The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

That is a left over notion of the rigid body. In early Science, the thought was that matter, on some level, was merely a solid homogeneous volume of “stuff”. If you look at some of the early papers concerning the theories, they often use the rigid body concept. But eventually they discovered, and it can be proven to be the case, that an actual rigid body cannot exist.

A rigid body implies something that has absolutely no components within that are moving any differently than the whole. They well know now that every particle is a cloud of motion within. They don’t know why just yet. Rational Metaphysics explains exactly why it must always be that way. But they know that it is true. So if you take their newer revelation, that any and every body is actually made of components within that are moving in varied directions, spin of varied types, you can no longer apply their former explanations concerning rigid body motion and their conclusions don’t work out any more.

That is my point.

An object cannot be moving at the speed of light and still be an object. The constituents within must always be moving transverse to the travel and thus the final value for their speed forbids the speed of the whole from ever getting anywhere close to the speed of light. You can’t actually use merely the cube root, but that is the idea.

But realize that at every point, no matter how small anything is, those three dimensions still exist and still have the same situation. So are you going to say that even the constituents within also cannot be moving in any direction of their choosing at over the cube root of the speed of light? Every constituent within has the same concerns as the whole. Every constituent within has constituents that are moving traverse to that constituents travel.

If you reduce every level of substance further down recursively so as to not exceed the speed of light on any level, the final maximum speed would be zero (I think). Nothing could actually move at all.

In order to make it actually make sense given the understanding that there is no such thing as a rigid body, one has to realize that each direction of motion has its own total that is independent of the others, just as it is with spacial dimensions. For each direction of movement, there is a limit to travel speed. That limit causes the phenomenon known as time dilation. It occurs for each dimension, direction of motion, separately. Thus what Science calls time, actually has three dimensions to match the three directions of motion. Else their logic will never really work out into a consistent ontology.

I’m not claiming that this is some big important issue. I am just saying that if they really want to get their ontology right, they need to understand that THEIR spacetime concept must have 6 dimensions, merely to make their understanding be consistent within itself.

22

I already said that, but yeah thanks for pointing it out as it relates to the equation.

What James appears to want is every motional concern to have its own time concern when it already does and these vector transforms already explain everything perfectly. As you say if they did not behave with a dependance to time then the theory would not work, and hence it could not be substantiated by experiment.

James is out on a wild tangent atm, James can’t reconcile three time and three space vectors any more than anyone else can, because such concerns are exactly the same as having one time and 3 space vectors, if they were not all sorts of weird shit would be possible, it’s not just faster than light, objects warping chaotically and non linearly through space with no regard for momentum, retro causality, all of which can and do not happen in any known experiment or actual model, it’s worse than that it’s pure chaos and superfluous to requirements. It’s not that there could not be 6 dimensions it’s that there is no way that you could reconcile such an odd state of affairs unless they were utterly indistinguishable from 3+1 space vector transforms and hence just the same thing restated which would make the whole thing pointless. This doesn’t belong in science it belongs in mundane babble, my opinion, for what it’s worth. Because there is no science here.

I don’t think James has really thought this through, I don’t even think James really understands what he is talking about. I certainly don’t think he could describe it mathematically, if he did we would all clearly see that what he is talking about is useless. Which means he wont probably, James doesn’t do explanations. Either James doesn’t understand the maths or James doesn’t care about the maths. Now whilst maths isn’t the b all and end all of anything it is quite important if it does not tally with the real world because it is physically impossible for components x,y,z to have any other position except at i at time t. I challenge James to show a mathematical model that is discreet from 3+1 space. He wont because it’s nonsense and it can’t work, but the challenge is there none the less.

It’s all here, I can’t really use the wiki to post it directly it’s too much hard work without some maths format so:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

I challenge James to do basically what this does, in a manner that distinguishes itself from this.

I’m afraid I have the troll on ignore and will for a week at least as I don’t think the mods care about his obvious trolling shit, so good luck with dealing with his nonsense. Most likely result is the joker gets someone banned for spouting entirely ceaseless bullshit at them. It’s not like the mods care, as long as he doesn’t admit he is basically a troll he can’t possibly be one right? :smiley:

23

So much for the claim of ignoring me. :unamused:

Haha… YOU can’t even READ that matrix… gyahd… :unamused:

24

It is not limited to rigid bodies. Every constituent part of the body can be thought of as moving in only one vector direction at any instant. Time fluctuates for each constituent part.

I doubt that this is true. It sounds like an Aristotelian argument in the 21st century. There is an end to recursion for matter. And at the lowest subatomic level, we don’t know what kinds of motion is present and what limitations exist.

25

Honestly the critisism of James S Saint seems unreasonable, in that perspective that he can’t help himself. The blame doesn’t lie with one who may not be accountable for own actions, but the blame lies at the mods and admin.

It is the admin who sets the rules that mods will observe, though admittedly very selective and discriminating at times.

We should focus our energy to sway the admin that this site doesn’t desire philosophy, but cozy debates that has nothing to do with “love of wisdom” but love of nonsens and babble. Mods will posetively discriminate the fools, not the enlighten people.

26

Yeah like that is going to happen. But it’s a noble ideal and for that I salute you. :slight_smile:

Just report him, if enough people report him on a continuous basis they have to do something about this shit or admit they condone his trolling. That’s my idea.

27

But if each constituent is limited by its constituents, the whole cannot move. Why should any constituent be treated differently than the whole?

Actually “we” DO know. But what you are telling me, is that you can’t debate this point merely because you believe in rigid bodies, that Science has abandoned. But your claim that “we don’t know”, merely means that you are talking about something that you don’t know about and assume that no one else does either. I am not claiming to know what they don’t know. I am claiming that they have merely settled on an irrational ontology by saying that spacetime is 4D. I don’t need to add anything to what they already know. I am just pointing out a flaw in their final logic.

28

You’ve got to understand that many of the physics crackpots out there really are mentally ill, at least to some extent. One cannot convince them, nor can they realize that they are hopelessly incorrect. If I knew how to help them, I would.

29

He does need help we can at least agree on that.

But he’s polluting the science fora with this rubbish, there’s got to be some way we can stop his nonsense? Within the rules, hasn’t there?

I mean everyone basically understands he’s a crank, but since he’s so delusional he actually believes what he says, it’s just nonsense. I think it will resolve itself eventually but in the mean time, we have to watch any thread made in sincerity get ruined by someone. It’s not fair, it’s not fair to this forum and it’s not fair to the users and it’s not fair to the people who want an actual discussion without him just jumping in like The Joker in Batman like some chaotic crusader for anarchy. I agree he has the right to post, and I agree he should not be banned for being a crackpot or expounding nonsense. But every thread about anything atm in this part of the forum he’s there talking total nonsense he can’t back up and just running amok, like some deranged pixie on acid, there should be some way we can deal with him, other than just standing back and laughing at him, I mean at some point that is going to get boring? Ignore feature seems the best idea, all just ignore him, the guy can’t gain any purchase if no one responds to his inane babble.

Who’s with me?

Let’s just treat him like a recalcitrant child, and let him have his tantrum…

30

They are treated the same and there is movement.

You are the one who claims I am thinking about rigid bodies. I am not.

I suspect that this is your take on an atom traveling near the speed of light with an electron ‘orbiting’ the nucleus … sometimes the electron is moving in the same direction as the atom so it must be going faster than c, etcetera or it has to do with ‘spin’ so some part must be spinning faster than c, etc.

31

That type of thing. I was actually thinking more in terms of a particle, but it is close to the same issue.

Exactly what the speed of light is and those restrictions aren’t really what this is about. This is more about the fact that because there is a limit, the measure of time gets involved. And because time is the measure of relative change and change has a direction of change, the time calculations are not going to make sense for the changes that are occurring transverse to the whole travel.

Actually I was hoping to not have to come up with an actual model showing exactly why it should be considered 3D rather than 1D. From my perspective, it is really obvious. To me it is like someone proclaiming that space is one dimension and time, being the changing of that space is also one dimension, thus spacetime is really only 2 dimensions. Well, we refer to the 3 dimensions of space for practical ontological reasons. It is intuitive to us that locations need 3 dimensions so as to describe them. At one time, it was intuitive that time was merely a constant measure, not relative. To the normal life, relativity has no significance at all. Upon detailed examination, “we” realized that time could not actually be considered a constant, but relative. All I am saying is that on even further detailed examination, the single dimension that time has been allotted actually needs to be progressed also… and only because of that relativity issue.

Without the relativity concern, no one cares. And I’m not sure that anyone will really ever need to care anyway. But I like to see the logic work out properly and it can’t unless you give time a dimension to match each direction of motion because it is a measure related to each direction of motion.

32

Actually, I thought of what is perhaps a simple enough example to demonstrate the concern of accuracy.

Triplets Paradox
If you consider the famed Twin Paradox scenario wherein a spaceship takes off from a point of origin and the other twin remains at the point of origin. It is accepted that the twin that left with the ship will age less than the one that stayed home. But now let’s expand that a bit. Let’s say that the ship was fairly large and had two crew members. They knew that the journey was going to be quite long, so they had an exercise routine of running back and forth for a little while each day. But one crew member, A, chose a route that had him running between the back and front of the ship whereas the other member, B, ran from side to side.

Now it is understood that both would age less than the twin back at the point of origin, but how much less?

If we calculate the speed of the ship itself so as to derive the time dilation, we should see how much the crew member A aged because his running back and forth was in line with the direction of travel of the ship. His forward running would lessen his age a bit, but his running backward would make up exactly for that difference. But what about the other crew member, B?

Crew member B is actually traveling slightly faster away from the point of origin all the time, no matter which side he is running toward. He is actually taking a zig-zag path away from the point of origin. Thus his aging should be even less than that of crew member A. That doesn’t seem like much of an issue until you examine a serious issue in relativity.

Relativity requires that both of the crew members, because they were in the same reference frame, must age identically. The differences in their running path even out such that neither would be measured as going any faster than the other from the perspective of the ship itself. But according to the exact same rules, they must be aging differently than each other from the perspective of the origin twin. The implication would be that if you go on a long spaceship journey, you should run from side to side so that you will stay a little younger than the other guy. But how did the ship know it was traveling? Should people on Earth run clockwise around the equator, or run North and South so as to stay young? Granted the difference would be extremely trivial. Like I said, this is merely an issue of getting the logic exactly right. It has no practical bearing on anything.

So just as it stands, considering time to merely have a single dimension, there is a paradox that is easily seen. This happens because we considered “aging” to be a measure of time in its single dimension. Yet because the travel had 2 dimensions in this case, the simple minded equation simply doesn’t work.

33

If you actually learn relativity theory, you can do the calculations just fine.

34

“Upon detailed examination, “we” realized that time could not actually be considered a constant, but relative. All I am saying is that on even further detailed examination, the single dimension that time has been allotted actually needs to be progressed also… and only because of that relativity issue.”

Seems rational. Perhaps this plasticity of time is already included in the existing formulas, but quite obviously, if time is taken to be existent, ontologically describable, “having dimension” instead of being a purely derivative notion of movement, then it must “have 3 dimensions”, rather than “be 1 dimension”. It would probably not matter practically, since differences in progression of time become noticeable only at extremely high speeds, where objects move away from or toward each other so fast that they can not be ‘humanly’ understood as part of the same system, fit in the same equation, unless for example if one aims for a non-reductive/canceling integration of all vectors within a particle in relation to each other, which seems just too ambitious.

Matter can be so easily seen to have 3 dimensions because of the clear relations these dimensions have to each other within the same frame of reference. This is the practical meaning of dimensionality - the ‘unity’ of the dimensions in one model. To unify three time dimensions in one model would disallow speaking of objects entirely, we could only formulate matter in terms of its inner movements. So for people who want to keep things as simple as possible, this is simply not interesting.

35

I am thinking, isn’t this idea actually already implicit in the concept of relativity?

From what I’ve understood (and please correct me if I am wrong) the problems with arriving at neat outcomes in the mathematical context of relativity occur when there is more than one frame of reference, more than one dimension in which a timescale develops.

36

There will always be only 1 dimension of time, no matter how many frames of references there are, it’s the individual time dialation that changes, not the dimensions.

37

What is time? It’s entirely relative to motion. What moves relative to what? This is what time is dependent on. When there are different points of reference, there is not logically just 1 dimension of time. Not a coherently progressing one, anyway.

38

I think the standard ‘relativity’ answer is that crew B ages less than crew A. If you peel away the shell of the ship then you see two crew moving with respect to the origin and crew B is moving faster. If you take the ship as the frame of reference then although it looks like both are moving exactly equally, when you compare their watches you see that crew B aged less. The fact is you don’t know whose time is running faster until you compare times. You could take the ship as the frame of reference and then you would calculate that the origin is moving and should be aging less. Only when the ship returns to the origin will you know who was actually moving.

Yes, you could run in some specific pattern on the Earth so you age less than others.

Please explain how the triplets age in a 3-dimensional time universe. How does time operate in your example?

39

I think you missed the point.
If you were on that ship watching the crew, you wouldn’t see any difference in aging. But when the ship returned suddenly one of the two would have to instantly get older.

There are other problems to fix in order to resolve the Triplet Paradox as well as the Stopped Clock Paradox. But a beginning would be to realize that if time is to be given a dimension, it really has to be given 3, one for each direction of relative motion.

As has been very publicly noted, I am seeing your world from a much different perspective. Although it is true that in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, it is only true until the two-eyed man comes along (meaning that you need 2 perspectives - two independent eyes). The issue is merely one of being able to communicate the issues so that the brain might be able to iron out the wrinkles. But there are many wrinkles, because the brain has been severed for a very long time.

The resolve to both paradoxes is that in order to know the reality of the situation, in order to deduce what is happening concerning anything in physics, two perspectives must be used in the assessment. Each person has two eyes, two ears, and even two brains for a reason. Without having two perspectives, two views of a situation, Science cannot deduce anything with certainty. The notion of Relativity presumes that you must always only have one perspective.

40

This doesn’t seem to match anything in the special theory of relativity. Would you care to work through the calculations for us?

All one has to do is use the proper transformation from one reference frame to another. A proper transformation takes into account all the motion relative to any axis of a reference frame.