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

A theory for a FIFTH dimension .

  1. Jun 1, 2003 #1
    a theory for a FIFTH dimension.....

    All this talk about dimensions I am sure has bored a number of you, although here is another theory! (If it has been thought of before, I apologise!)

    Bearing in mind 'time' is established as the 4th dimension, it occured to me that there must in turn be a 5th dimension - one that seemed so blindingly obvious. So I thought to myself, the 5th dimension may actually be THE MATTER ITSELF! Here is my arguement:

    Matter makes up all that is everything. Without it,the other dimensions could not exist. 'Height','Depth','Length' and 'Time' must all occur within something. That 'something', as far as I can understand, has got to be the 'Matter' itself.

    Is this absurd? Yes, although if time is a possible dimension,then one must not overlook the possibility of matter being a true dimension in itself! Just as 'Time' may be a dimension, as objects cannot exist if they werent there for a certain amount of time. Well - just as an object must exist for a certain amount of time - the matter that makes up the object in the first place must exist within something! That something being 'Matter' hence, the 5th Dimension.

    What do you think?

    NOTE - I am a mere babe-in-arms of 16 years old, so this may be one of the reasons why my theory is so poor!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2003 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Respond to it?


    The gist of your post is "I don't know what the word 'dimension' means."


    A dimension is a number necessary to precisely specify an event.

    Physicists say that time is the "fourth dimension" because an event itself is defined as something that occurs at a specific point at a specific time. There are plenty of events that have nothing to do with mass.

    (I am reminded of the very first "Dr. Who" episode "An Unearthly Child" in which the child in question mystifies her physics teacher by insisting that the "fifth dimension" is ... (are you ready for it)
    SPACE! (And exactly what did the writers think the first three dimensions were for?)
     
  4. Jun 2, 2003 #3

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: a theory for a FIFTH dimension.....

    Okay, you wouldn't know this, being only 16 and all, but people caught claiming that the 5th dimension may actually be matter are immediately grounded by the physics police, so go to your room right now.

    Okay, here's our special two step program for young misguided theorists like yourself. Follow it before it's too late.

    Step 1: Say, "time is money".
    Step 2: Repeat step 1 till head explodes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2003
  5. Jun 2, 2003 #4
    Hehe ok ok. I knew my theory most probably was not "mine" as I was sure someone would have thought of it before. And also I knew it was ridden with flaws. Although I have learned from your responses so thank you :smile: I am willing to learn even if it involves embaressing myself along the way! ! Bye bye
     
  6. Jun 2, 2003 #5
    Hmm, although - this may seem odd but - for the events to occur in the first place - 'Matter' / 'Mass' must be present? Otherwise these events would never be able to exist at all, as they exist withing the matter as we know it? (In other words, I know nothing about anything and want someone to say how I am wrong and why)
     
  7. Jun 2, 2003 #6

    Eh

    User Avatar

    But "mass" is not going to define a location in spacetime.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2003 #7
    No... mass is ALL of space-time. It's location is everywhere.
     
  9. Jun 3, 2003 #8
    How is that? Matter makes up mass that OCCUPIES spacetime (super simplified of course).
     
  10. Jun 3, 2003 #9

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Even if it did, so what? It's not a coordinate used to locate an event. It doesn't fit the definition of dimension at all.
     
  11. Jun 3, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hello Don Cristo,
    Your idea of matter or mass as a dimension is not entirely unfounded. First, we have a very specific mathematical definition for a dimension. Basically, in space, a dimension is a direction that has nothing in common with another direction. For example, a line sloped at 45 degrees has two dimensions involved: We might say part up and part over, or part Y and part X. So a 45 degree line is not a dimension but is a linear combination of Y and X. On the other hand, we get no X in Y, or Y in X. Since Y has nothing to do with X [since no combination of Y with something else gives you some X] these two axes are considered to each lie in a different dimension. With this said, we also use another idea for dimensions.

    Mass, length, and time are historically treated as the three fundamental dimensions or building blocks of all other physical properties - energy, momentum, temperature, force, torque…even electric charge can be expressed in these terms alone. Considering that time and space are dimensions in the normal sense, to think that mass must also be a dimension is not so difficult to understand. I don't think mass is ever treated quite this way, but the unique concept of mass has long been place next to space and time as a fundamental quantity. The point is not that you’re right; the point is that the idea is not a bad one. Perhaps this is not true in quite the way that you are thinking, but on a fundamental level, there may be some element of truth in your idea.

    As far as defining location, well, how do we specify a location? Your idea is more philosophical than physical. Since mass is another form of energy, and since energy is found everywhere in space, to say that space exists without energy I think is false. In fact, I have always wondered if this is not the very nature of space. So even though I don't think your ideas are correct, I do think that more complex ideas are discussed that are cousins to yours.

    How about it mentors? Does this idea relate to concepts from string theory perhaps? If we have the dimensions of length and time, and if everything else can be expresses as mass, then ultimately is mass some representation of the other 8 or 6 dimensions?
     
  12. Jun 3, 2003 #11

    Eh

    User Avatar

    It's just not a coordinate. Mass defines spacetime, but we use an x,y,z,t axis to locate a specific event within that metric of mass distribution.
     
  13. Jun 3, 2003 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is mass actually the manifestation of all other hidden dimensions?
     
  14. Jun 3, 2003 #13

    Eh

    User Avatar

    I don't know. Without getting into extra dimensions though, it seems spacetime owes its existence to mass. But it's really a philsophical question, and one could equally say spacetime gives rise to the existence of mass itself, with mass being nothing more than curvature itself.
     
  15. Jun 3, 2003 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is this exactly true? My formal understanding of this subject [GR] ends short of instant familiarity this statement. Mass [energy] is seen as "identically equal" to the curvature of space; and not just as a cause of this curvature?
     
  16. Jun 3, 2003 #15

    Eh

    User Avatar

    It just states that spacetime is curved wherever mass is present. Whether or not they are the same thing (which many physicists believe it is) is a matter for quantum gravity.
     
  17. Jun 3, 2003 #16

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Spacetime dimension is a dimensionless topological invariant of the spacetime manifold while mass is a geometrical quantity having units of inverse length (in geometrized units).

    The significance of mass for the original question emerges in the context of elementary particles and is group theoretic: Briefly, mass - and spin - label the representations of the poincare group under which particle operators must transform to preserve invariances related to the local geometry of spacetime. One of these representations, the adjoint representation, under which the photon for example transforms, has dimension equal to that of spacetime.

    But, mass and spacetime dimension are not in any sense interchangeable concepts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2003
  18. Jun 3, 2003 #17
    I do not see exactly how you ended up with that sentence. But if they occur within, and are made up of Mass, then surely that can't be true. What IS spacetime dimension? Excuse me if I am stating the obvious, but... assuming all of space is curved, and we call dimensions, "Straight Lines" - already we see flaws. And if space is curved, and wherever matter is present, curvature is inevitable - this shows that mass/matter is the whole "net" of space. If one was to refer to the theory (I can not remember which scientist came up with this) that space is not at all remotely spherical and consistant, but bears more resemblance to an "interlinked mangled mesh", then there must either be numerous dimensions or the spatial dimensions we can comprehend plus the perhaps more complex 'dimension' (although not a dimension as such) of 'Matter'.
    Help??
     
  19. Jun 4, 2003 #18

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Neither will anyone else here.
     
  20. Jun 4, 2003 #19
    [?] [?] [?]
    Well if that is the case, perhaps you would like to explain how you reached your conclusion in a more understandable fashion?? And also, think about what I wrote because I would like to see your views on the matter. Thank you.
     
  21. Jun 4, 2003 #20

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A famous physicist felt that much of a scientist's job is to prove their ideas wrong as quickly as possible.

    If you make an honest effort to invent reasons to doubt your idea that mass is an additional dimension, I'll make an honest effort to translate some of what I posted into more understandible terms. I look forward to see what clever arguments you come up with.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A theory for a FIFTH dimension .
  1. Fifth force? (Replies: 1)

  2. A fifth force? (Replies: 7)

Loading...