Universe level CRT Part 2 (Alternate Dimension Edition)

[Zamasu_Chan]

Continued from here

This thread will focus on alternate universes/dimensions (as the title suggests). The purpose here, is to explain why spatially separated universes have their own spacetime.

A more detailed explanation​

In my last OP I briefly went over this by saying the following:

Anything that’s a separate space should automatically have its own time, as long as there’s movement at least. However if different bodies of observable universes described as dimensions share space and time, then those are 3-A. If anything there only needs to be evidence of them being in a singular space because sharing time flow doesn’t mean anything when it comes the overall size.

If the dimensions are spatially separated then it's impossible for them to share time because the time within said spaces are cut off from each other.
To give an example:
Let's say there are two spaces, Space A and Space B. Destroying the time in Space A would not affect Space B because B has it's own spatial movement. You have the space for Space B, and you have the movement from all the space within Space B, and that movement is what time is. So simply put, B has it's own spatial movement, which is time.

Since space and time are bound together to make a singular spacetime, so a different space would have it's own time automatically. However, if a different dimension is just a collection of universe sized matter in a different region of space, then those dimensions are 3-A as a whole.

I think this should be added to the Universe page. Specifically under the portion that says: "These are notes that the worlds are indeed universes"

EDIT: No pocket dimensions won’t change this is just for universal stuff.

 

[Teezar]

I agree

 

[sanicspood]

agreed

 

[Dalesean027]

You got on part 2 quick and it looks simple enough, I agree

 

[AwkguyDB]

Simple agreed

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

I obviously agree with this

 

[Orange]

Even someone likes me agrees with this

 

[ZoroNotZolo]

I agree. Incredibly straightforward.

 

[Starsprite53]

Seems good, i agree

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Based...I agree.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

I agree as well

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @AKM sama @Promestein

What do you think about this?

 

[Greenshifter]

Straightforward, I agree.

 

[Gohanblanco217]

Agree

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I’ll wait and see what DT and Ultima think.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let me put it mathematically:

Timeline A could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the 5th dimension).

Timeline B could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given, in multiversal position 2.

These universes are spatially separate. In fact, they are even spatiotemporally separate. There is not a single point in space and time that is simultaneously in A and B. Why is there no such point? Because all points in A have 1 as the fifth coordinate and all points in B have 2 as the fifth coordinate. Being in both would mean to have 1 and 2 as 5th coordinate simultaneously, which is impossible.

And how many dimensions of time have we used? Only one. In our notion only the 4th dimension, which's variable we have used t for, is timelike. The variables x, y and z are the ones for our usual 3 spatial dimensions and the 5th one, that is 1 for A and 2 for B, is the spatial position in the multiverse. Only that one dimension is time. Two spatiotemporally separated timelines, yet only one dimension of time.

As such we have constructed a simple counter-example to the claim in the OP.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Huh?…

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Mostly in agreement here.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Let me put it mathematically:

Timeline A could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the 5th dimension).

Timeline B could be

Let's just delete tier 2 and above, man.

Go back to the lower tiers, people. Especially tier 9, that's the real shit.

 

[KatBoi69]

Let me put it mathematically:

Timeline A could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the 5th dimension).

Timeline B could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given, in multiversal position 2.

These universes are spatially separate. In fact, they are even spatiotemporally separate. There is not a single point in space and time that is simultaneously in A and B. Why is there no such point? Because all points in A have 1 as the fifth coordinate and all points in B have 2 as the fifth coordinate. Being in both would mean to have 1 and 2 as 5th coordinate simultaneously, which is impossible.

And how many dimensions of time have we used? Only one. In our notion only the 4th dimension, which's variable we have used t for, is timelike. The variables x, y and z are the ones for our usual 3 spatial dimensions and the 5th one, that is 1 for A and 2 for B, is the spatial position in the multiverse. Only that one dimension is time. Two spatiotemporally separated timelines, yet only one dimension of time.

As such we have constructed a simple counter-example to the claim in the OP.

Ok, so in general relativity, space and time are interconnected as mentioned in the OP. Real life is a bit more nuanced than straight math.

That being said, the wiki doesn't really assume GR as its base physics, yeah? (Or maybe it does, idk).

 

[Vietthai96]

Let me put it mathematically:

Timeline A could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the 5th dimension).

Timeline B could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given, in multiversal position 2.

These universes are spatially separate. In fact, they are even spatiotemporally separate. There is not a single point in space and time that is simultaneously in A and B. Why is there no such point? Because all points in A have 1 as the fifth coordinate and all points in B have 2 as the fifth coordinate. Being in both would mean to have 1 and 2 as 5th coordinate simultaneously, which is impossible.

And how many dimensions of time have we used? Only one. In our notion only the 4th dimension, which's variable we have used t for, is timelike. The variables x, y and z are the ones for our usual 3 spatial dimensions and the 5th one, that is 1 for A and 2 for B, is the spatial position in the multiverse. Only that one dimension is time. Two spatiotemporally separated timelines, yet only one dimension of time.

As such we have constructed a simple counter-example to the claim in the OP.

Unless i'm taking your comment in the wrong way, universal space-time continuum or timeline as a whole is 4d contruct, i don't see the point of being one dimension of time

 

[KingPin0422]

Let me put it mathematically:

Timeline A could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the 5th dimension).

Timeline B could be

or in words: The set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given, in multiversal position 2.

These universes are spatially separate. In fact, they are even spatiotemporally separate. There is not a single point in space and time that is simultaneously in A and B. Why is there no such point? Because all points in A have 1 as the fifth coordinate and all points in B have 2 as the fifth coordinate. Being in both would mean to have 1 and 2 as 5th coordinate simultaneously, which is impossible.

And how many dimensions of time have we used? Only one. In our notion only the 4th dimension, which's variable we have used t for, is timelike. The variables x, y and z are the ones for our usual 3 spatial dimensions and the 5th one, that is 1 for A and 2 for B, is the spatial position in the multiverse. Only that one dimension is time. Two spatiotemporally separated timelines, yet only one dimension of time.

As such we have constructed a simple counter-example to the claim in the OP.

I genuinely don't see how this follows. In fact, doesn't this actually support the OP's claim, if you're saying that these two universes are displaced along a fifth axis? To quote one of our own pages:

Furthermore, speed isn't defined by any number of spatial dimensions but simply distance over time. Meaning that it is possible for 1-dimensional characters to be faster than those who cover many dimensions. And the distance between two timelines is defined as the 5th dimension (Or a 4th spatial dimension) that separates two or more universes. Said distance is often unknown as it could be anywhere between much smaller than the Universal radius and infinite. But such details are only known to those who can travel through additional spatial dimensions. For that reason, crossing Universes is unquantifiable for speed unless details are specifically stated.

You also admit that, by your own logic, this would make the two universes spatio-temporally separated, but then you go on to say that because only one dimension of time was acknowledged, it follows that the universes share it. However, not only is this not even a counterpoint (because we already accept that a multiverse is still 4-D, just like its constituent universes), but if your intent is to disprove the OP's assertion, then it is inconsistent with your prior statement that your own math defines the two universes as spatio-temporally separated and lined up along a fifth dimension.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ok, so in general relativity, space and time are interconnected as mentioned in the OP. Real life is a bit more nuanced than straight math.

That being said, the wiki doesn't really assume GR as its base physics, yeah? (Or maybe it does, idk).

In general relativity, they are interconnected... in exactly the way they are in my model. That is, they are part of the same spacetime together and curve together and stuff. Interconnect doesn't mean they are the same dimension or anything like that.

In fact, what's used in general relativity to model spacetime is an Einstein Manifold and the thing I used, euclidean space, happens to be an Einstein Manifold. The simplest Einstein Manifold one might say. Obviously, that doesn't model our universe, because to model our universe you need to model literally all things in the universe, but it models the relevant essentials and changing to a more complicated model really wouldn't make a difference for the point I'm making.

We very much acknowledge general relativity.

Unless i'm taking your comment in the wrong way, universal space-time continuum or timeline as a whole is 4d contruct, i don't see the point of being one dimension of time

A single dimension of time can "service" many spacetime continuums. That's the point.
Let me try to explain it like this: Where you stand right now, you have a direction that is upwards/downwards. If you move two meter to the right now, you still have a direction that is upwards/downwards. Is the upwards/downwards two-meter to your right a different upwards/downwards direction than the one where you stand? No!
Sure, going upwards where you stand will never get you to the same place going upwards two meters to the right would, but it is still the same direction. It is still just going upwards.

And it's the same with time. Going into the future or past where you are, will never allow you to reach the same place as going into the future or past in a different universe does. However, the direction that is future/past, i.e. time, is the same in both.
That's because we ae talking about dimensions, i.e. directions. A direction doesn't change or stop existing just because you go somewhere else. It's not limited to some place, not even to a universe.

I genuinely don't see how this follows. In fact, doesn't this actually support the OP's claim, if you're saying that these two universes are displaced along a fifth axis? To quote one of our own pages:

You also admit that, by your own logic, this would make the two universes spatio-temporally separated, but then you go on to say that because only one dimension of time was acknowledged, it follows that the universes share it. However, not only is this not even a counterpoint (because we already accept that a multiverse is still 4-D, just like its constituent universes), but if your intent is to disprove the OP's assertion, then it is inconsistent with your prior statement that your own math defines the two universes as spatio-temporally separated and lined up along a fifth dimension.

No, because being spatiotemporally separate doesn't mean having two time dimensions.
Let's think of it in three dimensions. Say, upwards/downwards will represent time here. Left/right will be the normal space dimension, one of the 3 we experience in our universe. Forwards/Backwards will be the usually 5th dimension that separates the universes (like in that quote you brought up).
In that model, the space of a universe can be imagined as a stick that goes from the left to the right.
Our timeline could be imagined as a board that stands on the ground, like a wall. So, going left on that wall would equate to moving left in our universe, moving right would equate going right in our universe, going up would equate moving towards the future in our timeline and moving down on the wall would equate time travelling into the past.
So we have one timeline. To add a second timeline we simply add a second board and stand it up parallel to the first one a little further forward. This board, too, has direction just like the first: Going left on that board would equate to moving left in that universe, moving right would equate going right in that universe, going up would equate moving towards the future in that timeline and moving down on the board would equate time travelling into the past in that timeline.
The fact that one board stands further forward than the other means they are in two different locations in the multiverse. The gap between the boards is the distance between the two timelines.

If you have imagined everything properly, the two boards are standing parallel to each other and to the time/normal space axis. Like the red and green planes in this:

As you see, these planes (/boards) are parallel to each other, meaning they don't intersect. What that means to us is that they are spatially (and spatiotemporally) separate. No point in the red planes (/boards) spacetime continuum is also in the green planes (/boards) spacetime continuum.

However, as you also see, we have only one time axis in this picture. Two timelines, two spacetime continuums, but only one time axis. A second one wasn't needed.

What I wrote down mathematically was basically that picture, just that I add the 2 space dimensions we left out in order to be able to draw it back in, within my math.

 

[KingPin0422]

I think I understand the problem here: you seem to be under the impression that by "dimension," we are referring to literal axes of space and time. In this case, though, we are using it as another word for "universe." We aren't talking about directions at all.

The OP's argument isn't that having separate space-time continua implies a second time dimension or anything of the sort. Their argument is that according to general relativity (which is the most widely accepted model of physics IRL and is what we use to calculate kinetic energy, for example), space and time are interwoven and inseparable (hence the very idea of a space-time continuum), and so, a realm which is stated to be spatially separate from other bodies of space must also be temporally separate, unless it merely refers to a large collection of matter in a different region of space.

 

[KatBoi69]

In general relativity, they are interconnected... in exactly the way they are in my model. That is, they are part of the same spacetime together and curve together and stuff. Interconnect doesn't mean they are the same dimension or anything like that.

In fact, what's used in general relativity to model spacetime is an Einstein Manifold and the thing I used, euclidean space, happens to be an Einstein Manifold. The simplest Einstein Manifold one might say. Obviously, that doesn't model our universe, because to model our universe you need to model literally all things in the universe, but it models the relevant essentials...

First of all, thank you for taking the time to explain/respond to all of these points so thoroughly.

Second, can you provide a citation that explicitly demonstrates GR separates timelines in the same space this way. At a certain level, this is for my own edification, as the idea of same space, same time, different timelines is clashing a bit with my understanding GR.

Third....I'll be honest, I actually think straight math is better for descriptions of dimensional tiering discussion and GR is only really necessary if the fictional universe invokes it explicitly. This is just an opinion, though.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think I understand the problem here: you seem to be under the impression that by "dimension," we are referring to literal axes of space and time. In this case, though, we are using it as another word for "universe." We aren't talking about directions at all.

The OP's argument isn't that having separate space-time continua implies a second time dimension or anything of the sort. Their argument is that according to general relativity (which is the most widely accepted model of physics IRL and is what we use to calculate kinetic energy, for example), space and time are interwoven and inseparable (hence the very idea of a space-time continuum), and so, a realm which is stated to be spatially separate from other bodies of space must also be temporally separate, unless it merely refers to a large collection of matter in a different region of space.

Well, as we know from the past thread I don't agree with the space and time are inseparable stuff. At least not in that interpretation. Not that it's really relevant for this.

However, even formulated like that, that's not quite correct. If we use things like multiverse theories with splitting timelines, then multiple entirely separate regions of space can share the same past and hence no be temporally separate. What one could postulate is that separate universes will usually not have their timelines intersect in the future, without outside influence.

I don't see why we would put a statement like that anywhere, though, because... which relevance does it have to anything? If we were talking about dimensions it would have relevance tiering wise, but like this... what does it even matter? And why would anyone even assume that two universes will spontaneously fuse in the future?

 

[Vietthai96]

A single dimension of time can "service" many spacetime continuums. That's the point.
Let me try to explain it like this: Where you stand right now, you have a direction that is upwards/downwards. If you move two meter to the right now, you still have a direction that is upwards/downwards. Is the upwards/downwards two-meter to your right a different upwards/downwards direction than the one where you stand? No!
Sure, going upwards where you stand will never get you to the same place going upwards two meters to the right would, but it is still the same direction. It is still just going upwards.

And it's the same with time. Going into the future or past where you are, will never allow you to reach the same place as going into the future or past in a different universe does. However, the direction that is future/past, i.e. time, is the same in both.
That's because we ae talking about dimensions, i.e. directions. A direction doesn't change or stop existing just because you go somewhere else. It's not limited to some place, not even to a universe.

So that mean i'm taking your comment in the right way, simply you mean that because even though they are spatio-temporally separated, they still share the same time axis or flow of time in which when you goes to the future of one you also goes to the same exact point in the future of the other space-time as they are corresponse and parallel with eachother so they only share a single dimension of time.....is that what you mean??

 

[Tago238]

Don’t Talk’s point seems kind of irrelevant when the structures he details would still be considered 2-C on the wiki. In fact I don’t think anybody was or is arguing that you need a different axis of time to represent 2 universes, that would just be plainly idiotic and you could argue against it without bringing up a 5th axis making the universes parallel.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

For a low2C you need 93B LY wide 3D space and time. Simple
A low2C universe is uncountably infinite long.

A 2C structure is nothing but two or more Low2C structures.

Its just counting number of structures which have low2C size/volume, that's it.

Whether they share time or not is irrelevant. Since sizes of universes nor their count is compromised.

 

[manu_zarri]

this is good, I Agree

 

[AKM sama]

So simply put, the OP is claiming that space cannot be separated by spatial boundaries without time being separated as well? So like, in a graph, I cannot draw a straight line/boundary to separate two areas on the X-Y plane, without also projecting that line over the Z axis to make an entire plane?

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Tago238]

So simply put, the OP is claiming that space cannot be separated by spatial boundaries without time being separated as well? So like, in a graph, I cannot draw a straight line/boundary to separate two areas on the X-Y plane, without also projecting that line over the Z axis to make an entire plane?

Or am I missing something here?

He's talking about the manifold, not the axis, again.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

manifold

That is a peculiar word to describe what is happening......
Can you explain?

 

[Tago238]

That is a peculiar word to describe what is happening......
Can you explain?

...what a manifold is?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

...what a manifold is?

Yeah....what exactly is it?
If its derailing, I can come to your wall.

 

[Tago238]

It kind of is, you could just replace the word "manifold" with "structure" for all intents and purposes; but sure you can come on my wall or have a private conversation.

 

[AKM sama]

He's talking about the manifold, not the axis, again.

Correct me if I am wrong but our tiering system treats time as a separate axis, right? Like, in my example I am talking about how it is possible to have boundaries in a 2-D area without affecting the 3-D axis, similarly, it's possible to have boundaries in 3-D space without affecting the 4-D axis, i.e. time.

A dimension/structure in this sense would just be a part of space divided in such a way.

 

[Tago238]

Correct me if I am wrong but our tiering system treats time as a separate axis, right? Like, in my example I am talking about how it is possible to have boundaries in a 2-D area without affecting the 3-D axis, similarly, it's possible to have boundaries in 3-D space without affecting the 4-D axis, i.e. time.

A dimension/structure in this sense would just be a part of space divided in such a way.

Struggling to articulate my other debunk so whatever, I'll use this one:

If you now give these objects a depth there would still be a gap between them because the gap in 2 dimensions would remain in 3 dimensions. This is a sufficient gap between them in our tiering system because we don't think every universe is separated by a 5-D axis or that each one is defined over an entirely new axis of time, otherwise the refutation for 5-D Zeno (the point Ultima brought up about the universes being possibly contained in a greater hypervolume) wouldn't be valid and all 2-A feats would be High 1-B.

 

[DivineAura44]

Struggling to articulate my other debunk so whatever, I'll use this one:

If you now give these objects a depth there would still be a gap between them because the gap in 2 dimensions would remain in 3 dimensions. This is a sufficient gap between them in our tiering system because we don't think every universe is separated by a 5-D axis or that each one is defined over an entirely new axis of time, otherwise the refutation for 5-D Zeno (the point Ultima brought up about the universes being possibly contained in a greater hypervolume) wouldn't be valid and all 2-A feats would be High 1-B.

High 1-B Heroes? We gladly accept.

 

[Vietthai96]

High 1-B Heroes? We gladly accept.

Yes Yes YES