Would having a fourth spatial dimension preclude life?

[Plat]

Because the inverse-square law becomes an inverse cube law which means no stable orbits and maybe even no atoms!

[Plat]

Or would there be unsuspecting effects that might "pop up", constants may change, might the gradient change?, maybe even laws could be different?...so could we "accurately" how a 4D might work or not work (because it would basically be dead)?

[thigle]

life is not 'atom-bound'. even massless abstract informational beings can be considered life. and there still might be stable orbits. check out the gravity thread.

[Plat]

How about physical life with mass?...is it precluded in a 4D universe?

[thigle]

physical is a 3d concept. 4d-life is a 4d concept, it cannot embed without singularity (=fully) in 3-space of cartesian(Kantian) spatial intuition.

however, '4d physical' would mean that the matter('physus') is more subtle, more 'refined' - we don't see such microscales, because of the resolution of our optical systems, and our selflimiting to physical perception.. some 80 million polygons seems to be human-eye resolution. density of pixels of eagle's optical system 3000times more.
but 4d would be still more refined, possibly under Planck scale, if it is compactified.

4d physical life with mass, hmm, check this out, for some exemples, and levelling:
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/allspaces.html#PhysLifeViz

[Hugh]

Hi Plat,

Our universe and ourselves may have higher dimensions than the three we readily perceive. The physics explaining how the universe works might actually be better understood if the existence of higher dimensions are allowed for.

There is an article from Michio Kaku that has a section on Field Theory in Higher Dimensions found at: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/hyper_sci_odyssey.shtml

Here is a direct quote from it: "To see how higher dimensions helps to unify the laws of nature, physicists use the mathematical device called “field theory.” For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet resembles a spider's web which fills up all of space. To describe the magnetic field, we introduce the field, a series of numbers defined at each point in space which describes the intensity and direction of the force at that point. James Clerk Maxwell, in the last century, proved that the electro-magnetic force can be described by four numbers at each point in four dimensional space-time (labeled by A _ 1, A _ 2 , A _ 3 , A _ 4 ). These four numbers, in turn, obey a set of equations (called Maxwell's field equations).

For the gravitational force, Einstein showed that the field requires a total of 10 numbers at each point in four dimensions. These 10 numbers can be assembled into the array shown in fig. 3. (Since g _ 12 = g _ 21 , only 10 of the 16 numbers contained within the array are independent.) The gravitational field, in turn, obey Einstein's field equations. The key idea of Theodore Kaluza in the 1920s was to write down a five dimensional theory of gravity. In five dimensions, the gravitational field has 15 independent numbers, which can be arranged in a five dimensional array (see fig.4). Kaluza then re-defined the 5th column and row of the gravitation al field to be the electromagnetic field of Maxwell. The truly miraculous feature of this construction is that the five dimensional theory of gravity reduces down precisely to Einstein's original theory of gravity plus Maxwell's theory of light. In other words, by adding the fifth dimension, we have trivially unified light with gravity. In other words, light is now viewed as vibrations in the fifth dimension. In five dimensions, there is “enough room” to unify both gravity and light.

This trick is easily extended. For example, if we generalize the theory to N dimensions, then the N dimensional gravitational field can be split-up into the following pieces (see fig. 5). Now, out pops a generalization of the electromagnetic field, called the “Yang-Mills field,” which is known to describe the nuclear forces. The nuclear forces, therefore, may be viewed as vibrations of higher dimensional space. Simply put, by adding more dimensions, we are able to describe more forces. Similarly, by adding higher dimensions and further embellishing this approach (with something called “supersymmetry), we can explain the entire particle “zoo” that has been discovered over the past thirty years, with bizarre names like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Although the mathematics required to extend the idea of Kaluza has reached truly breathtaking heights, startling even professional mathematicians, the basic idea behind unification remains surprisingly simple: the forces of nature can be viewed as vibrations in higher dimensional space."

[Plat]

How about an actual 4D (or 6D or 11D, etc.) universe floating around...could life really be precluded as some people say it is? could we really extrapolate that much to say that life will not happen?

[Hugh]

We fully understand so little of the reality of our own universe, let alone what would be possible in another one. With the proper physical laws in place, anything is possible.

[Plat]

Thats the thing, would a four spatial dimension universe have the same laws as a three spatial dimension universe?

[Hugh]

I don't think so, but I'm not a Creator of universes.

Don't forget that our space might actually not only be 3d, so the "laws" we think we understand might not actually be true.

[Plat]

If we restarted this universe's big bang, what are the chances of it having the same physical laws? or different physical laws? is it a random kind of thing?

[Hugh]

Who knows? Maybe the universe just goes through an endless cycle of big bang / big crunch and has always done so and always will. Maybe the laws get changed around, maybe everything happens the exact same way all over again and again.

Maybe we'll figure out a way jump to another parallel universe before the next big crunch happens.

[Plat]

I dont think a big crunch will happen, but I do think Inflation is one of the best theories out there now.

Might the laws be different if the physical properties be different

[wendy]

Having done a spot of creation in the higher dimensions, one can indeed note that there is life in four, five &c dimensions. Atoms are indeed stable, but do not necessarily correspond to those in three dimensions.

Even in three dimensions, before the advant of the Bohr model, we had the plum-pudding model, etc. So we are not entirely restricted to aping what works in three in four.

There are indeed seasons, caused by the relative angles between the solar and zodial rings. These are novel concepts not found in three dimensions. Nor is the notion of season-zones: somewhere it is autumn, somewhere it is summer, and the tropics of leo and cancer run side by side.

The first model, in any geometry, is to assume that gravity is a radiant law, and that Gc = 1, nearly. That is, at a distance of x, there are the same number of gravity particles, but this is spread over all points distant by x from the source. In 3d, this is an inverse square. In 4d, this is an inverse cube, &c.

While it is true that the stable orbits do not include elliptical ones, it is still possible to stabalise these by other means. I do not have this rule on my hand to this moment, but it evidently is true enough for life to evolve. My own reading here is that the Act of 1521 makes the earth from falling into the sun a criminal offence, or something like that.

Still, one never worries too much about trivialities, and goes ahead and deals with life in four dimensions &c.

W

[jinydu]

life is not 'atom-bound'. even massless abstract informational beings can be considered life. and there still might be stable orbits. check out the gravity thread.

That does not reflect the opinion of serious scientists who actually search for extraterrestrial life, or scientists who study things that blur the line between life and non-life (such as viruses)...

[Hugh]

Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

Do you think that life is confined to only matter? Is it possible that a being of pure energy could exist somewhere in the universe?

[jinydu]

Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

Do you think that life is confined to only matter? Is it possible that a being of pure energy could exist somewhere in the universe?

All known living organisms rely on DNA or RNA, long and complex chains of molecules. Until there is strong evidence for the existence of non-material life, there is no reason to believe that they exist.

Matter and energy may be interchangeable, but this only occurs in appreciable quantities at very high energies, orders of magnitude higher than what any known life form can survive.

[thigle]

being a serious scientist only matters to not really serious scientists...
and it's funny that it's you jin, who's taking the stance... do you think that your credentials or level of 'scientific seriousness' is really above guys like Tony Smith ? or Jack Sarfatti or Paul Siraq, David Bohm, or 't Hooft ? or Michio Kaku, etc, etc... ? you should learn to work with difference in worldview. even if it's not your cup of soup. judging based on incomplete knowledge does not lead where we wanna get. don't hide behind crap talk on serious science, it's not up to you to decide what is and isn't science, it's not even explicitly stated anywhere that this forum is 'seriously scientific'. be truly subjective and personal, so that you can be actually objective.

the domain you locked yourself into is based on physical concepts. applying its principles beyond its scope, you misapply.

did you even check the link below ?

[jinydu]

do you think that your credentials or level of 'scientific seriousness' is really above guys like Tony Smith ? or Jack Sarfatti or Paul Siraq, David Bohm, or 't Hooft ? or Michio Kaku, etc, etc... ?

No, but I would say that my credentials are higher than those in mathematics-free popular science books. Please understand when experts say "vibrations in higher dimensional space", they aren't giving you a complete explanation of the scientific hypothesis; they're "dumbing it down" so that more people can have some understanding of it. I, however, have studied several physics theories in their full mathematical form; and while I don't call myself an expert in them, I can say that I understand enough to know that vague, equation-less thinking is rarely scientific.

I'm trying to point out the difference between scientific hypotheses and unscientific speculation. Of course you can believe in matter-less life; but that would be a belief only, with no solid science to back it up.

[PWrong]

Is it possible that a being of pure energy could exist somewhere in the universe?

Yep. I'm made of pure energy, in the form of matter. A being made from energy in the form of light would be completely pointless, because time stops at light speed. Same goes for life made of gravity, or any other force. The only other kind of energy I can think of is dark energy. Can dark energy exist in 4D?

For now, let's just define life as a naturally occuring collection of matter that can reproduce, like ordinary life.

Personally, I'm worried that 4D physics will be too chaotic to allow life. It's not just the orbits and atoms. All forms of energy spread out too quickly. It would be hard for a 4D cell to hold itself together.

[thigle]

4d life doesn't need a material cell. energy/matter is not information.

the question is of broader context: in tony smith's terminology, massive physical beings ec.sist within lightcones, light beings are anchored mainly in the 'surfaces' of the lightcones & massless abstract beings are dwelling alocaly, beyond the lightcones.

all forms of energy spread out too quickly ? what about toroidal knots ? just bluffing :wink:

but i think projective spaces would have to be considered for complex understanding of life in all its meta-levels. so a RP4 might be more interesting than E4 for starting...

anyway the other aspect of this discussion made it to become (with houserichichi's help) a newborn thread (http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=415), so i move over there for discussing the 'scienceness' and 'math-essence' matters.

[Hugh]

Hi Jinydu,

All known living organisms rely on DNA or RNA, long and complex chains of molecules.

It won't be long before we will be able to watch and talk to a robot, and be convinced that it is alive. That's just here on Earth, a few decades from now. Think of what humans (or robots) will create ten thousand years from now. Think of planets that have had life that has evolved for several billion years longer than us. Think of the possibilities.

Life will always find a way to exist and grow. The forms that it takes on elsewhere in the universe are likely beyond anything that we can imagine.

I'm trying to point out the difference between scientific hypotheses and unscientific speculation.

This is a speculative board to begin with. Are you waiting for people to come on here only with detailed "scientific hypotheses" proving the fourth spatial dimension exists? We're here to exchange ideas. We all have different skills to offer. It seems to me that one of the main purposes of the board is to discuss how a fourth spatial dimension might actually exist, or be perceived. Some can offer only speculations, others can help with providing their skills in math or logic. If we work together, I think we can find some answers.

Hi PWrong,

Personally, I'm worried that 4D physics will be too chaotic to allow life. It's not just the orbits and atoms. All forms of energy spread out too quickly. It would be hard for a 4D cell to hold itself together.

The problem may lie with our thinking that we and the universe are only 3d, and we have built up all our formulas around that assumption. We think of what might happen in 4d, based upon what we think is happening here in what we assume is only 3d.

Here's pure speculation, from someone who doesn't have the math or physics skills to check it out.

Let's assume that the universe does have four spatial dimensions, but that we can only see a 3d slice of it, and anything around us at any time, due to our limited 2d surface vision. Would there be any way to make the inverse square law still work under these conditions, and fit in with what we see around us as we do now? Or could it actually be an inverse cube law in effect, but because we only see a 3d slice of the effects, we think it's an inverse square law? Is that possible?

[jinydu]

Well, I'm not saying that there should be no speculation on this board. I'm just saying that one should be vigilant to know the difference between real science and speculation. Also, in my mind, there is a big difference between asserting that our universe really is part of a larger 4D universe, and asking the question: "What would it be like, hypothetically, if our universe were part of a larger 4D universe?"

Personally, I don't have much interest in speculation, at least not unless it's grounded in some kind of well-defined mathematical foundation.

As for your question about whether the 3D universe we observe may be only a tiny slice of a 4D universe; that question has already been discussed in many other threads. Suffice to say, that idea has a severe problem. To see what that is, it is helpful to bring things down a dimension. Suppose you have a spherical lightbulb emitting light. Now, imagine wrapping an infinitely thin line around that lightbulb. What proportion of the total power is absorbed by the line? Zero. In order to observe some finite proportion of the total power, you would need a two-dimensional "receptor", such as a sheet of paper. A similar problem occurs when you move up to 4 dimensions. If we had a 4D light source and attempted to capture light from it, we would only ever get 0% of it, since the surfaces of 3D objects have 0 volume.

From the viewpoint of a natural scientist, the idea would be excluded by Occam's Razor, which states that given several plausible explanations for some phenomena, the simplest explanation should be preferred. Of course, we could hypothesize that little green men live on the moon who hide every time we point a telescope at them; but we instead prefer to assume that no such green men exist because it is a simpler way to explain the fact that they have not been observed.

[Hugh]

If we had a 4D light source and attempted to capture light from it, we would only ever get 0% of it, since the surfaces of 3D objects have 0 volume.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

If we were actually 4d, but could only see with 2d extending plane vision, giving us a 3d slice view of our surroundings, and had a 4d light source, and attempted to capture light from it, what would we get if we used a 4d object to do so? Wouldn't it be more than 0%?

[PWrong]

Life will always find a way to exist and grow. The forms that it takes on elsewhere in the universe are likely beyond anything that we can imagine.

What's the point in talking about it if we can't imagine it? I'd much rather talk about something we can just barely imagine, like 4D life.

If we were actually 4d, but could only see with 2d extending plane vision, giving us a 3d slice view of our surroundings, and had a 4d light source, and attempted to capture light from it, what would we get if we used a 4d object to do so? Wouldn't it be more than 0%?

Make a slit in a piece of paper, and hold it between a light source and your eyes. Can you see the light? Now make the slit infinitely thin. Can you still see it?

4d life doesn't need a material cell. energy/matter is not information.

Great. Do you want to know if information exists in 4D? Yes it does. Now that we've answered your question, let's move on to Plat's question about the kind of life that does need a material cell, which is a more interesting question.

It won't be long before we will be able to watch and talk to a robot, and be convinced that it is alive.

I see your point. Robots could almost certainly be built in 4D, assuming there was something there to build them. As for life occuring by chance though, I think it's unlikely in 4D, because of the inverse cube law and the rapid energy dissapation.

On the other hand, if 4D chemistry is similar in principle to ours, then it's probably much more complicated. If life did exist, it would be made of some 4D analog of carbon, with five bonds instead of four. You could get some pretty complicated structures with that, so something like DNA might be possible after all.

[Hugh]

Hi PWrong,

Make a slit in a piece of paper, and hold it between a light source and your eyes. Can you see the light? Now make the slit infinitely thin. Can you still see it?

I agree an infinitely thin line can't be seen, but I don't think that example applies to what I am asking here. Maybe I should try wording it this way...

Hypothetically :wink: , put yourself in 4d space. You would look forward through that space with a 2d x/y axis plane of vision, that extends forward into that 4d space along a 3rd axis, is this correct?

Put a 4d hyperspherical light source directly along that 3rd axis, in front of you. (Make it about a 3d slice size of a basketball. )

Now are you saying that our x/y axis extending plane of vision would not see anything of that 4d light source?

[PWrong]

Actually, I do understand the situation, but I think I now understand the point you're making.

We can't really know whether a 2D being could see a 3D object, because there's several ways the physics of each world might interact.

In Fred's 2D world, light rays (like everything else) are entirely confined to the plane. There are two possible reasons for this.

1. Photons are 2-dimensional themselves

2. Photons are 3D, like ours, but there's some force attracting them to the plane, and they can still be detected.

If you push a sphere into Fred's world, what he sees depends on what the physics is like.

1. The sphere's photons are 3D, not 2D. They just don't fit in Fred's universe, so Fred doesn't notice them moving past.

2. Some of the sphere's photons are attracted to the plane, and stay there. Fred will see the sphere normally.

The same reasoning applies in 4D. How you see it depends on the physics involved in combining two different universes.
This would be better off in a seperate thread. Could we get this topic split

[Plat]

But wouldnt 3D physics and 4D physics be totally incomparable? the nature of the fourth spatial dimension might even drastically change things, might even change the laws of physics...well I think that the bottom line is life "as we know it" probably wouldnt exist because it wouldnt be a universe "as we know it"

[Plat]

"On the other hand, if 4D chemistry is similar in principle to ours, then it's probably much more complicated. If life did exist, it would be made of some 4D analog of carbon, with five bonds instead of four. You could get some pretty complicated structures with that, so something like DNA might be possible after all."

But if theres no planets for this 4D life to appear and thrive on?, or even worse no stable atoms.

[PWrong]

Well, you could conceivably have a universe without gravity. Just make the universe consist of a single fixed planet, and a fixed sun with no gravity. However the best way to make a universe is the way god did. That is, set up some parameters, make something explode, and watch.

I can't make up my mind on whether stable orbits are possible. When I work it out using calculus, I can't find anything stable.

But on my program, I can not only get a planet to orbit the sun, spiralling in and out again repeatedly, but I can even get a moon around the planet.

As for atoms, we're still working on this. At the moment, stability isn't a problem. We first have to see whether energy is quantised. If it isn't, atoms might be very different from ours. I'm not sure whether the exclusion principle will apply.

On the other hand, if we can fix this problem, then 4D atoms will be very similar to ours. We might even be able to derive the 4D periodic table from first principles.