My Hypothesis on Dimensions

[BCphoton]

Hello everyone! I am new here on the forums, and have created my account to propose an idea I had recently. My main goal here is to first see if these thoughts have been published elsewhere before, because I could not find anywhere in which they had been. That being said, I figure someone else out there has thought this up prior to me, so please do inform me if that is the case. Second, I would like opinions as to if this would make sense and explain a few phenomena in our universe.

My idea is not unlike a few theories out there, such as a few variants of the Multiverse theory. However, my proposal is that unlike those current theories, that we live in a universe where different dimensions overlap. For example, in the case of singularities, what if they are all points of a one-dimensional universe/realm, and they are all the same point? This would explain the idea behind the wormhole, as an object entering into that realm would no longer experience distance and could travel anywhere instantly. This could also explain phenomena such as Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation. The various dimensions would all have specific properties to explain them. Additonally, what if light exists in a realm of no time, explaining why reaching those speeds is unachieveable. If we in our time based universe see light as going x distance in y time, what if it travels timelessly, explaining why it travels the same speed no matter what speed the observer is going.

Please share your thoughts! However, if this is total hooey, please go easy on me, I am pretty new at this after all

Thanks all, have a good one!

-Ben

Edited April 23, 2016 by BCphoton

[Phi for All]

However, my proposal is that unlike those current theories, that we live in a universe where different dimensions overlap. For example, in the case of singularities, what if they are all points of a one-dimensional universe/realm, and they are all the same point? This would explain the idea behind the wormhole, as an object entering into that realm would no longer experience distance and could travel anywhere instantly.

 

Dimensions overlap? Are you using the right definition of dimension? Dimensions aren't like multiple universes.

 

We use dimensions to determine where and when something is. The first dimension is length (x), and a line can have many points along it. 90 degrees perpendicular to all those points is the second dimension, width (y). You can't have the second without the first. The third dimension is height (z). Together with the temporal dimension, time (t), we can plot anyplace in the universe using this coordinate system. If you tell me to meet you at a certain latitude, longitude, altitude, and local time, I'll know you want to meet on the 27th floor of the Empire State Building in New York tomorrow at 09:00.

[kisai]

How would you go about testing your hypothesis?

[BCphoton]

Dimensions overlap? Are you using the right definition of dimension? Dimensions aren't like multiple universes.

 

We use dimensions to determine where and when something is. The first dimension is length (x), and a line can have many points along it. 90 degrees perpendicular to all those points is the second dimension, width (y). You can't have the second without the first. The third dimension is height (z). Together with the temporal dimension, time (t), we can plot anyplace in the universe using this coordinate system. If you tell me to meet you at a certain latitude, longitude, altitude, and local time, I'll know you want to meet on the 27th floor of the Empire State Building in New York tomorrow at 09:00.

No, I did look at the theory of Dimensional Overlap, and it is not quite the same as what I am thinking.

 

Also, I do see what you are saying. I believe I used incorrect terms on a few instances there, and will fix that soon. I am far from a scientist, so I don't know what would be the correct term for what I am trying to explain. Thank you for your feedback!

How would you go about testing your hypothesis?

I do not yet know, as I just thought of this not even 24 hours ago. It is a work in progress though

[studiot]

 

This would explain the idea behind the wormhole, as an object entering into that realm would no longer experience distance and could travel anywhere instantly.

 

I would recommend that you tried to use your idea to explain proven phenomena before offering a speculation to explain a speculation.

 

If you can achieve that, then is the time to move on to predict/explain new phenomena and see where that takes you.

[ajb]

It seem that you do not really discuss dimensions in the sense we usually mean. However, the initial idea reminds me of brane worlds where it is possible to have branes overlapping.

[Phi for All]

 

Hello everyone! I am new here on the forums, and have created my account to propose an idea I had recently. My main goal here is to first see if these thoughts have been published elsewhere before, because I could not find anywhere in which they had been. That being said, I figure someone else out there has thought this up prior to me, so please do inform me if that is the case. Second, I would like opinions as to if this would make sense and explain a few phenomena in our universe.

 

1. "These thoughts" haven't been peer-reviewed, so if they've been published, it wasn't in any reputable journal.

2. Unfortunately, you've skipped over a lot of connective science that would have shown you how to better approach your ideas. I really wish we could talk you into going back to school for science classes. We need people who are interested and educated in mainstream science to help further our understanding. Unfortunately, popsci offerings are appealing more than they are informative (their goal is to make money, not to teach science), and they sometimes cause more harm than good.

 

The cosmological models we currently have reflect our best explanations for the phenomena we observe. Learning these, and the science behind them, allows us to use their awesome information to predict where the next pieces of knowledge are. Many phenomena were predicted before they were ever observationally confirmed.

 

I hope you'll continue to discuss and learn with us. You may have skipped some science classes, but you're smart enough to come to a place like this to ask questions. You didn't go to some Wild West Guess Factory where the science is secondary to vivid imaginations and what-if leaps over contradictory evidence.

 

As ajb mentioned, you might want to research a bit on branes and String Theory. Shore up some of the gaps in your idea, then assess whether you think it's still viable or not. Most ideas are wrong, even from professionals. Good luck!

[studiot]

 

Wild West Guess Factory

 

I went for a holiday there once.

 

[BCphoton]

 

I would recommend that you tried to use your idea to explain proven phenomena before offering a speculation to explain a speculation.

 

If you can achieve that, then is the time to move on to predict/explain new phenomena and see where that takes you.

I do see what you are saying. The only reason I included the link to wormholes is because I think it would make sense if they were in fact true. However, my main point being the part behind singularities.

 

It seem that you do not really discuss dimensions in the sense we usually mean. However, the initial idea reminds me of brane worlds where it is possible to have branes overlapping.

I plan on fixing my wording shortly. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the brane worlds theory have to do with a 5 dimensional world, or is there more to it?

 

 

1. "These thoughts" haven't been peer-reviewed, so if they've been published, it wasn't in any reputable journal.

2. Unfortunately, you've skipped over a lot of connective science that would have shown you how to better approach your ideas. I really wish we could talk you into going back to school for science classes. We need people who are interested and educated in mainstream science to help further our understanding. Unfortunately, popsci offerings are appealing more than they are informative (their goal is to make money, not to teach science), and they sometimes cause more harm than good.

 

The cosmological models we currently have reflect our best explanations for the phenomena we observe. Learning these, and the science behind them, allows us to use their awesome information to predict where the next pieces of knowledge are. Many phenomena were predicted before they were ever observationally confirmed.

 

I hope you'll continue to discuss and learn with us. You may have skipped some science classes, but you're smart enough to come to a place like this to ask questions. You didn't go to some Wild West Guess Factory where the science is secondary to vivid imaginations and what-if leaps over contradictory evidence.

 

As ajb mentioned, you might want to research a bit on branes and String Theory. Shore up some of the gaps in your idea, then assess whether you think it's still viable or not. Most ideas are wrong, even from professionals. Good luck!

Alright, good to know.

 

I will look into those sorts of things for sure. As for going back to school for science classes, well, I am a Junior in high school, so that is a future plan for me. I plan to minor in science in college, and major in computer science.

 

That is a valid point, and I have always been interested in discovering more about the universe we live in.

 

I do plan on it! I am liking these forums quite a bit, full of very intelligent people. Most of my science education in this area is self taught, honestly. However, I do always get my information from reputable sources, and will continue to look into sciences such as these until I reach college.

 

I will do so, and look forward to it as well! I do know new ideas like these are a long shot, but hey, it is worth the chance in my opinion. Thank you!

[studiot]

 

singularities.

 

Do you know what a singularity is and of any real world singularities?

[BCphoton]

 

Do you know what a singularity is and of any real world singularities?

Well yeah, a singularity has no volume and infinite (or very large) mass. In the real world, it would be a point.

[studiot]

Does it?

 

And where would I find one?

[ajb]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the brane worlds theory have to do with a 5 dimensional world, or is there more to it?

You can think of branes in any dimension, but there are some 'better' dimensions that come from string and M-theory. With no details at all, you can have various dimensional branes in 9+1 and 10+1 dimensions (you could look up the superbrane scan, but it won't help you at this stage (nonminimal extensions of the super Poincare algebra and Lie algebra cohomology are needed!!!!!!!))

 

 

Well yeah, a singularity has no volume and infinite (or very large) mass. In the real world, it would be a point.

Singularities in this contexts are points or regions where the smooth structure of space-time breaks down. This is taken as a signal that the classicl theory does not hold at and near these regions.

[BCphoton]

Does it?

 

And where would I find one?

Well, that is the current theory anyways. Mathematically you can find them anywhere, but in science they are thought to be in the center of black holes

 

You can think of branes in any dimension, but there are some 'better' dimensions that come from string and M-theory. With no details at all, you can have various dimensional branes in 9+1 and 10+1 dimensions (you could look up the superbrane scan, but it won't help you at this stage (nonminimal extensions of the super Poincare algebra and Lie algebra cohomology are needed!!!!!!!))

 

 

 

Singularities in this contexts are points or regions where the smooth structure of space-time breaks down. This is taken as a signal that the classicl theory does not hold at and near these regions.

I gotcha. While I do not believe the brane theory is the same as what I proposed, I do think it would help to learn more about it to further my ideas. I plan on researching more into it.

 

Alright, that makes sense. However, isn't the current theory of singularities that they are a dimensionless point?

---

Also a side not here, I do not seem to be able to edit my original post, so unfortunately the poor use of the word dimension is stuck there.

[studiot]

 

Well, that is the current theory anyways. Mathematically you can find them anywhere, but in science they are thought to be in the center of black holes

 

 

Maybe 4 or 5 people out of the four or five billion on our planet think that.

 

I think it would be a good idea if you studied up on the big words you are using by listening to the professors of maths and science you have access to here, rather than Marvel comics.

 

Singularities are common in everday life and in many branches of science and technology.

As such they are extremely well studied mundane entities.

 

There is, for instance, one in your bath as well as in complex analysis, fluid mechanics, electrical engineering, to name but a few.

 

Have you studied graphs as plots of functions, for instance y = x² and so forth?

Edited April 25, 2016 by studiot

[BCphoton]

 

Maybe 4 or 5 people out of the four or five billion on our planet think that.

 

I think it would be a good idea if you studied up on the big words you are using by listening to the professors of maths and science you have access to here, rather than Marvel comics.

 

Singularities are common in everday life and in many branches of science and technology.

As such they are extremely well studied mundane entities.

 

There is, for instance, one in your bath as well as in complex analysis, fluid mechanics, electrical engineering, to name but a few.

 

Have you studied graphs as plots of functions, for instance y = x² and so forth?

Seven billion, but I get the point.

 

Is that not true for gravitational singularities? I know about mathematical singularities and some of their applications, but I am is a college astronomy class, and learned that black holes do likely contain a gravitational singularity. Either way, when it comes to learning new info, I'm all ears.

 

I have studied those, though not extensively.

[BiotechFusion]

 

Hello everyone! I am new here on the forums, and have created my account to propose an idea I had recently. My main goal here is to first see if these thoughts have been published elsewhere before, because I could not find anywhere in which they had been. That being said, I figure someone else out there has thought this up prior to me, so please do inform me if that is the case. Second, I would like opinions as to if this would make sense and explain a few phenomena in our universe.

My idea is not unlike a few theories out there, such as a few variants of the Multiverse theory. However, my proposal is that unlike those current theories, that we live in a universe where different dimensions overlap. For example, in the case of singularities, what if they are all points of a one-dimensional universe/realm, and they are all the same point? This would explain the idea behind the wormhole, as an object entering into that realm would no longer experience distance and could travel anywhere instantly. This could also explain phenomena such as Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation. The various dimensions would all have specific properties to explain them. Additonally, what if light exists in a realm of no time, explaining why reaching those speeds is unachieveable. If we in our time based universe see light as going x distance in y time, what if it travels timelessly, explaining why it travels the same speed no matter what speed the observer is going.

Please share your thoughts! However, if this is total hooey, please go easy on me, I am pretty new at this after all

Thanks all, have a good one!

-Ben

 

I was just about the exit the site but I couldn't help but browse around a little bit. Dimensions don't overlap in the way you're describing. If they do, they aren't dimensions. An example of something that acts like a dimension but isn't and overlaps is polar coordinates, i.e. angles. Angles can overlap themselves like when you go around a circle multiple times where different angles give you the same position, like 0, 360, 720...Dimensions by definition do not do this, they are meant to be linearly independent basis for which to locate objects according to a certain coordinate system. It is possible to have a coordinate system in which one dimension is at an angle greater or less than 90 degrees to another dimension, but, for the purposes of modeling our universe, this is often only the case in Special Relativity. At rest, space is flat and the dimensions are all perpendicular to each other. Within multiverse theory, it is simply stated that our entire universe is either just one subspace or coordinate of a higher dimensional space with an orthogonal basis depending on the exact definitions used for what a universe is.

If you can imagine a Cartesian coordinate system with an x and a y and a z axis, just imagine each universe as a 2-dimensional x-y plane or a "slice" within a higher 3D space for every z coordinate and that's essentially all multiverse theory is, nothing spectacular at all, the entire universe is just one relative plane among many others that fits into a higher dimensional space. Do only interval coordinates matter in multiverse theory? Are there universes for irrational coordinates relative to us? Can you go in between universes? Mathematically any of those circumstances could be the case, but no one really knows the actual answer because there's no experimental evidence of any of that.

 

Seven billion, but I get the point.

 

Is that not true for gravitational singularities? I know about mathematical singularities and some of their applications, but I am is a college astronomy class, and learned that black holes do likely contain a gravitational singularity. Either way, when it comes to learning new info, I'm all ears.

 

I have studied those, though not extensively.

Oh yeah also, for gravitational theories, they're finally saying "ok, infinite anything in a finite volume doesn't make sense..." There shouldn't actually be "infinite" time dilation and length contraction inside a black hole. In fact inside a black hole everything should be normal for someone who fell in. So one solution to that which fits everything else is that space is quantized and that the interior of a black hole is made up of plank lengths and plank time because you simply can't have an amount of space less than a plank length...according to our models.

Edited April 25, 2016 by BiotechFusion

[BCphoton]

 

I was just about the exit the site but I couldn't help but browse around a little bit. Dimensions don't overlap in the way you're describing. If they do, they aren't dimensions. An example of something that acts like a dimension but isn't and overlaps is polar coordinates, i.e. angles. Angles can overlap themselves like when you go around a circle multiple times where different angles give you the same position, like 0, 360, 720...Dimensions by definition do not do this, they are meant to be linearly independent basis for which to locate objects according to a certain coordinate system. It is possible to have a coordinate system in which one dimension is at an angle greater or less than 90 degrees to another dimension, but, for the purposes of modeling our universe, this is often only the case in Special Relativity. At rest, space is flat and the dimensions are all perpendicular to each other. Within multiverse theory, it is simply stated that our entire universe is either just one subspace or coordinate of a higher dimensional space with an orthogonal basis depending on the exact definitions used for what a universe is.

If you can imagine a Cartesian coordinate system with an x and a y and a z axis, just imagine each universe as a 2-dimensional x-y plane or a "slice" within a higher 3D space for every z coordinate and that's essentially all multiverse theory is, nothing spectacular at all, the entire universe is just one relative plane among many others that fits into a higher dimensional space. Do only interval coordinates matter in multiverse theory? Are there universes for irrational coordinates relative to us? Can you go in between universes? Mathematically any of those circumstances could be the case, but no one really knows the actual answer because there's no experimental evidence of any of that.

 

Oh yeah also, for gravitational theories, they're finally saying "ok, infinite anything in a finite volume doesn't make sense..." There shouldn't actually be "infinite" time dilation and length contraction inside a black hole. In fact inside a black hole everything should be normal for someone who fell in. So one solution to that which fits everything else is that space is quantized and that the interior of a black hole is made up of plank lengths and plank time because you simply can't have an amount of space less than a plank length...according to our models.

 

Sorry for the confusion, but I did use the word dimension incorrectly in multiple instances in my first post. As I cannot edit it again, it remains so. When I said dimension in a few cases there, I was meaning realm/world/universe, not the coordinate system. However, I do get what you are saying there.

 

As for those gravitational theories, I know that they have changed the theory as to being infinite mass. However, they remain to be thought of as very great mass correct? If only we could explore a black hole... pretty frustrating to think we may well never be able to. Hopefully not the case though!

[BiotechFusion]

When I said dimension in a few cases there, I was meaning realm/world/universe, not the coordinate system.

Right, and the realm/world/universe is a subspace of that coordinate system in a typical multiverse model. Just like with where I said the universe could be treated as a plane, well, maybe some of dimensions of the multiverse are at an angle and allow some universes to intersect to create wormholes. Maybe there's a way to construct a line from one plane to another.

Edited April 25, 2016 by BiotechFusion

[studiot]

 

Is that not true for gravitational singularities? I know about mathematical singularities and some of their applications, but I am is a college astronomy class, and learned that black holes do likely contain a gravitational singularity. Either way, when it comes to learning new info, I'm all ears.

 

I rather suspect what you are trying to describe is what is known as a source or sink, which is a point in a flow pattern where charge or material enters or leaves the manifold (often 2 dimensional) in question. This means that conservation laws are not observed, amongst other things.

 

For instance the outlet hole in your bath is a sink as the water exits the bath.

 

I think, perhaps, you are speculating that there are points like this in our universe that are connected to other 'universes'

 

How does that sound?

 

 

.Dimensions by definition do not do this, they are meant to be linearly independent basis for which to locate objects according to a certain coordinate system.

 

Is projective geometry and cartography not a form of overlap of dimensions?

Edited April 25, 2016 by studiot

[ajb]

Alright, that makes sense. However, isn't the current theory of singularities that they are a dimensionless point?

 

We need some context here, so I will assume by singularity we are talking about the kind of singularities found in general relativity. The answer is no, we can and do have singularities that are not 'isolated points'. We have ring singularities for rotating black holes.

 

In higher dimensions (>4) we can have even more strange shapes for the singular regions.

 

 

...learned that black holes do likely contain a gravitational singularity.

 

Classically yes, but in reality people think that such singularities are not physically realised. At high curvatures near the singularity we expect general relativity not to be a 'good' theory. It is thought that a quantum theory of gravity will 'kick in' and regulate these singularities. But right now we do not have a full quantum theory of gravity and so it is hard to say much more.

 

 

As for those gravitational theories, I know that they have changed the theory as to being infinite mass. However, they remain to be thought of as very great mass correct? If only we could explore a black hole... pretty frustrating to think we may well never be able to. Hopefully not the case though!

Defining mass/energy of a space-time is not easy and in general there is no clear notion. But for things like black holes we have several working definitions that agree. In particular an isolated black hole has finite mass.

[BiotechFusion]

 

 

Is projective geometry and cartography not a form of overlap of dimensions?

A projection is just a type of transformation, not a dimension, you're not actually moving an entire dimension when you project something, you're just seeing how one vector or set of vectors or isomorphism of a vector is mapped onto a subspace which usually is most useful when the basis of the subspace has a lower dimension than your original space.

But more than that the field of protective geometry itself doesn't use the same definitions of distance and vectors anyway, so the premise of your question is illogical to begin with since dimensions don't mean the same thing in that arrangement nor are they isomorphic to properties of dimensions defined in elementary geometry. Since it doesn't use the same definition of dimension or even use metric-based geometry, the comparison doesn't make sense.

It's like saying "a square is a rectangle" and then asking "but what if a square wasn't a rectangle?" Well who knows, a square is certainly a rectangle in any geometry of relevance here, but we could arbitrarily define any such system where it happened to be the case that a square wasn't a rectangle. There's definitely a difference between a projective space and a vector space.

Edited April 27, 2016 by BiotechFusion

[BCphoton]

Right, and the realm/world/universe is a subspace of that coordinate system in a typical multiverse model. Just like with where I said the universe could be treated as a plane, well, maybe some of dimensions of the multiverse are at an angle and allow some universes to intersect to create wormholes. Maybe there's a way to construct a line from one plane to another.

Right, but what if there was a collection of 'points' on that plane that are the same? For example, imagine a plane with multiple points labeled as A, but on different coordinates. They are all still point A, but yet when put onto a plane occur at multiple points. That is basically what I am trying to explain, is what if there exists a realm of a 'point' like that, and shows up at multiple places in our universe?

 

 

I rather suspect what you are trying to describe is what is known as a source or sink, which is a point in a flow pattern where charge or material enters or leaves the manifold (often 2 dimensional) in question. This means that conservation laws are not observed, amongst other things.

 

For instance the outlet hole in your bath is a sink as the water exits the bath.

 

I think, perhaps, you are speculating that there are points like this in our universe that are connected to other 'universes'

 

How does that sound?

 

 

Is projective geometry and cartography not a form of overlap of dimensions?

Ah, okay. Good to know, I will keep that in mind for future posts. That is somewhat that I am trying to say, but did explain it a bit more in detail above.

 

We need some context here, so I will assume by singularity we are talking about the kind of singularities found in general relativity. The answer is no, we can and do have singularities that are not 'isolated points'. We have ring singularities for rotating black holes.

 

In higher dimensions (>4) we can have even more strange shapes for the singular regions.

 

 

 

 

Classically yes, but in reality people think that such singularities are not physically realised. At high curvatures near the singularity we expect general relativity not to be a 'good' theory. It is thought that a quantum theory of gravity will 'kick in' and regulate these singularities. But right now we do not have a full quantum theory of gravity and so it is hard to say much more.

 

 

 

Defining mass/energy of a space-time is not easy and in general there is no clear notion. But for things like black holes we have several working definitions that agree. In particular an isolated black hole has finite mass.

Alright, also good to know. Are black holes thought to have higher dimensions?

[ajb]

Are black holes thought to have higher dimensions?

I don't understand the question.

 

 

All I can say is that we have black hole (and more exotic things) as solutions to general relativity and supergravity in higher dimensions.

[BCphoton]

I don't understand the question.

 

 

All I can say is that we have black hole (and more exotic things) as solutions to general relativity and supergravity in higher dimensions.

Okay, that is basically what I was asking. Sorry about my poor wording, I had to finish my post up before leaving to go do some things.