messed up thoughts on dimensional theory

I've likely got some of this wrong, but this is the mental problem I've been chewing on here. (and yeah, I've been pondering this straight)

Please pardon any spelling errors, btw. I'm tired. This is difficult enough to discuss awake, and I'm not stoned enough right now..lol

Ok, let's start with dimensional modeling first. I'll take it that you know about points, lines, planes and then 3d space. If we assign time the arbitrary value of '1', then what we have is a rotated 3d space offset from (for the sake of argument we'll call it 'realspace') this is the basic basis of multidimensional theory, in this case, we dont' have x/y/z axes, we have y/z/1 space, in which our measurement of 'width' corresponds to the measurement of 'length' in realspace. Now, we can assume that space is not infinite, but we have n number of offset dimensions, possibly coming back to one in which their timeflow equates to our measurement of 'length' or single dimensional space. I covered that to cover this...if we assume, based on our model of electromagnetism being the perpendicularly rotated, but aligned quantum forces of 'electric' and 'magnetic' then we could easily (relatively) assume that each quantum force could be the producing factor of a string, depending on its orientation, and of course we've got the theory that quantum force interactions produce subatomic particles..in this case, it'd be where they cross and produce a 'dimensional signature' ...the forces aren't exactly 'forces' so much as expressions of dimensional interactions. Say we have force A, which we could correspond to our arbitrary assignment 'length'....it's a singularity...a point with no width or depth, but infinite length. We could call it gravity, for the sake of argument.(or, if you prefer space-mass interaction) We introduce force B, which adds width to the length, creating a 2d sheet, a plane, of infinite length and width, but no thickness....we could call this electromagnetic (which is the offset waveforms of electric and magnetic forces). Assume that gravity also has an offset waveform, rotated 90 degrees when viewed 'end on'. Ignore the offsets, for now, but don't forget that they're present in the model. So we've got gravity, magnetic force, and then we can add in, let's say, the strong nuclear force, arbitrarily calling it C, which corresponds to depth. We now have 3d space, consisting of gravity, magnetism and strong nuclear forces....but it's static, unmoving....so for time, we assign a 4th dimension...which, for the sake of brevity, we'll call time. run it as an offset to gravity, which means it runs parallel to gravity, (but can interact with, if we assume time follows a waveform model, as do most of the other forces we're discussing, by being the gravity offset waveform) BUT perpendicular to both magnetism and strong nuclear forces. (What I'm talking about with offset waveforms, is take a sine wave.....copy it, and rotate it on the node, until the copy is offset 90 degrees, so that when viewed from the end, it would appear as an + but viewed from the side, you could only view (interact with) one waveform at a time.) Now, with magnetism, electric force follows that pattern, and it could be assumed that strong and weak nuclear forces do the same. The reason that we can't necessarily interact with 'time' the same way we do with gravity, is time, while still affecting us, is offset in relation to length, but if we could shift out of length, time would be our 3rd dimension, but then perhaps say the...electric force instead would be our 4th dimensional movement. And that might account for some of our difficulties, because we can 'conceivably' interact with the offset forces, but it's more difficult as it requires tremendous power to shift in and out of this dimensional boundary set, but what about the ones that're offset to the offsets, and still parallel or perpendicular to those that we deal with normally? Those forces, except for the occasionally warping or leakage, might not even 'exist' in our reality. But, we could theoretically model a few things from this....as in, the first dimension could conceivably act as the 'gravity' force for whatever dimension it's in....like, using the model illustrated above...what if the 3d(1) dimension (one offset from us) ran on a basis of magnetism rather than gravity, but played the same role...that the only reason magnetism behaves the way it does, or gravity behaves the way it does not from any intrinsic property, but because of orientation? That's one thing that's always driven me a bit nuts when it comes to quantum mechanics is WHY orientation might make a difference. Instead of forces, we have 'directional roles' played by whatever vibrating string/superstring waveform is oriented in that particular direction in that particular dimension.

thoughts?

 

The real mind fuck here is that huge wall of text.

 

lol

 

I think it is because time is intangible. There is no visual representation of it like the other dimensions. Or is that what you’re asking ?

 

Hmmm im not sure what you mean by a 'rotated space'. The normal way to to rotate a space from one basis to another is operate on that space with a rotation matrix to rotate it into another basis. You seem to have taken a three dimensional space and fixed one of the axes to a specific value which just gives u a two dimensional object because you have removed as degree of freedom.

As for electromagnetism it is not two forces it is one, this is a consequence of special relativity. The different quantities of electric and magnetic field you see depends on your speed relative to the charge. The unified force electromagnetism is the best understood of the forces. The framework used to describe both electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force is quantum field theory. This sees a force as an exchange particles between two particles that feel that force. For example two electrons will scatter of off each other with the exchange of photons. The same applies to the weak force with the exchange of W and Z bosons. This is all done in a 4 dimensional space-time.

 

yeah, figured I was pretty out of it...lol

what I mean by 'rotated space' was shifting the 3 dimensional space to an offset, holding as a 3 dimensional space, but with a different 'set' of dimensional axes.

the thought would be far easier to show than to explain, and I don't have a graphics program capable of illustrating it particularly well (unless you'd care to try interpreting paint sketches, which I wouldn't inflict on you)

 

i will share my thought when im high..i dont have the attention to read this long ass post right now

 

is all of this science, or is it all philosophy?

 

when it gets to this point, it's really hard to tell the difference anymore.

call it philisophical musings about science, if you want. Kinda like the theory of gravity. Nobody can prove or disprove what's 'really' going on, so the best we've got is speculation, and observation of effect.