how to make a 5/6 dimensional model

[trepathan]

All you need are some balls, some string and a few screw in hooks

 

Grab a ball and put a hole on opposite sides

thread a long piece of string through the holes and hold it horizontally.

 

You now have a model of 4D space.

The ball represents the entire universe, the string represents time.

 

Add a hook to the 'top' of the ball.

Tie a piece of string to the hook and hold it vertically.

Slide a few more balls onto this new string.

This is a model of 5D. The extra balls represent other universes along the 5th dimensional line

 

Grab 2 more hooks and put them on the 'left' and 'right' side of the first ball

Tie some string to the new hooks and extend them horizontals, at right angles to the first piece of string.

Add some more balls to the new pieces of string and... Eureka, you have created your own model of 6 Dimensions.

 

It should be noted from this model that the 5th and 6th Dimension appear to be time-locked to the original 3 dimensions, hence they travel through time at the exact same speed our universe does

 

Enjoy

 

[ajb]

You now have a model of 4D space.

The ball represents the entire universe, the string represents time.

So this is really a 3-d model; you think of a space-time cut as the ball being space and the string as time. Meaning that the ball moving along the string represents temporal evolution of space.

 

 

 

Add a hook to the 'top' of the ball.

Tie a piece of string to the hook and hold it vertically.

Slide a few more balls onto this new string.

This is a model of 5D. The extra balls represent other universes along the 5th dimensional line

This looks more like building the space-time up as a series of spaces placed along time. Which is what you get with the temporal evolution of the spaces.

 

 

Eureka, you have created your own model of 6 Dimensions.

This sounds more like a two time universe!

 

I think I am not understanding your analogies here...

[trepathan]

It is all about perspective...

You can try and visualize reality from inside our known universe OR

From outside our known universe.

 

This idea is to try and help visualize what dimensions would look like from the perspective of being outside the known universe.

 

Yes, the ball moving along the string represent temporal evolution of space.

From outside the perspective of our universe, the universe itself does not change size or shape as it contains all possible space.

 

Only the first string represents time. When you place the second string, this is to represent the 5th dimension. This is to show how the 5th dimension contains multiple universes which do not overlap our space, but are connected through the dimension of time.

[Phi for All]

It is all about perspective...

You can try and visualize reality from inside our known universe OR

From outside our known universe.

 

This idea is to try and help visualize what dimensions would look like from the perspective of being outside the known universe.

 

Yes, the ball moving along the string represent temporal evolution of space.

From outside the perspective of our universe, the universe itself does not change size or shape as it contains all possible space.

 

Only the first string represents time. When you place the second string, this is to represent the 5th dimension. This is to show how the 5th dimension contains multiple universes which do not overlap our space, but are connected through the dimension of time.

 

I don't think you understand what a dimension is.

 

And if the universe "contains all possible space", there is no "outside the perspective of our universe", by definition.

[trepathan]

ok, I love a good constructive discussion

 

First. Can it be said that any scientist on the face of the earth truly understands what dimensions beyond the first four may look like?

 

It is commonly accepted within the scientific community, at least from the experts material I have read that work with theories of more than 4 dimensions, that this might mean there would be alternate worlds or parallel realities.. true?

 

When I said "all possible space" I am of course referring to 3D space that exists within our universe, this does not preclude the idea that space can exist outside our known universe

 

From your statement that "I don't understand what dimensions really are".. Ok, fair call. I readily admit I do not have an advanced degree in quantum mechanics or physics or high level scientific degree on my wall.

I would kindly request however that instead of simply dismissing the idea, that you help to educate me on your understanding of what dimensions are and inform me of how my understanding is flawed. Isn't that the whole point of this website?

 

A classic definition of dimensions says "dimensions are the different facets of what we perceive to be reality".

String theory tells us there must be at least 10 dimensions, and M-theory tells us there are 11.

 

According to Superstring theory the fifth and sixth dimensions are where the notions of possible alternate realities or parallel universes arise.

Some believe that other dimensions describe possible universes which have different starting conditions to our own.

Or that there are 'planes' of possible universal histories that are different from our own.

Also

"Extra dimension must be in the form of Calabi-Yau manifold". ? bit of a stretch with that one don't you think, although it makes a pretty picture

 

It is one thing to state extra dimensions exist, but to then shrug them off as being so small they are measured at the planck scale, therefore we can just ignore them as having no relevance to our own 4D Space/Time, seems a bit ridiculous to me.

 

If extra dimensions exist and they describe alternate universes or planes or alternate universes and universe histories, then this must mean they are existing outside the boundaries of what we perceive to be the limits of 4D space.

If there is something outside our own space/time.. then it means I can try to imagine how these would appear from an external perspective.

 

Some try to use descriptions like.. imagine an ant crawling on a wire. From a long way off this wire appears 1 dimensional, but the ant can crawl around the wire along an extra dimension of space. From our perspective the ant appears and disappears as it crawls around the wire

Sure sure... why not, it's just an analogy to assist with visualisation

 

My analogy is an attempt to get people to view dimensions from an alternate perspective. When viewing the fifth dimension from outside our universe it appears to be a planck length in size, the same as all the others. This allows quantum energy to move freely between dimensions as easily as they can move in our universe, just like the ant.

But you can use 3d tools to help visualise 5 dimensions and even more if you are willing to expand your mind to encompass larger realities than those that are readily available in our 4 dimension space/time

 

Please respond with greater information that can be used to educate

[trepathan]

My one greatest confusion as it concerns dimensions is that no matter how hard I have looked, no one seems to have made an effort to describe general characteristics of dimensions, or how they are affected when more dimensions are added.

 

Forgetting Time for a moment, which I believe to be the first dimension, it appears to me that there ARE some things we can say about these characteristics.

Each dimension seems to possess the following features:

* They can be measured as a straight line

* They extend an infinite distance

* For each discrete on the dimensional line there is exactly one unique value

When you add an extra dimension:

* It must be measured at right angles to the proceeding dimension(s)

* Each discrete space of the proceeding dimension(s) will have infinite values measured along the new dimensional line.

 

My attempt to create a physical representation of this phenomenon is what prompted me to first write to this in the first instance.

 

As for Time.. I can see 2 potential rules:

* Time travels in one direction only

* As each instantaneous moment passes every value must change locations along a dimensional line

[ajb]

Dimension is is simply the number of numbers needed to specify a point in your space - which when we discuss space-time is a smooth manifold.

 

The rest of your two posts seems quite confused. For example, we need not have extra 'directions' that are infinite in extent. Being at right angles is a choice of a class of coordinates. Etc.

[trepathan]

Weird... I don't really get this.

If that's the case then why does anyone talk about parallel world or dimensions above the first 4?

we only need 4 dimensions to specify any point in our universe.

 

I will look into 'smooth manifolds' and class coordinates

 

Don't see how u get right angles without a change in dimensional perspective..

My perspective on this would have easily explained wave/particle events, gravity at Planck scale as 7th dimensional interactions, dark energy/matter as 8th dimensional interactions, red shift movement of distant objects in static universe.. But we never got that far.

But that's why u have the knowledge I guess

 

And now I know that we can ignore about 90% of the information on Internet in regards to dimensions from 'experts'. So hard to know what u can trust that's written. I might visit my local university.

 

One more question before I go. Einstein says space time is a 4d construct, quantum physics gives us at least 10d... Only one of these theories can be correct and the other MUST be flawed or incomplete. Which do u believe is correct, and why?

 

Thank u for ur reply.. I will try to gather more info on this and increase my understanding from current mathematical models.

[ajb]

If that's the case then why does anyone talk about parallel world or dimensions above the first 4?

One could mean different things by a parallel universe. The way you seem to use it is in relation to extra dimensions of our Universe.

 

we only need 4 dimensions to specify any point in our universe.

The question is 'do we?'. String theory, for example, requires 9+1 (9 space and 1 time) dimensions on some technical grounds. In particular, a quantum theory of a single free string needs 9+1 dimensions to be well defined. It is still possible to have extra dimensions without string theory, though right now string theory seems the best motivation to take extra dimensions seriously.

 

Don't see how u get right angles without a change in dimensional perspective..

I don't understand what you mean by dimensional perspective.

 

My perspective on this would have easily explained wave/particle events, gravity at Planck scale as 7th dimensional interactions, dark energy/matter as 8th dimensional interactions, red shift movement of distant objects in static universe.. But we never got that far.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Start simple and first undestand what we mean by a dimension.

 

And now I know that we can ignore about 90% of the information on Internet in regards to dimensions from 'experts'. So hard to know what u can trust that's written.

Look for an affiliation with a university or similar.

 

 

One more question before I go. Einstein says space time is a 4d construct, quantum physics gives us at least 10d... Only one of these theories can be correct and the other MUST be flawed or incomplete. Which do u believe is correct, and why?

We know that 4- general relativity can be seen as a limit of string theory. So they are not against each other, rather string theory should include gravity - and it does.

[trepathan]

Again, I thank you for your time and patience in answering my queries.

[trepathan]

I have no to investigate the subjects you gave me.. and I understand why there was great confusion.

It was my fault.

 

Your physics definition of dimensions, and my definition are completely different

My definition is as follows:

Dimensions are the pathways used and travelled by energy that combine to create reality.

 

Looking back on what I have written using your definition.. yes I agree, that makes no sense.

Try re-reading it using my definition

[Phi for All]

Try re-reading it using my definition

 

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use the accepted definitions instead? If your definition is wrong, it shouldn't be used at all. I am assuming you came to a science discussion forum to evaluate your idea scientifically.

[ajb]

My definition is as follows:

Dimensions are the pathways used and travelled by energy that combine to create reality.

What?

 

 

Looking back on what I have written using your definition.. yes I agree, that makes no sense.

Try re-reading it using my definition

But what you said makes no sense. It is just nonsense.

[Phi for All]

Dimensions are the pathways used and travelled by energy that combine to create reality.

 

The problem isn't just that you're re-defining accepted scientific terms.

 

The way you describe energy is incorrect. It isn't a "thing" that can follow a pathway. You can't isolate energy as a substance. Energy is a property of a thing. It can be transferred in different ways to other things, and changed into different forms, but you can't give me a bushel of energy.