mrchetsteadman Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 You missed the second 0 in 100% ;) I didnt mean fact, I should choose my words more carefully. Just an old myth I heard a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran Posted October 26, 2006 Veteran Share Posted October 26, 2006 that was interesting but can we actually use these other dimensions like for quick space or time travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 You seem to be quiet knowledgable on the matter, is that even remotely possible? Even in theory? Relativistic time travel forward is possible at least in theory, but still requires speeds of c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted October 26, 2006 Veteran Share Posted October 26, 2006 And speeds of c bring in problems, due to the energy required to maintain the speed (faster you go, heaver you get, more energy you need to keep the speed up) And, faster you go, slower time moves for you, so 5 minutes your time might be 10 minutes time for somebody on earth (hence, relativistic time travel, which is a one way only thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrchetsteadman Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 And speeds of c bring in problems, due to the energy required to maintain the speed (faster you go, heaver you get, more energy you need to keep the speed up) And, faster you go, slower time moves for you, so 5 minutes your time might be 10 minutes time for somebody on earth (hence, relativistic time travel, which is a one way only thing.) I see. I found this article that helps explain. Not that you and ripgut havent done a good job. This is for anyone else. In order to travel through time, one must travel at the speed of light, or at least at speeds very close to the speed of light. The problem is, as you mention, that it is not possible to accelerate something up to the speed of light. This comes from the theory of special relativity. In that theory, Einstein has shown that as something accelerates and travels at great speeds its mass increases. And the larger the mass of the object, the harder it is to give it a push to make it accelerate some more. So when the speed of the object gets really close to the speed of light, its mass becomes almost infinite making it impossible to actually give it the speed of light (or speeds faster than the speed of light). But you don't need to travel exactly at the speed of light to "travel to the future". This also comes from Einstein's special relativity. When things travel at speeds close to the speed of light, time slows down. For example, if you were travelling for 10 years in a spaceship that could go at 95% the speed of light then 32 years would go by for the people that stayed on Earth. So in that sense you could say that you have traveled in the future. However we do not have the means to accelerate our space shuttles to speeds even close to that. The space shuttle travels at about 17,500 miles per hour which is 40,000 times slower than the speed of light. At that speed, an astronaut would have to travel a billion years in his space ship in order to jump one year in the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Also another difficulty lies with interstellar travel at c and that is radiation in which particles will smash into said spacecraft causing radiation. As you approach such speeds the ship is traveling fast relative to the atom, measured in the atom's frame, then the atom is traveling at the same speed in the opposite direction, measured in the ship's frame. That's just good old Galilean relativity as when you're driving along and you see the telephone poles moving backwards relative to you. What special relativity adds is that each of the two, ship and atom, experiences the other as Lorentz transformed. The change in mass is due, not to the stucture of the atom (or any particle for that matter) but is due strictly due to a combination of Lorentz contraction and time dilation. Recall that there is a frame in which the atom is at rest and in that frame the particle has a given structure which will not change when your frame of reference changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Actually there's an 11th dimension...superstring theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicfume Veteran Posted October 27, 2006 Veteran Share Posted October 27, 2006 Let's clear this number of dimensions in relation to string theory off: There are actually 11 dimensions under the string theory, but this website starts with Dimension '0', thus the 11th dimension ends up being the 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted October 27, 2006 Veteran Share Posted October 27, 2006 Let's clear this number of dimensions in relation to string theory off: There are actually 11 dimensions under the string theory, but this website starts with Dimension '0', thus the 11th dimension ends up being the 10th. But (and I'm new to string theory) in the 10th dimension, strings cannot vibrate, because that dot is everything, so the dot can't move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 So far i'm a skeptic to string theory, as it is yet has to posses the capability of being tested. I still won't call it a legit theory until it actually qualifies by coming up with unique predictions akin to metaphysics and dharmic religions, though. Slapping on additional vectors and a planck-space limitation is math, not metaphysics. No offense. Slapshod limitations on the basis of oscillating quanta (these "strings") defined as individual vectors and needing multiple vectors to fill in the definitions to reality, wouldn't exactly make any man of science who was a stickler for testability all that pleased. Again, string theory lacks any unique predictions. Einstein's approach to science was far more stringent. Which is why his relativity actually counts as a theory, and has had more instant impact than any other, and has gone through less change than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 But (and I'm new to string theory) in the 10th dimension, strings cannot vibrate, because that dot is everything, so the dot can't move. Indeed so. And that's why I'm bitching about that in their forums :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~WinGz~ Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 um... wow.. just watched that and i actually understood it haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acies Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Could that mean that everything is inside itself?? The 10th dimension is actually the 1st dimension?? WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r3volution Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Could that mean that everything is inside itself?? The 10th dimension is actually the 1st dimension?? WOW not exactly. When he says the 10th dimension is a dot, he doesn't mean it's literally a dot. He explains that the fourth dimension is a line that connects two dots. But each 'dot' is the entirety of the universe at any given instant in time. Likewise, the 10th dimension is a dot, but that dot is the entirety of all possible infinities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acies Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 mm ok I think I got that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 (edited) Barnes and Noble seems not to have the book in stock anymore. Wait they say the 10th dimension is all the possible time lines for all possible universes correct? Well then the 10th dimension is always changing....constantly shifting as more and more time lines and universes are added....thus there is a 11th dimension a line that connects each 10th dimension to another. Much like the 4th dimension yet on a grander scale. Edited December 9, 2006 by KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts