The 4th dimension is BS

[TheEldritchGod]

you trolling or high?

Edit: I hate auto correct

Neither. Quantum mechanics and figuring out gravity has always been a hobby of mine. I came up with the Planck tetrahedron when I was fourteen with my grandfather's help.

Yes. Gravity does exist, I conceded this with the verification of gravity waves I'm 2012. However, ieo like to point out we have NOT detected gravitons yet. We infer something like a gravity exists, but we have no direct evidence of the existence of gravity.

Gravity (motion) is tied directly to "time".

M theory is broke and ignores several fundamental truths. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed.

So where goes gravity come from?

Gravity is a boson. Like light. When something emits light. It loses energy and technically gets lighter. So, what is being lost when gravity is emited?

We detect no loss of mass from matter over time. Where goes the gravity come from? What is the other half of this equation?

So others have taken my original debunked theory and kept the fundamental particle and repurposed.

It's easier to imagine it better in 2 dimensions. Imagine a table.

Imagine that empty void is a series of triangles. For an object to exist, it needs to be on a triangle. The heavier it is, the more triangles it needs. However, at all times at least one corner must touch the table. So as you add more and more triangles, they overlap up into the third dimension.

It makes space have a slope, as the triangles wind up all leaning in the same direction. It becomes easier to go one direction than the other. Eventually, if you add enough triangles, they become 90 degrees to the table this is when you achieve a singularity.

Like a fresnal lens, they bend space time, but never need to be any higher than one Planck length. But there's a problem.

How do they communicate?

How do they know to gather around matter? Well, the obvious answer is gravitons, but how are they being emited? We run Into the conservation of matter and energy problem.

What if empty void is just like matter? Hot matter emits photons in the form of heat as it cools. So, void, when it gathers around matter is "hot" and as it "cools" it emits gravity in the form of gravitons.

This would then make more sense as gravity is now following the laws of thermodynamics. What can we project from this?

If void is basically in chunks and it gets hot and cools, there would be a point in empty space where empty void crystallizes and gravity goes to zero.

In space, by current realitivity, space time is smooth and therefore gravity can never go to zero, but this would be unique in the universe because EVERYTHING ELSE HAS PHASE STATES.

So how can we prove or disprove this?

Gravity Is motion. Motion slows down time. Zero gravity would speed up time. At a Lagrange point we could build a giant round sphere and at the center place a small fleck od radioactive material. In smooth space time, we can determine the rate if decay. In fresnal space time, there will be a "jump" in the speed of the radioactivity that could be measured.

Or... and this is what I hope for...

Radioactivity would stop.

There is a possibility that Radioactivity is caused by matter moving through the chunks of space time, Imagine putting glass marbles in a jar of sand then rollingg the jar around. The marble will get scratched up.

This is what I think causes radioactive decay. So, if we put a radioactive fleck at the nearest Lagrange point, it will either decay as Einstein predicts, or decay faster, or maybe... just maybe...

STOP.

And in that case, I will put a big middle finger in the face of every M theorist and do a razorfist spinning "fuck you, I was right."


Edit:there may be some confusion about radioactive decay rates. It is all or nothing. There is radioactivity in "liquid" void, but crystallized void, this would result in matter moving through such an Area like electrons moving through a superconductor.

Too warm, there is resistance, at the right temp, no resistance. Binary.

And you say, but even a fleck on matter has gravity. Yes, under smooth space time, under fresnal space time, there needs to be enough matter, and at certain locations, the matter can cancel each other's mass out enough to allow for this phase state.

Ie, Lagrange point.

Of course you would also need to account for the galaxy. It has a bit of heft to it, I'm told. But that's just a matter of math.

Still, what I'm proposing is to try and find a single spot in the solar system that's about a millimeter wide, a spot that moves constantly because of the earth spinning, the moon orbiting, the earth going around the sun, and the solar system orbiting the galactic core.

But unlike M-theory, I have an actual way to test if I'm right or not!

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

But unlike M-theory, I have an actual way to test if I'm right or not!

But do you have the time to do that?

 

[TheEldritchGod]

But do you have the time to do that?

It's more a matter of budget. Here's the real problem

M-Theory: X IS POSSIBLE.
What isn't possible under M-Theory?
M-Theory: NOTHING!
Then how do you know it's right if you can't find a false outcome?
M-Theory: ...
M-Theory: There are Twelve Dimensions and the Rules of Quantum Probability Might Mean You Are Immortal! GIVE ME MORE BUDGET TO STUDY THIS!

If nothing is ever wrong and everything is possible, then every experiment will always be a success and thus you can ask for more money because WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! I don't think I could come up with the money to test my theory, but maybe someday someone will figure it out, but there's nothing sexy about it. No headline grabbing ideas. And nothing to convince the universities to increase your budget and how many intern slaves you have. That's why it's M-Theory, Loop Gravity, with Planck Tetrahedrons a distant 3rd...

but it IS third.

 

[ElijahRyne]

THERE IS NO PROOF TIME EXISTS.
That clock over there? Proof of a rate of change, but not the existence of time.
FIGHT ME.

I am half asleep and somewhat pulling stuff from my a** but here is my argument for time.

Time, at least in my opinion, is the 4th dimension we experience. Think of it like this. A single point is the 0th dimensio if you were to simultaneously extend it, you would get a line. If you were then to rotate that line you would get a 2d circle, or if the line is infinite a plane. If you were to then flip the circle you get a sphere, and the plane will give you 3d space. If you then rotate that sphere you get time. So, let us assume that you are a 0 dimensional being living on a line. You can move back and forth, but no matter how you move you will be encompassed in that 1 dimensional line. Yet, where does the energy that allows you to move come from? Perhaps it is from the line spinning in a 2d plane. If all planes are made from an infinitely fast rotating line, the existence of the plane dictates that at least that 1st dimensional line must be rotating. If that line were to collide and transfer some of its momentum into a smaller line then this will explain how there is energy on the fragmentary line the observer is on. The 2d plane would be invisible to you on the 1d line however, only coming through as time in your perspective. Likewise, in my opinion, the life we experience here in the 3rd dimension is something similar with the 4th (time) dimension being made from a rotating of the 3rd. Here are diagrams to make my argument look more professional than it is.

Showing how a dot turns into a sphere.

The circle represents an infinite plane. The line stretching its diameter represents the infinite always moving line that makes up the plane. The small line in the bottom left is the fragmentary line, and the dot on it is the 0th dimensional infinitely small observer.

The infinite line collides with the line fragment.

The line fragment moves due to the energy transferred to it by the infinite line.


I know there are a couple of problems with my logic and diagrams.
For one in the ones with the infinite plane and the line it makes it seem as if the line is colliding with the fragment and that collision allows the fragment to move by itself. When I mean that it is the line moving through the fragment that allows motion since the line fragment can only exist on the infinite line and the existence of it existing as an independent line on a 2d plane, is an illusion that is caused by the infinite line moving infinitely fast.

Secondly this requires infinities to exist and I don’t feel like learning the math to make it more accurate to rl by removing them. It also requires everything to be made of 0 dimensional a point(s) that expand infinitely because it must to make a 1 dimensional line and so on till you reach 4 dimensions. Which is a big assumption that requires at least a mathematical proof that I can’t be bothered, or have the expertise, coming up with as a college drop out 5 or so minutes from going to sleep.

It also makes the erroneous claim that we are 2d creatures living on a 3d surface moving through 4d space, when it is more accurate to say we are 3d creatures that observe in the 2d and use our brains to create the 3d. I just think starting with the 0d thing moving on the 1d surface is easier to explain than a 1d fragment on a larger 1d fragment that exists on an infinitely fast and possibly large moving line that mimics a 2d plane. That can only observe the 0d and approximate the 1d.


Granted, I do not study physics, nor am I mathematician, so I do not know how accurate this model is when you apply the math and physics, but I find it makes an easy description that is logicly sound as long as you accept the somewhat absurd claim that infinitely fast movement of lower dimensional objects makes up higher dimensions, and something similar makes reality.

So I've been writing another story where one of the main plot points is that the MC and the group of intergalactic travelers travel between dimensions that follow their own very weird rules.

There comes a point where they figure out there's four types of dimensions, of course being dimensions 1-4.

1D is basically just what if everything in existence was a line.

2D is cartoons, anime, and all that junk.

3D is the world we live in.

And then there's 4D. Like what the fuck is this:

Here's the kicker. That ain't true 4D. It's 3D trying its damndest to emulate 4D. Imagine what true 4D would be like, and how everyday items would change massively in 4D, if they would even exist at all.

Here's an interesting tidbit I learned. Shadows in a 4D environment will become 3D. You know how when light hits a box, there's a 2D shadow of the box behind it, or in front of it depending on the positioning of the sun. Welp, in 4D those shadows become 3D. Imagine a cardboard box, except it ain't a cardboard box. It's a fucking shadow.

Then I heard the term surface volume. Bitch I thought surface area was a pain in school. What the fuck is a surface volume?

Now I'm having a crisis since I just learned that if humans existed in a 4D environment, we could see every single angle in a 3D environment. Much like how you can see practically every angle presented in a 2D environment, you could see every angle of a 3D object in a 4D world. We'd be the drawings on paper by that point, except technically not cause the whole point of 3D is the ability to move up and down. HOW THE SHIT DOES THAT WORK!!!

Not to mention, in a potential 4D world, we don't know exactly how that would work cause we literally do not have the extra dimension to theorize. All we have is X, Y, and Z. I don't want to think about where and how fucking angle W fits into that.

For the people saying time is the fourth dimension, go to 0:28 in this video. The dude explains it better than I can:

I wanted to do research on the potential of a 4D world, but now I'm left with an existential crisis.

See above for my thoughts on the 4d

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Granted, I do not study physics, nor am I mathematician, so I do not know how accurate this model is when you apply the math and physics, but I find it makes an easy description that is logicly sound as long as you accept the somewhat absurd claim that infinitely fast movement of lower dimensional objects makes up higher dimensions, and something similar makes reality.

See above for my thoughts on the 4d

Bah. I did my best work sitting on the toilet and was just bored. Everything you need to learn about science is on line now. You don't need a university.

The only flaw I can see in what you are talking about is, and you also point it out, that infinity needs to exist. And I am not just talking about infinite distance, or infinite objects, but infinite anything. For example, Xeno's Paradox. If I shoot an arrow and it goes half the distance in X time, and half the distance again, and half again, and half again, how does the arrow ever reach the target? In a universe with infinite halves, the arrow never gets there. But you would NEED the ability to cut something infinite times to have SMOOTH space time.

If space time is smooth, sure, your proof works.

However, it's been accepted for many years now that the planck distance is the shortest distance you can go. (ie one wavelength) If you try to go any shorter, you'd have to put so much energy into the photon to shorten it's wavelength that it will become a klugleblitz, or a singularity. You CANNOT go any less than one planck length, therefore, the solution to Xeno's paradox is, you reach one planck away from the target and then you cannot go half the distance anyone. You move zero, or you move at least one planck.

From this, I assume you cannot have smooth spacetime. If space time isn't smooth, then your line is broken up. It looks more like...

/|/|/|/|/|/|/|

The fourth dimension would be exactly one planck "High" or rather, one 1/2 planck above and below the 3d plane.

There is no where to go. Plus this "bumpy" space time helps explain all sorts of things. Quantum teleportation. Quantum entanglement. All explainable if, on a very small local level, you periodically get localized "crystalization", so you get that "superconduction" that allows information to travel faster than the speed of light, or objects to just stop existing in one place and appear in another.

However, if space-time is smooth, then yes, time exists. of course it would. Then the line is unbroken. You can bend time backwards, make wormholes, all sorts of fun stuff. I mean, smooth space time would be far better for humanity. We could have warp drives and shit. Can't do that with Fresnal Space-time. But... That's the other reason why I believe there is no "time".

When was the last time things turned out well for humanity?

 

[Syringe]

I think we're all confusing the two different 4th dimensions here.

Space-time is just 3 dimensions of space + 1 dimension of time, hence 4D space-time. This is exactly why we call it space-time.
Geometrical 4D space is 4 dimensions of space. This is where stuff like the tesseract comes in and other theoretical dimensions (in geometry).

Speaking of time - Entropy doesn't equal time. Rather, entropy is mostly called the 'arrow of time' which follows the 2nd law of Thermaldyanmics: entropy (disorder) must always increase. It's pretty much why you cannot unscramble an egg. Doing so would break the 2nd law and the arrow of time. What's hot will inevitably become cold. But of course, there are other arrows of time (cosmological, psychological, etc).

 

[owotrucked]

That's right, 4 dimension is 4 dimension. The uniqueness from the dimension only comes from physical properties attached to them like Kaithar's reply said.

If OP makes up a fictional 4th spatial dimension that create 3d shadows, he has to remake all particles and laws to accomodate it (like how forces may decay in distance^2, distance^3, distance^4 from sources because they radiate into space). If OP wants the 4th dimension to be a hidden secret of the world, photons and most things can't unconditionally go into that dimension because they would appear like they yeeted out of existence and violated the classical laws, which immediately prompt the fictional inhabitants of that world to discover that 4th dimension. However, if OP applies unique properties to that 4th dimension, it ceases to be a spatial dimension because it doesn't behave like the classic spatial dimensions at all!