Talk:Five-dimensional space

message: This article seems to be written from the perspective that there's a preferred coordinate system (starting with "up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards"), with respect to which a fifth dimension might be identified. This is certainly not the favored approach of contemporary geometers. I suggest a move to Five-dimensional space and a corresponding overhaul of the article. --Trovatore 18:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Five-dimensional space"? (No - see reason, expiration: none)

message: This article contains a formula to find out the volume of a 5 dimensional circle. Surely volume is not the correct word to describe the amount of space contained inside this 5d shape - just like area does not describe the amount of space inside a 3d object. Volume is measured in m3, which only describes 3 dimensions, the 5d objects amount of internal space would be measured in m5.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.9.179 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 June 2006
: The generic term is content.  Will fix.  —Tamfang 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been fixed to hypervolume. No appropriate article content. —Turul2 19:11, 04 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume? (fixed, expiration: none)

message: This article talks about the 5th dimension as an additional spatial dimension beyond the 4th, which it identifies as time. First of all, I don't think time can be regarded as a spatial dimension (at least, I doubt such an assumption is commonly accepted). Second of all, if the 5th dimension is merely another spatial one and non-temporal, then it is exactly like what the Fourth dimension article is talking about (4 spatial dimensions, potentially with one additional temporal one), except that the dimensions are labelled differently. In which case, I'm not sure I see the justification for a separate article. On the other hand, this article appears to be focusing on the geometry of 5 spatial dimensions, as it refers to 5D polytopes, and so it should not confuse the issue by labelling one of the dimensions as time. Besides, 4D space-time as defined by General Relativity is Minkowskian, not Euclidean, and as far as we know, the universe is by no means Euclidean with or without additional dimensions, so the discussion of polytopes doesn't really work in that context. I think this article should focus on 5D Euclidean space, and not try to rationalize it in terms of space-time.—Tetracube 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I whole heartedly agree! You have expressed this extremely well. Borg Master (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time as one of the 5 dimensions? 

message: As discussed in theory on the 4th dimension, time or speed is accepted as the 4th dimension. We have length, depth and height as the three other dimensions. So what is the 5th dimension? Is it a selector of the property of the 4th dimension? Lets just play with the thought and say that a value of 1 in the 5th dimension represents the property of time in a certain point in the 4th dimensional space, therefore the given value in the 4th dimension represents the time at which the 3rd dimensional image is given. This would mean that the image is moving according to the value in the 4th dimension. 
The thing is that the value in the 5th dimension points to every possible version of the 4th dimension. The 5th dimensions give the 4th dimension all possible properties of the physical universe, probably also the abstract universe. In the 4th dimension we observe time when the value of the 5th dimension is 1. When the 5th dimension value is 2 it can represent atomic mass. Value 3 can represent taste. The value N represents all properties given in the relative universe of this specific case. 
The full aspect of the 5th dimension is unthinkable to us, other than from a mathimatical point of view, as pain is for a rock.
* Daniel Holth, Norway 2nd November *
(Grammar edited by Dennis Standing)
One particular variant of Kaluza–Klein theory is induced matter theory and this theory
relates the 5th dimension to mass and momentum along it to charge (see discussion item 4 and space-time-matter consortium). --Turul2 (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selector as the 5th dimension 

message: I think the link to "Imagining 10th dimension" should be removed, since it's mostly science fiction and nothing to do with current scientific concensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.116.225 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th dimension link 

message: I myself, studying dimensional theories, must disagree with the hypercube theory. Though it present an exceptional understanding of the dimensional pattern which my work is highly dependant on. It forgets that a line, one dimensional, extends infinitley. The square does NOT define two dimensional space. A parallelogram is the correct symbol. The parallelogram represents a plane once again extending infinitely. The cube, I will except as the symbol for three dimensional due to lack of excepted geometric symbol. The cube you must remember, as a representation of three dimensional, extends infinitely in all directions. Due to that fact the point, the line, the plane, and the cube are all co-cubular (lack of better word once again) so the hyper cube etc. are also co-cubular and not a shape exceeding the third dimension. 
p.s. sorry for poor wording but mathmaticians have not yet had reason to define one where my words lack.
p.s.s. The person who orginated this theory was Intelligent and deserves credit. His theory is perfect in all ways except using a line segment in the stead of a line. 
--Leon vautour 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistake 

message: From the article: "Whether or not the real universe in which we live is somehow five-dimensional is a topic that is debated"
Isn't the 5th dimension sound?
Imagine:
#  a line
#  a plane
#  a shape
#  a shape rotating/moving through space
#  a shape rotating/moving through space and speaking.... ? (e.g., a holographic talkie, or a memory projection)
Which would make the 6th dimension "energy" transferred from one shape to another... ?
--Renice 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion 

message: The fifth dimesnion is described by some scientists as the 3rd dimension wrapping around itself. Look closely at the net of the hypercube and the resultant hypercube. The net is obviously 3-dimensional, unlike normal geometrical nets. In order to form the hypercube, the net appears to wrap around itself, joining the opposite ends of the net together, providing a visual representation of the 5th dimension. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.188.82 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hypercube... 

message: As far as spatial and temporal dimensions are concerned, the four are length, breadth, height, and time. The myth that there is a 5th seems to stem from the 60s pop group. I read here about some silly suggestion that the Star Wars 'Force' could be a dimension. That is not related to time (it does not interfere with it) or space (there are still 3 dimensions). These four dimensions can't be interfered with in any way in the real world, and they are all, by definition, infinite. Therefore, there is no 5th dimension. Gravity does not interfere with these dimensions, and it varies on location [the moon has less of a pull]. The physics view of a 5th dimension is complete myth.
In geometry, there are only 3 dimensions, except in the real world where the 4th may manipulate the other 3. The other 'dimensions' are just combinations of 2 of the 3 dimensions. 
The article's neutral stance is unjustified because it has been acknowledged almost universally by the scientific community that there are only 4 dimensions.
4th dimension is spacetime, so it does exist and is its own dimension, the 5th dimension theory could be possible, as there may be infinite dimensions.
ex: 1st dimension a line 2nd dimension a line squared= a square 3rd dimension a square squared=cube 4th dimension cube squared= tesseract. possibility of a penatract. each dimension shows a side: the 1st is a line, so no sides, 2nd is a square showing 1 side, 3rd is a cube showing a full 6 sided view. 4th is spacetime and a tessaract showing many sides i havent counted yet. but the possibility of something past spacetime is low. there so far is a magnetic pole, a cosmic string, a domain wall, something about the 3rd dimension, and a spacetime tesseract. if there is a 5th dimension, it is impossible to find out what it is, except for the fact that it is a penatract24.189.153.102 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no 5th dimension 

message: this section uses stuff like "we" and "lets" and "(you) think"
that makes it kind of personal and should be fixedSoyseñorsnibbles 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Describing five dimensions with mathematical equations

message: Has a fifth dimension ever been actually mentioned in Smallville (TV series); can you name the episode?  If not, I think it should not be listed here, even if some people speculate on the Mxyzptlk connection.  213.216.199.6 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the whole popular culture section rather pointless really since only a few of the references really address the actual concept of a fifth dimension. Anything to do with comics books generally use the word "dimension" as a synonym to some alternate plane of existence and therefore irrelevant to the subject of the article. Takeshi357 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallville 

message: Kodjo and Togbey, (2000?), proposed that 4/5 is the exponent that represents allometric scaling of the brain. They reasoned that 5 is the natural extension of 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 exponential (fractal) scaling laws of tissues. Since they found a close 4/5 scaling factor for neurons, and 5 is the denominator of that, they reasoned that the 5th dimension is that of thought. [Note: allometric scaling is non-linear variation of morphology based on mass or size, or other measurement of an organism or organ.] http://www.unomaha.edu/wwwmath/OurArchive/KerriganMinigrants/2006_2007/KodjoTogbeyReport.pdf for details. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 5th dimension in Biology

message: Any equation or set of equation whose exponents sum to 5 may be said to be 5-dimensional. Of course there are some sets of equations found in chemistry and mechanical engineering books that extend to 20 dimensions. Also, if E=mc^2 is correct, and c is not necessarily constant, then Energy (not the relationship between energy and what else) is five-dimensional. [c^2 would equal distance^2 / time^2; 2+2 = 4 (dimensions)] 74.195.25.78 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Five-dimensional equations

message: This section was removed, and I have no problem with the removal, except eventually someone will start adding things back. So any debate can go on talk, and this section below can be a references.  Tom Ruen (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, masses of unsourced trivia and trivial uses. It probably could all be sourced to first party sources, to the relevant works of fiction etc. but it would still be trivia and excessive. If anyone can find any coverage in reliable secondary sources then it could be restored based on them but I don't hold out much hope, I certainly don't know of any sources or where to start.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

text: See also #Smallville above; the reply I think makes another important point. Even when "the fifth dimension" comes up in popular culture it's very often nothing to do with this topic. It's often just shorthand for a mystical thing outside our space, and is utterly meaningless - it might as well be "hyperspace", "limbo". "the fifth dimension" sounds more formal and fits nicely after the four dimensions of space and time. There are exceptions in the above list but I suspect even they are largely using it as a buzz-word, not really considering a five-dimensional space. I doubt e.g. the the Powerpuff Girls episode Bring Back Jojo is a good example of a near mathematical use. But that's why we need reliable sources other than the works of fiction, TV programmes etc..--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that some of it is trivia or relates to a concept of the fifth dimension that is not accurate, but a label for a deus ex machina. However, some of the references seem to relate to the concept in physics. A Wrinkle in Time in particular stands out. Regardless, agree that it needs to be referenced by non primary sources. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section: In popular culture  

message: The section on Hooft needs expansion with references. Searching peer reviewed literature has not resulted in much substantiation. Requesting help modifying/referencing this section. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerard 't Hooft

message: Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles (including the one you created) and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at  User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space! Darnburn98 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with article on the Four dimensional shape, the Cubinder. 

message: : [ref omitted]
This strikes me as redundant and, in part, too narrow; moving along any line involves moving between different hyper-volumes.  Your thoughts? —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In general the article focuses way too much on a particular coordinate system.  It should be re-written from a more coordinate-free perspective.  (Also the link redirects to Lebesgue measure, which has no immediate connection to the sentence.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  axes (to grind?)