Don Cristo Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 Woops - ah well I shall continue in here: I have read some theories of a 5th dimension on these forums but none of them agree with my theory. I shall try and explain it as plainly and simply as possible. I propose that a 5th dimension, is the Matter itself. Assuming we have four dimensions already - length, height, width and time. (X, Y, Z, T). Ok - time does not seem, to most people, to define a location in space as the other dimensions do - yet those locations must exist for a certain amount of time to be definable in the first place. Hence if one is to assume that time is a dimension - then it seems that the Matter itself must also be considered a form of a dimension. None of the others could exist without time, just as without the matter itself being present - nothing could exist. Length, Height, Width and Time all exist within Space (some argue that space and time are one in the same in this form). It is that Space, which is the Matter. Thus, 5 dimensions: X, Y, Z, T and M. Some may argue that X + Y + Z = M. This is not true - for X + Y + Z will only define a location. We must somehow incoorporate M into the equation. The matter itself must first be measured and identifyable. For this, I am hoping some of you more experiance physicists out there will share their views I know this concept is highly controversial, so I shall be prepared to argue any points made by any skeptics among you. Thank you, Chris Scerri
Dent Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 hello Don A lump of lead travelling through the universe is encompassed by 3 dimensions and time with out the mass of the object there is no 3 dimensions just a point. May i say that for an object to loose dimension it would have to loose considerable mass maybe the 5th dimension ..... is 4 dimensional space time projected onto a two dimensional plane abit like holography ..... 5th dimensional mathematics could be the mathematical interpretation of 4 dimensional hyperspace with a 2 dimensional holographic essence intergrated through out the system.
Don Cristo Posted November 16, 2003 Author Report Posted November 16, 2003 Originally posted by: Denthello Don A lump of lead travelling through the universe is encompassed by 3 dimensions and time with out the mass of the object there is no 3 dimensions just a point. May i say that for an object to loose dimension it would have to loose considerable mass maybe the 5th dimension ..... is 4 dimensional space time projected onto a two dimensional plane abit like holography ..... 5th dimensional mathematics could be the mathematical interpretation of 4 dimensional hyperspace with a 2 dimensional holographic essence intergrated through out the system. "with out the mass of the object there is no 3 dimensions just a point" Would you like to explain that for me please? ...You see...these three dimensions only show us the framework/matrix of a potential body of matter. Mass is not defined by 3 measurements in space-time. Please explain how you think it is....
syndicated Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 I would tend to agree with you (don cristo). However limited my understanding of physics may be, I tend to think of dimensions as a qualitative factor. I prefer the term "mass" as the 5th dimension rather than "matter". That may be just semantics, however I think mass is a more accurate description. In our 3 dimensional world, an object must have a length, a width, and depth in order to exist, and must also exist for a minimum amount of time (plank's time) for it to be considered an object (or anything), correct? And for any of these criteria to be met, said object must also have mass no? However, if you bring up the point of energy - of any sort, one might say that energy doesn't have mass to speak of, However it will exert a force upon whatever it reacts to or interacts with. And in theory if you accelerate matter to the speed of light, it will become pure energy - which will react to it's surroundings one way or the other. But I digress. Maybe a 6th dimension is also needed to classify energy as well. As it is my understanding that everything from the smallest particle to whole galaxies possess some form of energy, be it kinetic, thermal, or even potential energy. Any thoughts?
Tormod Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 @syndicated - it is my understanding that _everything_ not only *has* energy, but on a basic level *is* energy. The electron, for example, as seen in the particle/wave-duality, is nothing but a lump of energy flowing around. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in empty space, which creates what is known as "vacuum energy" - which again means there is no such thing as an empty void. Everything is built up of these miniscule particles, which means that everything is energy. @dent - The more energy an object has, the more massive it is (e=mc2, right) - so mass has nothing to do with dimension, but with energy and velocity. I am not sure that don Cristo has got it right. His assumption that time is a dimension is not necessarily correct. We do not currently have good enough definitions of time to state that time is a requirement for dimensions or energy to exist. Thus you could easily argue that mass is the fourth dimension, rather than the fifth. In string theory, you have 9 or 10 dimensions PLUS one of time. Only three of those are spatial. Time is not a good way to measure the existence of matter, because since matter is just a manifestation of energy, it cannot completely go away. When an object is created, it's energy comes from somewhere, and when it is destroyed, the energy goes somewhere (remember - energy cannot disappear, only change form). I think the fact that we have three spatial dimensions is what creates 3D objects. Their mass represents the energy they have in 3D space. There is no need to create a fourth dimension. I have never heard anyone argue that X+Y+Z=M (it would obviously be quite silly). The X+Y+Z = Position is correct. In global position X+Y+Z is used, and you need at least three satellites to pinpoint your position on the surface of a globe. Yet this positioning can only measure your relative position and speed, not your mass. Like don Cristo says, "Mass is not defined by 3 measurements in space-time." However, we can use several positions to calculate the shape of an object in 3D. We can *also* use additional data, like radius, to define size. Size and shape is pure geometry! All the objects we see exist in 3D. When you add the fact that all objects are energy what you get is a 3D model where matter and energy is one and the same. This sounds like rambling, perhaps - that is not my intention. But all the dimensions and all the energy was created in the Big Bang. You need quite a lot of energy just to have the spatial dimensions around... It is easy to confuse 3D space with 4D space-time. And the time dimension is a mysterious one... Tormod
Dent Posted November 21, 2003 Report Posted November 21, 2003 Hello Don , The point i was trying to make was that the matter that creates the dimension ,lead for example , creates 3 dimensions , and not to stray from the dimensional factor of ascertaining what is the 5th dimension .... You could incorperate matter but that is the pressence that creates the dimensions.Mass and energy are equivalent.Without mass there is no need for 3 dimensions.Actual pressence of mass energy creates dimension.4 dimensional space time could have a 2 dimensional partner incorperated through out the reference frame and intergrated mathematically .... of course space time is a variable integer and the 2 dimensional partner would mirror these changes but be represented in 2 dimensions ... a bit like holography. Dent ... Life is the gift.
michael Posted November 23, 2003 Report Posted November 23, 2003 To start with, i think what you have said is the closest i have read to near the truth about the 5th dimension you do need length,height,time and date so you will know where you want to goto. But everyone wants to build machine to acheive this. MYself thinks that the 5th dimension is within yourself but if you look to hard you will not find it . now you will all think that i,am some madman but read the rest then make your coments. we all have dreams now some dreams we remember and some we don,t and then there are some that come back to us which we call da ja vu , say you are walking down the street some days later and you know that you have been there before and you know what is going to happen next when you turn a corner because it was in your dream but it was no ordinary dream as you had travelled into the future and seen that moment happen now you can continue to see if it turns out that way or change it . I for one have had that dream many a time and changed it now that is what i call the 5th dimension it is in the mind and no machine will get there
Tormod Posted November 23, 2003 Report Posted November 23, 2003 Hello michael, welcome to our forums. No, your argument is not new. In fact, the same idea is being discussed in this thread: http://www.hypography.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=15&threadid=183&forumid=1 Tormod
Don Cristo Posted November 26, 2003 Author Report Posted November 26, 2003 Michael..... Indeed a possible dimension could be transcendental, I would not say this would be the 5th dimension itself. Perhaps what you suggested - *Our mind; including dreams, deja vu* does exist within a dimension - I do not see how it would be a dimension in itself. Tormod.... Thank you for setting me straight regarding certain aspects of my initial proposal. I was fully aware that X+Y+Z=M is preposterous as there seems no link can be made. The following quote from you is something I am in disbelief of for having entirely overlooked: "Time is not a good way to measure the existence of matter, because since matter is just a manifestation of energy, it cannot completely go away. When an object is created, it's energy comes from somewhere, and when it is destroyed, the energy goes somewhere (remember - energy cannot disappear, only change form). " Of course, this is in accordance with one of the most important basic rules of physics! The fact that mass is defined by velocity and energy allows a development in the initial proposal.... So, would it be fair to say that Velocity and Energy are therefore potential Dimensions??
Don Cristo Posted November 26, 2003 Author Report Posted November 26, 2003 Or even... Velocity and Energy, *together*, form a mass which could be considered a dimension?
wepe Posted August 4, 2004 Report Posted August 4, 2004 i think you might be confused, that time is a temporal structure, or ontological, or phenomenality. Time is the form of change, the passing from state to state, each state proceeding its predecessor. time can not be brought into thought because it is not spatial, like we are. Sense we base all of our thoughts off what we expirience, we cannot have thought of time because it is so very far beyond us ontological beings, because time does not take on a temporal form.
Uncle Martin Posted August 5, 2004 Report Posted August 5, 2004 Wepe,I would realy like to respond to this, but could you please tell us your definitions of "temporal" and "ontology"-"ontological"? I just don't want to make any erroneous assumptions.
wepe Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 Yes, ontological - as in anything relating to the essence or the nature of being.Temporal - relating to the material or spatial world/ universe.Ontology - relating to the department of metaphysics, not as an individual science but more of an outline of every science. i have much more to talk on this subject but i will let you all argue what little i already have. :] and im not so sure about this retarded picture it has for my name ... i mean look at that guy, its makin me look like a fruit basket hear.
wepe Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 Ah, and please call me adam, it is my user name upside down umop ap!sdn
Tormod Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 Well...if you don't want to appear like a fruit basket you can upload your own avatar. And if you like to be called Adam you should sign your posts with it - we can hardly be expected to igure it out, can we? It is customary in these forums to call each other by nickname. Anyway, this thread is very old - maybe it would help if you start a new one with an introductory post which contains some of the "much more" you have on offer.
wepe Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 yes, but please allow me and 'uncle martin' to finish what we have started. :]
Uncle Martin Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 I agree with Tormod, a fresh start with a detailed post would be much better. Go for it wepe/adam/etc....
Recommended Posts