Support NeoGAF

[GAMETA]

You have X, Y and Z, defining width, height and depth respectively.

Could mass be a 4th dimension, one that pulls on itself?



Imagine a 3D grid universe with 3D grid quantum cords or waves or whatever. If mass is a dimension, one that is defined by going inwards into itself, couldn't it explain gravity as the distortion towards itself that it causes on spacetime?

So a blackhole maybe could be an inward dimension tesseract? Pulling itself so hard that it folds onto itself?

 

[GAMETA]

 

[niilokin]

is this a fat person joke?

 

[O-N-E]

Not a physicist, but I don't think so. Gravity is a force, whereas each dimension is an axis within which an object can be located. Each additional dimension allows for an additional coordinate.

 

[EviLore]

 

[Kamina]

Only if the persons weight mass is a dimensional number.

 

[West Texas CEO]

It depends on the mass of the jawline.

 

[Rest]

You should read some Rodger Penrose books. "Cycles of Time," "The Road to Reality." I'm guessing you've read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku? I had the same thought about mass being a dimension after I read it.

There's no reason mass couldn't be a dimension. If one believes in hyperspace or higher dimensions, that should come with an acknowledgement that we can't know what exactly a dimension is if we can't even perceive them all. But personally, I don't think there's much substance to string theory or the idea of higher dimensions. It's a good framework for thought exercises, but the basic theory has been around since Einstein and has explained literally nothing about the universe. If you haven't read it, read "The Trouble with Physics," it goes over why the lack of insight provided by hyperspace theory or string theory means that people should consider other kinds of thought about the universe and how it works. Even if it doesn't change your mind, I think it will broaden your thinking.

"Cycles of Time" is FAN-fucking-TASTIC book. The only problem I had with it is that it doesn't do enough to describe its foundational underpinnings, Penrose brushes past important things, and the book is written for people who would already understand what he's talking about. I'd recommend "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind" and Einstein's own "Relativity" as primers. And, of course "The Road to Reality," but it's a behemoth. Then, when you get to "Cycles of Time," you'll be in a good place for Penrose to ask you "are time, space, and mass even real?"

And he's surprisingly convincing at suggesting that they may not be.

 

[Soodanim]

I like the idea of GAF being ground zero for a massive scientific breakthrough that changes physics forever.

It also makes me miss cloudbush, another thread that had important breakthroughs

 

[EverydayBeast]

Never understood dimensions

 

[Mihos]

Never understood

Dimensions are just how many columns you need in a spreadsheet to describe something.

 

[danowat]

Isn't Spacetime generally regarded as the 4th dimension?

 

[GAMETA]

Isn't Spacetime generally regarded as the 4th dimension?

It is, but time is not necessarily a real thing.

In a timeless universe, one that comprises of objects moving inside a box, time is only the perception and memory of motion. There's no past or future outside of the memory or idea. In such universe, even the present does not exist, because all there is has ever been, only transforming through motion and exchanging energy.

In that sense, all there is is substance assembled in various forms and ways, defying or conforming to entropy, we're only different builds of ever lasting particles.

You should read some Rodger Penrose books. "Cycles of Time," "The Road to Reality." I'm guessing you've read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku? I had the same thought about mass being a dimension after I read it.

There's no reason mass couldn't be a dimension. If one believes in hyperspace or higher dimensions, that should come with an acknowledgement that we can't know what exactly a dimension is if we can't even perceive them all. But personally, I don't think there's much substance to string theory or the idea of higher dimensions. It's a good framework for thought exercises, but the basic theory has been around since Einstein and has explained literally nothing about the universe. If you haven't read it, read "The Trouble with Physics," it goes over why the lack of insight provided by hyperspace theory or string theory means that people should consider other kinds of thought about the universe and how it works. Even if it doesn't change your mind, I think it will broaden your thinking.

"Cycles of Time" is FAN-fucking-TASTIC book. The only problem I had with it is that it doesn't do enough to describe its foundational underpinnings, Penrose brushes past important things, and the book is written for people who would already understand what he's talking about. I'd recommend "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind" and Einstein's own "Relativity" as primers. And, of course "The Road to Reality," but it's a behemoth. Then, when you get to "Cycles of Time," you'll be in a good place for Penrose to ask you "are time, space, and mass even real?"

And he's surprisingly convincing at suggesting that they may not be.

To be honest I haven't read any of those, lol... I'm just watching too much youtube maybe, lol

 

[danowat]

It is, but time is not necessarily a real thing.

In a timeless universe, one that comprises of objects moving inside a box, time is only the perception and memory of motion. There's no past or future outside of the memory or idea. In such universe, even the present does not exist, because all there is has ever been, only transforming through motion and exchanging energy.

In that sense, all there is is substance assembled in various forms and ways, defying or conforming to entropy, we're only different builds of ever lasting particles.

Considering the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with TIME, I'd say time is a fundamental construct in physics, everything has a start and middle and an end, the distance from the start to the end is time, hence why it's regarded as the 4th dimension.

I think you are thinking about time too laterally, possibly within the definition that we give it in our day to day life, what you state as transforming through motion and exchanging energy wouldn't be possible without the transition of time.

 

[SKM1]

You need to precisely define what you mean by a dimension. In physics we usually don't talk about a dimension. There is no first, second, third dimension etc.
You talk about the dimensionality of some space. You can always make a change of basis and rotate one direction into another.
In 4d spacetime, one can rotate space into time and as such they are interlinked. There is no clear notion of a space direction or a time direction. There are spacelike directions and timelike directions, but also lightlike directions along which massles objects propagate.

Mass itself is not a dimension but if forms part of the momentum four-vector, because after all, mass is just a form of energy.
Energy has to do with time evolution, just a momentum has to do with space translations.

Therefore it makes no sense to think of mass as a dimension, but as something which affects how the spacetime dimensions are interlinked.
Indeed, put a very massive object somewhere and you'll observe interesting spacetime dynamics.

It may help to think in terms of Einsteins equations, which heuristically say Geometry = Energy. Mass belongs to the right hand side. Spacetime to the left.
Think of them if you want as dual quantities.

 

[Rest]

Considering the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with TIME, I'd say time is a fundamental construct in physics, everything has a start and middle and an end, the distance from the start to the end is time, hence why it's regarded as the 4th dimension.

I think you are thinking about time too laterally, possibly within the definition that we give it in our day to day life, what you state as transforming through motion and exchanging energy wouldn't be possible without the transition of time.

There's nothing to suggest that the increase in entropy is a fundamental law, or that its constant increase in what we perceive as forward in time is anything but arbitrary or an accident of happenstance. There is no time, time is a creation of the human mind to explain why we can't undo certain changes. Its utility as a descriptor is why it is still used in the sciences. You say "time" and it includes so many variables that it negates the need to explain lots of fundamental minutia because humans intuitively understand what is being said when you say "time." The fourth dimension is change in comparison to other measurable changes, not time.

 

[GAMETA]

Considering the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with TIME, I'd say time is a fundamental construct in physics, everything has a start and middle and an end, the distance from the start to the end is time, hence why it's regarded as the 4th dimension.

I think you are thinking about time too laterally, possibly within the definition that we give it in our day to day life, what you state as transforming through motion and exchanging energy wouldn't be possible without the transition of time.

But isn't time, in all this examples, simply a measurement?

If time is relative to the observer, than it's a measure and not an intrinsic property. We measure it as time to explain motion over a period, but that's necessarily an understanding of said motion, a description, not the property or motion itself.

If a particle exists and has a finite time, this time is only a measure and not a property. The particle, by itself, is only exchanging energy, from its creation to its depletion, it's all about how much energy it has, not about time.

Time in entropy, again, is only a measure. It means that particles will necessarily cease motion, but not because of time, but because of the exchange of energy. Time again, is only an abstract concept.


And there's more, if we consider time is relative to gravity, but gravity is an effect and not a cause, then there's something causing it.

A dimension inwards, such as a "mass dimension" could explain this, could it not? An inward pull of space time, just as much as its mass occupies it, the "inght" dimension could pull on it.

The more gravity, the slower time goes, right? What if "The more inght pull, the more energy is conserved due to less motion being necessary"?

 

[danowat]

There's nothing to suggest that the increase in entropy is a fundamental law, or that its constant increase in what we perceive as forward in time is anything but arbitrary or an accident of happenstance. There is no time, time is a creation of the human mind to explain why we can't undo certain changes. Its utility as a descriptor is why it is still used in the sciences. You say "time" and it includes so many variables that it negates the need to explain lots of fundamental minutia because humans intuitively understand what is being said when you say "time." The fourth dimension is change in comparison to other measurable changes, not time.

So you disagree with Einstein then?

 

[FunkMiller]

There's nothing to suggest that the increase in entropy is a fundamental law, or that its constant increase in what we perceive as forward in time is anything but arbitrary or an accident of happenstance. There is no time, time is a creation of the human mind to explain why we can't undo certain changes. Its utility as a descriptor is why it is still used in the sciences. You say "time" and it includes so many variables that it negates the need to explain lots of fundamental minutia because humans intuitively understand what is being said when you say "time." The fourth dimension is change in comparison to other measurable changes, not time.

Edit: can’t believe more people didn’t get this. Smh.

 

[danowat]

But isn't time, in all this examples, simply a measurement?

If time is relative to the observer, than it's a measure and not an intrinsic property. We measure it as time to explain motion over a period, but that's necessarily an understanding of said motion, a description, not the property or motion itself.

If a particle exists and has a finite time, this time is only a measure and not a property. The particle, by itself, is only exchanging energy, from its creation to its depletion, it's all about how much energy it has, not about time.

Time in entropy, again, is only a measure. It means that particles will necessarily cease motion, but not because of time, but because of the exchange of energy. Time again, is only an abstract concept.


And there's more, if we consider time is relative to gravity, but gravity is an effect and not a cause, then there's something causing it.

A dimension inwards, such as a "mass dimension" could explain this, could it not? An inward pull of space time, just as much as its mass occupies it, the "inght" dimension could pull on it.

The more gravity, the slower time goes, right? What if "The more inght pull, the more energy is conserved due to less motion being necessary"?

The speed of light is a universal constant, describe the speed of light, or any other velocity without using time.

 

[ntropy]

OP is high but not too high. like a good buzz

 

[Reality Czar]

I suppose so. Scientists often change definitions and things fall in and out of categories from time to time. For instance Pluto being not considered a planet.

Dimensions and black holes and teleportations and human cloning and many other things that are well known in pop science are in fact entirely theoretical. Nobody has ever observed them and verified their existence 100%. A whole lot of science is conjecture, basically guessing, and then eliminating the incorrect hypotheses. Who knows, maybe they find out that mass is tied to one specific property of something they call a dimension. The dictionary is entirely malleable.

 

[T8SC]

No, it's a force carrier and it's why we have things like Gravitational Lensing.

 

[GAMETA]

The speed of light is a universal constant, describe the speed of light, or any other velocity without using time.

Electromagnetic radiation that spreads in 3 dimensions from its origin and suffers zero or close to zero resistance from the fabric of the universe. It loses energy only by colliding with other particles, therefore, it travels distances at optimal conditions. If said conditions are limited by the fabric of the universe itself we don't know.

As for measuring the speed, it's not possible without time or a similar concept... that doesn't mean time exists by itself, only that its a necessary concept to describe progression.

 

[danowat]

Electromagnetic radiation that spreads in 3 dimensions from its origin and suffers zero or close to zero resistance from the fabric of the universe. It loses energy only by colliding with other particles, therefore, it travels distances at optimal conditions. If said conditions are limited by the fabric of the universe itself we don't know.

So you can't lol, I was specifically looking for the constant which is a velocity, which, as far as I can fathom, can't be defined without using 'time'.
I am going to hazard a guess that your issue with time is the notion that time is a construct as we see it from our frame of reference, and how we have applied a certain nomenclature to it so we can define it.

 

[SKM1]

This whole discussion is just stoner talk

If you want to make any meaningful statement it has to be done within a specific scientific model.

Absolute statements about the "nature of reality" without reference to a specific model (theory if you like) are completely devoid of meaning.

 

[GAMETA]

So you can't lol, I was specifically looking for the constant which is a velocity, which, as far as I can fathom, can't be defined without using 'time'.
I am going to hazard a guess that your issue with time is the notion that time is a construct as we see it from our frame of reference, and how we have applied a certain nomenclature to it so we can define it.

But only because its a description.

We could use a system that divides space in quadrants or 3D slices and use this as the measurement system of progression over N quadrants...

What I mean is: Time is a concept that can be substituted, although it's probably the most convenient humans came up with.


I have no problem with time, I just picture the universe as timeless, and time as a measurement system of progression.

 

[Rest]

So you disagree with Einstein then?

What I said agrees with Einstein.

 

[GAMETA]

This whole discussion is just stoner talk

If you want to make any meaningful statement it has to be done within a specific scientific model.

Absolute statements about the "nature of reality" without reference to a specific model (theory if you like) are completely devoid of meaning.

Of course it is, this is bro-science at its best, lol.

I'm no way capacitated to propose a scientific model, I'm a 3D generalist artist that sucked in math and physics at school... these are just speculative bs, but it's kind of fun, right?

Recently I read about Eternalism only to find that I had thought about those exact same concepts without ever reading about them, so yeah, it's good entertainment for the mind.

 

[Rest]

This whole discussion is just stoner talk

If you want to make any meaningful statement it has to be done within a specific scientific model.

Absolute statements about the "nature of reality" without reference to a specific model (theory if you like) are completely devoid of meaning.

You have it backwards. Hypothetical statements about the nature of the universe are how questions about the universe are framed, those questions lead to tests to prove whether the statement is right or wrong. You can't have any theory about the way the universe works if you're not answering questions about how we observe it to work.

 

[triplestation]

caterpillar can turn into a cacoon no problem but the motherfucker has no idea algebra is real

nevermind even higher maths

 

[Rest]

caterpillar can turn into a cacoon no problem but the motherfucker has no idea algebra is real

nevermind even higher maths

How can math be real if our eyes aren't real?

 

[GAMETA]

is this a fat person joke?

yo mama so fat pluto was discarded as a planet

 

[GAMETA]

That's very cool man, you're self publishing at Amazon?

Spoiler

jk don't ban me please

 

[SKM1]

You have it backwards. Hypothetical statements about the nature of the universe are how questions about the universe are framed, those questions lead to tests to prove whether the statement is right or wrong. You can't have any theory about the way the universe works if you're not answering questions about how we observe it to work.

You cannot make an observation without a theory. This is a basic epistemological fact.

 

[Rest]

You cannot make an observation without a theory. This is a basic epistemological fact.

I will refer you to the above.

 

[GAMETA]

You cannot make an observation without a theory. This is a basic epistemological fact.

Then how can you come up with a theory to begin with?

You can make an hypothesis based on sheer observation, imagination and maybe even speculation, it's an idea you may want to investigate further, doesn't mean it's correct or not, it's just an idea... A theory is the one that requires proof, but every theory was once a hypothesis..

 

[danowat]

What I said agrees with Einstein.

Really? He never said time doesn't exist, he said time is relative and flexible, so ultimately an illusion, but it still exists!

 

[Rest]

Really? He never said time doesn't exist, he said time is relative and flexible, so ultimately an illusion, but it still exists!

You contradicted yourself.

 

[danowat]

You contradicted yourself.

It just shows your lack of understanding on the subject, the key here is relativity, which means that time isn't constant and is different for different people, the notion that time is constant for all is the illusionary part.
Time exists, its the 4th dimension in Einstein's theory of relativity, you said there is no time, ergo time doesn't exist, how can something exist and not exist at the same time.

(And yes, I understand the irony of the last sentence in relation to quantum mechanics, but we're stepping into theoretical physics there.)

 

[Rest]

It just shows your lack of understanding on the subject, the key here is relativity, which means that time isn't constant and is different for different people, the notion that time is constant for all is the illusionary part.
Time exists, its the 4th dimension in Einstein's theory of relativity, you said there is no time, ergo time doesn't exist, how can something exist and not exist at the same time.

(And yes, I understand the irony of the last sentence in relation to quantum mechanics, but we're stepping into theoretical physics there.)

The fact that you don't accept my conclusion doesn't mean that I don't understand. But good job acting like a prick.

 

[danowat]

The fact that you don't accept my conclusion doesn't mean that I don't understand. But good job acting like a prick.

Meow lol

 

[Kamina]

You cannot make an observation without a theory. This is a basic epistemological fact.

What? I observe shit all the time without having theories.
For example: the oder day, close to midnight i was stargazing when i observed one of the neighbors letting their puppy pee on the community lawn where such a thing is forbidden.
Fact, no theory.

 

[SKM1]

Then how can you come up with a theory to begin with?

You can make an hypothesis based on sheer observation, imagination and maybe even speculation, it's an idea you may want to investigate further, doesn't mean it's correct or not, it's just an idea... A theory is the one that requires proof, but every theory was once a hypothesis..

When I say theories I mean models. You are born with innate models of the world.
You assume for example that there are such things as objects which move around, etc.
These are called priors.

From these models and our intrinsic abilities we create myriads of other models.
Scientific models are versions of these which are very sophisticated and follow certain rules.
But you can not escape you basic assumptions.

To make an observation you have to say " X did Y". You are assuming that there is such a thing as X and Y and those are elements in a model.

If you are interested in this then read David Deutsch.
He shows quite clearly that Empiricism for example is not a good epistemology.

 

[SKM1]

What? I observe shit all the time without having theories.
For example: the oder day, close to midnight i was stargazing when i observed one of the neighbors letting their puppy pee on the community lawn where such a thing is forbidden.
Fact, no theory.

All subjects in that narrative are abstract elements in your "theory" of the world.
The brain is so damn fast that you don't even notice this.

You could just be a brain in a vat, for all we know.

 

[bender]

This thread is a flat circle.

 

[GAMETA]

When I say theories I mean models. You are born with innate models of the world.
You assume for example that there are such things as objects which move around, etc.
These are called priors.

From these models and our intrinsic abilities we create myriads of other models.
Scientific models are versions of these which are very sophisticated and follow certain rules.
But you can not escape you basic assumptions.

To make an observation you have to say " X did Y". You are assuming that there is such a thing as X and Y and those are elements in a model.

If you are interested in this then read David Deutsch.
He shows quite clearly that Empiricism for example is not a good epistemology.

Sounds very interesting. I'll check it out, although I honestly have no means to try to develop or back the idea in any way or form... I'm just entertaining myself here, the idea seemed pretty cool, lol.

 

[GAMETA]

This thread is a flat circle.

every circle is flat, it's a 2D shape

 

[bender]

every circle is flat, it's a 2D shape

 

[GAMETA]

The wheel is a cylinder, my friend.