To see end of space, use 4D-21D glasses, will be available in 23rd century at Wall Mart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
I'm going to reserve mine now!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
It will be $199.95, free exclusive titanium carrying case if you order within 24hours, but wait, there is still more, how about a new holodeck black hole adventure program worth more than $99 for free <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Rather than the glasses, I want a brain plug-in that allows me to think in more than 3 dimensions! If we cannot see a boundary to the whole universe due to it being outside our observable universe, what good are glasses? Although if M-theory ends up being nearer the truth, we are going to need a 21 dimensional quantum tunneling electron microscope! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But seriously...<br /><br />As DanIKo implied, the "edge" we seek may end up being something like an event horizon. As he and others have said, it is doubtful that there is such a thing as a physical edge.<br /><br />An edge needs something beyond it, to define it.<br /><br />If the universe is, for instance, a region of space expanding in a void, there would be no edge between space and void. We are talking about an expanding dimensional space, with no dimensions anywhere but in that space. We cannot visualise this as a shape.<br /><br />A good model for it would be a 4 dimensional manifold, as used to model spacetime in general relativity.<br /><br />From that link:<br /><br />A manifold is an abstract mathematical space in which every point has a neighbourhood which resembles Euclidean space, but in which the global structure may be more complicated. In discussing manifolds, the idea of dimension is important. For example, lines are one-dimensional, and planes two-dimensional.<br /><br />In a one-dimensional manifold (or one-manifold), every point has a neighborhood that looks like a segment of a line. Examples of one-manifolds include a line, a circle, and two separate circles. In a two-manifold, every point has a neighborhood that looks like a disk. Examples include a plane, the surface of a sphere, and the surface of a torus.<br />-------------------------------<br /><br />So, with a four-manifold, would every point have a neighborhood that looks 4 dimensional (i.e. space-time)? If so, try coming up with an example of this <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
Well, this subject with the manifolds is a bit over my head! I'm sure the more I study it, the more I will be able to understand it. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
Is the universe folding in on itself a function of having mass and energy distorting space time, or is it a function of space time itself?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
This is how i see:<br />- A dot or a point has no value if it is measured in 1D<br />- A line has no value if it is measured in 2D<br />- A rectangle has no value if it is measured in 3D<br />- A cube has no value if it is measure in 4D....<br /><br />So our 3D way of seeing thing has no value to see 4D and above, because it takes an infinte 3D to make up a 4D <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
That's a little too deep for me! My understanding of these concepts doesn't reach <i> that </i> far (yet!). So take this particular post with a pinch of salt!<br /><br />To me, what you are asking is if the "folding in on itself" is a function of (which basically means to be caused by) mass/energy distorting space-time, or is a function of (caused by) space-time itself.<br /><br />Whether there is a difference between folding in on itself (your phrase) and curving dimensionally back on itself (my phrase) I'm not sure.<br /><br />I think I'm saying the opposite to both your suggestions. I'm suggesting that the way space-time works (including the way mass/energy distort it), is all a function of (caused by) the conditions set up when the universe came into being (which includes how it is set up, dimensionally). Surely how the dimensions are set up affects what occurs, rather than the other way round?<br /><br />As with most of my posts, and in case anyone hadn't noticed <font color="orange"> I'm working through all this/failing to understand all this/making all this up* </font>as I go along you know!<br /><br /><font color="orange"> *(delete as applicable) </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
Hi speedfreek<br />re:<br />"As with most of my posts, and in case anyone hadn't noticed I'm working through all this/failing to understand all this/making all this up* as I go along you know! "<br /><br />Me too. Sorry about the incorrect terminology. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Cheer up <font color="blue"><b>lukman</b></font>- it's not so desperate <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />I'll give an example to be more encouraging:<br /><br /><b>Q:</b> How 2D people could find out if their plane world is an equi-plane or spheri-plane world ?<br /><b>A:</b> By building triangle (a big one). Three straight lines that intersect - then measure the triangle's angles and if the sum of angles is:<br />1) 180 deg - they have an equi-plane world (absolutely flat)<br />2) more than 180 deg - they have a spheri-plane world ( live on hill )<br />So - they sense the third dimentional distortion of their 2D world despite they could not see 3D.<br /><br /><b>Q:</b> How 3D people (us) could find out if their space is an equi-space of condensi-space world ?<br /><b>A:</b> By building pyramid (a big one). Six straight lines that intersect - then calculate the pyramid's volume by it's edges, then measure the pyramid's volume by filling it with water <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />) :<br />1) calculate = measured volume - they have an equi-spase world (absolutely undistorted - nothing to worry)<br />2) calculate < measured volume - a condensi-space world (gravitationally condensed space - start to worry)<br />3) calculate <<< measured volume - a singularity-space world (black hole neighbourhood - panic !!!)<br />So - they sense the forth dimention distortion of their 3D world despite they could not see 4D.<br /><br />Happy END.
Hi <font color="blue"><b>speedfreek</b></font>- I greatly appreciate your efforts of thinking and discussing.<br /><br />The question of the Dimentions and the Matter is almost as the question of the chicken and the egg - which is first and which follows ?<br /><br />My personal preferences are to think that any volume of Matter creates it's Space-Time in it's surroundings. Wherever there is Matter - there will be Space&Time. Besides we only could measure Space&Time with Matter (laser rays, atomic clocks, etc.)<br /><br />So if we get back to the main question: <font color="orange"><b>Space ends where Matter ends.</b></font>/safety_wrapper>
Interesting. Maybe it could be the other way round as you say.<br /><br />This is moving into the realms of semantics and polarised thinking now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Wherever there is Matter - there will be Space&Time. </font><br /><br />Of course. How can matter exist without space and time to exist within. But.. the question is, can there be space or time without matter?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Besides we only could measure Space&Time with Matter (laser rays, atomic clocks, etc.) </font><br /><br />But we also measure matter with space and time! (How big is it? How fast is it moving?)<br /><br /><font color="orange"> <b> Space ends where Matter ends. </b> </font><br /><br />If space is homogenous and istotropic that could well be the case. Except maybe the word "ends" isn't the best way to describe it. Maybe space and matter are both finite and have no boundary. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow"> But.. the question is, can there be space or time without matter? </font><br /><br />hmmm, this is a brain buster <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I suppose if we assume that space has physical dimensions, and that it can exist if time exists along with it, then we might be able to say that space and time can exist without matter. <br /><br />Take the expansion of space as an example. Is there physical matter that is causing the fabric of space to expand? If it is just the dimensions of space expanding, then matter shouldn't have anything to do with its existence. I believe you are right when you say that matter can't exist without space and time, but can space and time exist without matter? <br /><br />That of course is the question you asked to begin with <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Space and time are such mysterious things. We exist in a perceivable 3-dimensional space, but we know that space itself exists in at least 4 dimensions, we just can't exactly sense the 4th. Of course, it is also possible that the universe, or the particles and quantum laws that govern it, exists in many many dimensions. <br /><br />As I forgot to mention in my thread about "What the Bleep do we Know!?", at the end they have a short thing about dimensions. They take a look at a world that is flat, existing in only 2 dimensions. Then the people of the 2D land start to panic when a being of 3 dimensions comes in to play. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
Well DanIKo, i trust you <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> but it is too deep to me, i am a commerce degree holder not a quantum scientist 
<br /><br />Can i just have my 4D-21D glasses? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br />Can i just have my 4D-21D glasses? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Another question, what if we somehow be able to see, feel and enter beyond 3D, not too far, say 4D. What will the advantage leads us too? What goodness can it does to the mankind? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Good question! Here's my view.. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />Well, to get an idea of what advantages or benefits being able to see (comprehend), feel (manipulate) and enter (independently travel through) more than three dimensions, let's go back a dimension or two! <br /><br />In a two dimensional expanding universe with no edge (the surface of an expanding sphere), there is no up or down. An observer who lived in the surface of that sphere could only see or move across the surface of the sphere in two dimensions. To understand what their universe was, they would have to discover it had no edge by travelling right round it until they returned to their starting point.<br /><br />But if they could suddenly see a third dimension (up and down), they could see outside the sphere and inside the sphere. If they could move outside the sphere they could see its shape. If the dimension outside the sphere allowed different forms of travel, they could use an alternative route to other places on the sphere. If they moved in a straight line inside the sphere they would find short cuts to places on the other side that would have taken far longer to reach across the surface.<br /><br />So now hopefully you can see what kind of advantage it would give us! We might be able to comprehend the overall shape of the universe, to travel through time, or to take short cuts across the universe using another dimension. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
That is what i thought, i agree with you, the time we conquer dimension above 3D, here comes star trek and star gate... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Hi All,<br /><br />Remember this is about the "Visible" universe. Only what can be seen. For all we know, the visible universe may only be a small percentage of what is really out there. Maybe it is just our own little part that is expanding and beyond it there is a whole lot more. Maybe our universe that we see is just one grain of sand on a very large beach. The distance may be so great that it never did have a beginning and will never have and end because it just "is". The whole concept can be so overwhelming to my small but curious mind.
Hi there trw66, and welcome to SDC! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />That's a great first post!<br /><br />Yes, we really don't know what more there is or what more there can be. It overwhelms my small monkey-based mind, for sure! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
That is certainly a very profound way of looking at the dimensions of our universe, Speedfreak <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />However, would going from a 3D world, to a conceivable 4D world, be the same as going from 2D to 3D? Basically, in a 2D world, everything can be plotted on X and Y coordinates. In a 3D world, everything can be plotted on X,Y, and Z coordinates. So how would we see things in 4 dimensions? <br /><br />4th dimension is expressed as space and time being tangled together in spacetime. The force that we see, known as gravity, is really just an expression of the fact that spacetime is curved.<br /><br />So could we say that we can somewhat sense the 4th dimension? If we were actually able to perceive the 4th dimension, would we still see gravity in the same way that we do now? <br /><br />If we are speaking in terms of 4th dimension, a planet is traveling as straight as it can go, but due to the curvature of spacetime from the Sun, it appears to us as having a circular orbit. From the planet's point of view, it's not necessarily traveling in a circle, it is traveling in a straight line, in one single direction, forward. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
well I definitely don't see gravity the way I used to.<br /><br />but sometimes I refer to our local universe as 'this dimension'when I'm really<br />grouping 3 or 4 at a time.<br /><br />There really could be so many advantages to learning about all these things<br /><br />I think the human mind will have the first and most important part in scientific development directly pertaining to extra-dimensional processes.<br /><br />That seems to always happen, like If I sat down with the cavemen scientists and we were discussing building little boxes so a caveman could talk to another caveman<br />100 miles away with unlimited minutes. We would have thought a cellphone would never exist.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Or paerhaps, those above 3D stuff is an excuse for scientist been unable to explain the unexplainable. Good excuse though, waiting for someone like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton in the future.<br /><br />Anyway, stargate, warp speed and stuff utiliizing dimensions have been a great sell in science fiction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Space end where matter ends. YES, speedfreek I think that is correct because there is no electrical reason to go beyond. See part1 of Magnoflux Universe for more details.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
-
-
SpaceX's big year: The new records and feats Elon Musk's space company achieved in 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Star Wars: Skeleton Crew' episode 5: What's hidden inside Skull Ridge Mountain?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram