Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: man-made dimension

  1. #1 man-made dimension 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    22
    Is it possible or even fathomable for man to create a dimension? What are the theories and hypothesis surrounding it if it's even possible to conceive?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    That would depend on your definition of a dimension. If you mean a paralell reality then I highly doubt it. Although just because people think something is impossible doesn't mean it can't be done. 500 years ago it was impossible to sail all the way around the world. You'd just come to the end and fall off.


    "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    We know so little about the existence of multiple dimensions that it is very hard to say at this point.

    The only way I can imagine creating a dimension, would be to fold "time space" in a way so that that fold is its own plane of existence. You would likely have to agglutinate a tremendous amount of energy into a very small space, shaped in a very particular way so that you caused some sort of contradiction or paradox, hence forcing the universe to create a dimension in order to provide the necessary specs for your energy field to exist.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mmm well sort of. I mean a white and empty dimension where its limitless empty space. Is that possible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    nth dimensional spaces can be (and are) studied mathematically in various applications as abstract entities. In order to think about 'creating a dimension', you'd probably have to first define some properties of the dimension you want to create.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I was thinking more of a dimension based on actual dimensions, like 1 dimensional, 2 dimensional, 3 dimensional (What we can see/are in), etc....

    Besides that....It will likely be impossible for another 10,000 years at least.
    Often times though, we say that something will be impossible for a considerable amount of time, but then some scientist randomly happens to find out how to do it by pure chance. It can be very hard to say when what will be possible, if possible at all.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    icu
    icu is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    sssssssssssd
    Posts
    134
    we will know one day :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    How's this supposed to work out?
    At first, we need to know how dimensions "work".
    It's after all only a way to perceive the continuum, and we need to find out what would change this perception and how it's gonna change.
    You could create a new dimension virtually just by inputting different information into your mind.
    Where would be the difference?
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    ...I feel much the same...it's a bit vague talking about 'creating a dimension' if you don't say what the dimension is for or of. Dimensions really exist as abstract ideas for understanding things. In space we can travel up/down, left/right, forward/backward. If you were talking about creating a new spatial dimension, you'd have two new directions you could move in, and at any point in time, you'd have a 4-dimensional spatial co-ordinate. Things like that cannot be easily concieved of by the mind. It would change the entire structure of space, alterring the way in which objects within that space are connected.

    Also I wouldn't say one can just create such a dimension at will, under any circumstances. I personally don't think it's anything worth thinking about at all with any practical intent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Can any of you mathematicly show addition and subtration of the three dimentions we use?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 man made dimension 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    I doubt the possibility of MAN ever possessing the ability to create a dimension due to the fact that he does not completely understand the dimension he lives in, much less would he be able to understand the attributes of a higher dimension, and if this can not be accomplished, then neither can the creation of a dimension by man.

    If you were to look at a point on a sheet of paper, you would see just that, a point.And within the point, 2 separate directions are contained.In other words, the point can be moved closer to view, or further away from view, but in moving the point in either direction, it is still a point.To obtain a line, one would move the point in a direction NOT CONTAINED in itself.Ex, one would move the point left or right and leave behind the traces of its movement.And just like that, a new object and a new dimension (the 1st) are present.And so on with the line to form a surface(the 2nd dimension), this is done by moving the line up or down and leaving behind the traces of its movement.Then on more by moving the surface in a direction not contained in itself to achieve a 3rd dimensional figure.And so, here we come to a crossroad.And often we ask,

    "Which direction is not contained in a 3 dimensional object, in which we could move it in, to acquire a 4th dimensional object?"

    Some say that this direction is time, and some say that there is no forth dimension because time is a man made illusion.If such an impasse can not be overcome, how can man really make a dimension?And yet, even still, the dimensional pattern which I have seen and is most commonly accepted, follows such as a child would count on his fingers. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ect... If this pattern is the form of a "dimensional latter" then no such dimension can even BE CREATED because every dimension that can exist already does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    take a circle. It is connected to three points. Two of which are stationary, the other may move, but within restrictions. It must move on a line that is equidistant from the two other points at every point. Because these three dots are connected to a circle, restrictions arise. the moving point may not move from the line created by the fixed dots more than half of the distance of one fixed point from the other. Also, our free point cannot sit directly on the line created by the fixed points. Either way, the circle could no longer exist AND touch all three points.

    What happens if the free point is set on the line created by the fixed points? You have just subtracted a dimension. The circle cannot exist in one dimension. Think about it's new characteristics.

    Now... if we have that same circle that we started with, and pull a fourth point out of the paper and towards us, we have added a dimension. The placement of the points in three dimensional space now must conform to even more rules. both non stationary points must move in synchronization in order to keep a perfect sphere.

    Back to the one dimension. you have a one dimensional line with two points, and pull a third point out of the paper towards you, you now have a two dimensional circle existing on two planes, one of which is different from before. So, we could be existing in three dimensions separate to the one we do now, and still keep our same properties. We could not know the difference.

    What are those dimensions? A guess... now this is out there. There are a couple of movement possibilities for the points we have not covered. say that in the two dimensional model, the point was pulled out of the limits of the circle, and the circle was distorted into a oval. Are we now seeing a circle in a different two dimension combination?

    Take the three dimensional model. How would you pull the fourth dimension out of the sphere?

    Any comments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Anyone want to reply?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    To what? I read the title and instantly thought that making a dimension is far beyong our current tech. I mean for me to think about time travel-motion in a dimension is one thing, but to think to purposfully create another??? I'm not a string physicist .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    I wrote a theory on what a dimension is... and how to mathematically show addition and subtraction of dimensions. I just wondered about what you thought about what I thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Just because things can be studied in different dimensional spaces, it doesn't mean that by studying something in a different n-dimensional space, that we are physically adding or subtracting physical (spatial) dimensions. For example you can study the geometry of an object in R<sup>3</sup> (3D space), and you can also study its geometry in R<sup>2</sup> quite happily, by taking a cross-section....but you haven't physically alterred the object as it exists in some space...only the space in which you are studying the object. In a four dimensional space we can study an object in three dimensions by taking a cross-sectional of its 4D version. This is like taking a snapshot of a moving object in R<sup>3</sup> at a given point in time...taking a cross-section of spacetime. 4D spaces can eb considered cross-sections of 5D spaces and so on.

    Objects in higher dimensional spaces R<sup>n</sup> can be studied in some areas of mathematics...Topology is an example of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    I never thought that we could physicaly do it... the post though made me think. If what I said can be related to dimensions, than I have a way to mathematicly play with this. Because the circle thing is something I just thought up, I was wondering If I could use that frame of thought to start doing some mathmatics. I would like to learn if I'm on the right track to exploring dimensional mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Can you imagine what it would feel like to only see in two dimensions your entire life, with everything flat, then suddenly gain three dimensional sight? It would be interesting to add a fourth dimension to our eyesight.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderwolf
    Because the circle thing is something I just thought up, I was wondering If I could use that frame of thought to start doing some mathmatics.
    If you want to do some mathematics, you're going to have to be more careful and precise with your language. So let's go back to your original post and see where things get hairy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderwolf
    take a circle. It is connected to three points. Two of which are stationary, the other may move, but within restrictions.
    You lost me right here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425

    See circle A, with a radius of 1 centered at the origin on a coordinate plane. Place fixed points (a & b) on (0,1) and (0,-1). The circle must touch these points at all times. It must also touch point (c), which is currently situated on (1,0). Point c slowly moves in towards (0,0) as it does, the diameter of the circle approaches infinity.

    When the point reaches (0,0), you have a line (x=0) you went from a 2 to a one dimensional object. In reality, when point c hits the y axis, you are eliminating the x variable from the dimensional equation. Point c did not need to travel on the x axis. It could travel in any direction within the set limits of it's two dimensional world.

    Everything was done with simple algebra.

    Observe figure 3.


    Using the Pythagorean therom we find that

    R(d)= (d^2+1)/2d)

    Substituting into the standard equation for a circle and solving for y (for graphing calculator)

    y= sqrt (((d^2+1)/2d)^2-(x+(d^2-1)/2d))^2)

    notice that when d=0, (which is when point c lies on the y axis) portions of the problem become undefined. This is due to the fact that we have lost a dimension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    I don't know... I just thought that it was a good way to mathematically describe something... It's probably nothing, isn't it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderwolf
    take a circle. It is connected to three points. Two of which are stationary, the other may move, but within restrictions. It must move on a line that is equidistant from the two other points at every point. Because these three dots are connected to a circle, restrictions arise. the moving point may not move from the line created by the fixed dots more than half of the distance of one fixed point from the other. Also, our free point cannot sit directly on the line created by the fixed points. Either way, the circle could no longer exist AND touch all three points.

    What happens if the free point is set on the line created by the fixed points? You have just subtracted a dimension. The circle cannot exist in one dimension. Think about it's new characteristics.

    Now... if we have that same circle that we started with, and pull a fourth point out of the paper and towards us, we have added a dimension. The placement of the points in three dimensional space now must conform to even more rules. both non stationary points must move in synchronization in order to keep a perfect sphere.

    Back to the one dimension. you have a one dimensional line with two points, and pull a third point out of the paper towards you, you now have a two dimensional circle existing on two planes, one of which is different from before. So, we could be existing in three dimensions separate to the one we do now, and still keep our same properties. We could not know the difference.

    What are those dimensions? A guess... now this is out there. There are a couple of movement possibilities for the points we have not covered. say that in the two dimensional model, the point was pulled out of the limits of the circle, and the circle was distorted into a oval. Are we now seeing a circle in a different two dimension combination?

    Take the three dimensional model. How would you pull the fourth dimension out of the sphere?

    Any comments?


    Actually all you are doing is showing properties of higher and lower dimensions, and your method of demonstrating these properties through a series of three points on a circle isn't too efficient, although I could be wrong or I could just be one of those people who sees things in a whole different way, but I'd say to be able to pull the the fourth dimensional point out of the sphere you would have to perceive things 4th dimensionally. Otherwise you are wasting your time, and seeings how humans are 3 dimensional, I don't think it is possible for any human to perceive anything 4th dimensionally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    I came upon close to that conclusion myself... I could add another variable, and have a mathematical representation of that many dimensions... but no way to show it correctly. My main goal however was only to show properties of dimensions through mathematics. I was hoping that maybe we could hypothesize what a fourth dimension would be like. I kind of failed though.

    String theory talks about Calabi-Yau spaces and the such.... anyone know about this?

    Is string theory (or m theory maybe?) still one of the leading theories?

    I just want to learn a little more. My playing around was actualy posted to... inspire debate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Mathematically, we have very good ways of talking about objects of arbitrarily large dimension. The primitive notion of dimension is based on the real number line, from which we can build up arbitrarily high dimensional spaces by considering n-tuples of real numbers, which we call n-space. So, for example, the plane is realized as pairs of reals, and we can describe 4-space as being quadruples of reals.

    Then we can generalize this idea to more objects by defining them to be dimension n if they "locally" look like n-space--i.e., if you were a point in this object, you couldn't tell that you were on this object and not in regular n-space just by poking around your neighborhood a little bit. So, for example, the surface of the earth is 2-dimensional: walking around my house, I can't tell that the earth isn't flat.

    Now your descriptions give a way of describing how one might, from the nth dimension, pull on an n-1 dimensional subspace so that it extends into the nth dimension. But this already requires that we have an idea of the nth dimension floating about. For example, when you pulled the line into a circle in the plane, you already had the plane at your disposal, so you weren't really creating two dimensions, you were immersing a 1-dimensional object in an already existent 2-dimensional space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •