Extra-Dimensional travel

[Hexen]

Rather than traveling through space, is it possible to travel other dimensions or other universes?

[Bright Banana Beard]

No, it is not possible to "travel."

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Do we even know that other dimensions or universes exist? Is there any possible way to know? As much as I'd like to believe that such things exist, its pretty much in the realm of science fiction.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

You need a reading list. First, Flatland by Edwin A Abbott. Second, The Fourth Dimension by Rudy Rucker. Anyone else got recommendations?

[Ocean Seal]

Rather than traveling through space, is it possible to travel other dimensions or other universes?
I'll answer this with an I don't know. I know that the parallel universe theory with a few generous and unproven addendums has posited that the universes are actually were close to one another. As in there is another universe a few inches above ours. They believe that we can tunnel to the other universe.
As for time, we are traveling through time currently at 3x10^(8) m/s or c.

[Meridian]

As in there is another universe a few inches above ours. They believe that we can tunnel to the other universe.
:laugh:

Sure there is.

[Q]

You might want to look into M theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory) which works on the idea that we live in a multiverse. Traveling to these other universes is purely in the realm of science fiction though.

If however you meant something like warping, you might want to look into the Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).

[Astarte]

If there are genuine aliens from another distant planet they would have to be bending time and space to get here.

[Noinu]

Alright this will be rather away from the point, but that would be so cool! Going to other universes : D

[Hexen]

I actually meant building portals to other worlds or 'Dimensions' or something similar like that (like the game Half-Life, The Doom series, or a "Stargate" etc).

[Rafiq]

Uh, this is way beyond us.

Let's talk about actually being able to travel to Mars before other dimensions.

[28350]

You need a reading list. First, Flatland by Edwin A Abbott. Second, The Fourth Dimension by Rudy Rucker. Anyone else got recommendations?

Hyperspace by Michio Kaku

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I actually meant building portals to other worlds or 'Dimensions' or something similar like that (like the game Half-Life, The Doom series, or a "Stargate" etc).

Short answer: No.

TL;DR answer: "Dimension" as used in pop science fiction is a bit of a misnomer in mathematical and physical terms, which in both cases means the minimum number of coordinates in order to define a point in a space. For example, defining a point in a three-dimensional space requires three numbers, which are the X, Y and Z coordinates, or in common parlance, length, breadth/width, and height/depth. Each dimension is at right angles to the others - look at the corner of a cube and you'll see how.

So going with the above, an additional dimension would be one at right angles to the three previously mentioned - but where would it go? Certainly we can't visualise it, but the maths works out, and it's even possible to create virtual 4-dimensional space on computers and draw hypercubes, hyperspheres and all sorts of different 4D shapes - with the proviso that such objects have to be rendered on a 2-dimensional screen, perhaps with 3D glasses if you are lucky.

If hyperobjects are mathematically consistent, why don't we see any in real life? Perhaps our universe just isn't like built that. Perhaps, as the string theorists claim, the extra dimensions have collapsed down to submicroscopic sizes that not even a photon could squeeze through. Or perhaps not - what we think of as rolled-up dimensions could be something else entirely.

Which brings me neatly to my next point - time is also a dimension, or at least half a dimension since we only seem to be able to travel along it one way (forwards). An event in spacetime, as well as occupying an area in space, exists for a duration of time.

Having established the above let's talk about extra dimensions. A macroscopic dimension in addition to the three we are already familiar with could have potentially catastrophic effects - we don't have fourth-dimensional structures to hold our insides in! But if we reduce the size of the fourth dimension to around that of atoms and molecules, a huge vista of novel compounds and perhaps even elements could be synthesised in such conditions, or they could occur naturally if the whole universe has this extra dimension.

If extra dimensions of space are hard if not impossible to visualise, trying to imagine what it would be like if there was more than one dimension of time is even harder. What does it mean for time-like dimensions to be at right-angles to each other? Relativity tells us that time and space are interconnected - in a universe with more than one time-like dimension, would it be possible to meet yourself - without the aid of a time machine? Would its inhabitants have to wear multiple watches, or watches with more than one face?

Since we're already talking about hypothetical universes, let's address that subject directly. Scientists have yet to find evidence for other universes, and it's difficult to see how they could, since the universe is defined as the sum totality of all events in spacetime. Perhaps when we finally come to describe a theory of everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), we may able to infer the existence of other universes without observing them directly. But this of course does not mean that travel to those universes would be possible.

In order for travel to other universes to be anything other than science fiction, there needs to be something akin to a multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), wherein seperate universes share the same existential status yet are causally seperate without technological interference. The actual mechanism of travel, if possible, may be of importance; do objects suddenly "switch" or "jump" (to all appearances) to the other universe? If so, one may need to specify time as well as location before making the journey, otherwise you could come back to your originating universe millions, perhaps billions of years before or after you set off originally! "Wormhole" or "gate" type connections where you can actually see what's on the other side before setting off would represent a truly causal link between the previously seperate universes, although establishing such a connection may have unintended consequences beyond the stock science fictional extradimensional invaders. Even then, it may turn out that time runs at different rates relative to each other - once fully through the wormhole or gate, one could discover that in the time it takes to perform a quick systems check, eons have passed back home and you're missing, presumed dead.

As you may have gathered, extra dimensions and other universes are huge subjects, which is surprising considering we haven't actually found any yet, and may not find any at all, ever. But it is still a topic worthy of exploration, since it really gets to the fundamentals of the universe in which we live. Asking the question "What if things were different" can shed an unexpected amount of light on the question "Why are things the way they are?" Other posters have recommended very good books and I strongly suggest you read them if you have any interest at all in the subject.

[Astarte]

Short answer: No.

TL;DR answer: "Dimension" as used in pop science fiction is a bit of a misnomer in mathematical and physical terms, which in both cases means the minimum number of coordinates in order to define a point in a space. For example, defining a point in a three-dimensional space requires three numbers, which are the X, Y and Z coordinates, or in common parlance, length, breadth/width, and height/depth. Each dimension is at right angles to the others - look at the corner of a cube and you'll see how.

So going with the above, an additional dimension would be one at right angles to the three previously mentioned - but where would it go? Certainly we can't visualise it, but the maths works out, and it's even possible to create virtual 4-dimensional space on computers and draw hypercubes, hyperspheres and all sorts of different 4D shapes - with the proviso that such objects have to be rendered on a 2-dimensional screen, perhaps with 3D glasses if you are lucky.

If hyperobjects are mathematically consistent, why don't we see any in real life? Perhaps our universe just isn't like built that. Perhaps, as the string theorists claim, the extra dimensions have collapsed down to submicroscopic sizes that not even a photon could squeeze through. Or perhaps not - what we think of as rolled-up dimensions could be something else entirely.

Which brings me neatly to my next point - time is also a dimension, or at least half a dimension since we only seem to be able to travel along it one way (forwards). An event in spacetime, as well as occupying an area in space, exists for a duration of time.

Having established the above let's talk about extra dimensions. A macroscopic dimension in addition to the three we are already familiar with could have potentially catastrophic effects - we don't have fourth-dimensional structures to hold our insides in! But if we reduce the size of the fourth dimension to around that of atoms and molecules, a huge vista of novel compounds and perhaps even elements could be synthesised in such conditions, or they could occur naturally if the whole universe has this extra dimension.

If extra dimensions of space are hard if not impossible to visualise, trying to imagine what it would be like if there was more than one dimension of time is even harder. What does it mean for time-like dimensions to be at right-angles to each other? Relativity tells us that time and space are interconnected - in a universe with more than one time-like dimension, would it be possible to meet yourself - without the aid of a time machine? Would its inhabitants have to wear multiple watches, or watches with more than one face?

Since we're already talking about hypothetical universes, let's address that subject directly. Scientists have yet to find evidence for other universes, and it's difficult to see how they could, since the universe is defined as the sum totality of all events in spacetime. Perhaps when we finally come to describe a theory of everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), we may able to infer the existence of other universes without observing them directly. But this of course does not mean that travel to those universes would be possible.

In order for travel to other universes to be anything other than science fiction, there needs to be something akin to a multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), wherein seperate universes share the same existential status yet are causally seperate without technological interference. The actual mechanism of travel, if possible, may be of importance; do objects suddenly "switch" or "jump" (to all appearances) to the other universe? If so, one may need to specify time as well as location before making the journey, otherwise you could come back to your originating universe millions, perhaps billions of years before or after you set off originally! "Wormhole" or "gate" type connections where you can actually see what's on the other side before setting off would represent a truly causal link between the previously seperate universes, although establishing such a connection may have unintended consequences beyond the stock science fictional extradimensional invaders. Even then, it may turn out that time runs at different rates relative to each other - once fully through the wormhole or gate, one could discover that in the time it takes to perform a quick systems check, eons have passed back home and you're missing, presumed dead.

As you may have gathered, extra dimensions and other universes are huge subjects, which is surprising considering we haven't actually found any yet, and may not find any at all, ever. But it is still a topic worthy of exploration, since it really gets to the fundamentals of the universe in which we live. Asking the question "What if things were different" can shed an unexpected amount of light on the question "Why are things the way they are?" Other posters have recommended very good books and I strongly suggest you read them if you have any interest at all in the subject.

really nice analysis of dimensions. especially bringing up the computer models that have 4 or 5 or how ever many desired dimensions. i remember i made that in a qbasic class at one point. in terms of a "theory for everything" leading to hypothetical recognition of dimensions, that sounds a lot like what we have right now in mainstream science - if they ever did have a theory for everything they probably would have had it through recognizing some kind of previously unknown factors that could largely impact the hegemony of the status quo.

Its like an old occult creed regarding angels/demons/djinn "they are from between the places we know".

[maskerade]

I always though gravity was sort of something that could be explained as being something of a 4th dimension - considering the low amount of influence it has on mass (don't know if that's the correct term, but hopefully my meaning isn't lost). As in, gravity would work in a 4th dimension that we can't experience due to the fact that we operate in three dimensions.

Yes/no/maybe?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I always though gravity was sort of something that could be explained as being something of a 4th dimension - considering the low amount of influence it has on mass (don't know if that's the correct term, but hopefully my meaning isn't lost). As in, gravity would work in a 4th dimension that we can't experience due to the fact that we operate in three dimensions.

Yes/no/maybe?

Some formulations of M-theory treat gravity in such a manner, but it's by no means certain if the universe is actually like that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

really nice analysis of dimensions. especially bringing up the computer models that have 4 or 5 or how ever many desired dimensions. i remember i made that in a qbasic class at one point. in terms of a "theory for everything" leading to hypothetical recognition of dimensions, that sounds a lot like what we have right now in mainstream science - if they ever did have a theory for everything they probably would have had it through recognizing some kind of previously unknown factors that could largely impact the hegemony of the status quo.

How so? The hegemony of the status quo does not rely on there being only three spatial dimension and one of time.


Its like an old occult creed regarding angels/demons/djinn "they are from between the places we know".

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We don't even know if there are any extra dimensions, let alone that they are inhabited.

[black magick hustla]

Most of what noxion said was right, except that, hypercubes are just a visual representation of mathematical axions, you dont see them because they are not "real". In fact, dimensions are not real things in the same sense obama is real. They are mathematical concepts use for modeling and analysis. You can infact make an infinite dimension space. In fact, in quantum mechanics they are common. They are called Hilbert Spaces. For example, A quantum harmonic oscillator (for example, the bonds of a lattice) is represented in an infinite hilbert space, because there are infinite possible energy levels.For example, you can represent a molecule with two atoms united by a "spring" and at high temperatures the spring can be activated, and it can have infinite different configurations, or energy levels.


String theory, even if it works, is not "real", its a mathematical framework, that is it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most of what noxion said was right, except that, hypercubes are just a visual representation of mathematical axions, you dont see them because they are not "real". In fact, dimensions are not real things in the same sense obama is real. They are mathematical concepts use for modeling and analysis.

So they are real in the sense that maps are real, representing something that may or may not have a concrete existence as discrete entities.

[black magick hustla]

So they are real in the sense that maps are real, representing something that may or may not have a concrete existence as discrete entities.

i think it is somewhat of a good analogy but it kindof fails. you can visually imagine islands and shit. four dimensions, not really. because there is really nothing visual about them. you declare a vector space with a four vector basis and then you say they are orthogonal, which implies certain things, like the dot product of two vectors being zero. its all just shitty abstract and boring rules

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think it is somewhat of a good analogy but it kindof fails. you can visually imagine islands and shit. four dimensions, not really.

I wasn't aware that you had to be able to visualise what a map represents - just that a map is more useful if it is so.


because there is really nothing visual about them. you declare a vector space with a four vector basis and then you say they are orthogonal, which implies certain things, like the dot product of two vectors being zero. its all just shitty abstract and boring rules

I'm not sure I'm with you on the "nothing visual" part. If we can take a 2-dimensional section through say, a sphere, and produce a circle/ellipse, then surely we can take a 3-dimensional section of a hypersphere and produce a sphere. If we then move along or rotate on the extra dimension, we can produce a series of circles representing a hypersphere moving or rotating relative to a three-dimensional section.

It doesn't seem that boring to me, but maybe you're not a fan of geometry/topology?

[Ravachol]

I wasn't aware that you had to be able to visualise what a map represents - just that a map is more useful if it is so.



I'm not sure I'm with you on the "nothing visual" part. If we can take a 2-dimensional section through say, a sphere, and produce a circle/ellipse, then surely we can take a 3-dimensional section of a hypersphere and produce a sphere. If we then move along or rotate on the extra dimension, we can produce a series of circles representing a hypersphere moving or rotating relative to a three-dimensional section.


The thing with a spatial notion of 'dimensions' is problematic because of representation issues. A spatial representation of 3 dimensions makes sense because the signifying representation maps the signified element: a dimension of spatiality. An added fourth dimension, in the form of a temporal extension of the other 3 dimensions makes sense because it is represented temporally.

If I, for example, take a set of colors and represent each one as a real number I can map them in a spatial fashion, let us say a collection of planes. And while this might represent the colors perfectly, it doesn't mean anything in a spatial sense since the representation, the signifier has a spatial characteristic but the signified, the colors are in no sense or shape spatial.

[∞]

Rather than traveling through space, is it possible to travel other dimensions or other universes?

I'm too lazy to read everything Noxion had posted...

Lets make this simple. The next dimension involves viewing time being perceived as how we perceive depth (our 3rd dimension). Now in order to travel through time we would need to travel at the speed of light. Which to most people, is impossible since we have mass. Mass would make impossible to travel at this speed.

The closest thing we have to this is the relative time that elapses in spaceships which is called "gravitational time dilation". Thats about as close as we've gotten so far. Sorry to burst your bubble.