Question about fourth and fifth spatial dimensions

Post Reply New Topic

Ive heard the fourth and fifth dimensions described as 'tiny', and 'rolled up'. That particles trying to move along them is like a golf ball being sucked through a water hose.

That is an unsatisfactory description, to say the least. Can one of my fellow nerds please explain to me these concepts?

The fourth dimension was explained by Carl Sagan. Go on Youtube and look up "Carl Sagan 4th dimension."

2 parter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o

Cant listen to the sound of the video at work, but I suspect thats not what Im asking about (the graphics might be misleading). I saw the one with Sagan talking about a cube being the shadow of a Tesseract when I was a child.

Im okay with N Euclidean dimensions. Im asking about the specific 4th and 5th non-standard spatial dimensions predicted in current models of particle physics.

As far as I am aware, time is the 4th dimension, is it not?
As dimensions are little more than coordinates used in location and description of mass and movement within time-space.

I have read a couple of the books on string and M-Theory, and have heard the explanations of these 'tiny, coiled up dimensions', but even mathematically these theories tend to break down at just about the same point, no matter which theory is tested.
If there is a tiny coiled up dimension within these other 4 dimensions, does it and all within it not still exist within the classic 4? And yes, I'm aware that space can be warped, that's no excuse lol
Anything beyond the classic, 4 dimensional model of space-time is to my mind the same kind of mental gymnastics that the organized religions use to explain away the conflicts that exist within their respective doctrines.

The aim of these theories is to find the Single Theory, the Unified Field Theory.
But I believe that where these theories fail is not in lack of extra dimensions, but lack of understanding/real explanation of the true nature of infinity, and misunderstandings about the way from which order is derived from chaos.

Infinity means infinity in scale.
You can keep on looking down smaller and smaller forever and ever, it truly never ends.
You can also keep looking up bigger and bigger, that never ends also.
Infinity is chaos. In order for there to be real true infinity, then every single possibility must exist, and that generates the inevitability that within that infinite chaos, at some point order or the semblance of order will take place by chance, over and over again, on every possible scale.

We are all aware I'm sure how the 117 known elements were created from supernova stars exploding after the big bang, and the resultant and the resultant exploded matter getting into other supernova stars and et cetera.
And we are aware that the atomic number of each element represents its atomic weight.

I say to you that in infinite, non-linear time, there are an infinite number of elements, some of which are infinitely heavy. This weight so warps space as to create more big bangs, creating more of the same, and moving bits of matter and space its self at infinite speeds even, even faster than 186,282 miles per second, which most people consider to be the universe's speed limit.

Even within the realm of an infinite number of infinities, with never-ending brane-type non-linear time, the location and duration of any given point can still be explained 4-dimensionally by 'stepping out larger' than all these infinities together, or shrinking your perception to only include local data within just one of them. Either way, same result. Anything else is to my mind mental gymnastics

That is not what infinity means. Read up on the cardinality of infinity (aleph numbers), the quanta of space and time (Planck time & space), or even just l'Hôpital's rule and the basic calculus of infinitesimals to get a better idea of why the premise behind what you said was borked.

In fact, you just demonstrated the principle of explosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, I will read about those things that you have mentioned

I don't think I explained what I was thinking properly, I apologize for I am not at all a mathematician or aquainted with algebra or complex mathematical equations.
What I meant to express is that to my mind, it seems that perception can go down ifninitely smaller for ever, and infinitely larger as well. It has been quite a while since I have read any quantum physics stuff, but I do still find it very interesting. Planck time & space basically says that a Planck is as small as it goes, right? I apologize again if that's not what it means, like I said, it's been awhile (but the reason I continue to post here is because I am very interested in learning). So if what I said about infinite measure of scale is the theory of explosion, and there is now a limit upon how small you can go (which I don't buy), is there then a limit also to how big?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, Im okay with R[sup]n[/sup] euclidean space, what Im not okay with is the implication of these extra, 'tiny, rolled up' dimensions that Ive only ever heard nebulously, patronizingly described on TV programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are what I was originally trying to say that I don't agree with, basically that they and everything within them still must exist within the classic 4-d model, but I think I must have gotten a little side-tracked. That happens to me quite a bit.

I apologize for posting my opinion, based upon casual knowledge and in layman's terms, in a thread full of people who are clearly more educated on the subject than I am. I did not have the intention of trying to prove anyone wrong, or to try and be a know it all. I have a pretty clear picture in my mind, but the words are foggy for me. I enjoy reading all of your thoughts on the subject, and if it is ok, could you guys try and use analogies to explain some of the more complex things when you are posting them?
It makes it easier to understand for people like me, who are not classically educated in mathematics beyond a Jr. High/High School level to understand, and I do want to understand.

I really am sorry if my first post in here came off as snarky or something, that's really not the way I intended it, maybe I got a little excited, because anytime I talk to anybody I know about stuff like this, they seem to just shut down and not care about it at all, as if knowing how things really work is not necessary at all.

Thanks guys all of you, and please keep posting on subjects like this, and providing links to where I can get more, I am eager to learn as much as I can

@huggs

Just to clarify, Im not trying to be rude.

Okay, forget what I said earlier. Stop reading books about string theory. (I know its exciting!) Instead, read books about Algebra. Then, learn Trigonometry. Then, learn Calculus. From there, learn Differential Equations and Linear Algebra. The khanacademy.com is by far the best resource available to you.

[sup]n[/sup] is supposed to make n appear as a superscript - as an exponent. R with an exponent of n means n dimensions, because R means "the set of real numbers", which is used to describe your position on that dimension. Basically, every dimension that everyone has been talking about (and youve ever dealt with in real life) is Euclidean - it just means that triangles still have 180 interior degrees, and things like that.

There is no classic 4d model, unless you mean Minkowski spacetime (basically, 3d space + 1d time + relativity).

@Death_of_Pathos:

No, I didn't think you were being rude at all. I actually really appreciate you clarifying things for me, because like you said, most math teachers suck at teaching math.
If anything, I felt like I was being rude by posting in a thread that is to be honest, a little over my head. It's like when noobs go on a developer's website and post things like "I did everything you described in such and such thread, and now my computer won't boot. Please help me"
That drives me nuts, and it's pretty much the same as what I did.
Devs are doing some pretty advanced stuff, and won't have time to do that stuff if they have to help every noob who corrupts their bootloader.

I am only High-School educated, and to be honest, I only paid attention to things I was interested in at school.
I asked every math teacher I ever had where pi came from, and none of them could ever give me the answer. They were frickin' math teachers, come on!! Well thank god for them internets, right?
That kind of thing is probably a huge part of why I never pursued really any further knowledge of math.
But your responses have inspired me to learn more, and I thank you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some reading to do...

Phrases like "tiny" and "rolled-up" are used to dumb down something that would otherwise require a lot of mathematics to explain. It's probably something that you can only truly understand if you study it in-depth, and this means studying something beyond the level of Discovery Channel and Scientific American.

For an example of extra dimensions see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2% ... ein_theory

The Kaluza-Klien theory postulated a compact (basically rolled up) 4-th spatial dimension in addition to the three usual spatial dimension and the time dimensions to give a total of five dimensions. The idea was to provide some extra "room" so that the equations of general relativity (pertaining to gravitation) and the equations of electrodynamics could be derived from the same theory.

Kaluza Klein failed because it predicted effects that were nowhere observed, but it was a forerunner of some of the more modern string and brane theories.

ruveyn

I was wondering a few weeks back: is there any possibility that we live in the rolled up dimensions of some other... space?