Is this dimensional hierarchy somewhat usable?

[Braznor]

Zeroth Dimension : the point

1st Dimension : The line.

2nd Dimension : The plane with two axis like squares, rectangles etc.

3rd Dimension : Objects with depth, the third axis. eg. cube, sphere etc.

4th Dimension : Time aka Duration.

Now the combination of these four makeup our spacetime. Beyond these lie the dimensions we can speculate mathematically, but haven't interacted with them practically yet.

Hopefully I got these concepts right from Rob Bryanton's book 'Imagining the tenth Dimension'. the thing is I don't think the mathematics will agree with the conceptual definitions of these additional dimensions, even though the maths is incomplete by itself. I continue with listing the dimensions.

5th Dimension : A split in the four dimensional timeline from one alternative to another. i.e. many worlds concept.

6th Dimension : The summation of the timelines for each possible ending of this universe.

7th Dimension : The summation of all timelines for all possible endings of this universe.

8th Dimension : A split in the seventh dimensional universe from our universe to another with completely different conditions from us (Beginning conditions, laws etc)

9th Dimension : The summation of all such distinct universes including ours.

10th Dimension : The highest tier of the pyramid. Bryanton says over here objects called superstrings vibrate and set the stage for our universes.

My question here is whether this hierarchical framework can be considered somewhat 'realistic' enough for a 'pure' science fiction book?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Braz,

Your breakdown feels more like Sci-Fi than science....


There have been some recent developments in the realm of theoretical micro-dimensions. Ones that are only existant in the realm of sub-sub atomic particles like Quarks (correct me if I am wrong people).

Our hope that time is somehow a dimension and not just a cause/effect element with no real dimensionality may stem from our own desires to extend life, and redo things that have happened in the past. If time is seen as a dimension rather than just a progressional element, the possibility of slowing it, stopping it and going BACK through it becomes, at least fictionally, feasable.

I know that we have shown "time" slowing as we get closer to light speed, but the only problem I have with that is that the only way we have of measuring time is by our own atomic vibrations. The rate at which our subatomic particles move around, chemical reactions occur, or nuclear events happen.

All of these are slowed by moving through space near the limit of our own solid-matter existance.

"Time" may not be slowing at all, just our own perception of it.

So, at least for fiction, I think the pyramid is OK up to about 5. I can't see where a "dimension" could be a stopping point for all timelines, that is more a measurement IN a dimension, not a dimension in and of itself...

The 7th makes no sense after the 6th.

8th seems to just be a parallel universe rather than parallel time streams. You COULD mix that into the 5th, saying that different times could also be completely different realities (anywhere from Silicon life, to no such thing as mass or energy).

9th is another nonsensical term.

And 10th? I really do not know.

I think he is getting a bit to "fluffy" with his science. Reminds me a bit of Hubbard!

 

[arrfep]

A fantastic flash cartoon describing and illustrating the 10 dimensions went around the forums a couple years ago...I'll see if I can track it down.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Here is my view on it :

If you take 3d Cartesian coordinates. And apply this to a 3d electrical field, a 3d magnetic field and a 3d gravity field, you already have 9 dimensions. You can add time, but time is only a quantification of change. It is not a dimension. That is why time is relative and not fixed, it is not a constant. We know this because it changes all the time because it is related to atomic nuclei. And the behavior of atomic nuclei is also not a constant. It changes depending on the electrical field, the magnetic field or the gravity field. Another point is that the reference frame is just as important as time it self.

IMHO, the trick is that a static field is not really static. We experience it as static, meaning in this explanation not changing. If something oscillates really fast between 2 points, it is observed as a static solid line. An example to illustrate is the a line on a crt oscilloscope or a crt television image.

The other trick is to find the exact relation between the 3d electrical field , the 3d magnetic field and the 3d gravity field.

EDIT:

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/interference.htm

If you add 30.0 cm for the distance and 2.0 cm for the wavelength you will get the idea.

 

[silverpig]

Time is called the 4th dimension but it is a single dimension of time and not of space. It is treated differently than spatial dimensions. You can actually talk about, describe, and do geometry/math in 4 spatial dimensions and make no mention of time.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Time is called the 4th dimension but it is a single dimension of time and not of space. It is treated differently than spatial dimensions. You can actually talk about, describe, and do geometry/math in 4 spatial dimensions and make no mention of time.

If i would like to draw a situation in 3d at situation 1 and then at situation 2, meaning a change occurred over time in the same graph. How would i do this in what you describe as 4 dimensions ? I am curious how to view/understand such an event in the 4d geometry/math.

 

[Ninjahedge]

WG, although I can see your point on gravituy and magnetism, I don't see how they can be easily correlated to dimensions.

They seem to be more like dimensionally oriented and situated scalar values... or, rather, placed force vectors.

You can't really travel from one magnetic state to another in quite the same way you can in spacial dimensions, and the actual quantities/values and descriptions of things like magenetism rely on the spacial dimensions to quantify.....

So, I don't know if we directly equate things that can be used as axis values as dimensions in quite the same manner......

 

[William Gaatjes]

WG, although I can see your point on gravituy and magnetism, I don't see how they can be easily correlated to dimensions.

They seem to be more like dimensionally oriented and situated scalar values... or, rather, placed force vectors.

You can't really travel from one magnetic state to another in quite the same way you can in spacial dimensions, and the actual quantities/values and descriptions of things like magenetism rely on the spacial dimensions to quantify.....

So, I don't know if we directly equate things that can be used as axis values as dimensions in quite the same manner......

I am still trying to work on it, but i do not see the fields as field lines and vectors. The vector idea is to easy model and explain how it works. It gives something to hold on too. I think it is far more complex. I see it similar as a fluid in 3d space but with extra ordinary properties. I am not saying it is a fluid. It is not, it is an example to give you an idea how to visualize. I also do not see gravity as a 2D dish view as is common for the earth around the sun example. I see it also in 3D but i visualize it as the opacity is a measure for the strength of the gravity in a for example 3d colored spherical shaped universe.

 

[arrfep]

Here's the cartoon: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php Hope it helps.