Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The Universe in different dimensions

  1. #1 The Universe in different dimensions 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    49
    Here's the scenario: We have Plane-World, the world in which planar figures live. The mathematicians and physicists there have found out their "universe" is merely the surface of a higher-dimensional world.

    In fact, their 2-D world is the surface of a sphere. They know because explorers have gone out in a straight line and returned to the same spot they started, so they think their world has to be "closed" in a way.

    So, to know for sure, they set up an experiment. They built a machine that will send a perpetual shock wave of energy that will spread uniformally in all directions. Since their world is a closed surface, the shockwave should converge at a single point, instead of going out forever.

    They tested their experiment, and they surely found out their was a higher dimension!

    So if the curvature of space in our 3d universe as a whole is closed, we could travel in a straight line and eventually end up back at the starting point (like when we found out the Earth is spherical, and not flat). As if our 3 dimensional space "wraps around" a higher dimension like the surface of a hyperform.

    Then, we can build a machine that will send out a spherical shockwave of energy, and the shockwave should eventually condense at a point in space, correct?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    That might work.

    However...

    On the sphere, the surface is somewhat limited. Even so, if the shock wave condensed at the bottom of the ocean away from inhabited areas, locating that point might be difficult. How much more so trying to find the 'shock condensation point' in the Universe?

    The initial shock wave would quickly fade to nearly nothing before it got to Andromeda. If, the Universe is curved like a three dimensional sphere - and do I get dizzy saying that - the 'condensation point' would logically be 'halfway' around the Universe. I'm not sure I even know what that means or how to find where to send a probe to await the condensation shock.

    But I must say this idea is rather clever. Perhaps exploring it mathematically might be more practical? I certainly don't have that sort of math. Good luck to you.


    The universe is a real place. However, you can't see it, you have to imagine it. Like it or not, God designed, built and sustains the Universe. Deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Eonos115 View Post
    Here's the scenario: We have Plane-World, the world in which planar figures live. The mathematicians and physicists there have found out their "universe" is merely the surface of a higher-dimensional world.

    In fact, their 2-D world is the surface of a sphere. They know because explorers have gone out in a straight line and returned to the same spot they started, so they think their world has to be "closed" in a way.

    So, to know for sure, they set up an experiment. They built a machine that will send a perpetual shock wave of energy that will spread uniformally in all directions. Since their world is a closed surface, the shockwave should converge at a single point, instead of going out forever.

    They tested their experiment, and they surely found out their was a higher dimension!

    So if the curvature of space in our 3d universe as a whole is closed, we could travel in a straight line and eventually end up back at the starting point (like when we found out the Earth is spherical, and not flat). As if our 3 dimensional space "wraps around" a higher dimension like the surface of a hyperform.

    Then, we can build a machine that will send out a spherical shockwave of energy, and the shockwave should eventually condense at a point in space, correct?
    yes. you are correct
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie View Post
    That might work.

    However...

    On the sphere, the surface is somewhat limited. Even so, if the shock wave condensed at the bottom of the ocean away from inhabited areas, locating that point might be difficult. How much more so trying to find the 'shock condensation point' in the Universe?

    The initial shock wave would quickly fade to nearly nothing before it got to Andromeda. If, the Universe is curved like a three dimensional sphere - and do I get dizzy saying that - the 'condensation point' would logically be 'halfway' around the Universe. I'm not sure I even know what that means or how to find where to send a probe to await the condensation shock.

    But I must say this idea is rather clever. Perhaps exploring it mathematically might be more practical? I certainly don't have that sort of math. Good luck to you.
    Thank you, Archie. Well, thanks to gravity we're pretty much like the people in Plane World here on Earth :P It's not easy curving a rectangular map into the relatively smooth, spherical shape of the Earth. Or the other way around. Meaning if you successfully do it, there will be distortions.

    So imagine twisting our smooth, cubic 3-dimensional space into a 4-dimensional hyperform... not easy to say (impossible to imagine).

    You're right about the shockwave machine, it will have to be an incredibly powerful (and non-lethal) wave of energy so that it won't dissipate before we get any meaningful results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Given a large enough energy source ( for the wave generator), and a good few billions years of time, this might conceivably be possible if the global geometry of the universe is spherical in nature ( a spherical 3-manifold ). This is far from certain though; there are several other possibilities. A very general overview can be found here :

    Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    One dimension doesn,t mean everything is topological restricted to happen or exist in one dimension or as one dimensional.
    A dimension becomes a dimension from at least one coordinate (otherwise it,s a line with no marked reference).

    For instance a one dimensional euclid system is often used for athleticgames and can be a straight line or going circular. The athletes are not running on the dimensional line (simply on the track) or being one-dimensional or existing in one dimension because athletics uses such a spacesystem combined with time. They are reflected to this dimension to have one dimensional coordinates combined with timecoordinates. A two dimensional clock-space.
    Making the track go round and the athletes do their laps is not folding the athletes compared to a straight track. Nothing is fysically folded from that except the dimension for the trajektory they have to run.

    But even for that, after a lap their position is not the same without a preferred point of view. To people in a train or passing by the track also moves during a lap and therefor they see the athletes do a spiral instead of a lap - for real - but same time they can perfectly see the track and the athletes doing circular laps returning to same coordinate. Distincted between coordinates (relfected to dimensionline) and position (to themselves) this is not a contradiction.
    Last edited by Ghrasp; December 6th, 2011 at 04:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp View Post
    One dimension doesn,t mean everything is topological restricted to happen or exist in one dimension.
    A dimension becomes a dimension from at least one coordinate (otherwise it,s a line with no marked reference).

    For instance a one dimensional euclid system is often used for athleticgames as there are many cases of such use just as two -dimensional system or three aso. The athletes are not running on the dimensional line but on the court.
    A coordinate to a dimensionline for a point is not putting the position on that line. It just means the point has a perpendicular reflection to the dimensionline crossing it perpendicular at that coordinate.
    A distance to the line is not defined then using another dimension (mostly because it,s not of interest) but from that it can,t be concluded that position is the coordinateposition.

    A technical space using one dimension is not limited to the dimensional line or implying a one dimensional topological world or anything like that. One-dimensional space wouldn,t be much of a space then. Maybe the terminology suggests a one dimensional space to be one dimensional but it really means - "using one dimension".
    Yes, that's so. But not in every situation, I would say. Look at ourselves, the way we exist (or at least perceive to exist) is being bound to these 3 dimensions.

    In the analogy of Plane-World, the 2-dimensional figures couldn't just "move into" the 3rd dimension. They saw signs, however, that there was a higher dimension. So, they're truly "bound" to the topologicality and flatness of their universe.

    For the basketball analogy you gave, it's mostly using 2-dimensions, but it's also 3. In two dimensions, you can't simply pass the ball over/under someone on offense. You can make jump shots, pass, and make maneuvers beyond just two directional axes. But still, relatively, it's mostly 2-dimensional.

    So, I guess, it's all on how you look at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    49
    A hyperspherical universe is a very exciting idea...
    Maybe once civilization eventually reaches Level III on the Kardashev Scale (if we're not destroyed by then), we might have cosmological explorers. Analogous to our historical Earth explorers who ventured into new continents.

    So that's science fiction for you. The evolved sapient race of the future will colonize every habitable corner of the universe at a population of 7 billion billion. This world we'll live on will merely be a "surface", and instead of rock and nothing interesting underneath, we could use our technology to go "into" the 3-sphere, and exist in 4 axes.

    If not spatial, it would be interesting for a greater temporal dimension.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Given a large enough energy source ( for the wave generator), and a good few billions years of time, this might conceivably be possible if the global geometry of the universe is spherical in nature ( a spherical 3-manifold ). This is far from certain though; there are several other possibilities. A very general overview can be found here :

    Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thank you. It's too bad probability is taking side with a "flat" universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by Eonos115 View Post

    Yes, that's so. But not in every situation, I would say. Look at ourselves, the way we exist (or at least perceive to exist) is being bound to these 3 dimensions.

    In the analogy of Plane-World, the 2-dimensional figures couldn't just "move into" the 3rd dimension. They saw signs, however, that there was a higher dimension. So, they're truly "bound" to the topologicality and flatness of their universe.

    For the basketball analogy you gave, it's mostly using 2-dimensions, but it's also 3. In two dimensions, you can't simply pass the ball over/under someone on offense. You can make jump shots, pass, and make maneuvers beyond just two directional axes. But still, relatively, it's mostly 2-dimensional.

    So, I guess, it's all on how you look at it.
    Basketball uses multiple space=systems. The field uses two dimensional space and placement for the buckets as well. Height for the field only uses one dimensional euclid system (for making the baskets).

    These are not one euclid system in how it is used from the technical designing point of view. These set the borders for the game as part of the rules but the players are not bound to this. They are just bound or committed to the same game. If they aren,t they can stop playing basketball and step out of the game.

    The athletics game also uses two dimensions perpendicular to each other ; track distance and track width but not making a two dimensional space. They used a meassuring tape as a one- dimensional space tool from a starting line as first coordinate line (line zero). The startline is not a dimensionline nor does it need a meassuring tape as dimensional tool. The athletes have to stand at this line and therefor there are tracks with a width made at the size of an athlete. With soe fantasy this can be seen as dimensioning the first coordinateline with athletes units.

    But this doesn,t use a point zero coordinate but a track 1..then 2, 3, 4.... There is not a point (0,0) where the two dimensions cross each other and ties them to a two dimensional coordinate system creating a two dimensional space. It just uses twice a one dimensional messuring method angled to each other without creating a space except when a one dimensional space is a space.

    And this can be questioned : Does the use of a one dimensional tool necessarily lead to one dimensional space or topology ?

    I explained that the coordinate lines cover the space then a one dimensional space is allready three or more dimensional. But it,s just matter of speech. I can also say a one dimensional space is not a real space ; just a dimensionline. When one coordinateline is then made to another dimensionline this would make the space because one line is given a double funktion ; coordinateline first then becoming dimensionline because it is dimensioned.

    Other possibillity is to have another dimensionline independant from the first and have that perpendicularity but now the points zero are not tied because none of the dimensionlines funktions as coordinateline for the other.

    There points zero can have degrees of freedom then to each other (like shift or move from each other) without their own coordinatelines get mixed up.

    For instance lorentzforce to a moving electric charge. This way the magnetic field is the static field but the electric field is a free field to the magnetic field and can move as the electron. The electron doesn,t move to the elctric field then because it moves the same. It has two one dimensional fields with there coresponding coordinatelines but the coordinatelines can all move to each other as how threads in a weave move.

    Leads offtopic I guess for what you have in mind to explain but maybe it can be of use to explain it with. The freedom of motion of the two fields adds a dimension then as a degree of freedom for the field/ two dimensional spacesheet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. A New Way to Look at Dimensions
    By Raggedjoe in forum Physics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 26th, 2012, 08:44 AM
  2. Dimensions
    By Schizo in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 14th, 2008, 06:27 PM
  3. dimensions.
    By basim in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 21st, 2008, 07:24 AM
  4. 10 dimensions
    By ten_ben in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 6th, 2007, 01:03 AM
  5. dimensions
    By AlexP in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 21st, 2007, 03:37 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •