It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# 3D Space Puzzling Question

page: 1
1
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:03 AM
Anyone else been puzzled over this problem.

Space is supposed to be an expansion, expanding in a similar way that a balloon expands when pressurised with air. The surface of the balloon being the event horizon. Then why do numerous TV programs show examples of folding space to create faster travel between two places as a flat sheet of paper.

Imagine to floating points inside that balloon and dragging them to meet each other. How do you show spherical space folding and what happens to the space next to the fold. The fold is not really a fold but a stretch and the stretch would (if possible to achieve) affect every point inside the balloon. We are after all in three dimensions not two dimensions.

Anyone expand on this, any idea thoughts would be interesting

MJ2

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:23 AM
Well, first things first, the graphics for this stuff shown to the general public are basically arbitrary representations of really watered down explanations. So, trying to understand this type of physics from these graphics or explanations is pretty futile and will probably give you an incorrect understanding of these concepts, or simply hamper you from understanding them, period.

It may not be the answer you want, but if you really want to understand or learn this, the first step is to sit down and open a good math textbook, because you are going to need at least basic college level math for the next step. The next step, read the good books on this stuff, topics from what I understand you are interested in, would be Cosmology and General Relativity. And, what I mean by good books are books that are not the watered down for the masses type of books, basically if you find it at new price for less than 80\$ chuck it.

Though there are a few interesting intro books to physics in general that include those topics, I will list them: “The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene”, “A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion by Stephen Hawking” (I haven’t read this one yet, but it’s suppose to be good), “On the Shoulder of Giants by Stephen Hawking”. These are a few of the ones I can think of at this moment, I am sure there are more.

As for the proper full on books, I myself don’t have a list as most of the ones my research leads too are currently out of my price range, usually 120\$ plus. I also am currently really rusty on both my math and physics, but I will be working on that soon; so if you really are interested, ask again and I will dig up my massive to read book list on this stuff from the dark depths of my notes.

And I am sure you would want it sum up from me, anyways. As I have mentioned before I am currently a bit rusty so, bare with me as my answers maybe be off.

I will list the points that come to mind at the moment:

-First you are basing this on the assumed notion that space is suppose to be expanding or is expanding, this is, to this day still heavily debated. As I have said before throw out the balloon idea, this is for school children who don’t actually care to understand how this works.

-Your second paragraph deals with the idea of mapping or coordinating expanding multi dimensional space. I, myself have pondered this for a while and have not come across a decent idea or solution to this by others, though I do have my own ideas, but they will probably not suffice you. I am sure those in Universities ponder this all the time and may have written papers on it, I myself have not been to serious about looking into this, if you really want to know, start by phoning your local physics professor and ask him where to start looking.

-The last point leads to this point, you assume space is 3d, while in general it is accepted in physics that it is not, though things are still treated as acting in 3d for Newtonian physics and classical models (Which both in general are considered out dated, but still have use.).

-in general space is debated from being 4 – 13 dimensional. I could be wrong on this, but most theories I read are somewhere in there.

If you want my ideas and thoughts and explanations I am way too tired to try to write them out in a coherent form today.

As for summing up the popular theories or the more well known ones I am also too tired to do that and am really rusty on it, so as I have said before its best to look it up elsewhere, by good books or actual papers or by talking to physics professors first hand.

Ultimately if you really want to understand this stuff it’s going to take some work, and sadly you most likely will not be truly satisfied here on ATS.

If however you want to hear a bunch of random opinions which in most cases are horribly off on the matter, ATS is the place to be.

For the record I originally came to ATS to talk about such matters, but learned that there are so very few who actually know anything about these subjects on ATS and only a hand full of decent threads.

Note: my past threads on these issues are/were horrible since I was a fool in my youth and rambled on in half sleep rants with grade 10 or lower knowledge on this stuff, since then I have actually cleaned up my act.

P.S. You might be lucky and get some one better then me to reply.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:42 AM

-in general space is debated from being 4 – 13 dimensional. I could be wrong on this, but most theories I read are somewhere in there.

The key lies in the number of dimensions. String and membrane theories favor 11 dimensions, but I will have to see proof to believe that and proof is lacking so far.

But a 4 dimensional interpretation of space-time doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.

Here's the problem: Michio Kaku folds a piece of paper to show hoe a wormhole can be a shortcut between two points instead of traveling along the paper. So he takes 2D object, paper, and shows a 3-D model of the paper curved, incrementing the dimensions by one.

So how do you take a 3D object, add one dimension and show it in 4D? We can't see or understand 4D with our eyes very well, though our math can handle it quite well. So therein lies the problem: we can't see in 4D, that's why we can't see a good 3-D model extrapolated into 4D.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:33 AM

I'm sorry I didn’t get back to you earlier, I had been away and my roaming connection was so weak signal I couldn’t even do emails.

Anyhow look thanks for the long reply you deserve a response. We may not be able to answer many of these questions – quite frankly who can. I suppose I was testing in a way who was around to at least have a conversation on a subject I find intriguing – by the sound of it someone just like yourself.
It’s funny how a simple sounding quantum questions can be yet so difficult to answer or even impossible yet we are again intrigued but someone’s best guess