Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime

  1. Jan 25, 2012 #1
    How viable is 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with the extra 4 dimensions in the imaginary plane. This is said to give mechanism for quantum entanglement because doing a Pythagorean calculations can make the distances 0. See:

    http://whyentanglement.com/ [Broken]

    reviewed by Ken Renshaw
    Ken Renshaw was Chief Scientist at Hughes Aircraft where he was a satellite systems designer and program manager.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 25, 2012 #2
    No. No it cant. And that webpage is outrageously, and offensively, stupid.

    Lets look at some excerpts from the first page:

    Not only are there no sources cited, but both the biology and chemistry proposals are absolutely ludicrous. There is definitely no experiment that has teleported DNA. And if species navigate using entanglement (which makes zero sense by itself), we sure as hell wouldn't know about it.

    Horribly improper grammar, and just poor sentence construction.

    The way geometry works is that if you're separated in at least one dimension, you're separated overall. You can't have a lesser separation overall than in any one dimension.

    And is the fact that this guy was an airplane engineer supposed to give him credence in theoretical physics?!
     
  4. Jan 25, 2012 #3
    Wait, that person was just presenting the paper "Superluminal transformations in complex Minkowski spaces" peer reviewed in the Foundations of Physics

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980FoPh...10..661R

    So try to attack the concept of 8-dimensional spacetime with the 4 as imaginary plane. It's like a person that tries to present Dirac Equation by saying the Dirac Sea is real and out there or inhabited by fairies, it doesn't mean the Dirac Equation is wrong, just his misunderstanding. So please try to comment on the 8-dimensional spacetime part, another paper was in the same page you visited at the bottom of it..
     
  5. Jan 25, 2012 #4
    The current explanation for entanglement is that when particles become entangled, they occupy different 3 dimensional coordinates but occupy the same 4-5 dimensional coordinates. To me there isn't anything particularly wrong with that notion, many other theories predict the existence of higher dimensions.
     
  6. Jan 25, 2012 #5
    That's just not true...
     
  7. Jan 25, 2012 #6
    Entanglement is proven to exist, and the only way for it to happen without breaking the foundations of relativity is for what my other post was saying to be true.
     
  8. Jan 25, 2012 #7
    Well, it requires traveling faster than c in some of those dimension.
    It goes backwards in time in at least one temporal direction, and by symmetry it seems like that should include the standard time coordinate (but they don't comment).
    Otherwise I don't get much of the details, but its entirely un-motivated, and aesthetically ugly.

    This is actually an offshoot of much earlier (better) work called 'Twister theory' that (I think) Penrose started. I think standard twister theory is still 4D (kind-of) but makes those 4 dimensions complex (thus 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary). I think twister theory preserves causality by restricting the types of lorentz boosts (which this paper abandons).
     
  9. Jan 25, 2012 #8
    Entanglement does exist. The rest is false. Cite your sources.
    Also, entanglement doesn't violate relativity.
     
  10. Jan 25, 2012 #9
    Entanglement would violate relativity because if nothing can travel faster than light, then without extra dimensions it would imply information is traveling faster than light.

    I suppose it's just theoretical that it needs extra-dimensions, but black holes are also still theoretical as no one has actually observed them directly, people have only observed what their expected mathematical properties should do to matter.
     
  11. Jan 25, 2012 #10
    Yes, I heard many physicists are looking into higher dimensional space like 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary (or complex). The only difference is that they don't propose that it can explain entanglement? But is the Pythogorean theorem when applied to the 4 real and 4 complex spacetime equal to zero true at all? Just focus on this. The web illustrates it for laymen but the latter half is from a paper not written by him at all.
     
  12. Jan 25, 2012 #11
    I'm pretty sure Brian Green and Michio Kaku and all those modern string and multi-verse theorists who's books I've read (though a while ago) advocate extra-dimensions and use them to explain phenomena in quantum mechanics. Whether or not it's entanglement specifically is something I'd have to look up.
    If you know how to view extra-dimensions, it becomes a lot more clearer how they could exist.
    I suggest watching the movie "flatland" if you really have no idea how to comprehend extra dimensions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CynemTIex9I&feature=related).
     
  13. Jan 25, 2012 #12
    Or since my descriptions are not clear. Let's use the author (paper) own words: "The least number of dimensions that has the property of nonlocality and that is consistent with Poincairé invariance or Lorentz invariance is eight dimensions. In this space, each physical spatial distance has an imaginary temporal counterpart, such that there is a zero spatial separation in the higher dimensional space. Likewise for every real physically temporal separation, there is a counterpart imaginary spatial separation that subtracts to zero on the metric.... Consistency with the relativity theory is assured"

    Is the above possible? If you still don't know how it work. The original web site I shared explained it for laymen.. and again he just got the idea from peer reviewed works by others. It's not his own theory of course.
     
  14. Jan 25, 2012 #13
    It's basic relativity applied to the existence of mathematics itself. In a way it's saying each dimension has it's own positive and negative numbers and square roots and etc. Whether or not it works so consecutively and uniformly is something I don't know.
    It's actually very similar to my theory I posted in the "Beyond the Standard Model" section. I didn't even know for sure imaginary planes existed until today when someone confirmed it because whenever I googled them, and for some reason it just got deleted...
     
  15. Jan 26, 2012 #14
    Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
    Again, cite your sources, or don't conjecture.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:quant-ph/0212023
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/q/quantum_entanglement.htm
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

    Especially nice proof/derivation:
    http://everything2.com/title/Quantum+entanglement+and+faster+than+light+communication

    Especially nice discussion:
    http://www.quora.com/Can-photon-teleportation-transfer-information-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
     
  16. Jan 26, 2012 #15
    Maybe I'm missing something, but no, It doesn't seem like this makes sense. This should lead to singularities in the most basic calculations....
     
  17. Jan 26, 2012 #16
    Well, maybe entanglement can't send new information at least at this point in our understanding, but DIS-entanglement at least would violate relativity because DIS-entanglement occurs instantaneously...

    http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/papers/Epistemology_and_QM.pdf

    "For entangled states, this seemed to imply that the state of a distant physical
    entity would be determined by the properties of an entangled partner measured locally, which
    seemed to require that energy be exchanged faster then light."

    And whoa, an article on extra-dimensional entanglement

    http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n9/full/nphys1996.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  18. Jan 26, 2012 #17
    Its becoming very clear that you're lacking the most basic facilities of logic. That article (not a theoretical physics article, nor peer-reviewed, nor even published) is only reciting a historical account as emphasized by the phrase 'this seemed to imply'.

    Furthermore you clearly haven't read any of what I linked because you don't understand the most basic point that information transfer has nothing to do with whether or not entanglement can have effects at arbitrary velocities. It still can't transfer information and thus does not violate relativity.
     
  19. Jan 26, 2012 #18

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    First, as zhermes said, entanglement does not transmit information, there are lots of threads on this topic. Second, even if it did, that by itself does not necessarily violate relativity. If the laws governing FTL are the same in every frame then you have FTL and relativity. Relativity doesn't say that nothing can go FTL, just that if information does go FTL then it can violate causality.
     
  20. Jan 26, 2012 #19
    *sigh* no I understand QM. At this point, ENtanglement isn't sending information, DIS-entanglement. Can you show me an article that says dis-entanglement doesn't happen instantaneously?

    Here's an article that even says plain entanglement happens instantaneously, probably referring to when the state of one changes in the response to another.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html

    And whoa, even information transfer?

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm

    I don't get why you guys are so rigid, quantum mechanics is only half a century old and almost constantly being revised and debated over.
     
  21. Jan 26, 2012 #20

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    I never claimed that it didn't happen instantaneously. Only that (1) it doesn't transmit information and (2) that even if it did that wouldn't necessarily violate relativity.

    The howstuffworks reference is hardly a mainstream scientific reference supporting your point. It is clearly garbled nonsense since it talks about "the atomic structure of a photon". It is a pop-sci account of some research that they don't understand and incorrectly characterize.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime
  1. Minkowski spacetime (Replies: 16)

Loading...