Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

multiple dimensions


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1    the rebirth

the rebirth

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the east coast

  • "it seems you have a chronomechanical malfunction"
    "what?"
    "a chronomechanical malfunction.."
    "a what??"
    "your clock is broken."

Posted 05 April 2008 - 12:49 AM

everyone (hopefully) knows that we live in three dimensions. this isnt going to be debated, however, according to string theory there are 11 dimensions(there might be even more), but what are these dimensions beyond the third?

a commonly accepted theory is that the fourth would be time. if we lived in four dimensions, we would be able to travel through three spatial dimensions as well as time. what about after that?

i surmise that the fifth dimension could be the dimension of possibility. some say that there is an alternate universe for every possibility of events. if you were to flip a coin, for instance, it would create two new realities; one in which the result is heads, the other tails. in the fifth dimension, you would be able to travel through space, time, and possibility. you would be able to travel to a place where hitler was never born, or one where he ruled the world. if this is so, what would the sixth dimension entail?

i think the sixth dimension could be the realm of consciousness. every thought, feeling, experience, and emotion, a reservoir of all the awareness of all living things. traveling through 6 dimensions would be very cool indeed. imagine if you could travel through space(as you normally can), time, possibility, and the experience of those who lived in these places, times, and possibilities.

after this i wouldnt even be able to guess what the next dimension might be. any ideas? as well, i cant attest that any of this is right or prove any of it. it is only theoretical. rebuttal is welcome and encouraged.


#2    Magnatude

Magnatude

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BC Canada

  • Reptilians? Delicious with BBQ sauce!

Posted 05 April 2008 - 01:19 AM

Hmm,

What you are describing is the typical dimensions of say, a 3D application. which is fine, however Kristos Mavros has an interesting twist
I read an interesting PDF on this, freely available on his website.

In particular "A Journey into the Mind of a Mad Man", when he writes about "Omega" and "Time" and his model in understanding these in dimensions.

He may/maynot be correct in his theories, however everything is theories, so if you like you can read, enjoy his diagrams and algebra...


#3    the rebirth

the rebirth

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the east coast

  • "it seems you have a chronomechanical malfunction"
    "what?"
    "a chronomechanical malfunction.."
    "a what??"
    "your clock is broken."

Posted 05 April 2008 - 02:14 AM

being that both my parents are math majors...
i hate math.
i much prefer thought experiments, but im gonna read up on what that guy says anyway


#4    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,630 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 05 April 2008 - 10:21 AM

In physics, a "dimension" is an independent "degree of freedom" in movement. So, I can move left-or-right without moving up-or-down, or vice versa, or mix and match. Thus, there are at least two physical dimensions. The argument that resolves at least four dimensions is obvious.

String theory attempts to explain or model everything (for want of a better word) as hypothetical vibrations of hypothetical objects it calls strings. In order to have the versatility of movement required to make the model work, the strings need to move in more different ways than are available to objects with only four independent degrees of freedom. Eleven would be nice.

The interpretation of these extra dimensions is the same as for any other dimension: the string can move this-way-or-that without moving up-or-down, vice versa, or mix and match.

This is modeling, and you can have a fully successful predictive model without any physical reality whatsoever to the elements in the model.

For example, if I stand in front of a plane mirror, then light behaves just as if there were things behind the mirror - exquisitely "just as if," I can perform accurate calculations on just that basis. But those things are not really behind the mirror, they are in front of it. No matter to the success of the model.

Even if it turns out that strings are real, and that the (apparently) required dimensions are also real. there is no reason to think that the dimensions would correspond to abstract concepts. "Possibility," for example, is easily incorporated in a one-dimensional (model) universe, where it does not serve as the single dimension in play.

Hope that helps.

Posted Image

#5    SQLserver

SQLserver

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:54 AM

Hmmm...
The theory I'm familiar with goes like this:

0. Point
1. Line
2. Square
3. 3D
4. Time line
5. The possible splits off of that timeline(IE- all the 'what could have happened''s) Try and remember each 'could have been' is in a different part of the 5th dimension.
6. THe 6th dimension is like a shortcut; an instant jump into a completely different 5th dimension, as though you are folding the 5th dimension.
7. The 7th dimension is ALL the infinite possible 5th dimensional tracks(all the possible 'could have beens') since the begginning of the universe, to the end.
8. I think the 8th dimension is all the possible begginnings, all the possible parallel universes(each universe, which started differently, each has an infite could have beens).
9. We repeat the pattern of 'folding'. We fold the 8th dimension into the 9th to get into any universe at any point.
10. All the possible universes, with every possible beginning and end, with all the possible 'could have beens'.

Wow. Still makes my brain hurt. Imagine if we had a machine that had control over all 10 dimensions......  ohmy.gif  
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php


#6    Ironvos

Ironvos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 08 April 2008 - 07:21 AM

Honestly i think all this talk about so much dimenions is a bunch of mumbojumbo original.gif
Dimensions are merely a tool to make maths possible.
We use X,Y,Z dimensions to calculate simple maths, we add time to have another variable.
All thos new dimensions are just extra variables they need to make difficult maths possible.

Stringtheory is just what it is, a theory, pure math.
After this they will just find another more complex theory to keep building from this, and so on and so on.
Eventually the true answer might be so simple that we cant comprehend how simple it is.
Nature always takes the most simple ways cause its the most effective one, so why would the universe be so overly complicated.

Just my opinion.


#7    briks hithouse

briks hithouse

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2008

  • maybe.

Posted 08 April 2008 - 04:03 PM

nature always takes the simpleest route?

the human nervous system is simple?
weather patterns are simple?
the migration patterns of whales are simple?

nature seems pretty complex to me personally.


#8    muddyfrog

muddyfrog

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • A teacher cannot teach a student; on the contrary a student must learn from the teacher.
    -Me

Posted 08 April 2008 - 04:40 PM

Ironvos on Apr 8 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

Honestly i think all this talk about so much dimenions is a bunch of mumbojumbo original.gif
Dimensions are merely a tool to make maths possible.
We use X,Y,Z dimensions to calculate simple maths, we add time to have another variable.
All thos new dimensions are just extra variables they need to make difficult maths possible.

Stringtheory is just what it is, a theory, pure math.
After this they will just find another more complex theory to keep building from this, and so on and so on.
Eventually the true answer might be so simple that we cant comprehend how simple it is.
Nature always takes the most simple ways cause its the most effective one, so why would the universe be so overly complicated.

Just my opinion.


you mean most effiecient(sp?) not simple right?

look at a river; simple would be all one depth, all one direction, all one speed, etc.
the most effiecient(sp?) would be big river, to small river, to creeks and streams. Much like human veins.

there is a train of thought that says our roadway would be more effiecient(sp?) if it were 1/3 highway, 1/3 main roads/connections to highways, and 1/3 small roads. Just like rivers, and just like arteries, veins, and blood vessels in our bodies.

So what is the most effiecient(sp?) universe?

I have no idea, but I bet it came about in levels like the above examples.

who is to say the universe isn't creating even more complexity as we speak?

Evolution does not breed simplicity. wink2.gif

EDIT: and no I don't have spell check, not the download from this site, and not one in my head either. original.gif

-Muddy

Edited by muddyfrog, 08 April 2008 - 04:43 PM.

Posted Image

Now is like a flowing river. Do not hold on to the shore. The shore is crumbling. Push off into the middle and rejoice that others have made it with you.
-Native American quote paraphrased


#9    Nucular

Nucular

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined:20 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Blighty

Posted 08 April 2008 - 06:39 PM

the rebirth on Apr 5 2008, 12:49 AM, said:

according to string theory there are 11 dimensions


linked-image
xkcd


#10    muddyfrog

muddyfrog

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • A teacher cannot teach a student; on the contrary a student must learn from the teacher.
    -Me

Posted 08 April 2008 - 10:34 PM

original.gif

I completely agree.

Posted Image

Now is like a flowing river. Do not hold on to the shore. The shore is crumbling. Push off into the middle and rejoice that others have made it with you.
-Native American quote paraphrased


#11    Magnatude

Magnatude

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BC Canada

  • Reptilians? Delicious with BBQ sauce!

Posted 09 April 2008 - 03:02 AM

Some of the problem we have, when it comes to understanding, is exactly like the river muddy was typing about.
People are asking questions like, why is the river flowing that way? it's very simple.
Scientists end up trying to explain it to you in math.
Why is that ebb in the river going in the opposite direction?
Scientist then end up making more equations explaining it, then sometimes getting frustrated at some of the math, then getting into arguments on who's math is right.

A wise man told me once there are 4 dimensions, Mind, Spirit, Body, and that which is higher consciousness (Call "it" what you wish).


#12    Ironvos

Ironvos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 09 April 2008 - 04:29 AM

briks hithouse on Apr 8 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

nature always takes the simpleest route?

the human nervous system is simple?
weather patterns are simple?
the migration patterns of whales are simple?

nature seems pretty complex to me personally.


Nervous system is very simple, we dont understand it yet, but thats cause it seems too simple, we fabricate computers that consist of hundreds of different components, and its still in every way inferior to a human nervous system.
Weather is simple aswell, it is just a constant action and reaction chain that keeps going an and gets influenced by many things. Sure we cant calculate exactly how weather will behave, but thats just cause theres an enourmous amount of data wed have to process in order to predict weather 100%.
Same with the wales, they know why they do things, it looks difficult to us cause we dont knew whales 100%.


muddyfrog on Apr 8 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

you mean most effiecient(sp?) not simple right?

look at a river; simple would be all one depth, all one direction, all one speed, etc.
the most effiecient(sp?) would be big river, to small river, to creeks and streams. Much like human veins.

there is a train of thought that says our roadway would be more effiecient(sp?) if it were 1/3 highway, 1/3 main roads/connections to highways, and 1/3 small roads. Just like rivers, and just like arteries, veins, and blood vessels in our bodies.

So what is the most effiecient(sp?) universe?

I have no idea, but I bet it came about in levels like the above examples.

who is to say the universe isn't creating even more complexity as we speak?

Evolution does not breed simplicity. wink2.gif

EDIT: and no I don't have spell check, not the download from this site, and not one in my head either. original.gif

-Muddy



Comparing a river and the human veins really doesnt work. as they are completely the opposite.
Human veins branch out because they Have to reach every cell in our body.
Rivers on the other hand merely seek a path of least resistance towards lower grounds, which eventually ends in a sea, ocean or lake.

Nature (and i mean the whole universe with that) is build up very simple, because its the most efficient way. But we just dont know everything about nature yet.
Thats why they keep producing new theories based on math constantly, the theory before the new one just didnt explain enough.
Each new theory will bring new problems tho, it will never end, as there will always be new questions after a theory tries to solve question.

So to get to the point, the bunch of new dimenions are merely tools for an intermediate state in maths thats trying to reach a final answer (which they prolly will never find tongue.gif)

Edited by Ironvos, 09 April 2008 - 04:30 AM.


#13    PulsE

PulsE

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 207 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in dreams

  • i wanted to learn as many things as i can so please teach me
    :P

Posted 09 April 2008 - 11:44 AM

...so i recomend everybody to keep their minds open, believing in current science might fool us some of it may prove to be wrong in future as what have been happening the way people today prove science in past is wrong

evidence never lie, but the interpreter can possibly commit mistakes

#14    Admiral Danger

Admiral Danger

    Thats what she said

  • Member
  • 5,176 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Beautiful land of Wales

Posted 09 April 2008 - 08:32 PM

more than 11!  i only thought that there was 4 i already know that they are length, width,height and time.  maybe there could be more explaining where you go when you die and maybe cyber space is another dimension. or is that just a speed?

thats a very interesting story about the shark and how it tried to eat you, but it still doesnt answer my question.  where the hell is my sandwitch!?

#15    SQLserver

SQLserver

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

Posted 10 April 2008 - 08:24 AM

Quote

more than 11! i only thought that there was 4 i already know that they are length, width,height and time. maybe there could be more explaining where you go when you die and maybe cyber space is another dimension. or is that just a speed?

See my post, and the video in it.
It does the best job of explaining 10.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users