Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
Question about spatial dimensions
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
Re: Re: Question about spatial dimensions
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
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.
Again, it's not. A Planck time isn't an instant, it's simply the minimal interval of time measurable.
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)?
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
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.
Depending on the beyond the standard model you're using they may be just as significant as the Planck time unit.
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.
It's a subject of research.
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.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
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?
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.
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 11th, 2012 09:48 AM
