Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

NOTE: This probably has no factual basis in reality and is only a hypothetical construct.



Is it possible for one to assemble a 10D omniverse using this logic:

An n-dimensional line is a phase space (sample space) of all possible states of a n-1 dimensional system, with each point on the n-dimensional line being a phase point representing a possible state of the n-1 dimensional system

An n-dimensional line (thus every phase point on it) can be transversed on the n+1 dimension

0-Dimensional point

1-Dimensional line: phase space of 0-d system (point).
1D phase point-point

2-Dimensional plane: phase space of 1-d system (line)
2D phase point- line

3 Dimensional event: phase space of 2-d system (plane)
3D Event: position of all mass-energy and space in the universe in the span of one Planck Time
3D phase point-plane

4-Dimensional World-Line: phase point of 3-d system (every event (planck time) from big bang to end of universe)
4D World Line: world/universe
4D phase point- event

5-Dimensional probability space: phase space of a 4-d system (every world that is causually connected to current one)
5D Probability Space: multiverse
5D phase space-world/universe

6-Dimensional possibility space: phase space of a 5-d system (every possible 5D multiverse/ Every possible world that could exist under the set physical laws of the current world produced by the set initial conditions (big bang))
6D Possibility Space: megaverse
6D phase point-multiverse

7-Dimensional Infinity space: phase space of a 6-d system (every possible 6D megaverse/every possible worlds that could exist under all possible physical laws that could have possibly been produced by the set initial conditions (big bang))
7D Infinity Space: achanoverse (from Greek "achanis" meaning vast or cosmic)
7D phase point: megaverse

8-Dimensional Eternity space: phase space of a 7-d system (every possible 7D achanoverse/ Every possible world that could possibly exist under all possible laws of physics of all possible initial conditions/All possible physical existence)
8D Eternity Space: omniverse
8D Phase point: achanoverse

9-Dimensional God space: phase space of an 8-d system (every possible omniverse/Every possible world that could possibly exist, even those which could not exist under any physical conditions whatsoever and could only exist as abstract concepts/all concievable information states)
9D God Space: pantoverse
9D phase point: omniverse

10-Dimensional Titan Space: phase space of a 9-D system (every possible pantoverse/ Every world, even those not concievably possible)
10D Titan Space: apscoverse ( from Latin "apsconsus" meaning unknown)
10D phase point: pantoverse


How wrong is my reasoning here?

I see nothing wrong with anything you wrote.

So it's logically consistent?

Originally posted by Lestov16
NOTE: This probably has no factual basis in reality and is only a hypothetical construct.

Probably.

Want a real opinion? Send this to any theoretical astrophysicist. If you get a reply, please post it.

Does this help?

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

I tend to view higher dimensions as a matter of increasing perspective. Eg, by "rising" into a third dimension, we get perspective on the first two.

Everything you have listed after 3 isn't a spatial dimension.

They are orthogonal to the prior dimension though.

Originally posted by Lestov16
They are orthogonal to the prior dimension though.

Okay prove that probability is orthogonal to time...

Originally posted by Lestov16
So it's logically consistent? I didn't read any of it, tbh.

Originally posted by Lestov16
An n-dimensional line is a phase space (sample space) of all possible states of a n-1 dimensional system, with each point on the n-dimensional line being a phase point representing a possible state of the n-1 dimensional system
A line is a one-dimensional object, even if located n dimensions. A line can never span more than one dimension, even though it can have n coordinates.

So the proper term would be an n-dimensional body or n-dimensional hyper-body.

Originally posted by Lestov16
0-Dimensional point

1-Dimensional line: phase space of 0-d system (point).
1D phase point-point

2-Dimensional plane: phase space of 1-d system (line)
2D phase point- line
These are technically correct, though surface is a better term than plane because a plane doesn't have curvature, making it a general case of a surface.

Originally posted by Lestov16
3 Dimensional event: phase space of 2-d system (plane)
3D Event: position of all mass-energy and space in the universe in the span of one Planck Time
3D phase point-plane
This is incorrect.

You'd have a three-dimensional body, which primary subspace of integration (or phase point as you call it) would be a surface.

Furthermore you're implying the addition of a temporal dimension with your two spatial dimensions. I'd like to point out that energy (and matter) cannot exist without time, and that a Planck time isn't an infinitesimal measurement either. A Planck time is simply the smallest interval of time experimentally measurable, theoretically speaking there are smaller intervals of time.

Originally posted by Lestov16
4-Dimensional World-Line: phase point of 3-d system (every event (planck time) from big bang to end of universe)
4D World Line: world/universe
4D phase point- event

5-Dimensional probability space: phase space of a 4-d system (every world that is causually connected to current one)
5D Probability Space: multiverse
5D phase space-world/universe

6-Dimensional possibility space: phase space of a 5-d system (every possible 5D multiverse/ Every possible world that could exist under the set physical laws of the current world produced by the set initial conditions (big bang))
6D Possibility Space: megaverse
6D phase point-multiverse

7-Dimensional Infinity space: phase space of a 6-d system (every possible 6D megaverse/every possible worlds that could exist under all possible physical laws that could have possibly been produced by the set initial conditions (big bang))
7D Infinity Space: achanoverse (from Greek "achanis" meaning vast or cosmic)
7D phase point: megaverse

8-Dimensional Eternity space: phase space of a 7-d system (every possible 7D achanoverse/ Every possible world that could possibly exist under all possible laws of physics of all possible initial conditions/All possible physical existence)
8D Eternity Space: omniverse
8D Phase point: achanoverse

9-Dimensional God space: phase space of an 8-d system (every possible omniverse/Every possible world that could possibly exist, even those which could not exist under any physical conditions whatsoever and could only exist as abstract concepts/all concievable information states)
9D God Space: pantoverse
9D phase point: omniverse

10-Dimensional Titan Space: phase space of a 9-D system (every possible pantoverse/ Every world, even those not concievably possible)
10D Titan Space: apscoverse ( from Latin "apsconsus" meaning unknown)
10D phase point: pantoverse
This is jargon through and through.

It's as basic as this. For an n-dimensional space, you'd have an n-dimensional hyper-body, with a n-1 hyper-body as the primary subspace of integration for all n≥4.

Originally posted by Astner


It's as basic as this. For an n-dimensional space, you'd have an n-dimensional hyper-body, with a n-1 hyper-body as the primary subspace of integration for all n≥4.

Thank you very much

Also, I know of course that 5-10 are jargon, but are you sure about the 4d worldline?

Also, regarding 3D space, I know that the content of the universe can't exist without time, but that's I was considering a 3D object, on it's largest scale, to be the state of our universe in 1 planck time, as after that the content of the universe breaks down. In that Planck time state, one could measure the volume of every 3D object in the universe, or the 3D space of the universe itself. They could not measure the object relative to time, as time will be "paused" at the Planck time. Thus the object will not be moving in 4d spacetime, and can be measured purely based on it's 3D properties. Also, it would truly be the phase space of all possible 2D surfaces taht could possible manifest within that 3d object. This concept of viewing the 3d phase space of our universe as the state of the universe in one planck time also helps connect it to the 4th dimension, as a planck time would be the smallest possible measurement of an object moving in 4d spacetime, from the beginning of the BB to it's end.

This is why I asked if you were sure about my concept of a 4D worldline being incorrect

Originally posted by Lestov16
Also, I know of course that 5-10 are jargon, but are you sure about the 4d worldline?
The universe as described in general relativity is four dimensional with three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, where the temporal dimension denotes change in the coordinate system spanned by the three spatial dimensions.

A Planck time is simply the time it takes for light in vacuum to travel a Planck length, i.e. we're dealing with constants to deduce minimal measuring units. However, in a theoretical sense there are infinitely instants in a Planck time.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Also, regarding 3D space, I know that the content of the universe can't exist without time, but that's I was considering a 3D object, on it's largest scale, to be the state of our universe in 1 planck time, as after that the content of the universe breaks down. In that Planck time state, one could measure the volume of every 3D object in the universe, or the 3D space of the universe itself. They could not measure the object relative to time, as time will be "paused" at the Planck time.
Again, it's not. A Planck time isn't an instant, it's simply the minimal interval of time measurable.

What would you refer to the sum total of all 3D space in the universe in the span of an instant as?

Originally posted by Astner
A Planck time is simply the smallest interval of time experimentally measurable, theoretically speaking there are smaller intervals of time.1. Do these smaller intervals of time have meaning in theoretical aspects of the physical universe? I always imagined spacetime foam to froth at Planck intervals. That's too slow?

2. By "theoretical," you're saying subplanck time has mathematical connection to the universe-at-large, yes? Or is subplanck currently freethinking speculation?

3. If subplanck time (theoretically) exists, what about other subplanck units (eg, length, mass)?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Do these smaller intervals of time have meaning in theoretical aspects of the physical universe? I always imagined spacetime foam to froth at Planck intervals. That's too slow?

2. By "theoretical," you're saying subplanck time has mathematical connection to the universe-at-large, yes? Or is subplanck currently freethinking speculation?

3. If subplanck time (theoretically) exists, what about other subplanck units (eg, length, mass)?

Yes, this is what I mean. I thought Planck time was the shortest interval of time in which matter could exist, which is why I based the 3D measurement there. It's only in that timespan that an object is "paused" in the 4D and can be seen as a 3D object. It's the only "instant" that could exist, as any lower timespan would destroy the matter on both the 4D and 3D dimension.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What would you refer to the sum total of all 3D space in the universe in the span of an instant as?
One instant of the universe.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Do these smaller intervals of time have meaning in theoretical aspects of the physical universe?
Depending on the beyond the standard model you're using they may be just as significant as the Planck time unit.

Originally posted by Mindship
I always imagined spacetime foam to froth at Planck intervals. That's too slow?
The Planck time is defined as the time it takes to travel one Planck length traveling at the speed of light.

A Planck length, in turn, is the length where the Schwarzschild radius as a function of mass equals the Compton length as a function of mass.

Lengths less than the Planck length (whether they exist or not) that can't be measured in the standard model (quantum field theory), due to the effects of Heisenberg's generalized uncertainty principle where it breaks down at said lengths. Our models are incomplete. That's all there is to it.

But I don't understand from where you got the foam to froth. Because that has to be one of the most meaningless and unrelated illustrations of the Friedmann models I've ever heard.

Originally posted by Mindship
2. By "theoretical," you're saying subplanck time has mathematical connection to the universe-at-large, yes? Or is subplanck currently freethinking speculation?
It's a subject of research.

Originally posted by Mindship
3. If subplanck time (theoretically) exists, what about other subplanck units (eg, length, mass)?
The measures surely exists as they're mathematical, that's not the question, the question is if they have meaning as we cannot do these measurements according to the standard model.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yes, this is what I mean. I thought Planck time was the shortest interval of time in which matter could exist,
And you're wrong.

IDK about that. I think Planck time is a universal constant, and can be considered the "natural unit of time" for the universe, rather than a man-made measurement, because if light (and thus it's speed) is a universal physical constant, and Planck length is a universal physical constant, then why wouldn't Planck time (the time it takes light, the fastest possible object, to travel one planck length, the shortest possible distance) also be a universal physical constant?

If it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, is the reverse also not true? Isn't it not possible to move slower than light either?

Originally posted by Lestov16
IDK about that. I think Planck time is a universal constant, rather than a man-made measurement, because if light (and thus it's speed) is a universal physical constant, and it's length is a universal physical constant, then why wouldn't Planck time (the time it takes light, the fastest possible object, to travel one planck time, the shortest possible distance) also be a universal physical constant?
No, the Planck length and the Planck time are definitely constants, that's not the question. The question is regarding their significance.

All the Planck length and Planck time are, as far as the standard model is concerned, are the shortest units of length and time measurable.

Even so, half a Planck length and half a Planck time are definitely existing scales, you just wouldn't be able to make any meaningful measurements at those scales according to the standard theory.

Originally posted by Lestov16
IDK about that. I think Planck time is a universal constant, rather than a man-made measurement, because if light (and thus it's speed) is a universal physical constant, and Planck length is a universal physical constant, then why wouldn't Planck time (the time it takes light, the fastest possible object, to travel one planck length, the shortest possible distance) also be a universal physical constant?

The fact that the measure exists does not make it meaningful. Plank Units happen to be useful mathematical tool, however.

Originally posted by Lestov16
If it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, is the reverse also not true? Isn't it not possible to move slower than light either?

Obviously one can move slower than light. IIRC, massless objects must always move at the speed. I imagine Astner would know better than me, however.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that the measure exists does not make it meaningful, according to the standard theory. Plank Units happen to be useful mathematical tool constant in physics, however.
Fixed.

Also, it's important to know that the standard theory is fundamentally based on hypercomplex numbers in non-standard analysis. Where the infinitesimal units exist.

Let me put it this way, 1.5 Planck length (or time) units can be used for meaningful measurements.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously one can move slower than light. IIRC, massless objects must always move at the speed. I imagine Astner would know better than me, however.
Massless objects doesn't have to travel at the speed of light, it's just that if they didn't we wouldn't be able to detect these objects according to the standard model.

Wow, this is a man's thread.

Originally posted by Astner
No, the Planck length and the Planck time are definitely constants, that's not the question. The question is regarding their significance.

All the Planck length and Planck time are, as far as the standard model is concerned, are the shortest units of length and time measurable.

Even so, half a Planck length and half a Planck time are definitely existing scales, you just wouldn't be able to make any meaningful measurements at those scales according to the standard theory.

Exactly. This is what I mean. Measuring an object "paused" at one Planck time is the closest we can get to a 3D measurement inside the 4th dimension, as an object that is purely 3D doesn't exist in time, and thus wouldn't exist in our 4d universe.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Wow, this is a man's thread. http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2009/08/07/9kriepxyq0.jpg

Originally posted by Lestov16
Exactly. This is what I mean. Measuring an object "paused" at one Planck time is the closest we can get to a 3D measurement inside the 4th dimension,
No, it's the closest we could measure with the standard theory. It's not a pause, it's an interval on the space-time continuum just like a minute would be an interval on the space-time continuum.

Originally posted by Lestov16
as an object that is purely 3D doesn't exist in time,
Just because we can't measure it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

A dimensional construct is simply a mathematical model to explain and relate the laws of nature. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Astner
A dimensional construct is simply a mathematical model to explain and relate the laws of nature. Nothing more.

I understand what you mean. Would you happen to know anything about Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble theory?

Originally posted by Astner
Our models are incomplete. That's all there is to it. Yeah, bummer that.

Originally posted by Astner
But I don't understand from where you got the foam to froth. Because that has to be one of the most meaningless and unrelated illustrations of the Friedmann models I've ever heard.As much as I'd like to take credit for breaking new ground, I'm gonna blame google. Eg, if one googles 'quantum foam', you get stuff like...

http://www.universetoday.com/61011/quantum-foam/

Originally posted by Lestov16
I understand what you mean. Would you happen to know anything about Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble theory?
It's not a theory, it's a statement. An unverifiable hypothesis and a nonsensical one at that, as physics only describes how certain phenomena behave and relate to one another under managed conditions, and not why.

Originally posted by Mindship
As much as I'd like to take credit for breaking new ground, I'm gonna blame google. Eg, if one googles 'quantum foam', you get stuff like...

http://www.universetoday.com/61011/quantum-foam/
So what you meant was that since we can't measure it it doesn't exist? Yeah, that sounds like philosophical drivel to me.

Originally posted by Astner
So what you meant was that since we can't measure it it doesn't exist?Laddie, that's the last thing I'd be sayin'. Simply put, in a nutshell, I was looking for a context in which subplanck "made sense," theoretcially or otherwise -- and I don't mean like 1.5 Planck time, but something like 0.5 Planck time. Theoretically, what phenomena (if any) are being considered in that context (other than, say, the time it takes light to travel less than a Planck length)? Eg, how long does it take a virtual particle to pop into existence -- not appear/disappear, just appear?

Originally posted by Mindship
Laddie, that's the last thing I'd be sayin'. Simply put, in a nutshell, I was looking for a context in which subplanck "made sense," theoretcially or otherwise -- and I don't mean like 1.5 Planck time, but something like 0.5 Planck time. Theoretically, what phenomena (if any) are being considered in that context (other than, say, the time it takes light to travel less than a Planck length)?
Phenomena in quantum field theory? None.

Originally posted by Mindship
Eg, how long does it take a virtual particle to pop into existence -- not appear/disappear, just appear?
That depends on how you clock it as well as the initial conditions. Pair production is phenomena resulting from interactions with particles that are already there.

Originally posted by Astner
Phenomena in quantum field theory? None.What about the more 'esoteric' theories, for example, string or brane?

Btw, thanks for your answers. This stuff fascinates the hell out of me.

You mean quantum gravity theories, i.e. beyond the standard model?

In string theory specifically it you couldn't measure it because the frequency of the strings is one Planck length.

The ADD model implies smaller scales if that's what you're after.

Originally posted by Astner
You mean quantum gravity theories, i.e. beyond the standard model?Yes.

Originally posted by Astner
In string theory specifically it you couldn't measure it because the frequency of the strings is one Planck length.Noted.

Originally posted by Astner
The ADD model implies smaller scales if that's what you're after. It's a good place for me to start trying to wrap my head around this stuff (and likely fail miserably). Merci.

Would a 3D object be considered one at absolute zero?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Would a 3D object be considered one at absolute zero?
Yes, temperature doesn't affect the dimensionality of an object in any model. It would be a nonsensical extrapolation.