5-th spacial dimension

• avemt1
In summary: But the real number of dimensions is infinite" In summary, this conversation is about a possible model for mathematical explanation of the tunneling properties of high-energy particles. The three original spatial dimensions are length, width, and height. What are the others? No names please. Also, I believe volume to be a dimension. Is it one in your five dimensional concept? The three original spatial dimensions are length, width, and height. What are the others? No names please. Also, I believe volume to be a dimension. Is it one in your five dimensional concept?

avemt1

I have been able to visuallize what a tesseract and its propperties look like. I then applied the same principal to a tesseract and came up with a hyper-tesseract with phase properties (the ability to access other planes of existence).
Is this a possible model for mathematical explanation of the tunneling properties of high-energy particles?

The three original spatial dimensions are length, width, and height. What are the others? No names please. Also, I believe volume to be a dimension. Is it one in your five dimensional concept?

The three original spatial dimensions are length, width, and height. What are the others? No names please. Also, I believe volume to be a dimension. Is it one in your five dimensional concept?
First, volume is the basically width, length, and height added together to make a consept. Which is what we call volume.

As of the fourth spatial dimension, its properties ar the directions 'in' and 'out.' It consists of the properties of phase.
To explain this we need to look at the tesseract and see how it moves.

Now draw a cube. Draw it a large size. Now, draw a small cube inside the large cube. Then connect the corresponding verteces. Congradulations! You have just drawn a tesseract.
Now go to this website to see how it moves.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~hjsmith/WireFrame4/tesseract.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
actually, volume could be a dimension. my proof is that you can have six 2-d plates, and put them together, and you have a cube with nothing in it. volume is a dimension.

actually, volume could be a dimension. my proof is that you can have six 2-d plates, and put them together, and you have a cube with nothing in it. volume is a dimension.
What do you mean 2-d plates? And the only way you can group them together is with a third dimensional line.

To explain volume as a dimension, think of an absolute empty three-dimensional area. Now, put six two dimensional plates, square, together, in the shape of a cube. The sides of the cube have no thickness, and also there is nothing inside, so you have a three-dimensional object. Now, add a dimension to the sides. Now you would have a four-dimensional object, the new dimension being volume, as that is a dimension given by constructing a visual three dimensional object out of three dimensional objects, instead of out of two dimensional ones.

A volume is a measurement of space. If you have space, you have volume. A cube with no matter inside still has volume.

back on the subject!..

I have been able to visuallize what a tesseract and its propperties look like. I then applied the same principal to a tesseract and came up with a hyper-tesseract with phase properties (the ability to access other planes of existence).

Originally posted by avemt1
I have been able to visuallize what a tesseract and its propperties look like. I then applied the same principal to a tesseract and came up with a hyper-tesseract with phase properties (the ability to access other planes of existence).
Is this a possible model for mathematical explanation of the tunneling properties of high-energy particles?
Each object in universe exist in its cycle of time or in its "spatial bubble” . These bubble become “filled with air” by energy (time) inherent to given object. The bubble of part is less than bubble of integer. Bubbles of different objects can interact. This interaction brings about to garbling the form of bubble, to merging of two or several, to division on two or several, in the same way to its destruction. Such pictures we can OBSERVE in surrounding us world.

Each object in universe exist in its cycle of time or in its "spatial bubble” . These bubble become “filled with air” by energy (time) inherent to given object. The bubble of part is less than bubble of integer. Bubbles of different objects can interact. This interaction brings about to garbling the form of bubble, to merging of two or several, to division on two or several, in the same way to its destruction. Such pictures we can OBSERVE in surrounding us world.
So you are saying that everything has its own area that corresponds spherically from the center point of the object.
And this area is filled with energy after it is created?

Originally posted by avemt1
So you are saying that everything has its own area that corresponds spherically from the center point of the object.
And this area is filled with energy after it is created?
Dear avemt1.
On my glance, have no sense to search for the truth about construction of universe in geometric buildings. The geometry is fit for economic and home using only. The people invented the notion "3-d space" because it is comfortable, graphically and enough for their practical use. However this simplification of realitie have provided in dead end.
We'll try to find output from it.
The Space and Energy which we observe around us, this result of the current of Time. The Spatial moving the object 1 to the object 2 does means the overcome of set "past time " object 2 up to his "present time", since the distance before the object in space is amount his past conditions at time, indeed. As well it known, this requires the expenseses of energy. The energy expense of object 1 on this work occurs in the manner of expenseses of his Time. This is not a distract time, this is Time Cycle (TC) of object, or in other words the time of life. The possible variant, when spents TC of not object 1 , but of connected with him of object 3, for instance, or group of object 3,4, 5... The possible variant of regeneration TC of object 1 for account TC of other object. It is uncomplicated to find the ensemble an example in our life, but I think there is no need to bring them here. I hope you find them by itself.

As of the fourth spatial dimension, its properties ar the directions 'in' and 'out

corroborating this...if we think about a cube we can notice that there are infinite number of squares between the opposite sides...therefore in 4th spatial dimension to connect one side of a hypercube to its opposite you need to use infinite number of cubes, that are 3 dimensional,...

there are infinite number of 'x' dimensional figures in an 'x+1' dimesional figure...

Now imagine that you are walking through a cube...you walk through an infinite series of square...they are infinite because they are devoid of the 1 extra dimension that the cube has...therefore...according to you...you don't know when you are entering a square and when you are leaving it...

similarly...for a being of fourth spatial dimension he will be entering a series of cubes but will not know when it began or end...its just like in and out...he doesn't know when he goes in and when he comes out...these are just my views...

Originally posted by Stranger
corroborating this...if we think about a cube we can notice that there are infinite number of squares between the opposite sides...therefore in 4th spatial dimension to connect one side of a hypercube to its opposite you need to use infinite number of cubes, that are 3 dimensional,...

there are infinite number of 'x' dimensional figures in an 'x+1' dimesional figure...

Now imagine that you are walking through a cube...you walk through an infinite series of square...they are infinite because they are devoid of the 1 extra dimension that the cube has...therefore...according to you...you don't know when you are entering a square and when you are leaving it...

similarly...for a being of fourth spatial dimension he will be entering a series of cubes but will not know when it began or end...its just like in and out...he doesn't know when he goes in and when he comes out...these are just my views...

You'll NEVER get the line 1D by using an infinity number of points 0D, you'll NEVER do not get a square 2D by using an infinity number of lines 1D, you'll NEVER do not get a cube 3D by using an infinity number of squares 2D.. etc. The Reason:

The Zero multiplied by Infinity is a ZERO.

Insofar I am informed this Law is not canceled yet.
Space is an illusion of Time.
Time dimensions exists only.

Time dimensions exists only

Are u sure of this...

The Zero multiplied by Infinity is a ZERO.

How do u fit this in the physical picture...

THe way I understand it: a solid shape can be divided infinately into smaller shapes of a lower dimension.
ex: cube/square= INFINITY

I do not understand the reasoning behind this.

Stranger and avemt1.
I do not think that I must explain you, why zero multiplied by infinity is a zero. Do address your teacher this question, please.

I do not think that I must explain you, why zero multiplied by infinity is a zero. Do address your teacher this question, please.

I tend not to participate much in these speculative threads because people's pet theories are often vastly different from the "establishment", and they often use common terms in ways vastly different than the conventional usage...

But so blatantly insulting the intelligence of others when you're not even right just screams for a response.

First off, there is exactly one commonly used number system that includes &infin; the extended real numbers. In the extended real numbers. In this number system, 0 * &infin is not defined. If we're doing a computation and we come to 0 * &infin, we call it an "indeterminate form" and we backtrack and reanalyze the problem so we can perform a different computation that avoids 0 * &infin.

Secondly, an n-cubical region most certainly can be written as the union of (n-1)-cubical regions. The equation is practically trivial given a rectilinear parametrization of the n-cube. Even more basic than that, any geometrical object is simply a set of points, so it is sheer absurdity to claim that you can't make a line out of points.

I do not think that I must explain you, why zero multiplied by infinity is a zero. Do address your teacher this question, please.

The Zero multiplied by Infinity is a ZERO.

All I asked was to interpret this physically...do you not agree that there are infinite number of squares between the opposite sides of a cube...thats the physical picture...moreover, we are not taking time as the 5th spatial dimension...

thats the physical picture...moreover, we are not taking time as the 5th spatial dimension...
yes, that is the point Time is seprate from space, but time makes space and without space there is no time. They are co-dependant.
Now:
A hyper tesseract with the properties of
'In front of' and 'behind'
Here is an example: crossing between mediums(universes). Although you would not know when you crossed the medium wall because you will stay , essentailly, in the same place. You would know how you got there. THis has nothing to do with a wormhole. It is something else. It is the barier that keeps us in this universe.

Hurkil

The vain accusations, Hurkil.
I just gave the good advice for boys . The School teacher must confirm that zero multiplied by any number is a zero, since this is written in all textbook and it is true.
I'll prove my statement now. Simultaneously, I'll prove you are not right.
First off, it is necessary to define what is a ZERO.
You speak of infinitely small value, which does gets as a result of division of any real number by infinity .
This value you do take as the zero. This value is computable with vague result already. If such zero multiplyed by infinity then is got a "indeterminate form" you are mentioning. Such result is predestined since a both multiplicands have "indeterminate form". Let's to identify such zero as " vague zero".
The True zero it is possible to compare to Black Hole capable to swallow all and herewith it remain absolutely unchangeable. Let such zero is identified "absolute zero".
Any a difference from absolute it is possible to consider as endless since this difference will not become absolute zero under any number of further actions of fission. For this reason your zero this not zero indeed.
You use the inverse sequence of actions.
You do not build the building from a zero point. You have take the ready building and disassemble it on bricks. Then you have split the bricks on a small pieces. Now, it is enough to declare that this a pieces has 0D (?) and through the sequence 0D--> 1D-->2D-->3D you have the ready building. Why only in this sequences (n-1) --->n? You have said "any geometrical object is simply a set of points". Signifies the sequence 0D-->nD is the most simple and consequently optimum for building.
However you must do the choice between two variants
1) You use an absolute zero. Obviously you buildes nothing .
2) You use a vague zero. The Result will be successful. Though building 3D object for instance, it will turn out to be executed from 3D component, indeed.
So.
You have a big mistake. At fission of nD object you have consider, one of dimensions does disappeared and he became an (n-1)D object. At building nD object from (n-1)D object , you are expecting a presence of the infinitely small, but different from absolute zero a components of nD object in (n-1)D object . You had used the notion "absolute zero" in the first situation , but in the second one the notion "vague zero".
Wrong! Try out to do all on the contrary. This will be faithfully.

Then we have:

- nD object can be divided on nD components ONLY.

- nD object can't be built from (n-1)D object. NEVER.

n- Dimension area consists of objects having n- Dimension only . It does not contain the other spatial dimensions inwardly.

This conclusions allows to make valid an explanation of construction of our universe.

The True zero it is possible to compare to Black Hole capable to swallow all and herewith it remain absolutely unchangeable. Let such zero is identified "absolute zero".
For some very odd reason my intutition says that this is not true
Then we have:
- nD object can be divided on nD components ONLY.
- nD object can't be built from (n-1)D object. NEVER
- Dimension area consists of objects having n- Dimension only . It does not contain the other spatial dimensions inwardly.
This is a very good point and my intutition has no problem with it.
BUT, this ius also the main problem with string theory
Have you considered the possibility of lower dimentions being made from higher dimmensional ripples?

My review of what's already been said:

Originally posted by Einstiensqd
actually, volume could be a dimension. my proof is that you can have six 2-d plates, and put them together, and you have a cube with nothing in it. volume is a dimension.

I completely and totally see this as an error. If you put those plates together, the space in between is just the third spatial dimension. Not a special dimension. You're telling me that an empty box (with sides assumed 2d) has a special 4th spatial dimension? No, when we say it's 45 X 32 X 89 we are just showing the three spatial dimensions. You're just completely misunderstanding something.

Originally posted by avemt1
I have been able to visuallize what a tesseract and its propperties look like. I then applied the same principal to a tesseract and came up with a hyper-tesseract with phase properties (the ability to access other planes of existence).

This seems to be just a mistake in dimensions. I see no evidence that you've done anything other than make a mistake. If you provide better evidence it can be answered.

Originally posted by avemt1
As of the fourth spatial dimension, its properties ar the directions 'in' and 'out

In and out is just verbiage. THis explains nothing. It's just another wording, I can walk in and out of my apartment, it's just three dimensions. I feel you are confusing yourself here into something that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I tend not to participate much in these speculative threads because people's pet theories are often vastly different from the "establishment", and they often use common terms in ways vastly different than the conventional usage...

But so blatantly insulting the intelligence of others when you're not even right just screams for a response.

Exactly how I feel. The majority of threads here speculate since disproven things, or are just mistakes the author didn't take the time to look at and RESEARCH before posting.

Originally posted by Stranger
do you not agree that there are infinite number of squares between the opposite sides of a cube...thats the physical picture...

You are wrong. Distance between two sides of a cube is let's say 16. If we want evenly sized cubes we must divide this space up between cubes. We could get, for distance of one of these cubes:

8, 4, 2, etc...

You are mistaking something so obvious.

This seems to be just a mistake in dimensions. I see no evidence that you've done anything other than make a mistake. If you provide better evidence it can be answered.
To defend myself I would need to know the mistake I made. Would you please be so kind to tell me?
In and out is just verbiage. THis explains nothing. It's just another wording, I can walk in and out of my apartment, it's just three dimensions. I feel you are confusing yourself here into something that doesn't exist.
In fact I was referring to the properties of the tesseract (the 4-d model). plus the wordage is irelivant in this case, science I am now providing definitions.
You are wrong. Distance between two sides of a cube is let's say 16. If we want evenly sized cubes we must divide this space up between cubes. We could get, for distance of one of these cubes:
I believe 16 can be devided by decimals.
Decimals are needed in this case.
Ex:16ft./3.2ft.=5ft.
The reason they are needed is if you used a different standard of measurement. You would be able to divide by more or less factors than you would get with just one standard.

Originally posted by avemt1
I have been able to visuallize what a tesseract and its propperties look like. I then applied the same principal to a tesseract and came up with a hyper-tesseract with phase properties (the ability to access other planes of existence).
Is this a possible model for mathematical explanation of the tunneling properties of high-energy particles?
http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/movie/details/0,6861,VID-V++++++920,00.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

What is the 5-th spacial dimension?

The 5-th spacial dimension is a theoretical concept in physics which suggests that there may be additional dimensions beyond the three dimensions (length, width, and height) that we are familiar with in our everyday lives.

How is the 5-th spacial dimension different from the three dimensions we experience?

The 5-th spacial dimension is different from the three dimensions we experience because it is not directly perceivable by humans. It is a mathematical construct used in certain theories to explain aspects of the physical world that cannot be explained by the three dimensions alone.

What is the significance of the 5-th spacial dimension in physics?

The 5-th spacial dimension is significant in physics because it is an important component in certain theories, such as string theory and M-theory, that aim to unify the fundamental forces of nature and reconcile the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

How can we imagine or visualize the 5-th spacial dimension?

Since the 5-th spacial dimension is not directly perceivable, it is difficult to imagine or visualize it. Some scientists use mathematical models and analogies to help conceptualize it, but ultimately, it remains a theoretical concept that may never be fully understood or visualized by humans.

Is there any evidence for the existence of the 5-th spacial dimension?

There is currently no direct evidence for the existence of the 5-th spacial dimension. However, some theories, such as string theory, suggest that the 5-th dimension may leave traces in observable phenomena, such as the behavior of particles at high energies. Further research and experiments are needed to test these theories and potentially provide evidence for the 5-th spacial dimension.