E=mc^2 in 1,2,3,5,6 dimentions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nabki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dimensionality of the universe, specifically exploring the implications of different dimensional frameworks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 dimensions) on concepts such as energy exchange, gravitational stability, and phenomena like quantum entanglement. Participants speculate on how these dimensions might affect physical laws and observations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants speculate that a 4-D environment is necessary for sufficient energy exchange, while 5-D may require too much energy.
  • One participant argues that stable gravitational orbits are not possible in more than three spatial dimensions, suggesting that three dimensions is the only viable configuration.
  • Another participant clarifies that their concern is about energy conversion rather than conservation.
  • There is a suggestion that speculating about different dimensional universes may not be considered physics since it cannot be experimentally verified.
  • One participant proposes that a 5-D universe could explain the unaccounted mass and quantum entanglement, acknowledging the speculative nature of their thoughts.
  • Another participant mentions that invoking the anthropic principle could shift the discussion towards philosophy rather than physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of higher dimensions, with some agreeing on the limitations of speculation without experimental backing, while others propose alternative dimensional frameworks. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of the universe's dimensionality.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion lacks sufficient physics content to meet forum guidelines, indicating limitations in the depth of the exploration.

nabki
maybe the universe works in a 4-D environment because a 3-D(two space axis, one time axis) environment will not allow sufficient energy exchange, and movement in 5-D needs too much energy? just some speculations... anyone more knowledgeable on this subject who can help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nabki said:
maybe the universe works in a 4-D environment because a 3-D(two space axis, one time axis) environment will not allow sufficient energy exchange, and movement in 5-D needs too much energy? just some speculations... anyone more knowledgeable on this subject who can help me?
(my emphasis) The universe can't be in an environment. But I think I understand what you're speculating about.

I believe that it is not possible to get stable gravitational orbits in any configuration with more than three space and one time dimension. So a universe with say, four spatial dimensions would be doomed to kinetic chaos. Two spatial dimensions is not enough, so three seems to be the only possible number.

Off the top of my head, I'd say energy conservation is not a problem because energy is a scalar.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean energy conservation, i mean conversion from one for to annother.
 
nabki said:
I don't mean energy conservation, i mean conversion from one for to annother.
OK. Well, speculating about how things might be in a different universe from our own isn't really physics because we can't relate our theories to experiment.

As to why we observe 3+1 dimensions, physics probably can't answer that question except to say that's the only way it can be.

If you could show that energy conversion didn't add up in 6 dimensions, it still wouldn't be a 'reason' why we see 3+1 dimensions.
 
hmmmm... i agree.
 
what I am actualy thinking about is the universe actually being 5-D, which can help explain some things like why 90% of mass is unaccounted for and quantum entanglement. I'm letting my mind wander, so please remind me when I am not being realistic please.
 
Mentz114 said:
OK. Well, speculating about how things might be in a different universe from our own isn't really physics because we can't relate our theories to experiment.

I agree. It might qualify as philosophy if one invoked the anthropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropic_principle&oldid=176543203

As-is, there isn't really enough physics content for the thread to meet our PF Guidelines , so I'm locking it.

Our guidelines are availabe at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

or by clicking on "rules" at the top of the page.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad E=mc^2 and acceleration
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad Deriving e=mc^2, how is it possible?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Uncovering a Decent Proof of E=mc^2
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Undergrad Discover the Relationship Between Mass and Energy in Electromagnetic Fields
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Deriving Acceleration in Gravity from E = mc^2
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Does E=mc^2 apply to gravitational potential energy?
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
Undergrad Assumption that the rest mass energy is mc^2
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Light Beams Attraction: e=mc^2 & Asymmetry
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Meaning of E=mc^2: Are Mass and Energy the Same?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Question about deriving E=mc^2
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K