Transcendence of dimensions?

[TJ McCaustland]

So I was thinking earlier, and I have a BIG question to ask. So because everything in the universe can be defined by a quantum state, do we not necessarily exist as 10, 9, 8, etc etc dimensional beings as well as 3 dimensional beings in quantum state? It's just that if the theory of Quantum entanglement is correct (Which it REALLY looks that way) then wouldn't everything in the universe being definable by a single quantum state make us all 10 dimensional and 3 dimensional at the same because of the relative nature of mass time and space?

[swansont]

Being definable as a quantum state doesn't really hinge on entanglement. But even so, this all depends on how you're using the word dimension. We have many degrees of freedom, and defining the state (to the extent you could) of an object would require variables beyond spatial coordinates. But these aren't necessarily dimensions.

[TJ McCaustland]

Being definable as a quantum state doesn't really hinge on entanglement. But even so, this all depends on how you're using the word dimension. We have many degrees of freedom, and defining the state (to the extent you could) of an object would require variables beyond spatial coordinates. But these aren't necessarily dimensions.

Right, Right, But when we get to the point of where an entire universe can be defined by a single quantum state we are without spatial coordinates because the entire graph you'd produce with this would be a single point, This is where I get my conjecture and question that aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions? Because although we never can define the entire universe in a single quantum state, it can be defined by a single, infinitely complex quantum state, just not by means within our reach.

Edited December 2, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Phi for All]

Being definable as a quantum state doesn't really hinge on entanglement. But even so, this all depends on how you're using the word dimension.

 

From the thread that probably prompted this one:

 

Dimensions are quantum states of space and matter. Nothing more.

[TJ McCaustland]

 

From the thread that probably prompted this one:

 

Nailed it Phi +1

BTW to enlarge discussion on this topic if I upload some equations to support my conjecture then will you two move this to Physics?

[swansont]

 

From the thread that probably prompted this one:

 

 

Yeah, well, I can't say I agree with that statement. Still waiting for a definition.

Right, Right, But when we get to the point of where an entire universe can be defined by a single quantum state we are without spatial coordinates because the entire graph you'd produce with this would be a single point, This is where I get my conjecture and question that aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions? Because although we never can define the entire universe in a single quantum state, it can be defined by a single, infinitely complex quantum state, just not by means within our reach.

 

Surely to contain the information the graph would need to have as many orthogonal axes as you have states being represented, and some of those axes will be spatial dimensions. And no, we don't exist in all dimensions, as you've described them, because we exist independently of many of the systems your wave function would describe. How do we exist "in" the spin state of an electron in an atom in a planet orbiting a star somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Nailed it Phi +1

BTW to enlarge discussion on this topic if I upload some equations to support my conjecture then will you two move this to Physics?

 

 

I guess I answered this in the other thread in physics in which I said that these discussions must be held in Speculations. It would be best if the debate continues here - that allows you and the other participants to voice opinions, bare ideas, and guesses (although we do ask for more meat on the bones later). In the main fora we want a discussion that relies on the sort of science that can be found in texts, articles, and papers.

 

FYG the equations which people like Ed Witten have written to form the mathematical underpinning of some string / brane theories are amongst the cutting edge of mathematics (Witten got the Fields Medal - although this was not for his string / 3 brane maths). If you can introduce equations - it would be superb; but be aware they will be checked rigorously and a frighteningly percentage of the equations presented here are not even dimensionally sound (yet another use of that word!) so please check them before posting

 

[Phi for All]

BTW to enlarge discussion on this topic if I upload some equations to support my conjecture then will you two move this to Physics?

 

What imatfaal said, but also know that if, if, IF, your arguments were able to persuade due to evidence that passes our loose (compared to professional) peer review, and you were able to answer any objections and deal with the details of making a sound case, IF your idea gets to that level where no more picking it apart is reasonable, where you have much to support it and nothing that refutes it, then we start looking at it as an explanation we can trust more, and we can talk about it from a mainstream perspective.

 

The idea behind Speculations has always been that if your idea has true merit, it will be able to pull itself out of conjecture and into accepted science. It's not easy; it's not supposed to be.

[Bill Angel]

Right, Right, But when we get to the point of where an entire universe can be defined by a single quantum state we are without spatial coordinates because the entire graph you'd produce with this would be a single point, This is where I get my conjecture and question that aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions? Because although we never can define the entire universe in a single quantum state, it can be defined by a single, infinitely complex quantum state, just not by means within our reach.

The statement "aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions?" is problematical. One reason it is is because of the properties of gravity. Gravity manifests itself in three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. If a mass produced a gravitational force in more than three spatial dimensions (or put another way warped a region of spacetime with a dimensionality greater than 4) then the force would be weaker in the three spatial dimensions that we live in, that is to say the force of gravity would no longer obey the inverse square law over distance in the three spatial dimensions that we inhabit, the force would decrease faster than 1/r^2. If this were the case then galaxies would never form and stars producing energy by nuclear fusion would not exist. Hence we would not be here to discuss these issues. This is one of the criticisms that physicists make of string theory, that having the flexibility via the mathematics to posit any number of spatial dimensions for a universe can result in a universe barren of features like galaxies, stars, planets, and of course life.

[TJ McCaustland]

The statement "aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions?" is problematical. One reason it is is because of the properties of gravity. Gravity manifests itself in three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. If a mass produced a gravitational force in more than three spatial dimensions (or put another way warped a region of spacetime with a dimensionality greater than 4) then the force would be weaker in the three spatial dimensions that we live in, that is to say the force of gravity would no longer obey the inverse square law over distance in the three spatial dimensions that we inhabit, the force would decrease faster than 1/r^2. If this were the case then galaxies would never form and stars producing energy by nuclear fusion would not exist. Hence we would not be here to discuss these issues. This is one of the criticisms that physicists make of string theory, that having the flexibility via the mathematics to posit any number of spatial dimensions for a universe can result in a universe barren of features like galaxies, stars, planets, and of course life.

But I do have another question for you, Take into account the fact that we know for the most part, that dark matter and energy influence that gravity. Now we do not know if (If Einstein's 10 dimensional universe is realistic which I believe it is) in the case of higher dimensional cases such as the cases of 10 dimensional galaxies (Which according to my OP if it is anything akin to realistic are also 3 dimensional.) that dark matter and energy could have a lesser effect than it does in our very own 3rd dimension, inversely it could have a greater affect, but what I'm getting at, that if (Which your problem you pointed out is quite valid) dark matter and energy could a) exist in different proportions relative to higher dimensional matter or transcendent matter, b) have a different affect relative to that matter, or c) could cease to exist in higher dimensions/make up all the matter/energy in the highest dimensions. I personally support c's second statement, but that's simply because I believe it is possible, however improbable that all that dark matter and energy could be a higher dimensional quantum state of our matter that is entangled with our 3rd dimensional matter and effects it. If this were true then we would be transcendent or dimensionless in quantum state.

@imatfaal, OK that makes sense, but as soon as they're done poking holes in this, if this conjecture does not sink, I ask you to at least consider moving this to physics.

[swansont]

I believe it is possible, however improbable that all that dark matter and energy could be a higher dimensional quantum state of our matter that is entangled with our 3rd dimensional matter and effects it. If this were true then we would be transcendent or dimensionless in quantum state.

@imatfaal, OK that makes sense, but as soon as they're done poking holes in this, if this conjecture does not sink, I ask you to at least consider moving this to physics.

 

The first hole to fix is explaining what you mean by dimension, and translating the above statement, because it sounds very Deepak Chopra-ish.

[TJ McCaustland]

 

Yeah, well, I can't say I agree with that statement. Still waiting for a definition.

 

Surely to contain the information the graph would need to have as many orthogonal axes as you have states being represented, and some of those axes will be spatial dimensions. And no, we don't exist in all dimensions, as you've described them, because we exist independently of many of the systems your wave function would describe. How do we exist "in" the spin state of an electron in an atom in a planet orbiting a star somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy?

Ok so I'm going to go with a mish-mash of my definition and a mathematical definition: "A dimension is a quantum state of relativistic and non-relativistic matter, and all non-antimatter atoms, where these atoms enjoy freedom of translation through any medium or space according to their dimension described by their quantum state."

 

To answer your second question the graph would have as many orthogonal axes as the thing you were describing with the quantum state, but doesn't that technically go with "Infinitely complex" Although I was vague there? Well I am a little skeptical on your second sentence because if you think about it every non-antimatter thing in existence in our universe is entangled, every atom, muon, boson, and positron, are all entangled and therefore definable by a single quantum state, now in this entangled universe there are two types of matter/energy that are entangleable, relativistic (Normal matter/energy) and non-relativistic (Dark matter/energy), the relativistic matter is governed by the laws of physics and therefore is effected by it, and the non-relativistic matter is the result of entanglement, it is the interconnected quantum state of existence of all matter in all 10 dimensions that exist besides our 3rd dimension, now it makes sense that this extra-dimensional matter would not be affected by our laws of physics of the third dimension ( Just to add a bit more onto my answer for Bill Angel) but at the same time be able to affect change in our dimension or mini-quantum state because it is entangled to our matter in our dimension via the gigantic web of entanglement of all matter that is the universe as a whole. Now that I've explained that my evidence for my OP is that we are not transcendent of dimensions in normal state, but rather in quantum state because we are entangled to everything, which makes us "Transcendent" of dimensions, or technically dimensionless as a whole, while still maintaining mathematical dimensions and actual physical dimensions (As is freedom of translation that is unique to the dimension described by our quantum state). So in essence dimensions do not exist at all in the realm of entanglement, but do exist in reality, so we are Transcendent of dimensions quantumly (for lack of a better term) but not physically. So yes we "exist" in that electron in that planet in Andromeda, just as we exist everywhere there is potential for us to exist, just as the universe is a single, infinitely complex point on a graph with infinite orthogonal axes because we exist infinitely in the realm of entanglement because we are entangled to everything and exist in all dimensions in the realm of entanglement.

 

The first hole to fix is explaining what you mean by dimension, and translating the above statement, because it sounds very Deepak Chopra-ish.

^Dimension definition in the above post^

[swansont]

Ok so I'm going to go with a mish-mash of my definition and a mathematical definition: "A dimension is a quantum state of relativistic and non-relativistic matter, and all non-antimatter atoms, where these atoms enjoy freedom of translation through any medium or space according to their dimension described by their quantum state."

Length is a quantum state of matter? Time is a quantum state of matter?

 

 

To answer your second question the graph would have as many orthogonal axes as the thing you were describing with the quantum state, but doesn't that technically go with "Infinitely complex" Although I was vague there? Well I am a little skeptical on your second sentence because if you think about it every non-antimatter thing in existence in our universe is entangled, every atom, muon, boson, and positron, are all entangled

They are all entangled? How can that be? Why is it so hard to create entangled pairs of particles if everything is already entangled?

[TJ McCaustland]

Length is a quantum state of matter? Time is a quantum state of matter?

 

 

 

They are all entangled? How can that be? Why is it so hard to create entangled pairs of particles if everything is already entangled?

Yes, they are all quantum states of matter because they are states of matter, remove them and matter is stateless which is impossible, so the only conclusion is that they are quantum states of matter because they technically don't exist without the quantum state of matter because time is again a quantum state of matter because it is the non-simultaneous-ness of two events, which again is a state of matter, and therefore a quantum state of matter at the same time.

 

Because entangling entangled particles that are already entangled to another particle on the other side of the universe or to one that exists only as dark matter/energy supplants the nature of the universe and nullifies it's existence.

[andrewcellini]

Yes, they are all quantum states of matter because they are states of matter, remove them and matter is stateless which is impossible, so the only conclusion is that they are quantum states of matter because they technically don't exist without the quantum state of matter because time is again a quantum state of matter because it is the non-simultaneous-ness of two events, which again is a state of matter, and therefore a quantum state of matter at the same time.

this essentially amounts to "it's a state of matter because it's a state of matter." what do you mean by "state of matter?"

 

Because entangling entangled particles that are already entangled to another particle on the other side of the universe or to one that exists only as dark matter/energy supplants the nature of the universe and nullifies it's existence.

yea, well, true identity is in the midst of the mechanics of photons so

 

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

[TJ McCaustland]

this essentially amounts to "it's a state of matter because it's a state of matter." what do you mean by "state of matter?"

 

yea, well, true identity is in the midst of the mechanics of photons so

 

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

State of matter being a state of which matter exists, Basically length width time all that.

[swansont]

Yes, they are all quantum states of matter because they are states of matter, remove them and matter is stateless which is impossible, so the only conclusion is that they are quantum states of matter because they technically don't exist without the quantum state of matter because time is again a quantum state of matter because it is the non-simultaneous-ness of two events, which again is a state of matter, and therefore a quantum state of matter at the same time.

 

Because entangling entangled particles that are already entangled to another particle on the other side of the universe or to one that exists only as dark matter/energy supplants the nature of the universe and nullifies it's existence.

This just appears to be word salad, throwing around terminology with, at best, some circular references. It doesn't appear to mean anything.

 

We can solve for time-independent states in QM. An atom in the ground state, for instance, will remain in the ground state. This can be described without reference to position, so all three spatial dimensions and time are removed from the description. And yet, atoms exist.

 

Short version of this is that if you're going to be discussion QM, you need to go and learn a bit about QM. Actual science learning, not pop-science.

[Strange]

Now we do not know if (If Einstein's 10 dimensional universe is realistic which I believe it is) in the case of higher dimensional cases such as the cases of 10 dimensional galaxies ...

 

Nowhere does Einstein's theory mention 10 dimensions. What is a "10 dimensional galaxy"?

 

Can you show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that the Einstein Field Equations work in 10 dimensions? Or even in anything other than 4?

[ACG52]

 

Nowhere does Einstein's theory mention 10 dimensions. What is a "10 dimensional galaxy"?

 

Can you show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that the Einstein Field Equations work in 10 dimensions? Or even in anything other than 4?

He's obviously confusing Einstein's work with string theory.

[TJ McCaustland]

He's obviously confusing Einstein's work with string theory.

Right you are

This just appears to be word salad, throwing around terminology with, at best, some circular references. It doesn't appear to mean anything.

 

We can solve for time-independent states in QM. An atom in the ground state, for instance, will remain in the ground state. This can be described without reference to position, so all three spatial dimensions and time are removed from the description. And yet, atoms exist.

 

Short version of this is that if you're going to be discussion QM, you need to go and learn a bit about QM. Actual science learning, not pop-science.

Ok that was a word salad, However let me add substance "Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."

[swansont]

Ok that was a word salad, However let me add substance "Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."

You've replaced iceberg with romaine

[TheGeckomancer]

Right you are

Ok that was a word salad, However let me add substance "Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."

 

 

Garnish better please, you could have added "synergized the paradigm" ANYWHERE to this sentence and it would have been fine.

[andrewcellini]

"Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."

Tj

 

i encourage you to hold off on trying to rewrite physics until you learn mainstream physics. you seem to enjoy coupling words which have precise meanings (which you use in your own, undefined way) to woo buzzwords, which produces sentences which may conform to the rules/conventions of the english language but do not convey any clear points. i'm not sure how these discussions could progress beyond pointing out the misuse in language or the lack of clarity, and telling you to actually study a bit further than pop science explanations.

[TJ McCaustland]

Tj

 

i encourage you to hold off on trying to rewrite physics until you learn mainstream physics. you seem to enjoy coupling words which have precise meanings (which you use in your own, undefined way) to woo buzzwords, which produces sentences which may conform to the rules/conventions of the english language but do not convey any clear points. i'm not sure how these discussions could progress beyond pointing out the misuse in language or the lack of clarity, and telling you to actually study a bit further than pop science explanations.

This isn't rewriting physics, it's taking physics and adding to it. I use English because I want to, not because I can't use mathematics, and The reason why this is in speculations is because it is speculative not scientifically correct Otherwise It would be in physics and I would be telling you to hold your tongue.

Very well "Dimensions are axes upon which matter translates/exists according to it's quantum state which describes which dimension it exists in" All those dimensions can be described by a single quantum state dependent upon the existence of other quantum states of other dimensions, the exception to this rule being the first dimension, which is the only independently describable dimension, In this way the entire universe can be described by a single quantum state. Also what Geckomancer said.

You've replaced iceberg with romaine

The question is, is that romaine made out of paper?

[Phi for All]

This isn't rewriting physics, it's taking physics and adding to it.

 

... but not making it better. In fact, while it may help you, it makes it more confusing for everyone else. That violates a basic tenet of science. You're supposed to aid understanding, not kidnap it and beat it into an unrecognizable mess.