Eleven dimensional universe?

[Moontanman]

Dimensions

 

#1 Think of a point, zero dimensions, nothing but a location.

 

#2 Think of a line, one dimension, an infinite number of points can be contained in a line no matter how long the line.

 

#3 Think of a plain, two dimensions, an infinite number of lines can be contained in a plain with an infinite number of points on each line.

 

#4 Think of a cube, three dimensions, an infinite number of plains can exist in a cube, each plain contains an infinite number of lines with each line containing an infinite number of points.

 

Now I am going to ask that you think of the three dimensional object again but this time think of a sphere. Any sphere will do but a planet like the earth is a good way to start. Each of these shapes is still the same as the shapes described in the first three lines of this essay. Now think of the surface of the sphere, the surface of the sphere is two dimensional with the lines of longitude being one dimensional. The two dimensional surface contains an infinite number of the lines of longitude containing an infinite number of zero dimensional points.

 

#5 Try to imagine a four dimensional sphere, it’s surface is three dimensional, the lines of longitude are two dimensional and the infinite points on that line are one dimensional instead of zero dimensional. This would represent one moment in time in one universe.

 

#6 Now think of a five dimensional sphere, its surface is four dimensional and its infinite lines of longitude are 3D. Each 3D line represents the past and future of one universe with no choice no changes no variables. Each point on the 3D line would now be 2D

 

#7 Now think of a six dimensional sphere, its surface is five dimensional and each of the lines of longitude are four dimensional and each point on each of those infinite number of lines is three dimensional. So each of the 4D lines of longitude represent a different possible time line with each 3D point on each line being a moment in time on each of the infinite possible time lines.

 

#8 Now think of a seven dimensional sphere which would have a six dimensional surface with five dimensional lines of longitude and an infinite number of four dimensional points on each of the infinite lines. Now each 5D line represents a different universe with our set of natural laws and each 4D point represents all the possible timelines in each universe.

 

#9 Now think of an eight dimensional sphere with a seven dimensional surface with each line of longitude having six dimensions and each point having five dimensions. Now each 6D line of longitude represents an infinite number of universes with a different set of physical laws but still with in what we know is possible and each 5D point represents one of those universes.

 

#10 Now think of a nine dimensional sphere with an eight dimensional surface. Each line of longitude has seven dimensions and each point on that seven dimensional line has six dimensions. Each 7D line represents an infinite number of universes (Multi-verse) with every possible and to us impossible rules of nature with each 6D point representing an infinite number of universes with a certain set of rules.

 

#11 now think of a ten dimensional sphere with a nine dimensional surface and eight dimensional lines of longitude and seven dimensional points on those line. So each 8D line represents an infinite number of multi-verses (Mega-verse) and each 7D point being a complete multi-verse

 

Remember a ten dimensional sphere needs an eleven dimensional space to exist in so there you have it all possible and impossible universes in an infinite number in eleven dimensions. Remember this is just a mind exercise I used when I was in high school to visualize multiple dimensions but it is kinda cool how it resembles what is called brane theory these days. Brane theory doesn’t call for a sphere shaped universe but the brane is 10 dimensional contained in an eleven dimensional space.

 

 

I wrote this 35 years ago, does it make any sense at all?

 

Michael

[arkain101]

It almost sounds like circular logic.

 

I am not a fan of these modern day theories, I consider them like run away theories. But each to his own of course. It is just that it isnt really science in the sense that you can test and observe. (of course though I am an amateur in the eyes of the academic community).

 

I've been taking a liking to a universe built on logic, and not math. This is to say, reason itself as we know reason requires a trinity in order to form the certain oneness of an operation. Just like a universe.

 

I wrote this 35 years ago, does it make any sense at all?

 

As fun and interesting as it was, I can't agree it makes sense, because sense only exists inside sense.

 

Light for example, has characteristics that don't make sense. And likewise in quantum physics, things don't make sense. It means that some questions we attempt to ask can not be asked because the object isnt there that the question is seeking an answer to.

 

Just like asking, "Hey does a roast beef sandwich give birth to a zebra in the north pole?"

The question makes no sense.

 

When we disect things that form reason, the fundamentals of reality, we disect reason itself.

 

A simple thought experiment can show how this is so.

 

Start with a universe (system) with one reference frame. Nothing else. Write down all the possibilities you can think of in that situation. Speed? mass? time? distance?

 

Then add a 2nd frame, move them around whatever, switch between the two, and in all logial sense record what can be reasonable true between them.

 

then add a 3rd frame, and again, make them act and move, and record what is true.

 

It is only in the form of 3 things that certain reason, or maybe a better word would be relatively correct reasoning can be formed. It is only in 3 that one can make conclusions of certainty such as which object is moving.

 

BUT, if we make the attempt to say well maybe its not that one and its this one, we change the experiment, because its only one frame you can have a reality in.

 

Now, apply logic in this form and find a trinity, not with material but with reason.

[Jay-qu]

It is self consistant, why did you stop there? n-dimensional space is what we face. Will we ever know how many exsist, I dont think so.

[arkain101]

none the less I do want to congradulate you on the form in which you explained it. I followed it quite easily and got a bit of a rise out of it.

 

I like it, but I don't like dimension.

 

Is it not true that if we defined a dimension as a radial plane, that space would infact be 2 dimensional.

 

360 degrees horizontal, and 360 vertical.

 

Now we have 2d space with abilities to coordinate with these dimensional "TOOLS".

 

Is that not what dimensions are? Tools?

 

Motion can only take 1 dimension and only 1 direction.

 

Neat that Einstein reasoned something along the lines of, nothing happens untill something moves.

 

I find, nothing moves unless it creates time and follows a line with only 1 arrow.

[DougF]

Quote: arkain101

It is only in the form of 3 things that certain reason, or maybe a better word would be relatively correct reasoning can be formed. It is only in 3 that one can make conclusions of certainty such as which object is moving.

 

You need a 4th, you need TIME! nothing moves without the passage of time.

[Moontanman]

Quote: arkain101

It is only in the form of 3 things that certain reason, or maybe a better word would be relatively correct reasoning can be formed. It is only in 3 that one can make conclusions of certainty such as which object is moving.

 

You need a 4th, you need TIME! nothing moves without the passage of time.

 

I take the stance that time is an illusion brought about by us as an arbitrary mesuremnt of the expansion of the universe or entropy

 

Michael

[ughaibu]

What does "time is an illusion brought about by us as an arbitrary mesuremnt of the expansion of the universe or entropy" mean? It has taken me time to write this post, it will take you time to read it, what is illusory?

[Moontanman]

What does "time is an illusion brought about by us as an arbitrary mesuremnt of the expansion of the universe or entropy" mean? It has taken me time to write this post, it will take you time to read it, what is illusory?

 

 

What we perceice as time is the illusion of the expansion of the universe or entropy. What we see as time runs at differnt speeds everywhere. If time was real then anyplace where time ran different would be seperated from all other areas. Even on the earth so called time runs slower the closer to the ground you are and faster the furter away from the earth or the sun you are or the further you are from the galactic core. time cannot be different every where but still be percieved as the same if was real. time is an arbetrary measuremnt of how fast the universe is expanding where you are.

 

Michael

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ughaibu]

Moontanman: As it stands your argument is unconvincing. There are many things that differ according to location without the locations being isolated, ie they differ gradually, for example, temperature, air pressure, the speed of sound, etc, are you claiming that all such things are illusions? I assume that by "illusion" you mean something like 'that which appears to exist but does not exist'. Philosophy is a human activity and as such requires a human philosopher, that is to say the existence of a philosopher is a necessary condition for philosophy and as philosophers are human they have mothers, they are born, are babies, then children, etc, their existence is something that is in time, so, time is a necessary condition of philosophy. If you can demonstrate that time is an illusion you'll have an interesting result.

Some other things are unclear in your reply; in the phrase "the expansion of the universe or entropy", is the expansion of the universe the expansion claimed by big-bang proponents or is it the expansion claimed by McCutcheon, et al, or is it some other expansion? By "or" do you mean that expansion and entropy are synonyms for the cause of this effect, or do you mean that sometimes expansion is the cause and at other times entropy is the cause, or do you mean that the cause is one or the other but you're not sure which?

[DougF]

I take the stance that time is an illusion brought about by us as an arbitrary mesuremnt of the expansion of the universe or entropy

 

Michael

(Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC):

Motion must always have been in existence, and the same can be said for time itself, since it is not even possible for there to be an earlier and a later if time does not exist. ... Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it.

... there being two causes of which we have defined in the Physics, they seem to have a glimpse of them, that of matter and that from which the motion comes, indistinctly though, and in no way clearly.

[DougF]

Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions. With regard to appearances in general, we cannot think away time from them, and represent them to ourselves as out of and unconnected with time. Here I shall add that the concept of change, and with it the concept of motion, as change of place, is possible only through and in the representation of time. .... even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and Time), presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience -in other words, is an empirical datum.

(Kant, 1781) :D

[Moontanman]

I think that using dimensional calculus and known physical constants is more meaningful for dimensional analysis.

 

space-time:

(s = 0, t = 0, d = s+t)

 

Planck Space and Planck Time:

[math]ds = r_p = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}, \; \; \; dt = t_p = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]

 

(s = 0, t = 0, d = 0)

[math]d^2s \cdot d^2 t = 8 \pi[/math]

 

(s = 0, t = 1, d = 1)

[math]d^2s \cdot dt = \int 8 \pi dt = 8 \pi dt = 8 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]

[math]d^2s \cdot dt = 8 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]

 

(s = 1, t = 1, d = 2)

[math]ds \cdot dt = \int 8 \pi dt dr = 8 \pi r dt = 8 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} = \frac{8 \pi \hbar G}{c^4}[/math]

[math]ds \cdot dt = \frac{8 \pi \hbar G}{c^4}[/math]

 

(s = 2, t = 1, d = 3)

[math]dA \cdot dt = \int (8 \pi r dt) dr = 4 \pi r^2 dt = 4 \pi \frac{\hbar G}{c^3} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} = 4 \pi \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \hbar G \right)^3 }{c^{11}}}[/math]

[math]dA \cdot dt = 4 \pi \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \hbar G \right)^3 }{c^{11}}}[/math]

 

(s = 3, t = 1, d = 4) known Universe Dimensional Limit: d = 4

[math]dV \cdot dt = \int 4 \pi r^2 dt dr = \frac{4 \pi r^3 dt}{3} = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \left( \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}} \right)^3 \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} = \frac{4 \pi \left( \hbar G \right)^2}{3c^7}[/math]

[math]dV \cdot dt = \frac{4 \pi \left( \hbar G \right)^2}{3c^7}[/math]

 

(s = 4, t = 1, d = 5)

[math]dV \cdot dt = \int \frac{4 \pi r^3 dt}{3} dr = \frac{\pi r^4 dt}{3} = \frac{\pi}{3} \left( \frac{\hbar G}{c^3} \right)^2 \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} = \frac{\pi}{3} \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \hbar G \right)^5 }{c^{17}}}[/math]

 

[math]dV \cdot dt = \frac{\pi}{3} \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \hbar G \right)^5 }{c^{17}}}[/math]

 

[math]dV \cdot dt = \frac{8 \pi r^n dt}{n!} \; \; \; n = s \; \; \; dt = t_p[/math]

 

Now it just remains to be scientifically examined and proven that the Universe obeys this fifth dimensional criterion for space-time, etc...

 

Based upon this established pattern,

what is the solution for a (s = 10, t = 1, d = 11) 11 dimensional Universe?

Reference:

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have to admit you are toatally beyond me matmatically. I'll have to surrender to the better person on this.

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

Moontanman: As it stands your argument is unconvincing. There are many things that differ according to location without the locations being isolated, ie they differ gradually, for example, temperature, air pressure, the speed of sound, etc, are you claiming that all such things are illusions? I assume that by "illusion" you mean something like 'that which appears to exist but does not exist'. Philosophy is a human activity and as such requires a human philosopher, that is to say the existence of a philosopher is a necessary condition for philosophy and as philosophers are human they have mothers, they are born, are babies, then children, etc, their existence is something that is in time, so, time is a necessary condition of philosophy. If you can demonstrate that time is an illusion you'll have an interesting result.

Some other things are unclear in your reply; in the phrase "the expansion of the universe or entropy", is the expansion of the universe the expansion claimed by big-bang proponents or is it the expansion claimed by McCutcheon, et al, or is it some other expansion? By "or" do you mean that expansion and entropy are synonyms for the cause of this effect, or do you mean that sometimes expansion is the cause and at other times entropy is the cause, or do you mean that the cause is one or the other but you're not sure which?

 

You cannot compare air pressure with time any more than you can compare the speed of sound with the speed of light. The speed of light is something that exists with some one measuring it. It is the same no mater where you are or how fast you are going. the speed of sound differs according to what the sound is going through. High pressure air has a different speed of sound than low pressure air or water or steel. light how ever is the same no matter what it is going through. I know you are going to say that light travels slower through air than it does in a vacuum But that is an illusion brought about by light being bounced off the atoms in water and as it is transferred between the atoms it appears to be traveling slower than light in a vacuum but in reality the light photons are traveling the same speed as they are bounced between the atoms of air or any other transparent material. Say that the speed of light is comparable to the speed of sound is like saying the light speed barrier will eventually be broken because the sound barrier was. Another reason I say that time is an illusion is that quantum theories work just as good when time is run backwards as they do when time is run forwards. Times arrow works just as good in either direction. If time was real then we should be able to travel both ways just as easily. Time is an arbitrary measurement. when I say entropy I am referring to the expansion of the universe. the expansion of the universe is entropy running down. Since I can only argue this as a mind experiment and not mathematically I will have to turn this over to the ones who can argue this with math if you insist. I would like to continue but since I really lack the language of math I cannot.

 

Michael

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ughaibu]

Moontanman: In post 8 you claimed that time is an illusion because it varies over continuous locations, this is inadequate as a reason because there're many things that show this behaviour. Your comparison of the speeds of light and sound is irrelevant to this point.

In post 14 you wrote "if time was real then we should be able to travel both ways just as easily", the fact is that we cant travel either "way" in time, we are subject to time. I cant decide that I dont feel like going to work but want to be paid and so skip a few hours. I used to be a little kid, now I'm an adult, if time is an illusion then these physical states are also illusions. In your profile you state your age, what does this mean if time is an illusion?

[DougF]

It doubtless seems highly paradoxical to assert that Time is unreal, and that all statements which involve its reality are erroneous. Such an assertion involves a far greater departure from the natural position of mankind than is involved in the assertion of the unreality of Space or of the unreality of Matter. So decisive a breach with that natural position is not to be lightly accepted.

 

Positions in time, as time appears to us prima facie, are distinguished in two ways. Each position is Earlier than some, and Later than some, of the other positions. And each position is either Past, Present, or Future. The distinctions of the former class are permanent, while those of the latter are not. If M is ever earlier than N, it is always earlier. But an event, which is now present, was future and will be past.

 

It would, I suppose, be universally admitted that time involves change. A particular thing, indeed, may exist unchanged through any amount of time. But when we ask what we mean by saying that there were different moments of time, or a certain duration of time, through which the thing was the same, we find that we mean that it remained the same while other things were changing. A universe in which nothing whatever changed (including the thoughts of the conscious beings in it) would be a timeless universe.

 

:phone: :eek_big:

 

The Unreality of Time