/location problem of measuring electrons). and these theoretical ideas could potentially occur at any discrete step in a multi-dimensional chain. Edited May 27, 2011 by foszae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Did anyone order salad? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

foszae Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Did anyone order salad? so. not an appropriate place to talk about physics then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrRocket Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 so. not an appropriate place to talk about physics then? It is an excellent place to talk about physics. You did not do that. What is scary to me is that you might think that you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

csmyth3025 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 It is an excellent place to talk about physics. You did not do that. What is scary to me is that you might think that you did. Thanks DrR. If Fozae's post turned out to be some discernable physics to the folks in this forum, I was ready to abandon all hope of getting past v=d/t. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Skaffen Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Ok, so I am trying to imagine up to the tenth dimension. I am stuck on 6. I know that 4 is time, and 5 is the possible sequence of events that could take place in time. I don't really get the 6th. I know that 7 is all the possible events (infinity) considered as one point. I still don't understand 6. Can anyone help me try to understand the 6th and possiby 8, 9, and 10? Any comments are appreciated! Thanks! Gobblewobble123 Time is not the 4th dimension - within your concept it is the 1st....without Time there can be no movement and consequently no 'space'. Geometrically 1. Point Particle (Potential) 2. Straight line 3. Circle 4. Sphere 5. Torus 6. 'Hourglass' 7. 'Hourglass' (Wider with less height)....also known as the future. Observation 1. Electron 2. Electron Radius 3. Electron Orbit 4. Atom - Planets/Stellar Objects 5. Galaxy (Hole orbited by Spheres) 6. http://www.physorg.com/news189792839.html Geometrically the translations are performed by halving/dividing and rotating (maintaining conservation). Rotation is a squared function - a half squared is a quarter, which is why Dark Energy is observed to be (currently) 74%...they will find the missing 1% when the measurement improves. Dark Energy is the spin of the observed Universe - just as matter is localised energy through angular momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

csmyth3025 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Time is not the 4th dimension - within your concept it is the 1st....without Time there can be no movement and consequently no 'space'. Geometrically 1. Point Particle (Potential) 2. Straight line 3. Circle 4. Sphere 5. Torus 6. 'Hourglass' 7. 'Hourglass' (Wider with less height)....also known as the future. Observation 1. Electron 2. Electron Radius 3. Electron Orbit 4. Atom - Planets/Stellar Objects 5. Galaxy (Hole orbited by Spheres) 6. http://www.physorg.c...s189792839.html Geometrically the translations are performed by halving/dividing and rotating (maintaining conservation). Rotation is a squared function - a half squared is a quarter, which is why Dark Energy is observed to be (currently) 74%...they will find the missing 1% when the measurement improves. Dark Energy is the spin of the observed Universe - just as matter is localised energy through angular momentum. These statements don't make any sense to me. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along or do you have a reference that might explain what you mean by them? The reference you do provide regarding the hypothetical Einstein-Rosen bridge is, I'm guessing, your "observation" related to the "hourglass" (6th geometrical dimension?). As far as I know, the Einstein-Rosen bridge concept doesn't invoke any extra dimensions. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

pwagen Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Don't know exactly how accurate this is, but it might be of some help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Skaffen Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 These statements don't make any sense to me. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along or do you have a reference that might explain what you mean by them? The reference you do provide regarding the hypothetical Einstein-Rosen bridge is, I'm guessing, your "observation" related to the "hourglass" (6th geometrical dimension?). As far as I know, the Einstein-Rosen bridge concept doesn't invoke any extra dimensions. Chris 'Dimensions', beyond the intuitive, are mathematical constructs - I have used a conserved (symmetrical) geometric illustration to try and retain a sense of intuition....hopefully to improve communications to further the discussion....a la Feynman - Me making it up (hypothesis) - The Universe is 'conservatively connected' (Tiled) - a spherical object moving through Time traces a torus (or it's 'unstable') e.g. electrons, moons, planets, stars. Only stable systems can underpin/define 'higher' systems/dimensions/geometries/fundamental forces....take your pick...I prefer geometry To 'conservatively evolve' spatial geometries - 1 'multiplies through division' (i.e. half it), rotate through next 'higher/spatial dimension' (e.g line - circle, positive & negative hemispheres), aka 'mathematically squared'. If we 'half n square' up to 6 times from a point we get an 'hourglass' - human observation has recently technologically observed this on a cosmological scale, however it pervades all scales IMO. As for a prediction from my hypothesis - Dark Energy is the angular momentum of the observable Universe and will tend from current estimations of 74% to 75%.....a half squared is a quarter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrRocket Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 'Dimensions', beyond the intuitive, are mathematical constructs - I have used a conserved (symmetrical) geometric illustration to try and retain a sense of intuition....hopefully to improve communications to further the discussion....a la Feynman - Me making it up (hypothesis) - The Universe is 'conservatively connected' (Tiled) - a spherical object moving through Time traces a torus (or it's 'unstable') e.g. electrons, moons, planets, stars. Only stable systems can underpin/define 'higher' systems/dimensions/geometries/fundamental forces....take your pick...I prefer geometry To 'conservatively evolve' spatial geometries - 1 'multiplies through division' (i.e. half it), rotate through next 'higher/spatial dimension' (e.g line - circle, positive & negative hemispheres), aka 'mathematically squared'. If we 'half n square' up to 6 times from a point we get an 'hourglass' - human observation has recently technologically observed this on a cosmological scale, however it pervades all scales IMO. As for a prediction from my hypothesis - Dark Energy is the angular momentum of the observable Universe and will tend from current estimations of 74% to 75%.....a half squared is a quarter You do, of course, realize that this is complete gibberish, don't you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

csmyth3025 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 'Dimensions', beyond the intuitive, are mathematical constructs - I have used a conserved (symmetrical) geometric illustration to try and retain a sense of intuition....hopefully to improve communications to further the discussion....a la Feynman - Me making it up (hypothesis) - The Universe is 'conservatively connected' (Tiled) - a spherical object moving through Time traces a torus (or it's 'unstable') e.g. electrons, moons, planets, stars. Only stable systems can underpin/define 'higher' systems/dimensions/geometries/fundamental forces....take your pick...I prefer geometry To 'conservatively evolve' spatial geometries - 1 'multiplies through division' (i.e. half it), rotate through next 'higher/spatial dimension'... I'm not sure if you're just playing or if you're serious. If you're serious then you can expect some serious questions. You can expect this thread to be moved to "Speculations" either way. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now