Moving Through the 4th Dimension - Feasible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlorino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of dimensions, particularly the fourth dimension, which participants view primarily as time. It is argued that while we exist in a four-dimensional universe, our perception of time differs from spatial dimensions, making it challenging to conceptualize time travel. Some suggest that breaching the fourth dimension allows one to experience all points in time simultaneously, while others question the feasibility of predicting the future given the uncertainty principle. The conversation also touches on the idea of multiple timelines and dimensions, proposing that time is woven into the fabric of these dimensions. Overall, the complexities of time and dimensionality remain a focal point of exploration and debate.
  • #31
jlorino said:
i believe that time is not a dimension in itself but that time is woven into the dimensions in which are bound to its constrants
I believe jlorino is right in that sense. As far as I've read from various authors describing multiple dimensions, notably Michio Kaku, "time" is considered a fourth temporal dimension, apart from the three spatial dimensions that we normally experience. Einstein used this principle of a temporal time dimension and took it into consideration while developing special relativity.

The three spatial dimensions are "spaces" where objects can move according to their allowed dimensional freedom. 3D creatures can move in the forward-backword, left-right, and up-down directions, as well as combinations of these directions. Similarly, with another spatial dimension added, another spatial direction is added. The reknown Charles Hinton, who promoted the idea of extra dimensions, went so far as to name these two other directions ana-kata, describing movement in the fourth spatial dimension.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
But Dr. Kaku also wrote that the mathematics of Maxwells equations all unify into a single symmetrical equation if you consider time as a fourth physical dimension.

This is evidence that time is not "woven" at all. I have reason to believe the difference is not with the dimension but rather with our limited perceptions. Without relative motion, I believe we are perceiving it at a direct 90 degrees so that we can only perceive a single point at a time.
However, when we start accelerating enough to produce time dilation, we perceive a swap between one physical dimension and time. But I have reason to think that what is really going on is that we are just changing our perceptions of the dimensions. Something similar to sin/cos functions.
If we were able to look down upon it from some 5 dimensional space, we would see simple rotation; nothing unusual at all.

Imagine yourself standing at the center of a sphere and time is "up and down" but all you can do is see left and right, forward and back. You would still perceive time, but only the single point you happen to occupy. Even if you were moving up, you could only see a single point (now). But if you were to pitch upwards, the subsequent exchange of one dimention of space with that of time would be very similar to the way we perceive time dilation.

Now think about this: a lot of our mathematics were constructed using measurements taken without consideration of any perceptual limitations.

If I'm right, then our measurements (and the mathematics) of space and time are all distorted because of our limited perceptions. They would match our limited perceptions, but they should simplify once we remove our perceptual distortions. If I'm right, most of the infinities and non linearity should drop out of relativity.
I suspect this idea may apply to several aspects of physics; electromagnetic propagation and gravity to mention a couple.

If you think this idea is wacked consider this: superstring theory requires that there be at least 6 more dimensions that we cannot perceive at all.
 
  • #33
This is not at all whacked out, but if you want to see how this approach is actually worked out - motion as "rotation in Minkowski spacetime", I recommend the book Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler. It does this idea up brown.
 
  • #34
selfAdjoint said:
It does this idea up brown.
That is a ... colourful ... phrase. Is it common in Wisconsin?
 
  • #35
Huckleberry said:
Why would they need to jump over a cube? A cube would have no mass for a 4dimensional being. They could just walk all over it or through it, just like you could walk through a 2d square traced in the air. Ofcourse that square might be the size of universes.

i'm referring to the extra directions you obtain by the fourth dimension
in 2d you can go forward backward left right
and if a 2d thing were encased in a box a 3d creature would go up and "jump" over the line
now i was asking how would a 4d creature jump over a cube or utilize the extra direction they posses in 4d
 
  • #36
I have no idea how to equate 4 dimensional movement in comparison with 3 dimensionons. I assume it would be a simple thing for them and they could probably just appear at the other side, having moved all of the distance in the fourth dimension. If you can move through time then any 3d distance is irrevelant. There are probably limits to this as well, such as existing on a quantum scale perhaps.
 
  • #37
to move in the 4th dimension

As the common mode, it is hard to move in the 4th dimension, as all actions is same as so.
but it is able, first in a computer model,
next in some time-space perfect structure actions to move,
it is hard so the time space structure action to use. :blushing:
 
  • #38
hey.like said:
As the common mode, it is hard to move in the 4th dimension, as all actions is same as so.
but it is able, first in a computer model,
next in some time-space perfect structure actions to move,
it is hard so the time space structure action to use. :blushing:

Do you have any thoughts about what kind of spacetime structure would be suitable?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K