Kinds of dimensions.

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

Kinds of dimensions.

Postby d.m.falk » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:35 am

As proof I'm here more than for just getting a tesseract proggie compiled for the Mac, I offer this, if I may. :)

I have an hypothesis that there's more than one kind of dimension. Sure, this here is primarily about spatial dimentions, and temporal dimensions aren't really a factor for this forum. However, I believe there are four kinds of dimensions, rather than two, and it might explain some of the weirdness observed in physics.

Four? Yes. Two kinds each in spatial and temporal realms. I call them "greater" and "smaller" dimensions, in which the greater dimensions are the ones we observe on the macro scale, such as the common 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The smaller dimensions are the ones observable at the quantum level. Sometimes these are referred to as "folded" dimensions, due to the observed behaviour at this scale, but I truly believe these could be considered a separate family of dimensions. And there are quantum-scale temporal dimensions, too.

Anyhoo, food for thought.... :)

Now, about graphical representations of hyperspheres... ;)

d.m.f.

Moved from Theories to Time Dimensions ~Keiji
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk
Dionian
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Eureka, CA, USA

Postby bo198214 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:10 am

Was that now just your idea, or isnt it already done that way in physics, though I never heard of additional small *temporal* dimensions. Hey, house what do you say?!
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Re: Kinds of dimensions.

Postby papernuke » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:46 pm

d.m.falk wrote:However, I believe there are four kinds of dimensions, rather than two,


what? two? we have 3 dimensions, and the four dimensions , the fourth being perpendicular to all 3 of our dimensions.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby bo198214 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:24 pm

No, he means we have two *kinds* of dimensions, that is space dimensions and time dimension. Now he says, for each there are major and minor dimensions, makes:
1. major spatial dimensions
2. minor spatial dimensions
3. major temporal dimension(s)
4. minor temporal dimensions
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby d.m.falk » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:19 pm

Correct, bo198214- That's exactly what I mean.

We normally experience 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. These are the ones I call "major" dimensions in our universe. The "minor" ones are experienced at the quantum level, thus not experienced under everyday situations. This is on par withe the "major" and "minor" forces of physics.

I can't explain the mathematics of it, as I'm not that good at maths, but it explains, at least in my opinion, some of the peculiar behaviour observed on the quantum level, which, as known, seem not to follow the normally-observed laws of physics.

This doesn't dismiss the theory of hyperdimensions; merely it's intended to address the differences on the macro (normal) and micro (quantum) scales.

I hope this makes sense. It's been something that's been sitting in my brain ever since I read about "folded" dimensions at the quantum scale a couple months back.

d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk
Dionian
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Eureka, CA, USA

Postby d.m.falk » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:30 pm

bo198214 wrote:Was that now just your idea, or isnt it already done that way in physics, though I never heard of additional small *temporal* dimensions. Hey, house what do you say?!

Firstly, I treat temporal dimensions the same as spatial. Although we experience one linear temporal dimension normally, it's being observed that in black-hole space, temporal behaviour seems not to be linear, but possible two or three temporal dimensions at work.

And again, at the quantum scale, similar temporal behaviour seems to exist.

As far as I can tell, just as major and minor forces coexist, so do major and minor dimensions- at least at the quantum level.

d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk
Dionian
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Eureka, CA, USA

Postby Nick » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:53 pm

First, please use the edit button; double posts confuse me ;) .
Second, wouldn't you consider the minor dimensions as merely subsets of the major dimensions, rather than being an entirely new type?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby d.m.falk » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:08 pm

Nick wrote:First, please use the edit button; double posts confuse me ;) .

If it was addressing the same post, I would. I didn't notice bo's first post when I replied to his second, first.

Second, wouldn't you consider the minor dimensions as merely subsets of the major dimensions, rather than being an entirely new type?

Not necessarily. While they can coexist, they don't necessarily interact at their respective scales. (I can envisualise this and other hyperdimensional stuff reasonably well- I just can't explain the maths behind what I can visualise! :( )

d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk
Dionian
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Eureka, CA, USA

Postby Nick » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:08 am

d.m.falk wrote:Not necessarily. While they can coexist, they don't necessarily interact at their respective scales. (I can envisualise this and other hyperdimensional stuff reasonably well- I just can't explain the maths behind what I can visualise! :( )

d.m.f.


They don't have to interact. They merely have to represent the same thing. If the minor spatial dimension is the same as a major spatial dimension but at a smaller scale, then their still part of the same big idea: spatial dimensions. Am I right? Or no?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby bo198214 » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:41 am

Nick wrote: If the minor spatial dimension is the same as a major spatial dimension but at a smaller scale, then their still part of the same big idea: spatial dimensions. Am I right? Or no?


No, there is no "smaller scale" if it is still a straight dimension. They are called small, because they are curled up and hence can at most be as big as its circumference, which is small.

You can imagine a curled up direction as: if you go in that direction after some meters you are again at your starting point. But the actual curled up dimension are so small that if you go an amount above the planck length then you several times crossed your starting point. In that way you dont notice that you live an a world of much more than 3 spatial dimensions.

I dont know if those curled up dimension are in relation to the normal dimension in a way, that it is relevant to say that they are orthognal to each other.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby d.m.falk » Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:08 pm

Ah, someone who does understand what I'm getting at. :)

It could also be thought of as "linear" vs. "non-linear" dimensions, if you will- The 'linear" ("major") dimensions do exist at quantum scales, as they should, but the "non-linear" ("minor") dimensions seem to only exist at the quantum scale, and as I've said, could explain some of the odd behaviour seen at that scale. (They've been called "folded" or "curled" for some time; my distinction here is that quantum-scale spatial and temporal dimensions are themselves subclasses of their own respective kinds, and as such, the major and minor spatial and temporal dimensions should be seen as distinctly separate entities.)

If you want to try to visualise it, think "linear" and "spiral". Our normal spatial reality is linear, whereas in quantum space, it's spiral. Functionally, the relation to lesser and greater dimensions respective to either is the same- exponentially perpendicular to the next.

d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk
Dionian
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:22 am
Location: Eureka, CA, USA


Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron