A way we could interact with a 4D universe

[PWrong]

This suggestion involves quite a bit of theoretical physics, and it's mostly based on what I've read in The Elegant Universe.

String theory suggests that there are several small, curled dimensions in addition to our three. The exact details of this are currently beyond our understanding, but what if we were to control the interactions of strings in a small part of our universe, so that the fourth dimension actually uncurls and we had, say, five quartic meters of 4D space extending from our universe?

Here's the analogue in 2D. Fred becomes a physicist and discovers that his world has an extra curled up dimension, the equal to the Planck Length. Fred builds a machine to release the curled up dimension over a small area in his lab. Bob watches the 2D world hanging on his wall in interest as Fred turns the machine on, and a square appears in the space inside the machine. This square appears to pop out of the wall towards Bob, and it begins to look a transparent cube stuck on his wall.

Technically, Bob and his universe can't exist under this theory, but I included him to show that a square from Fred's world is uncurling and becoming a cube.

Now imagine what would happen if Fred were to walk into his 3D space. Matter is made up of strings no matter what the dimension, so the problem of 2D atoms in 3D space is not a contradiction. The strings are simply free to move in another direction, where before they could only vibrate. This would, of course, disrupt the entire atomic system and definitely kill Fred, but at least there's no annoying infinities involved. So Fred does simple experiments with strings in his 3D world, and designs and builds a few simple atoms.

If we could do the same thing, it would vasty improve our understanding of the 4th dimension. We couldn't see it ourselves, but we could make observations with computers, perform experiments and design 4-dimensional atoms. Does anyone think a technology like this is feasible?

[BClaw]

Doesn't superstring theory say that those small dimensions are closed loops as well, while the three *big* dimensions are infinite? Well, what if one or more of those little curled up dimensions were to expand? Or what if we could do something to make one bigger locally? I have this terrible vision of people suddenly collapsing into goo because their molecules started falling out of their bodies into this mysteriously expanded dimension...

I posted that on Elpen's topic concerning 4D evloution before I saw this thread! We must be sharing the same 4-dimensional space for our thoughts!

[RQ]

This could get us in touch with other 4D universes, but they would have to be in the 5th dimension from here. Otherwise, unless this uncurling extends the other spatial dimensions further (much like the universe does every second), we wouldn't really see anything, unless we were already within a 4D universe or were incorporated in one. :?

[PWrong]

No, you're right, we wouldn't see anything. It would be like trying to peek through the gap under a door, except the gap is infinitely thin.

[PWrong]

Wait, no it wouldn't. It's not infinitely thin, it can be as long, wide, and tall as we want, but with a very small trength. Too small for a 4D object to get through, but not too small for a photon or a single superstring. We could easily put something in, but nothing can come back out except light, gravity, and maybe some kinds of radiation.

Of course, when we put something in it would just fall apart into wisps of matter and energy. This might make a colossal explosion if atoms split apart thanks to their new freedom, but only a fraction of the energy will come back through the gap. It would be great way to get rid of waste.

I know light from every direction can get back in, but I'm not sure what it would look like to someone outside. I'll have a think about it.

[Euclid]

If we could do the same thing, it would vasty improve our understanding of the 4th dimension. We couldn't see it ourselves, but we could make observations with computers, perform experiments and design 4-dimensional atoms. Does anyone think a technology like this is feasible?

My view is that a technology to view or reflect the 4th (possibly higher) dimensions is not only possible, but inevitable. We get far too tied up in our own perceptions. This, in fact, was the lesson of "Flatland." I am beginning to wonder if electromagnetic waves aren't 4th dimensional, or at least our use of them is a reflection of higher dimensions.

[Geosphere]

I am beginning to wonder if electromagnetic waves aren't 4th dimensional, or at least our use of them is a reflection of higher dimensions.

Why would you wonder that?

[Euclid]

I am beginning to wonder if electromagnetic waves aren't 4th dimensional, or at least our use of them is a reflection of higher dimensions.

Why would you wonder that?

Superstring Theory.

[PWrong]

Now that's confusing. Superstring theory is exactly what this topic is about, but it doesn't have much to do with electromagnetic waves. There's already a topic about 4D electromagnetism anyway.

So if we could create this technology, do you think a 4D space attached to our own world would be able to interact with us, Euclid? I'm not sure about inevitable, but I can't think of any reason why we couldn't do this eventually.

[Euclid]

Now that's confusing. Superstring theory is exactly what this topic is about, but it doesn't have much to do with electromagnetic waves. There's already a topic about 4D electromagnetism anyway.

So if we could create this technology, do you think a 4D space attached to our own world would be able to interact with us, Euclid? I'm not sure about inevitable, but I can't think of any reason why we couldn't do this eventually.

Superstring Theory is intended to be a TOE, that is, a Theory of Everything. In earlier days, this was called a Grand Unifying Theory, or GUT. Einstein was hunting for it near his end. What these types of theories are trying to do is unify the knowledge of behavior across the four fundamental forces: strong, weak, gravity and (ta ta) electromagnetic. So, SST has a great deal to do about EM waves.

Ok, now if "we could create this technology, do you think a 4D space attached to our own world would be able to interact with us?" My answer to this is yes-maybe. However, the question is posed almost in a xenomorphic way, as if to imply that there is something "over there" hoping to communicate with us. Well, notwithstanding the fact that communication with other dimensional creatures would be exciting, I am not quite to the point where I believe that there are other civilizations exsiting in other dimensions. Nevertheless, I do feel a bit confident that we might be able to have an interaction with a higher dimension at some point. Clearly, the big question is how. This is why I posed the EM question--maybe that is how. We communicate with each other using EM fields, why not across or through a higher dimension?

(Note: I use the term higher dimension for convenience, not to imply that it is better than the three we exist in.)

There is talk of using higher dimensions for high-speed travel. I wrote earlier on the fact that in Flatland A. Square might have to take a circuitous route to go from his house to the market where the Sphere could just take the direct route, as the bird flies, via Spaceland. This is the idea behind using wormholes for space travel. Now then, it takes between five and twenty minutes for command signals to get to Mars to control a rover or other probe. What if a message was sent into a higher dimension, a dimension that was not constrained to our space? That dimension may provide a shorter path from point A to B in our space. Now imagine a receiver, let's say on Mars, that could pull that signal out of the higher dimension.

What is so fascinating about the above is that it would be easily testable, right here on Earth. All we need to do is build a pair of dimensional transceivers. Of course, it might be nice to have a theory first.

[PWrong]

I didn't mean to imply anything xenomorphic. Maybe interact wasn't the right word. I think we have to create a fourth dimension first, and 4D life can come later. Basically, I'm suggesting that we "grow" a small hypercube-shaped space attached to our infinite 3D realm.

The 2D analogue is to glue a small cube to Fred's 2D world. The cube meets Fred's world at a square. Fred can easily approach it from any of the four sides, but if he walks into the square, he will simply fall apart into the strings that make up his body. So I'm wondering whether anything could possibly come out of the cube, back into Fred's world. From string theory, we know that Fred's world has a third curled up dimension, so this could be large enough for subatomic particles to fit into. The only problem is whether a particle could possibly land in exactly the right place. You're right, that EM waves are probably the best suited for this. You could attract particles out of the cube with a magnet.

[Euclid]

In the sense of three spatial dimensions, everything you speculated on already exists. The sphere appears as a circle. A cube built upon a square is a congruent concept. To build in a dimesion, you must clearly have access to it. You brought up the notion of creating a dimension, but i think that speaks to the fundamental and deep lying questions of this forum: do other dimensions exist and can we interact with them? I am not sure that those questions have been answered.

So, this then leads us to question how a dimension would be created. Just because we cannot sense it does not mean that it is a dimension (or does it ?!). We cannot sense radio waves directly, but they exist. Do they constitute a dimension? I think we can safely say that they do not, since their behavior is predictable and measurable in three space. So how would another dimension be created? It has to be formed outside of our known dimensions.

[RQ]

You guys don't realize but the very definition of a higher spatial dimension is that it's higher than your spatial dimension, and so if you don't have an extension in it, you wouldn't be able to do anything. And since higher dimensions cannot interact with lower ones, you certainly cannot go to a higher spatial dimension. Now we can have a higher dimension, but if we don't realize it, that's a mind trick. However math describes a 3D universe.

[PWrong]

Actually, I did think of a way we might be able to create our own fourth dimension, using something I read about string theory in The Elegant Universe. The first bit is what I understand from the book, and after that I'm just guessing the details.

In string theory, the universe is in fact already 10-dimensional, but the extra ones are tightly curled up, so they're too small to see. Apparently this is because the strings that make up matter are constricting the dimensions somehow. In two dimensions, strings and anti-strings can cancel each other out, so the universe simply expands into 3D naturally. But once there, it can't expand any further because strings have more room to maneuver around each other, so they don't cancel out and they get in the way of the dimensions.

It seems to me like this could be controlled somehow. The easiest way would be a perfect vacuum, but that would probably include all the forces. So we'd need antigravity, neutrino-repellent, and a host of other science fiction stuff to keep it pure, and then we couldn't put anything in anyway.

A better way we could uncurl the fourth dimension is to control strings so that they always cancel out. I'm not sure how that works, and it would need better technology as well, if but anyone can explain a definite problem with the idea, then the same person can probably think of a way to get around it.

I don't think it's a particularly feasible idea, but so far we have no way of seeing a fourth dimension, even a theoretical one, without assuming it's already out there. At least now we have something to hope for.

[mghtymoop]

i am shocked to see someone from somewhere as illustrious as WA could possibly consider string theory as a real possibility and even more to attempt to apply it to the much simpler 4th dimension which is in all probability the last dimension up the chain and is from our perspective wholly temporal, there are far to many holes in a such a theorum and a complete lack of hard evidence, only the least objective journals would publish such work and the complete lack of objective science seen so often in modern physics disgusts me. have a way out theorum sure but if you can't offer any real world evidence for it keep it in your pocket until you can. None of the other sciences would allow such rubbish to even see the light of day but in modern physics so much complete speculation is thrown about as fact no-one can be sure what is fact to base their real work on. knowlegde must be built upon knowledge and the accuracy of science is a sacred thing that once sullied will cause all science based upon it to become similarly sullied. until we know something by direct objective testing we should not throw it around as if it is factual

[shogunu]

mghtymoop, the 4th dimension isn't the time dimension (if such dimension could exist), not from the 3d perspective, not from any dimension's perspective. time is absolute and actually is caused by gravity (i am quite curious as how does time pass in 0d ). the absence of evidence occurs because we are attached to our 3d universe and cannot interact directly with 4d (for a matter of fact we can't even interact with lower dimensions, the fred and bob story is pure fictional )
and please don't trash this topic since it's a very interesting one

[PWrong]

I'm even more shocked that anyone could call WA "illustrious"! You must be the first person to say that about us!

I don't think there are too many holes in string theory. I know there's no evidence to back it up, but the important thing is that there's no evidence to prove it wrong either. String theory is the only decent way to combine relativity and quantum mechanics. If you try to combine them any other way you end up with infinite probabilities and stuff.

Furthermore it makes predictions without any need for fine tuning (except for the extra dimensions). In quantum mechanics, they do the experiments to find constants like the mass or energy of each subatomic particle, and then find alter the theory to fit the data. String theory just predicts the correct data straight away. The only problem is the extra dimensions, but even that answers a very reasonable question: "why are there 3 visible dimensions?"

Besides, isn't it even more shocking that we're wasting time on discussing higher dimensions at all?

Shogunu, I don't see any reason why time shouldn't pass in 0D, but it couldn't have much effect since there's no movement. Maybe a 0D universe constists of a single particle, which can have spin 0 or 1, and the spin changes through time.

[mghtymoop]

you can make up all sorts of rubbish that there is no evidence for or against simply because you can pick things that aren't directly testable, this still however is very bad science, as for shogunu's idea that time is not in fact the fourth dimension, thats the only theory for which we do have real hard directly tested objective evidence, so as far as real science goes it is the only correct designation for the foruth dimension, oh, and if you don't think us sandgropers come from the most illustrious place on the planet go over east

[shogunu]

time isn't the 4th dimension, simply because time is present in 2d also, you might consider that a 2d being could make up such theory that time is the 3rd dimension, but if fact you do realize that his theory is wrong. so is the theory that time is the 4th dimension. also consider the dilation of time near gravity and at high speeds (near the speed of light). time could not stretch if it were the 4th dimension (or any physical dimension), neither einstein's relativity theory, neither quantum mechanics theory and neither strings theory consider time as the 4th dimension, and i am wondering from where did you pick up such old, outdated ideeas

ps: wtf are sandgropers?

[Geosphere]

time is absolute and actually is caused by gravity

Absurd.

[mghtymoop]

you should not believe everything you read shogunu, first examine the source of the data and if you are reading anything shy of a respected journal article i suggest you ignore most of it. there is no evidence for what you suggest and it is all entirely theoretical, a 2d being would have no need to describe time as such a thing cannot exist and if it did it could not interact with the 3rd diemsion and it's perspective of 3d may well be time with no respect to higher dimensions for there effect would be negligible. measuments of satelittle orbits, the evidence says time is the 4th dimension, and just because an idea is older than another doesn't mean its wrong, it simply means its survived longer so is probabaly closer to the truth. don't base your understanding of such topic on theoreticals it is a ridiculous manner to behave

[mghtymoop]

beside while general relativity opposes quantum theory and may appear mathematically incorrect given modern dimensional physics general relativity is not the substance of relativity, rather it is the laymans explanation much like genesis is god's form of a laymans explanation of creation, it tells the right story and makes the right but the reasoning behind it is flawed, special relativity is where theories come together and the evidence begins to fit the model, string theory is the ramblings of a couple of madmen, have a look at the history of michio kaku and read some of his texts to assert yourselves of that, he shows very little cohesion in any of his theories and he converts everything to maths explaining the inexplicable using fudged formulae and even uses metaphorical speech in a physics text, not to be taken seriousely obviousely.

[PWrong]

Lol, I was just joking about WA. It's great, but illustrious is similar to famous, isn't it? We're probably the least well-known place in the world. Sorry if I offended you.

1. I don't think the evidence shows anything about time being the fourth dimension, which is at best a vague description. Time is clearly different from the other dimensions, even if they resemble each other mathematically. Time is more complex than it seems, obviously, and I'm not arguing against relativity, it's just that the idea of dimensions being in any particular order is clearly wrong.

2. Who's michio kaku? I just did a search on him. His articles aren't very good, but it seems like English isn't his first language. I've read some of Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene's books, and a few things on the internet about string theory. I realise it's not exactly an education in theoretical physics, but the ideas aren't as vague as you're suggesting.

3. If relativity wasn't theoretical when Einstein invented it, what is? It's had a few experiments done to confirm it, but that's not really the issue. The theory of everything should predict everything without needing experiments.

4. String theory has been around for 20 years, and it's accepted by most physicists as the most likely candidate for the theory of everything.

[Geosphere]

Mightymoop, do you have a personal grudge against periods?

[mghtymoop]

kaku is one on the main founders of string theory. As fr as a theory of unification of the forces which is what you are suggesting string theory is, well there have been wa out theories like that designed to do the same thing since einstien. they've always come and gone and with what i know of string theory i beleive it will suffer the same fate

[shogunu]

time is absolute and actually is caused by gravity

Absurd.

it didn't sounded absurd in my native language (i didn't read it in english)
anyways it's not my ideea, i do have to admit i got it from stephen hawking's "a brief history of time" (as far as i can remember, haven't read any other interesting books on time so this must be where i got that ideea)
i'm looking for the original paragraph (in english) right now

[shogunu]

you should not believe everything you read shogunu, first examine the source of the data and if you are reading anything shy of a respected journal article i suggest you ignore most of it.

i got my ideeas (most of them) from einstein, hawkings and epstein's books

there is no evidence for what you suggest and it is all entirely theoretical, a 2d being would have no need to describe time as such a thing cannot exist and if it did it could not interact with the 3rd diemsion and it's perspective of 3d may well be time with no respect to higher dimensions for there effect would be negligible. measuments of satelittle orbits, the evidence says time is the 4th dimension, and just because an idea is older than another doesn't mean its wrong, it simply means its survived longer so is probabaly closer to the truth. don't base your understanding of such topic on theoreticals it is a ridiculous manner to behave

what kind of evidence is there to sustain that time is indeed a dimension? and if it where one would you have any theory (not to speak of evidence) that it is the 4th one? maybe it's the 6th

[Geosphere]

Find me a passage showing time is caused by gravity.

Or do you mean affected?

[mghtymoop]

shogunu, your ideas didn't come from hawking and einstien, they quite obviousely came from your interpretation of hawking and einstien, else your ideas would more closely resemble something that is either close to factual or at the very least a resonable theorum rather than whatever it is they currently resemble

[shogunu]

yes, my ideeas are my own interpretations of einstein's and hawking's books (among others).
i do know that einstein belived that time is indeed the fourth dimension and in "a brief history of time" it doesn't state at all that time is caused by gravity (poor translation, not to mention that i posted that reply at 3am and must have been kinda tired, i do my surfing mainly during the night, btw now it's 2am over here), i should have spoken about the fact that gravity produces time from space (which, btw, i think isn't either in hawking's book)
and that ideea did not came from andrew strominger (harvard physicist, researcher in string theory and it's corelations with time), neither from leonard susskind (researcher at stanford, same field as storminger) - both have explained time in string theory in a similar way (to mine). ps: maybe i should read more on greene's research

ps: string do have 11 dimensions, why would time be the 4th (not to mention that time is an effect of matter, not a separate dimension)

/edit: maybe we should stop arguing we're trashing the current topic, if you do want a debate you could start a new topic on the forum
just my 2 cents