Originally posted by @sonhouse The question then would be if we ever developed the capability of bouncing to higher dimensions, could we find a universe like ours with its own set of galaxies strung out like Christmas beads and each galaxy with a pantheon of stars and planets some of which are exactly like Earth, in that it is in the goldilocks zone, has lots of water and a diverse livi ...[text shortened]... in and go 30 flights up and find a totally alien universe.
Maybe in a few hundred years.....
You should find a Science Fiction Forum somewhere and go on speculate there.
You mix microdimensions with universal dimensions like a grocery store. You invent dimensions at ease with no scientific backing. You know the solution and then try to adapt universe to meet you ideas. Theologians do that, not scientists. Perhaps SF writres but they can invent any theory (guessing) fitting their ideas. Like subspace, faster then light transportation, time travels.
Our universe has three macro dimensions, not four. If you dispute this, please show me a direction that is ortogonal with the three usual ones.
There are no evidence for a bubble multiverse of yours. Pure fantasies.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas Our universe has three macro dimensions, not four. If you dispute this, please show me a direction that is ortogonal with the three usual ones.
Originally posted by @sonhouse The question then would be if we ever developed the capability of bouncing to higher dimensions, could we find a universe like ours with its own set of galaxies strung out like Christmas beads and each galaxy with a pantheon of stars and planets some of which are exactly like Earth, in that it is in the goldilocks zone, has lots of water and a diverse livi ...[text shortened]... in and go 30 flights up and find a totally alien universe.
Maybe in a few hundred years.....
Sadly, the fields on the Brane are non-detactable in these theories, so I don't think they are going to allow a jump into hyperspace.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas Three [b]spatial universal dimensions. Time is a temporal dimension.[/b]
What's the difference? Up to a sign in the metric there isn't much. We perceive a huge difference, but that seems to be connected with entropy and memory storage rather than anything intrinsic to the dimension.
Originally posted by @deepthought What's the difference? Up to a sign in the metric there isn't much. We perceive a huge difference, but that seems to be connected with entropy and memory storage rather than anything intrinsic to the dimension.
Spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions - surely you know the differences?
Originally posted by @fabianfnas God, you don't know?
You don't know the difference between "when" and "where"?
Suppose I am in a space ship moving close to the speed of light relative to you. Along the direction of travel there is an event you see at time t and position x in your frame of reference. I see the same event at time T and position X. The coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform:
T = g(t - vx/c)
X = g(x - vt)
Where g = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
So my time coordinate has some of your time coordinate and some of your space coordinate mixed together. If space like and time like dimensions were essentially different this would not be possible.
Originally posted by @deepthought Suppose I am in a space ship moving close to the speed of light relative to you. Along the direction of travel there is an event you see at time t and position x in your frame of reference. I see the same event at time T and position X. The coordinates are related by a Lorentz transform:
T = g(t - vx/c)
X = g(x - vt)
Where g = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c) ...[text shortened]... . If space like and time like dimensions were essentially different this would not be possible.
And this has to do with... eh, what?
If I ask you where you are born, then you would happily answer "half past three"?
When I ask you when you are born, then an answer like "In the area of Boston" would be correct?
What has the Lorentz transform to do with where and when someone is born?
Originally posted by @sonhouse You do know he has a Phd in physics right?
Which in itself doesn't prove I'm right, for one thing I think a few physicists might take issue with my point. What I've said is true within the theory of relativity, but doesn't totally fit with quantum mechanics, and it is QM that gives us our intuitive notion of time - in the sense I was talking about in the above post with rates of chemical reactions controlling our perception of time passing.
Also a presentist (the universe has 3 dimensions, there is no past or future, there is just the present) would take issue with the externalism (past present and future all exist and are fixed) of general relativity. For the record I lean towards possibilism - the past and present exist, the future doesn't, at least in any fixed kind of way.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas Phd, well, but no idea how to explain things.
I'm not going to explain anything at all if you are going to be impolite about it.
You cannot add a gallon of water to 15° Celcius, it makes no sense. If you can mix coordinates in the way the Lorentz transform does then the dimensions must be similar enough to do that.
Originally posted by @deepthought I'm not going to explain anything at all if you are going to be impolite about it.
You cannot add a gallon of water to 15° Celcius, it makes no sense. If you can mix coordinates in the way the Lorentz transform does then the dimensions must be similar enough to do that.
I'm still waiting for the explanation why you synonymize 'when' and 'where'.
Don't bring up Lorentz, because this is way out of context.
I do recognize your knowledge about science.
But when it comes to explaining things, your not so good.
Time before the Big Bang?: evidence.
07 Sep '18 03:37
Back to Top