It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fun with Alternate Dimensions

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
We begin with the many worlds theory- one hypothetical implication of quantum physics whereby every occurence which can have more than one outcome splits the universe into multiple alternate universes- one for each possible outcome. For instance, you flip a coin. It comes up heads.

But without your knowledge, there is now another universe out there where the quantum particles which do not obey the understood laws of physics and which do not have definite position until measured acted differently, speeding up or slowing down that coin just enough to make it come out tails instead.


So the other day I'm watching a sci-fi show, and the premise is basically that in an alternate reality, this one guy didn't accept a job offer, and wasn't there to participate in a series of highly unlikely coincidences that created the world we know, and in this alternate reality, aliens are blowing the holy hell out of the Earth as a result.

That got me thinking- if the many worlds theory is correct, then somewhere out there, even the most unlikely of coincidences which is actually possible for you has played itself out. What could that mean in the context of your personality and life?


Here's one of mine.

At various points I have been desperate to have an impact, and to defeat the many little annoyances of life- particularly those of schedule and of finance (which are, of course, intricately linked). And essentially for the purpose of "venting" that desperation, I have concocted various unlikely schemes which I would not dare attempt, but which at least provided me with the illusion of a choice when it comes to staying in unhappy circumstances.

But, according to the theory, in some reality, I snapped and tried it, and in some branch of that reality, one of my unlikely plans succeeded.

Hypothetically, somewhere out there in existence is a universe in which a certain disgruntled construction worker who happens to look a lot like me stole some heavy equipment, bribed a small team of addicts (using what you use to bribe addicts) to do dangerous criminal work under his direction, and managed to blast and excavate several truck loads of uranium ore. In most branches of that reality of course, everyone was poisoned to death in the process of trying to process the ore.
But in some branch, they got it right.

And in most branches from that, the crude nukes they tried to assemble were duds. But in a few, just by virtue of infinite possibilities, they got two bombs that would actually go off, and tested one.

In most branches of that reality, special forces found and killed my other self, but again, by virtue of infinite possibility, somewhere out there I extorted the government for a large sum of money.

In most branches of that reality, I spent a very short life on the run, my funds were frozen, etc and I probably got killed, but for reasons that need not be restated, somewhere out there I disappeared into a 3rd world nation with my money safely hidden in a network of shell companies, where I used it to payoff starving locals to do my bidding.

This ultimately culminates in the possibility that somewhere out there in the universe, a very lucky son of a gun who looks a lot like me is currently ruling Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Southern Sudan and perhaps a few other nations, and thinking that he is an ingenius supervillain- when in fact, he is the one out of literally billions of me, the vast majority of whom found out the hard way that they aren't as smart as they think.

I'd really like to meet that one though. The funny thing about it is though, knowing myself as I do, is that he would feel superior to me, despite being me.




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


I was thinking about this not too long ago, and was trying to incorporate the 'soul factor'.

Assuming that humans have souls, and there is ONLY one soul per body, then how do we 'split up' our soul within multiple universes?

i.e.
If for instance, we were to assume there is ONLY 2 universes, instead of just this one, does this mean to say there is only 1/2 a soul in our bodies right now, in this universe?

That would be hard to grasp, let alone imagine the infinate universes that might abound.

If we 'shared' existances with others (who are in essence 'us') then that's alot of souls abounding, or 'divided souls'.

This has always puzzled me, that, and the possibility of time travel. Imagine meeting up with 'one's own soul' on some predetermined timeline.

Boggling, to say the least.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
There are many interesting angles to the "soul factor".

You could take the line of reasoning suggested by Jet Li's "The One". That the soul contains infinite energy and is thus infinitely divisible, having the side effect that the death of every one of the infinite embodiments results in godhood.

You could postulate that the soul is physical but operates on a quantum level. A novel and fairly recent answer to mechanistic philosophies which I'm pretty sure I first heard in The Waking Life. Under this reasoning the soul can split as infinitely as matter itself is posed to do under the many worlds theory.

One could be somewhat gnostic about it and argue that the soul is a partition within a unified universal consciousness and that if infinite, that universal consciousness can be tricked by a partitioned portion of itself into partitioning infinitely more of itself to be dedicated to the experience of the alternate "yous" created by each split.

And all of that is before we even get into whether or not the soul itself is capable of changing or if it is fundamentally unchanged but merely directed differently by the course of events: to put it briefly, nature versus nurture. The answer to that question affects the parameters for just how infinite the possibilities really are and thus how drastically different alternate realities can be.

For instance, if the soul is capable of fundamental change, not just partial redirection by circumstance, then there could have been a reality in which Hitler was the most selflessly benevolent figure in history, or in which Christ himself took a turn for the worst. But if the soul can not fundamentally changed then even though Hitler's art career might have gone somewhere in an alternate reality, he still would have been a profoundly evil artist.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 



Under this reasoning the soul can split as infinitely as matter itself is posed to do under the many worlds theory.


Mabey that's where we get the phrase: "Spreading one's self thin?"


You could take the line of reasoning suggested by Jet Li's "The One". That the soul contains infinite energy and is thus infinitely divisible, having the side effect that the death of every one of the infinite embodiments results in godhood.


I saw that movie...loved it! However, when each version of Jet Li was 'killed off' and there were only two remaining 'Jet's left', they had accumulated the strengths over a period of time...in essence...becoming stronger.

Wouldn't this notion nullify the 'infinate strenght equation'? If all souls of infinate universe are set up with equal (infinate) strenght, then how can one get stronger? Sounds like a Highlander Movie with Christopher Lambert.

Hmmm....very interesting proposal Vaga!

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I don't claim to be good at math... in fact math singlehandedly kept me out of Stanford... but I understand that there are degrees of infinity- in that different expressions each incorporating infinity don't necessarily have equal value (if I understand correctly).

Beyond that, there's no certainty that the energy unites on this plane. Perhaps instead of being spread out among the remaining copies it goes to hell (in my case at least) and waits for the rest to show up.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
By your theory there is somewhere someone that looks remarkably like me running around ruling the earth with an iron fist, making all the beautiful red headed babes of the world line up as his concubines?

Only one question though, what's outside the universe? For your theory to ring true then there must be something outside of the universe big enough for all these parallel universes to fit inside, also not only your infinite possible outcome universes, but mine as well, as for the rest of the 6 billion + humans that occupy this singular world. What about other species?

Makes one ponder doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
In the interest of modesty (perhaps a strange interest for me to have since I felt compelled to share the fact that somewhere out there I am an emperor) I must stress that it's not really my theory. It's been around. I believe Asimov wrote a book called "One" about it, and I'm certain he wasn't the first.

The question you raise, whatukno, is a tough one, but not one peculiar to this theory. The question of where space exists- for instance what is beyond the border of space if it is true that space is still expanding from the big bang- is one of those things that plauges any model of the cosmos, because nothingness is just a concept that it is very difficult to grasp.

Imagining a 5th dimension is virtually impossible for most, but it's almost as difficult to imagine 2 and 1 dimensional existence in a practical sense- we can sort of think about it and visualize it, but I just can't wrap my head around a real existence in 1 dimension, and when you get down to no dimensions (the literal definition of whatever exists beyond space) that is just as infathomable as infinite dimensions.

For if space is defined by dimensions, and by definition there are no dimensions to that which is beyond space, how can there be enough room in a place with no dimensions to accomodate space?

The best answer I can come up with is that the question implies space to exist in an infintesimal point within nothingness, making the universe a singularity and opening up questions of the holographic universe theory, which simultaneously allows theoretically for the infinite existence since size and separation are an illusion then, but simultaneously seems to challenge the theory of diverging realities since it implies that contradictory existences exist in exactly the same space, making it possible for a given point in space to simultaneously contain something and be completely empty, because of the superimposition of two conflicting realities in which either might be true.


I can't help noting that if the theory is correct, there is also a universe out there somewhere where I have a really good understanding of everything I just spoke about. As it is, I find it all a bit confusing- I can come up with it, but sorting out which are really possible and which are not is just beyond my mathematically/scientifically-challenged mind.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Nice thread V,

Just to help you with some concepts:

The 'zero' dimension is not 'outside space' but is the 'point'. It is dimensionless. It takes two points and the line connecting them to be the first dimension.

The 4th dimension is fairly easy to imagine. Consider yourself as a baby, and then as an old man. Connect all of those and you get something that looks like an undulating snake in the 4th dimension as the infinite 'snapshots' of you are joined through the 4th dimension.

Remember that picture of the human body sliced into thin cross-sections?

The Visible Human



Well, if you slice your 4th dimensional self you'll see a similar 'slice', representing you at any one time in the 3rd dimension.

Now I can't show you the 4th dimension using a 2 dimensional photo, but I can show it to you using this:




After lunch, I'll come back and take you through the 5th dimension and upwards.

HTH.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Good stuff badge. Didn't know that part about the zero dimension. The rest seemed familiar but if I'll be in awe if there's really a way to wrap a 4D imagination around 5+D. I've kinda sorta grasped the general concept thanks to what I've read so far of Kaku's Hyperspace, but visualizing it is beyond me.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I saw somthing disapear the other night. Only thing is, I have no idea what it was.
I thought it had to be an illusion, but that does not explain it.
Something shot out from under my computer chair and went in a straight line along the floor and jumped up and landed on the couch and dissapeared into a pile of clothes my room mate had left there.
I was not about to look in the clothes.
I convenced myself it could not be real because it went right in front of my dog and she never reacted to it.
It was grey and very small and moved so fast, almost not more than a streak.
It was in the main part of my vision. very strange.
Interdimensional?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
In terms of extra spatial dimensions (not quite the same thing as the misapplication of that word to the many worlds theory that i've been using) yeah, that would be possible in theory.

If there was a creature that could percieve and act in 5 dimensions, it could manuever itself into the infintessimal point on the 5th dimension which we occupy, seeming to appear out of nowhere.

For demonstration purposes imagine playing Mario brothers. Mario only knows up down forward and back. He doesn't know depth so he doesn't look out of the TV screen and see you. If you thrust your finger through the TV screen though, a very thing portion of your finger would then be to his front, and would appear to have come out of nowhere. What's more, he would only see that one strip of your finger- like the portion of your finger covered by an infinitely small ring so your finger would appear very unnatural to him. It would also change. First your finger tip would be in front of them, and it would seem to grow in size as you pushed your finger further in, bringing thicker and thicker portions of it into his plane. So a 5 dimensional being manifesting in the 4 dimensions we can percieve wouldn't necessarily look like a normal, functional organism, because we wouldn't be able to see some of its vital components. For example if a 5 dimensional creature pushed his finger through our plane along the 5th dimension, I think we'd see a sphere (extrapolated from what Mario would see). Not sure about that because it's just hard to visualize the structure of something in 5D.

However, I can't see any reason why a dog would fail to react to something that had just entered your plane from a higher dimension- unless your dog was just not paying attention.

There's a fair chance that you almost kicked some small rodent under the desk and prompted him to take a chance on bolting for it- and apparently he got lucky.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Though there are several ways to look at various dimensions, the two main schools that stand out are those of conventional physics, represented by modern scholars. Some good books that are available are those by

Michio Kaku (2004). Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0713997281.
................(2008). Physics of the Impossible A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel .New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385520690.

Brian R. Greene,(2005) The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, 2005.
..........................(1999)The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, 1999

Seth_Lloyd


In his book, Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos, Lloyd contends that the universe itself is one big quantum computer producing what we see around us, and ourselves, as it runs a cosmic program. According to Lloyd, once we understand the laws of physics completely, we will be able to use small-scale quantum computing to understand the universe completely as well.



Lisa Randall


Randall studies particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University, where she is a professor of theoretical physics. Her research concerns elementary particles and fundamental forces, and has involved the study of a wide variety of models, the most recent involving extra dimensions of space. She has also worked on supersymmetry, Standard Model observables, cosmic inflation, baryogenesis, grand unified theories, general relativity. Professor Randall recently completed a book entitled Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions, which was included in the New York Times' 100 notable books of 2005.


Note: that Amazon links above are titles with excerpts, or extensive reviews and summaries - for more information visit that site.

(to be cont)



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
An alternate view that is becoming more and more popular is that of Rob Bryanton with an excerpt in Google books.

Here's his idea of visualizing time as a spatial dimension as discussed in my first post above:


© [size=-3]Rob Bryanton
(reproduced from the Google books link above)

As shown in that Youtube vid above if you flip through the infinity of 'time slices' like a flip book it may appear a little like a person 'morphing'. That's just a rough approximation of how "Time" (or Space-Time) might be visualize in the 3rd Dimension.


Visualizing it 'on side' rather than cross-section (again, just the best way we can visualize) is looks like a long, flexing worm or tube.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


hmm,
ok nothingness lets examine that. Makes you wonder can space (something) expand into a void (nothing)? There obviously would have to be something for space (something) to expand into.



let's look at this example of bubbles. Each bubble exists right next to another and another. Sense one could assume that the universe exists as a sphere, and thus other universes might also be spheres, pressing on one another. In an endless chain or perhaps a giant super spiral unigalaxy. (cool I coined a term!) and thus that unigalaxy exists in a super universe of some kind, and the process continues on infinitely.

so given the example above perhaps there exists a unigalaxy where in some part of it exists a world exactly like earth except someone has the ability to move between the universe membranes?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I wouldn't accept it on faith that there has to be 'something' for space to expand into. We simply have no frame of reference by which to visualize since existing in space necessarily prevents us from observing the absence of space.

Virtually all theories of cosmology encounter the appearance of a homoncolous fallacy.

You can't have creation without a preexisting God or big bang material or space or something and a place for it to preexist, or so we are naturally inclined to think. Let's not forget that it took hundreds of years for civilizations to even grasp the concept of zero within the space we experience, much less the absesnce of space itself.

We could conclude that the assumption of needing a place in order to exist is faulty just as easily as we can conclude that the need for a place defeats all current theories.

If a particle does not have a definite position until measured, who is to say that a particle needs a position at all before the advent of observers?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm holding a wake for Schrodinger's cat.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
That's true. The homunculus argument is fallacious because it doesn't explain what it is purported to explain. Is the brain the homunculus or is a part of the brain watching a movie.

According to Wiki it's similar to Ryle's Regress, or that Intelligent practice is not a step-child of theory, but rather it's experimentation.

The Universe may be a closed system and we can't know the boundaries, but that doesn't mean there's something else, roughly analogous, but beyond our experience and outside the system which describes it. However, having no words or concepts for it we couldn't understand it in our present condition.

2 cents.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
This reminds me of "The Mist" kinda... I watched it last night, it's sorta scary or I thought it was anyway. About the alternate worlds or something having a window here and these really creepy monsters and bugs coming through and eating people.

freaked me out...




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
One way you can get an idea of what an object would look like that existed in the 'next' dimension.

For instance when you throw the 'shadow' of an open cube onto a 2-D space you see the 'up' dimension. This is referred to by physicists as Dimensional Analogy



To make the leap from three spatial dimensions into four, a device called dimensional analogy is commonly employed. Dimensional analogy is studying how (n – 1) dimensions relate to n dimensions, and then inferring how n dimensions would relate to (n + 1) dimensions.


The Dimensions so far as, three spatial dimensions and one space-time dimension. That makes four.

Imagining and describing a projection of the 5th Dimension:

Now it may be best to think of the fifth dimension is that it can be used to describe a point in fifth dimensional space and this is commonly used in mathematics. Once that is digested and deemed reasonable, through reading and studying the reference books (which can just be browsed or used as a type of encyclopedia, or read straight through like a book.)

If you take a four dimensional object, one that has 'up', 'out', and 'away', plus has rotated in the fourth dimension which you can call something else like 'warp'. IOW some idea that has meaning for you or adopts current jargon, it doesn't really matter.

If you take a two dimensional creature and have them transit a strip, then they are traveling in 2-D. But if you twist that strip and attach the ends, then you have a mobius strip.

If the 2-D creature walks along the strip now actually 'twists and turns' through the third dimension - but to him, it looks like he's walking an endless strip.

Likewise a 4 dimensional Space-Time construct like the Earth going through space can travel, twisting and turning along a 5th dimensional mathematical line/space/warp. But to us it looks like normal space.

However, that doesn't mean there isn't something that is 'different' because of this twisting and turning of space time along a fifth dimensional warp. That might be seen as 'Gravity', "leaking" out to the third from the fifth.


Thus the fifth dimension can already be imagined in these ways:
1. as a mathematical concept;
2. as an analog to a 2-D being traveling a mobius strip by using a video of the Earth traveling through space-time, twisting and turning along the 5th dimension;
3. as a projection of a rotated tesseract:



From Wiki

A 3D projection of a 24-cell convex regular 4-polytope (or polychoron) performing a double rotation about two orthogonal planes - by J. Hise

The five-dimensional Hypercube is a decateron or penteract; it has 32 vertices, 80 edges, 80 faces (each a square), 40 cells (each a cube), and 10 hypercells (each a tesseract).



[edit on 22-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
One of the things that's fun to speculate about using Dimensional Analogues is

Where is God in hyper dimensional space

Picture a three dimensional being speaking to a two-dimensional being.

To the 2-D being the voice will seem to come from nowhere and everywhere at the same time.

If the 3-D being grasped the 2-D and lifted him "up", the being would seem to disappear from his normal space. To other 2-D onlookers, he would have vanished.

To the 2-D being the 3-D being would be a 'god'.

Now if we picture a Supreme being who can do those things, and be everywhere (seemingly to us) at the same time, then what dimension would be the lowest they could be observed within?

It couldn't be the 5th Dimension which cause the Being to be subject to Gravity.

If we picture this analogy, then (adapted from Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way of Thinking about Time and Space )
By Rob Bryanton

(cont)
the first dimension is a line
the second dimension is a plane or a 'split' off the line
the third dimension is a fold
the fourth dimension is a line

Then
the fifth dimension is a split
the sixth dimension is a fold
the seventh dimension is a line
the eighth dimension is a split

If the sixth dimension is a folding of our Universe, such that it includes all possible outcomes of physics and beginnings and endings and types of infinite Universe outcomes, then the seventh is a line connecting two sixth dimension points shrunk to a point.


© [size=-23]Rob Bryanton


What about God?

Well as most have guessed, 'God' would have to be no lower than a 7th dimensional being. He wouldn't be an 8th dimensional, because that's just a split of the 7th. That might be where several 7th Dimensional Gods ruled, all being creators of all possible universes connected to each other (i.e the 6th and below).

( cont )

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Badge01]




top topics



 
2

log in

join