OK - I feel this thread is in the right place, a serious topic probably a bit deep for many light hearted sections of this forum but something I would be interested to discuss with others that have a point of view.

In various sources that talk of big bang or messing about with atom smashers the idea of new extra dimensions comes up, with the BB talk of 11 dimensions that existed at some very small instant after the first expansion, that created the space that the 'bang' then expanded into....

We are living in a three dimensional world, length x width x depth, and whenever someone talks about a 4th dimension the difficultly in pointing along a fouth right-angle off of the three listed above some 'wise' voice says the 4th dimension is time. Every one smiles as they have a handle on what time is, then sit down to enjoy the next temporal episode of Gate-Trek happy in the knowledge that Hollywood has paved the way for time travel machines that will be built by the Weyland-Yutani Corp shortly.

I think this is wrong.

Like the zeroth law in thermodynamics, surely (?) the fundamental dimension is Time, as without time as a dimension that X is moving through, X could not change from X to X.

If you subcribe to a BB universe you are admitting that Time is an underlying dimention as there is a change in state that occurs - as the state changes as Time increases. (Basis of my argument.)

State X does not equal State X.

Even temperature (I think) requires Time, consider movement (vibration) of molecules, for there to be movement the state (position) of the molecule must change, for there to be a difference in position Time needs to change. So the fundamental dimension should be Time. Maybe the Zeroth Dimension.

If we are moving through Time (assuming Time is progressing in a positive direction [yes - point of view] - and yes I know it might be difficult to tell.) in our three 'normal' dimesions that we can touch any thoughts as to what/where number four might be.

I liked the idea from one SciFi movie of Zero (or more incorrectly null) Space as a place that could be used for storage, I tried to understand it in terms of a Epanechnikov kernel and Dimesions once but my brain can't close the loop on the idea.

I do feel that the answer is just possible if I reached a little futher, like a goldfish only seeing it's own reflection but thinking there is a world outside my bowl.

Wiki-link, personally I currently disagree with this content.

I thought the 4th Dimension were a soul band in the late 60's

Someone puts something like this on a blackboard

says "prove me wrong"

and a whole string of research grants are requested.

(that's string theory)

I liked the idea from one SciFi movie of Zero (or more incorrectly null) Space as a place that could be used for storage, I tried to understand it in terms of a Epanechnikov kernel and Dimesions once but my brain can't close the loop on the idea.

Space could be used for storage if it weren't for the universal element Stuff.

As any student knows Stuff expands exponentially to fill the space available to it. There is only one element more destructive of space and that is the related isotope Woman's Stuff. This not only expands to fill all available space but it annialates any common Stuff in it's path.

I don't think the fourth dimension is time either. Time is merely the baseline for the other three dimensions to operate along. The fourth dimention is thought as it has no mass, nor direction nor limits.

Like many other former "mysteries", the existence of other dimensions is probably just waiting a "miraculous" break through, or freak "happenstance" accidental discovery.

It was only a few hundred years ago that people thought the world was flat, just as they thought the earth was the center of the universe, with the sun and planets revolving around it.

While man has known about electricity for thousands of years (back in the times of the ancient Greeks), it was less than 300 years ago that we started to figure out how to create it and make it work for us.

Atoms are similar. It was first suggested by Democritus of Adbera (northern Greece, 400 BC) that all material things are composed of extremely small irreducible particles called atoms. Yet it was only in the last couple hundred years that we've been able to "see" them, and realise that there is more to them "than meets the eye". It's been far less than 100 years since we learned how to split and "smash" them.

There are an incredible number of things we (now) consider routine, everyday things, that were great, uncomprehensible mysteries to our ancestors of but a few generations ago.

Are there other new extra undiscovered dimensions waiting to be discovered ? Are we now as the ancient Greeks were, possibly aware of something impossible to prove (yet) ?

I hope not, otherwise it could be another 2,000+ years before we are able to actually prove the existence of another dimension. Will they still have mint-flavoured chocolate ice cream then ?

>There are an incredible number of things we (now) consider routine, everyday things,

>that were great, uncomprehensible mysteries to our ancestors of but a few generations ago.

Indeed, I share this POV. It's difficult to capture my thoughts into words while I sit in my office during the day, but I feel (rather that think) that the further dimensions cast shadows into the limits of our perception as a cube would cast a shadow into the 2D world of an ant farm enclosed between two panes of glass. An ant might be aware that there is a shadow and ponder it's cause but not being able to look outside it's world...

I can only point wildly at the idea of something like far distance communication without radio etc. That I have both read about (hunter gatherer tribes) and experianced a few times myself. Where within a few moments I shared a thought with someone the other side of the world from me (they did not know I was in a different country at the time) later discussed in detail. As I say - aware of a shadow - not knowing the cause.

I can see how some my consider they access such 'places' through the use of mind altering substances - however I can't see that as a valid path to understand a new dimension. They are just tripping locally!

Have you ever read "Number of the beast" by Heinlein?

Have you ever read "Number of the beast" by Heinlein?

No - but just read a review, sounds like something I used to read as a teenager. I like the idea of 6 to the power 6⁶, fits in with existance cones (my phrase) and the idea of valid existances vs null options.

The possibility of a further dimension(s) comes about through the Higgs Boson itself.

The reason being is that the total mass of the components of Atoms (quarks) do not equate to the mass of the atom itself, i.e. atoms are heavier than they should be. It is theorised that the as yet undiscovered higgs Boson makes up for this missing mass.

The thing is that for the Higgs Boson to exist then it must share the same space time as the quarks, which would be impossible (we think), and so therefore the Higgs Boson must (we think) exist along side the quarks in another dimension. Therefore if they discover the Higgs, they also discover a new dimension(s).

If you go on you tube you will find all sorts of documentaries about it, search for the ones done by the Physicist Brian Cox because he is able to explain it all very comprehensively.

The reason being is that the total mass of the components of Atoms (quarks) do not equate to the mass of the atom itself, i.e. atoms are heavier than they should be.

But if an electron is considered as a light 'weight' cloud of negative charge, a proton a heavier cloud of positive charge etc. is is not posible that each cloud could occupy the same space - in the same way that you can smell coffee in a fog - as it were.

You've stumped me there Cuban.

Of course they are not colliding quarks together (as I was thinking in my post), but Hadrons which are composed of other smaller particles and so hadrons are not absolutely dense.

If I watched/read the "not possible for 2 things to exist in the same time-space" again then I might have a retort, but alas for now it has escaped me. I need to dig out something that I watched on you tube which will jog my memory.

One thing that I do wonder though.

Its is now believed that the quark is the smallest possible particle and so we are getting to the nitty gritty of it all. But are we really considering how long we thought that the atom was the smallest particle?

Either way, they are dealing with some very very small shit in a very very big experiment.

*Edit*

I was wrong because Quarks are not believed to be the smallest particle at all as Bosons have been discovered, just not yet the Higgs Boson.

Yeah I know it's wikipedia but:

"The experimenters found that the Z boson got heavier at certain times of the day. This was a very high-precision experiment. They discovered that the patterns of the particle getting heavier corresponded to the tides. The gravitational adjustments due to tides slightly changed the shape of the collider over the course of the day. After adjusting for tidal effects, they found that the Z boson was heavier in spring and lighter in fall. This was because there's a lake in Geneva near the detector, that is drained in Fall to make room for the spring snow-melt. So the bigger lake in the Spring was making the particle heavier. After correcting for both of these factors, they found that the particle got suddenly heavier multiple times during the day, at the same times. This was because a train runs near the detector whose electromagnetic fields were disturbing the experiment. This is how precise the experiment was."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electro...sitron_Collider

If I watched/read the "not possible for 2 things to exist in the same time-space" again then I might have a retort, but alas for now it has escaped me. I need to dig out something that I watched on you tube which will jog my memory.

Just off the top off my head (like so many other things). For anyone to say something like "not possible for 2 things to exist in the same time-space", they are being quite narrow-minded and spending too much time thinking "inside the box".

Like the flat-earthers of times past. Or a former head of the US Patents Office that (allegedly) said "Everything that can be invented, has already been invented" (that was back in 1899 supposedly). Or even the illustrious and rich Bill Gates who stated (supposedly, and has since denied it) that 640k is enough for anybody.

Too many people seem to make assumptions that because they can't figure out the answer, that must mean there is no answer. We (they) assume that 2 things can't exist in the same space/time, but we don't know if that's true or not (yet).

Either way, they are dealing with some very very small shit in a very very big experiment.

For sure. The worlds largest (and most expensive ?) machine, designed to look for the smallest particle in existence (they think, currently, until possibly they find it and someone else theorizes that it too is made up of even smaller particles).

In fact, someone should jump the gun now, and start spreading a theory that the Higgs Boson is actually made up of 11 different sub-protonic elements orbiting a sub-electron particle which appears to be expanding into a possible sub-super nova, while they are all being slowly absorbed by a decaying sub-neutron which is threatening to become a micro-mini-sub black hole !

This I-d-10-T theory surmises that the sub-neutron eventually absorbs the other elements and collapses upon itself. The intense heat of the compacted sub-elements eventually overcomes gravity and the mass explodes, creating the Higgs Boson.

I don't know. It almost sounds as plausible as some other theories I've heard over the years.

Not only that, but hypothetical theory suggests that there is the possibility of life existing on the 3rd (sub) proton from the electron !

//edit: know/now my eyes are tired !

Well it's all very Schrödinger's cat when it comes to particles, and I started on the dimentional shadows thing when my education took me from electons in orbits (like the nice picture) to probability of charge clouds and wave duality. Makes a step into dimension 3D +1 (as I'm not sure I can used natural numbers here) easier (in my mind/dreams) if the particles aren't particles - why should they be as my fingers don't touch the keyboard just the layer of non-particle electrons on top....

Like the range of error within a measurement - maybe our existance has a scope of understanding and we should be grateful enough to cope with that and get on with it.

As for a useful device - I would like to request a preemptive fly swatter, such that the swat arrives at the point where the fly will be just as the fly arrives there, that would be a useful application of such 'time' technology.

I wonder how much there is that we don't know , or if we actually know more of what there is to know than we think. By this I mean all this speculation about extra dimensions, sub-sub-sub atomic particles, unknown laws of physics etc which are the missing X factors required to complete unproven theories.

We know only what we are able to observe. If we can not observe something (and I don't mean only visually) then we are not able to define it, hence we do not know it. So until we discover new ways of observing what we can potentially know is limited by our methods of observation.

If we can't observe something then how do we even know to look for it ? Theorists sometimes come up with what they believe are all the factors, minus X (if X=? then the theory works), and then set about looking for X. But actually the first thing they have to do is find a way to observe X and then see if X actually exists. However, with no real evidence that X even exists how can they be sure the other factors are even correct ? X may not be X at all and could be Y or Z. In setting out to look for X, Y or Z may never be found even if they exist because they're looking for X. Sure, unexpected discoveries are made but you wouldn't want to rely on accidents for scientific advancement.

If these elusive non-observable factors exist throughout the universe and assuming in the universe that they are as predominant and active as what we have observed already why isn't their existence more obvious. After all, the universe as we observe it is the sum total of all the factors at work together. Is it possible that the universal laws we've managed to figure out so far happen to be the ones that are not affected by or isolated by these unknown and as yet unobservable factors ? Wouldn't the observed results be inconsistent subject to the effects of an unknown number of unknown factors ?

For example take a force which is widely accepted to be universal: gravity. Assuming that unknown factors are not isolated in the universe (gravity certainly isn't) and are universal why is it that there are no unknown factors identified that affect gravity ? Our scientific laws perfectly explain gravity, at least where we observe it. If unknown factors are needed to explain the behaviour of gravity as we think we observe it elsewhere why don;t those unkown factors affect gravity here ? Perhaps our observation of gravity elsewhere is incomplete. Perhaps it's a little easy to state "This theory is 99% right and when X is added it's 100%". X could be a myth and the 99% completely wrong.

Which brings me back to my original point. How do we know something if we can't observe it ? And why would things occur elsewhere but not here ? If certain things do only happen in certain places (different laws for different universes) then we still have a lot to learn and good reason to explore. If the laws of the universe are not universal we'll never be able to know everything simply because we'll never know what it is we don't know. Make sense ? But if the laws of the universe are indeed universal we should be able to observe all we need to know right here.

Google has the answer:

Which brings me back to my original point. How do we know something if we can't observe it ? And why would things occur elsewhere but not here ? If certain things do only happen in certain places (different laws for different universes) then we still have a lot to learn and good reason to explore. If the laws of the universe are not universal we'll never be able to know everything simply because we'll never know what it is we don't know. Make sense ? But if the laws of the universe are indeed universal we should be able to observe all we need to know right here.

I don't know about the rest of youall, but I find it creepy that 50 trillion solar neutrinos pass through our bodies every second on their way through the earth. And that it'd take one light year of lead to stop half of them. Now have you looked at the price of lead recently

Have a look at the book Super Natural by Graham hancock.

Another take on the dimensions thingy.

Since we are all recommending books, read the 1884 novella Flatland, by Edwin Abbott Abbott.

Time. We know we can slow it down (relatively). An earlier experiment supposedly proved that atoms can 'exceed the speed' of light... hmmm.

All those nay-sayers who said that a human being could not travel in excess of the speed of sound were left looking rather foolish, but are we merely at that point in time now (relatively) as regards the question of exceeding the speed of light? Am I not correct in noting that there is, apparently, an inalienable connection between the speed of light and progression through a reversal in time? If that is the case, why haven't I bumped into my relatives from the future - or alien beings who commenced their travels to our little spot in the cosmos a million years hence (but travelled in excess of the speed of light to get here)? Given the extreme universal nature of things, if time travel could ever be achieved, by any entity, there's a fair chance we would already know about it.

E: I hope my great-great-great gandson does not come back and kill me for saying this...

Time. We know we can slow it down (relatively). An earlier experiment supposedly proved that atoms can 'exceed the speed' of light... hmmm.

All those nay-sayers who said that a human being could not travel in excess of the speed of sound were left looking rather foolish, but are we merely at that point in time now (relatively) as regards the question of exceeding the speed of light? Am I not correct in noting that there is, apparently, an inalienable connection between the speed of light and progression through a reversal in time? If that is the case, why haven't I bumped into my relatives from the future - or alien beings who commenced their travels to our little spot in the cosmos a million years hence (but travelled in excess of the speed of light to get here)? Given the extreme universal nature of things, if time travel could ever be achieved, by any entity, there's a fair chance we would already know about it.

E: I hope my great-great-great gandson does not come back and kill me for saying this...

My physics are more than a bit rusty. But as far as I know it'd be impractical for man to travel faster than light. If I remember isn't there an expansion effect that takes place as you near the speed of light, not to mention energy needed increases expotentially. The warp drive seems to be the way to travel interstellar. Warping of demensions would certainly be a quicker, or utilizing worm holes to the same effect.

^ Exponentially heavier and longer or some such - without going to the Wiki bible.

Bends in space, wormholes at the event horizons of singularities... I'm looking forward to my next dose of Stargate SG1, which is about as close as we are likely to come to cheating time/space...

I'm looking forward to my next dose of Stargate SG1, which is about as close as we are likely to come to cheating time/space...

Am I the only one that at times wishes to beat Samanta Carter's brains out with a staff weapon (?) when she simply cures the rip in N space with a safety pin and a small blob of silly-putty?

(Please note, I am refering to the character not the actress - I'm not completely loopy.)

More serious on topic response being considered.

^Sounds like you have a minor case of the 'no-one likes a smart arse' disease!

....don't get me wrong, I like the series a successful long running franchise, but the way that her character's part is written allows for her to be the solution to every problem at every level whether it be with a side arm or defusing a large hadron collider.

True. Although Daniel's a bit of an oracle as well...

No, I don't watch Farscrape. (Watch scifi Sesame Street? I think not. I don't think we should have to watch alien cookie monsters being shot with lasers. )