Greetings!
Posted on May 21st, 2007
by
tenthdimension
I am a new member of zaadz. As I become familiar with the community here, and see what I can add to the discussion, I plan to start blogging here as well. My archive of blog entries I have created surrounding my tenth dimension project so far can be found at
imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com
Enjoy the journey,
Rob Bryanton
Imagining the Tenth Dimension
imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com
Enjoy the journey,
Rob Bryanton
Imagining the Tenth Dimension

Help




Rob, great to see you blogging in here too! looking forward to sharing your imagination with us :)
Hi Rob. Thanks for joining. I just watched your “Imagining the tenth dimension” twice, and I must say, that's about one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I see how “time” is just a line in the fourth dimension, and why, unlike physicists, you don't say “10 spatial dimensions and one time dimension.” That's really quite elegant and, like I said, one of the coolest things I've ever seen!
So, one question I have for you regards parallel universes. In the 7th dimension you talk about all the possible timelines from our big bang, and treating that as a point. And then you talk about drawing a line to a point of all the possible timelines for a completely different universe. Is this completely different universe a “parallel universe,” or is it a “different” universe in that it is a different way that the big bang could happen. In other words, along a 7th dimensional line segment, you have an infinite number of points (each which would include a universe catalyst (such as a big bang) and an infinite number of timelines). So, are all these points in the 7th dimension “parallel universes” in the way physicists describe, or something else?
It's all a little mind-boggling for me, but exremely fascinating!
Thanks!
~M
However belatedly - Bravo & WELCOME
Hi Matthew, you are right on the money, sounds like you have a good handle on what I'm proposing. “Parallel universes” is one of those phrases though(like “angels”), that appears to mean different things to different people. Some writers use the phrase to refer to the other “bubble universes” Hawkings proposes, which could be the different “universe catalyst” phrase you're using, or it can refer to the “other different-initial-conditions universes” phrase that I tend to use.
This means that to my way of thinking, “parallel universes” refers to Everett's Many Worlds (Theory of the Universal Wavefunction), and his proposition is that every possible outcome for our universe exists as a wave at the quantum level which we are continually “observing” (as opposed to “collapsing” in a particular state out of the indeterminate wavefunction.
So, in my model there are the branching timelines of past and present, and contained within the “point” in the seventh dimension would be every possible branch. There is the branch where I continue typing right now, and the branch where a car crashes through my window and I never finish typing this email because I'm dead. To my way of thinking each of those branches would be called a parallel universe, and if I had to power to navigate back and forth through the fifth dimension I would be able to eventually get to every possible branch: I could get to the version of our universe where dinosaurs and humans co-exist, or where we never lost our tails, simply by going back far enough in time and choosing the alternate path that gets us to those alternate presents for our would (and of course, I could also “fold” through the sixth dimension to get to those alternate presents, which would be a much faster way of getting there).
What I like about this idea is it shows how a multiverse of universes could exist, each as physically real as can be, and yet be inaccessible to us from our point in the fourth dimension. There would be no way for us to get to a different universe having different basic physical laws unless we could move through the seventh dimension and above. But there are still, as you say, a mind-boggling number of parellel universe that we could explore within our own six dimensions, before we ever tried to move into those other different-universe-catalyst universes that must also be out there.
In my book I have also proposed that this gives us an easy way to explain dark matter, but this is of course just conjecture on my part since I don't have the credentials to back up such a bold claim. You can find my blog entry about that idea at:
http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiverse-and-dark-matter_17.html
Enjoy the journey!
Rob
Fascinating! Thanks so much for your detailed response, Rob! I understand your inclination to point out that your credentials don't offer the scientific backing, and I appreciate that footnote. As a former math teacher, though, I am well aware of the different ways of learning and understanding math (and physics, as well as any discipline). Some people are visual learners, and the way that your site describes and presents this stuff, I think, is very suitable for learning visually. It may be that you are one of those rare geniuses who happens to have an Einstein-like understanding of the universe (multi-verse) around him but who needs to express and understand it in a way that is other-than the standard Physics model. And I think Tom's article in WIE could be a testament to that.
Anyway, thank you for expanding my horizons so significantly with your website. It actually helps me to understand wtf Kaku and other physicists are saying theoretically (I always liked the graph when I was learning new mathematical concepts). I'll be ordering your book in June.
Thanks, once again!
~M
P.S. and I hope you'll continue to blog or cross-blog here on Zaadz. i've added your blog to my notifications.
Hiya Rob! Welcome to Zaadz! I've had a link to your video on my blog! LOVE IT!
Lee Smolin has called for a NEW style of doing science & as Matthew has quite rightly pointed out Rob's visual approach provides just that - albeit equally playing to the beat of the drum!