if 4d was time,
then could every point in 5d (or what ever) be something like all alternate universe with every existing at at all points in time and space, overlapping infinite times?
It would be like in movies where every event that occurs, no matter how small, results in infintly different 4d worlds.
also just to mention it,
does anyone else think (at least for a second of normal human earth time) that if you knew all positions and velocities and other influenceing things in 3D in the universe, could you work out an equation that would exactly know where any thing in the universe would be at any point in time?
This could include things like how a person would make a decision for something because you''d know how all positions of all things in a persons brain and where they would be in the next time frame and so on....
I wonder if anyone gets what was just said or if it will be dismissed like all else
4D Sphere
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
if 4d was time, then could every point in 5d (or what ever) be something like all alternate universe with every existing at at all points in time and space, overlapping infinite times? It would be like in movies where every event that occurs, no matter how small, results in infintly different 4d worlds.
This is a result of the uncertainty principle, of which there are two main interpretations. Wheeler''s many-worlds theory states that the alternate versions of the universe exist in distinct spacetimes, whilst the Cophenhagen (sp?) interpretation states that the other versions of the universe exist in the same
spacetime. A requirement of the many-worlds theory is that there are an almost infinite number of dimensions - for each ''quantum decision'' that a particle makes, another dimension is spawned. Each dimension is at right angles to every other dimension.
quote:
also just to mention it, does anyone else think (at least for a second of normal human earth time) that if you knew all positions and velocities and other influenceing things in 3D in the universe, could you work out an equation that would exactly know where any thing in the universe would be at any point in time?
Not according to quantum theory. Quantum theory states that this wouldn''t be possible because not even the particles themselves know their positions and velocities at the same time. Even if you did know everything about everything, you still wouldn''t know what they were going to do tomorrow because the behaviour of things at the quantum level is truly random.
Personally, I don''t believe that it will be possible to prove that the quantum level is truly random. It may be, or it may be caused by deterministic actions occuring layers below the quantum level; it is my opinion that the universe is fractal.
To predict the behaviour of an object, you''d need to store information about everything within its past light cone during the time at which you record the information about everything.
The first issue is that I must use a physical process to measure everything, and that physical process must take place within the past light cone of the object (otherwise I''d have to violate locality). If I use a machine to measure the position of a particle, everything within the future light cone of my machine will be affected: which might include some particles I''ve already measured. We can counter this by making sure we also record information about the measuring machine, so that we can factor that in when simulating the behaviour of whatever it we''re simulating.
The second issue is that the information store must be in the past light cone of the object: the measuring machine must be, so the store must be, otherwise we''d have to violate locality to get the data to it (i.e. we''d have to send information faster than light). Because the information store is in the past light cone of the object (and thus can affect what the object does) we must also hold information about the information store. However, where are we going to hold the information? We can''t keep it in the information store, because we''re already storing the information about the rest of the light cone in there. We could add extra storage to hold the information, but then we''d have to store the information that describes that extra storage somewhere.
quote:
This could include things like how a person would make a decision for something because you''d know how all positions of all things in a persons brain and where they would be in the next time frame and so on....
You don''t have to know the quantum arrangement of somebody''s brain to predict what they''ll do. It should be enough to know the arrangement of neurons and the information they hold to predict their actions. Of course, it may be that the operation of the brain is dependent upon quantum effects, but I certainly don''t experience my actions as being random.
Just Plain Wrong
Logically, the forth dimension is more likely probability. Where an alternate universe exists for every action.l If it was time, there is no way to go backwards. In alternate universes more then one direction exists. Just as with every other dimension. (Unless you believe that time travel is possible ,.... hmmmmm)
quote:Original post by Guenhwyvar
Logically, the forth dimension is more likely probability
Yes, but the fifth, sixth, and seventh dimensions are improbability!
Please do not say you cannot go back in time as if it were fact. That is very much open to debate.
a lot of you are saying time is an object. Time doesn''t exist. We as humans want to always compare everything to something and always making up measurements. Well, when we thought of time, we didn''t have a measurement for it so we made it up. The problem is that time doesn''t exist. You cannot say that a sphere that changes over time is a 4d object. Now you might say what about clocks. Well again, time doesn''t exist so they are not measuring time. They are really just counting at a certain rate. Well what about rate you ask. Rate, such as miles per hour, isn''t even existant. Aww gosh. Just think about it.
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Just if you wanted to know, time is not a dimension. Wheras the three spatial dimensions have centain symetries, time can only flow in one way, or it would counteract a fundamental law of the universe (2nd law of thermodynamics).
Not strictly true. Hawking (and Penrose I believe) proved that in a contracting space-time the second law of thermodynamics was violated and that as a consequence, times arrow must be reversed. So, time does have different directions, just like a spatial dimension. Unfortunately though, because we are observing a rate of change of entropy, we are restricted to observing times arrow flowing in only one direction at any instance.
The problem that many seem to be having is arguing over the difference between a 4-sphere in Euclidean space as opposed to a 3-sphere in space-time and thinking that they can compare apples and oranges. Let''s get it clear: they are NOT the same object. Why? Because space-time is non-Euclidean.
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Ignore the fact that distance has no ''intuitive'' reasoning behind it at dimensions higher than 3 [...]
Distance still works in spaces with more than 3 dimensions. It is still measured in terms of the metric for that space. It''s just harder to visualise.
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
[...] pythagourus rule still works (or rather is defined to calculate distance)
...only in Euclidean spaces.
Timkin
But time IS a dimension, and it can be measured.
Why else spacetime ?
Whethere there is a multi-verse is open to mathematical doubt.
I don`t know.
Why wont d=sqrt((p1-p2)^2) work in non-eucalidian space ?
I came, I saw, I got programmers block.
~V''''lion
Why else spacetime ?
Whethere there is a multi-verse is open to mathematical doubt.
I don`t know.
Why wont d=sqrt((p1-p2)^2) work in non-eucalidian space ?
I came, I saw, I got programmers block.
~V''''lion
quote:Original post by Timkin
Hawking (and Penrose I believe) proved that in a contracting space-time the second law of thermodynamics was violated and that as a consequence, times arrow must be reversed.
A contracting space-time? Not to be argumentative or anti-intellectual, but isn''t this just mathematical mumbo jumbo? I mean, are there any areas like this near New Jersey? Or at least somewhere on Earth? I''d love to see it, and I know Hawking and Penrose are geniuses, but all this talk of dimensions and space-time and whatnot is getting more and more ridiculous. There are many many theories, and some of them sound pretty nice for the background to a good sci-fi novel, but in reality we just don''t know; how can you guys debate this as if any of them are real and provable?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
