4-dimensioners and acceleration to light speed

[elpenmaster]

einstein said that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. so it would take infinite energy to accelerate an object with mass to light speed. since in a four dimensional object there is infinite volume, and the 4 dimensional object has finite density, and volume times density equals mass, a 4 dimensional object would have infinite mass. and since mass is energy, a four dimensional object would also have infinite energy. since infinite energy is required to accelerate an object to the speed of light, and a 4 dimensional object has infinite energy, couldn't a 4 dimensional object accelerate a 3-d object to the speed of light? then it would waste its infinte energy, and thus its infinite mass, so would it become 0 dimensional, or would it be 3-d?
i realize that this would not work in reality because we 3-d objects have a tiny fourth dimensional depth, but i was wondering if it would work in theory that a 4-d object could accelerate a 3-d object to light speed.

[pat]

since in a four dimensional object there is infinite volume, and the 4 dimensional object has finite density, and volume times density equals mass, a 4 dimensional object would have infinite mass.

If you're going to start modelling physics of 4-dimensional objects, it doesn't make sense to have density be mass times unit of volume. You have to extrude the density. You can either conceive of this as density being in units of mass per unit volume for any distance in the w-direction (which causes problems if you ever want to rotate this while preserving density) or you have have to upgrade the units on density to be mass per unit hypervolume.

If anything in Flatland has mass, that mass would not be measured in terms of mass per unit volume, but rather in mass per unit area.

[RQ]

I don't think that would happen because the tetronian object would have to appear out of nowhere, and as it is said in physics there is no such thing as a free lunch, because neither matter nor energy can be created. However, there could be antiparticles for that object. Then it would be valid, but the object would be in its incorporation of itself in 3D, so it would still be 3D. Higher dimensions cannot be within lower ones.

[elpenmaster]

but what if we 3 dimensionaers were floating around in 3 dimensional space, and a 2-d object also existed. i'm assuming that a 2-d object can exist in 3-d space. so that object would have finite area and density and thus finite 2-d mass, because, and here i am assuming again, wouldnt area times density equal 2-d mass? but since we are made of infinite layers of 2-d shapes, we would have infinite 2-d mass. so we would also have infinite 2-d energy, and could thus accelerate the 2-d object to the speed of light.
by definition of my intellect i am sure that i am wrong, but i would still like to no where my logic is faulty

[pat]

but since we are made of infinite layers of 2-d shapes, we would have infinite 2-d mass.

Sure, it could possibly be that way. I'd guess it much more likely that a 2-d shape would just be a one-atom-thick 3-d shape. Otherwise, what would this 2-d shape be made of? And, we're not an infinite number of atoms in depth.

Even if the 2-d shape is made up of special 2-d atoms, you'd be comparing apples and oranges if you tried to say we were made up of infinitely many 2-d atoms.

[elpenmaster]

but if the 2-d object by definition had no height, only length and width, then it would have zero mass. mass=density x height x length x width
because volume=height x length x width, and if it had zero height, it would turn the whole equation into zero, so mass=0
since the 2-d object then has 0 mass, couldnt it be accelerated to the speed of light?

[Watters]

That is true, but physisc isn't the same in 3d as it is in 2d, just like physics in 4d is not the same as 3d (volume of shpere in 3d = 4/3*pi*r^3) but in 4d the volume of sphere is 1/2(pi^4)*(r^3).

[elpenmaster]

that means that we could derive infinite energy from 4-d fuel
i think that we should do a rain dance to the tetronians asking for tetrafuel
:twisted:

[RQ]

I don't think that a 2D object with only two physical extended spatial dimensions could exist in a 3D universe because it has no thickness, and therefore no physical existence, however your logic might be correct, since we do have infinite 2D planes that make our 3D object, otherwise everything would be a dot.

[elpenmaster]

im not sure if in practice a 2-d thing could be accelerated to the speed of light, though i think that it could in theory. if you were to accelerate a square, you would have to apply pressure to either its face or one of its sides. since its sides have zero area, any 3-d pressure applied to them would be infinitly likely to slip right by the side. that only leaves the face to apply pressure
could pressure be succesfully applied to the face, or would it fail for some reason because the face has no thickness?
:?

[RQ]

It wouldn't exist in three D, so if you failed to push it at the "sharp", side then neither would you be able to push it at the flat side, since it wouldn't exist, other wise, you would be able to push it from 2D only from its 2D edges.

[PWrong]

I'd guess it much more likely that a 2-d shape would just be a one-atom-thick 3-d shape.

Atoms aren't the most fundamental unit of matter anymore. In string theory, all matter and the four fundamental forces are just infinitely thin strings. If this is true, then matter doesn't have any thickness any way we look at it, so our world is made of the same stuff as Fred's.

The interactions between strings are incredibly complicated, so I think we should assume that if a square could interact with our universe, its strings would immediately untangle themselves and have an unpredictable effect on its surroundings.

[Euclid]

Atoms aren't the most fundamental unit of matter anymore. In string theory, all matter and the four fundamental forces are just infinitely thin strings. If this is true, then matter doesn't have any thickness any way we look at it, so our world is made of the same stuff as Fred's.

The interactions between strings are incredibly complicated, so I think we should assume that if a square could interact with our universe, its strings would immediately untangle themselves and have an unpredictable effect on its surroundings.

Two comments:

1) I must agree that atoms are not the fundamental unit of matter anymore--quarks, gluons, bosons, etc., etc., etc.; however, string theory is still very much in it's infancy and although it appears to be the theory de jour of theoretical physics, it has some way to go yet before universal acceptance.

2) I concur that string interaction, if one assumes string theory is valid, is not only complicated but limiting. Since we are formed from a 3-D world, what would we need to interact with the other dimensions? I think that the best we can do is look at the reflections of higher dimensions within our own.

Could we imagine some sort of dimensional probe that would be constructed in another dimension using tools from this dimension? Could then that probe report back to us (using those reflections that I mentioned above) what the higher dimensions are like? Of course, this could be a chicken and egg problem, how do we probe if we don't know what the dimension is like. How do we know what the dimension is like if we don't probe?

Finally, if we had some sort of mechanism to link our Spaceland dimension to other dimensions, could we use that mechanism for travel via wormholes that we open up that link different points in our space with zero distance through some other dimension?

[elpenmaster]

it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.

for example, if flatland dudes did, theyy could make some sort od a "net" of the 3d probe. then they could apply prezsure to all sides until it formed a black hole and "jumped" into the 3rd dimension

but then they wouldnt be able to use it, becaus ehtere would be a black hole

the problem with trying to get to 4d is that we cannot apply force in that direction

[Geosphere]

it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.

You're taking the popular public stance that a black hole has something to do with the 4th dimension.

It may not.

[Euclid]

it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.

You're taking the popular public stance that a black hole has something to do with the 4th dimension.

It may not.

My thoughts exactly. So many black holes, so little time.

[Rybo]

it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.

You're taking the popular public stance that a black hole has something to do with the 4th dimension.
It may not.

Geosphere, If 11 or 27 dimensions eixsts then I think black holes are involved. Why? In my mind a black hole is the most extreme concentrated inside-outing conversion processing of matter to anti-matter and vice-versa. The Universe we witness is mostly matter-- mostly "dark" matter but still matter --. I belive there is a parallel Universe to ours that is mostly anti-matter. It does not seem possible to me that all existent-dimensions can not be involved with a balck hole process that may be the source of all galaxy formation ion both Universes.

Rybo

[Geosphere]

In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem

None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.

[Euclid]

In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem

None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.

Most of theoretical physics (and math, for that matter) is speculative. What I find most interesting about these discussions is the wide range of backgrounds that the poster's have. Lack of sophistication or training in scientific discourse would preclude many on this board from participating in more rigorous forums and I would point out that there is a dark side to great knowledge. Witness Lord Kelvin's 1900 remark: There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, all that remains is more and more precise measurement. Having a broad range of speculators here can be invigorating, albeit sometimes annoying. So let the ideas flow!

I hope I have not misinterpreted your remarks.

[Rybo]

In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem

None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.

Ggeosphere, sorry if I've offended you or violated the rules of tetraspace with phrases that include "in my mind... I belive....It does not seem" in the context of my writings.

Im not very good in mathmatics, I admit, and have little specific scientific math regarding black holes to offer. Im not sure there is agreement in mainstream scientific culture that black holes exist ergo any math-- by myself or others -- or science I offer may be speculative.

As for a proposition, Im not sure what a "proposition" exactly entails. Maybe if I were to rephrase my statements they would be admissable to you as a "proposition."

I agree that I have speculations and beliefs regarding black holes and their relationships to one or more dimensions. Im not sure what "faith" has to do with any my specifc remarks in that post.

Rybo

[Geosphere]

Faith = I believe with no backing fact.

Present some facts, pose a hypothesis.

Stata:
My car is black.

Prove or disprove.

Hypothesize:
Geo claims his car is black. As a mod, he probably is telling the truth, since a liar probably would not be a mod.

Geo is making a point. His car is not black, and challenges a way for someone to prove it otherwise.

Now, you will pick one of those choices. Even subconsciously, you will.
You believe your choice is correct. Based on...

Nothing. Self-belief. Faith.

Now I will grant you it is nearly impossible to prove my car color. But if there were some basic data, like a photo of my car with me (or is it me and my car or is it deceptive) or perhaps a copy of my registration (if that IS my real name). BUT if you had some of that data, there is viable basis.

And THAT is what scientific process is about.

I could propose in a post that the cool prism of CDs in intense light is a result of 4th dimensional interaction. I could also propose that we abandon money for an economy based on milk.

Without some sort of backing, the musings fail to convince.

As far as math, you will NEVER see me touch that icky geometry forum we have here. Gives me the creepin willies.

[Keiji]

In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem

None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.

Speculation forms a hook on which to investigate. It is a very important part of science - if no humans ever speculated, we would not know any science at all.

[Rybo]

Having a broad range of speculators here can be invigorating, albeit sometimes annoying. So let the ideas flow!
I hope I have not misinterpreted your remarks.

Euclid, Thanks for your remarks. I wish i had somthing more meaningful to add other than "thanks" but I cant think of anything like the Lord Kelving statement, which, I too have heard before. I suppose there is much theoretical physics out there, with all degrees of certifcates-of-education behind them.

First there was a comological constant, then there was not, and now it appears again. The Universe was static, then expanding and now accelserated expansion.

First the Universe existed eternally, then it came from a big bang and now there is some discussion that something may have existed before.

Forst there were physical powers beyond aour knowlege ergo magical or extarordianary, then there were mathematical 3-D, then there wdas mathematical powers, and now we have +4-D or is it 4-D+ dimensions.

Here is link to 32 powers/dimensions. See 986.850 to 986.857
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/p86770.html#986.850

Rybo

Edit by BobXP: Fixed your quote. :wink:

[Euclid]

First there was a comological constant, then there was not, and now it appears again. The Universe was static, then expanding and now accelserated expansion.

Indeed. Einstein considered it his "biggest blunder". Now we need to quote him:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

[Rybo]

Indeed. Einstein considered it his "biggest blunder". Now we need to quote him:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Euclid thanks again. Image-ination comes from the our experiencing of light, sound, touch, taste etc.....gravity is the minimal bosonic force that connects all parts of our one-finite-physical Universe or, of a finite set of physical multi-verses. icocahedral gravity and its interfereing patterns, minimally, makes all the physial parts of Universe, relative over-time and relative varing speeds, in-motion.

I have not seen time, nor have I seen time travel. I have however, over time, seen many finite physcial things, travel. I do conceptualize a slice-of-time, when ever I look at a clock or, speculate as to "what is the time?"

Euclid, I hope, as you take-the-time, you can relate my words to your own experiences, that you have encountered, via your travels, over time. :--)

There, I managed to include the titles of this spceific forum into my diatribe.

Rybo

Edit by BobXP: Fixed your quote, again. :wink:

[Rybo]

Stata:
My car is black.
As far as math, you will NEVER see me touch that icky geometry forum we have here. Gives me the creepin willies.

Black holes were black then Hawking said they are white. If we look to center of galaxy for a black hole we may see intense infra-red at those positions most associated with holes-filled-with-entropy. Holes, like particles, are things that may be possible to define using geometrical polyehdra.

Tetra(4) involves math. Space involves physical dimension/powers and space involves metaphysical dimenions or powers there of and it invoves 0-dimensions or 0-powers thereof.

Here is a link to my site wit a little a bit of some graphics that may involve an entropically-filled-hole.
http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/

Im "relatively" out of words, with which, to "travel" any further towards, a conclusion at this "time"

I offer this poem, regarding time, to lighten our journey over time.

From Time To Time
By Rybo6 alias OS_Jbug

Practice, "over time",
Makes better, "in time",
Whatever, "takes time".
In spite of, "limited time",
We find, "the time",
And possibly we resonate, "with time".

We may also "extend or shorten time",
Relative to the "sum-total of time",
Being that there are those who take their "sweet time",
And others who are constantly running "out of time".

So it happens there is "no time",
In a Universe that is "full of time",
And those who keep "track of time",
Warning us of the coming "end of time."

I have no illusions "about time",
Nor about the theories "surrounding time",
I do know that there is "a time",
To forget "about time."

Alas, this is the end of "my time",
Talking of endless ideas "involving time",
And allowing me a one final concept "concerning time."

That all people on occasion, hopefully, "have a good time."

[Euclid]

Witten was asked: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?

He responded: I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is.
--

Witten is on a league with Einstein, at least in our time.

[PWrong]

If 11 or 27 dimensions eixsts then I think black holes are involved. Why? In my mind a black hole is the most extreme concentrated inside-outing conversion processing of matter to anti-matter and vice-versa. The Universe we witness is mostly matter-- mostly "dark" matter but still matter --. I belive there is a parallel Universe to ours that is mostly anti-matter. It does not seem possible to me that all existent-dimensions can not be involved with a balck hole process that may be the source of all galaxy formation ion both Universes.
Rybo

Sorry to break up all the nice philosophy, but black holes aren't involved that much. The 6 extra dimensions are curled up tightly so we can't see them, and black hole don't cause this at all. Black holes are important to theoretical physics because they are heavy enough to be affected by relativity, but small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics. I'm sure the universe could still be pretty much the way it is without them.

[Euclid]

Sorry to break up all the nice philosophy, but black holes aren't involved that much. The 6 extra dimensions are curled up tightly so we can't see them, so there is no need for parallel universes, and black holes don't cause this at all. Black holes are important to theoretical physics because they are heavy enough to be affected by relativity, but small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics. I'm sure the universe could still be pretty much the way it is without them.

I might add that the black hole isn't that big (no pun intended) of a complex phenomenon in that the occurance is accidental based on a large enough clump of mass being in the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) place at the right time :wink:

[swirl gyro]

but if the 2-d object by definition had no height, only length and width, then it would have zero mass. mass=density x height x length x width
because volume=height x length x width, and if it had zero height, it would turn the whole equation into zero, so mass=0
since the 2-d object then has 0 mass, couldnt it be accelerated to the speed of light?

I see what you're saying. But the height doesn't get multiplied because it "doesn't exist". so m=dlw. height is just out of bounds for that particular universe. If you had to add the infinite possibilites to the calculations for the finite actualities, nothing could exist, it all reverts to zero.

0/0 = pistachio ice cream