10+ Dimensions, string theory fantasies or truth?

[taks]

I just watched it. It's kind of interesting, but if we can only move in 3D...Who cares?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, we "move" through all the dimensions in one way or another. what makes it interesting is that we can only sense the first 4.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

One interesting thing I found both on his forums and on Wikipedia

 

 

...most interpretations of M-Theory say that there are ten spatial dimensions, plus an eleventh dimension which is time.

 

 

The "extra" spatial dimensions are theoretically "compact" or "collapsed" dimensions. This means that they are not as extended in space as the three familiar spatial dimensions. The collapsed dimensions are too small to observe directly.

 

So they ARE spatial dimensions? Neat. But how can a spatial dimension be curled up inside the space of the usual 3+1? Can it even be called a dimension if it doesnt cover the entire existance?

 

 

It is not clear how many collapsed dimensions are required for a string theory that is in best agreement with observations of the physical universe, but mathematical constraints currently favor string theories with 10, 11, or 26 dimensions

 

Theyre already up in 26 dimensions? Gee, I guess the world will be ready for my 674362 dimensions quite soon.

[Tigranes]

Can it even be called a dimension if it doesnt cover the entire existance?

 

Well, the first and second dimensions could either be described as extant withiin the third dimension (in this universe) - either that, or humans cannot see/feel the first and second dimensions. Because for example, a 'point' or a 'line' cannot exist in our universe which is 3D, so everything has depth and size.

[Colrom]

I know a little bit...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also Nice! :D

[Pidesco]

So they ARE spatial dimensions? Neat. But how can a spatial dimension be curled up inside the space of the usual 3+1? Can it even be called a dimension if it doesnt cover the entire existance?

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, the only requirement for a dimension to be called such is that it has to be orthogonal to all other dimensions. What this means in practical terms is that the axis that represents this dimension is perpendicular to all the axes of the other dimensions. As an example, in 3d space the z-axis is perpendicular to both the x-axis and y-axis.

 

As for the bit about the extra dimensions being curled up, imagine a sheet of paper that can be rolled up in a cylinder. Now, theoretically if you were to roll it tightly enough, it's radius would be so small that the only thing you'd be able to see would be a one dimensional line. So the "extra" dimension would still be there, but you wouldn't be able see it.

Edited July 8, 2006 by Pidesco

[metadigital]

Excellent. Bought and paid for, being shipped.

The funny thing is that while, this website claims there are only 10 dimensions as the 10th dimension is that in which all others can be imagined as a single point, 'M-theory' string theory clearly says and mathematicly proves there to be 11 You could just go ahead and say that there is an infinite number of dimensions.

 

 

But all of it is IMO just mathematical masturbation. If your equations require 48 dimensions to add up, that is not proof that there exists 48 dimensions. There is also no definition of what a dimension really is.

 

 

And isnt so, that every real "process" that can be measured, exists and can be described within the good old 3D+time? Some quantum mechanics experiments showed one particle to exist in two places at the same time, but that is probably because it moved too fast for the measuring equipment to register that movement.

 

 

If we take the old hypercube thing, its based on

 

(Line)^(Dimension Number) where lets say the line is 2cm long

 

2^0 is purely theoreticly mathematical for something that doesnt exist

2^1 is the same line, nothing happens

2^2 is a 2x2 square with no depth

2^3 is a cube where all sides consist of 2x2 squares

2^4 is a hypercube. its a 100% theoretical geometrical form that cannot be drawn or explained in any other way than through mathematics. it doesnt exist and cannot exist.

 

You can go and write 2^47629289464392 and it makes perfect mathematical sense, but everything above 2^3 is purely theoretical. In fact 2^2 and 2^1 are also theoretical since everything in reality has length, width and depth. They can be illustrated however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love it when someone tries to "explain" maths (and especially when they aren't trained in the white-coat priesthood). Kafty, just because you have trouble visualising more than three-plus-one dimensions, doesn't mean it can't exist. (Hint: watch the video again.) (But I still wub you. )

 

I've seen a (model) of a fourth dimensional hypercube: it is basically a cube within a similar cube, both on the same focus, and all the apexes are joined by vertices (that would be perpendicular, rather than isosceles-angled, in the real hyper-cube).

 

Another way I have been taught to imagine higher dimensions is to take the fourth dimension as a row (i.e. a line of) cubic tables; similarly the fifth dimension is a table of these three dimensional tables, and the six is a cube of cubes. (In fact, quite similar to the example, linked above.)

 

I was pretty happy to see the entire contents of our universe, and anything we could imagine in it, catered for in the ten dimensional mapping. I am still considering if there are further dimensions ...

This is all well and good, but does any of this have any practical applications?  Okay, the universe has 10 dimensions or more.  Yippie skippy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, electricity was thought to be pretty useless at the time Faraday did his experiments and nowadays our whole lives depend on it. The same could be said about relativity and quantum physics as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Electricity is real, string theory is just a theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent argument. So tell me, is light a particle or a wave?

[Pidesco]

I've seen a (model) of a fourth dimensional hypercube: it is basically a cube within a similar cube, both on the same focus, and all the apexes are joined by vertices (that would be perpendicular, rather than isosceles-angled, in the real hyper-cube).

 

What you've seen isn't a model of a hypercube, it's the model of the 3d shadow of a hypercube. It's the same thing as the shadow of a regular cube on a two dimensional surface (this would be a square within a square).

 

Anyway, that is one of two 3D representations of a hypercube. The other representation is, of course the tesseract, which is an unfolded hypercube.

 

Edit: Here's what meta was talking about

 

 

And a tesseract

 

Edited July 8, 2006 by Pidesco

[thepixiesrock]

This book is only for sale online isn't it?

[metadigital]

You know you want one.

[thepixiesrock]

I know i want one, I just have to go out and get one of those Visa gift card things so I can buy it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

A Hypercube can never be visualised in 3D space, in fact it can not be visualized in any space at all because it is a purely mathematical/theoretical geometrical shape. One thing that proves there is only 3 dimensions(+time) is this:

 

A 2D square revolves around a point.

A 3D Cube revolves around an axis(or a line)

A 4D Hypercube revovles around a square.

A 5D whatevercube revovles around a cube.

 

Is there a single law of physics that would allow a shape to revolve around anything put a point or an axis? Except in theory.

 

 

My point is that any 'dimensions' above 3D+time are purely theoretical and does thus not exist... except in 4D and beyond space..which is a theoretical place that doesnt exist either.

 

 

Just to show you when math and reality parts. In mathematics its perfectly acceptable to place an apple on a table, remove 2 apples and be left with -1 apple. Now, could you do that in reality? "

[Darque]

What scares me is that I understood everything that guy said.

[Pidesco]

A Hypercube can never be visualised in 3D space, in fact it can not be visualized in any space at all because it is a purely mathematical/theoretical geometrical shape. One thing that proves there is only 3 dimensions(+time) is this:

 

A 2D square revolves around a point.

A 3D Cube revolves around an axis(or a line)

A 4D Hypercube revovles around a square.

A 5D whatevercube revovles around a cube.

 

Is there a single law of physics that would allow a shape to revolve around anything put a point or an axis? Except in theory.

 

 

My point is that any 'dimensions' above 3D+time are purely theoretical and does thus not exist... except in 4D and beyond space..which is a theoretical place that doesnt exist either.

 

 

Just to show you when math and reality parts. In mathematics its perfectly acceptable to place an apple on a table, remove 2 apples and be left with -1 apple. Now, could you do that in reality?  :wub:"

 

That doesn't prove anything. It's true that an object in 3d space can't rotate around anything but a point or a line, but that wouldn't be true in 4d space. In fact, it would be easy to generalize, for example, Newtonian mechanics for 4D space and in such a space it would be possible to revolve something around a 3D object.

 

Also you seem to be misunderstanding the term "theoretical". It doesn't mean that something is not true but that something hasn't been proven yet. And this is essential to science, because all scientific studies are essentially inductive. As such, in science you can never say something is true or false, you can only say current evidence indicates something is true (or not).

[Colrom]

I would go even further and say that in the normal course of doing science the kinds of things you might say about a theory are such as:

 

* This theory cannot be tested for falseness and is therefore useless in practice.

* I can't tell this theory from another one.

* It seems to work pretty well in the cases we have considered so far.

* It seems to work well in this case but fails in that case.

* It does not work well enough and is best replaced in practice by another theory.

Edited July 8, 2006 by Colrom

[Kaftan Barlast]

That doesn't prove anything. It's true that an object in 3d space can't rotate around anything but a point or a line, but that wouldn't be true in 4d space. In fact, it would be easy to generalize, for example, Newtonian mechanics for 4D space and in such a space it would be possible to revolve something around a 3D object.

 

Also you seem to be misunderstanding the term "theoretical". It doesn't mean that something is not true but that something hasn't been proven yet. And this is essential to science, because all scientific studies are essentially inductive. As such, in science you can never say something is true or false, you can only say current evidence indicates something is true (or not).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes. 3D space is real and proven whereas 4D+ is something that may or may not be proven true in the future. Personally, I remain a sceptic until an empirical experiment indicates that dimensions inside our own can exist. There are many critics of String theory that are much more science-ish than little old me.

 

 

Maybe Im one of those people who refused to believe the earth wasnt flat, maybe Im like the ones who realised that maybe you didnt drown in your own bodily fluids if you slept lying down. Who knows?

[thepixiesrock]

Maybe Im one of those people who refused to believe the earth wasnt flat, maybe Im like the ones who realised that maybe you didnt drown in your own bodily fluids if you slept lying down. Who knows?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or, you could be on the other side of that. Who knows?

[Colrom]

I seem to remember theories that work better than other theories that can most easily be understood as involving higher dimensions than three (or four if you include time).

 

Abstract theories tend to show up in practical applications - although ordinary users of the associated technologies don't usually think about it.

[DeathScepter]

true, without quantum physics, most of our technology will not exist.

[taks]

Yes. 3D space is real and proven whereas 4D+ is something that may or may not be proven true in the future.

sorry, your understanding of the subject matter is incorrect. there is no "proof" of 3D space. only observation and perception.

 

Personally, I remain a sceptic until an empirical experiment indicates that dimensions inside our own can exist. There are many critics of String theory that are much more science-ish than little old me.

it isn't only about string theory.

 

Maybe Im one of those people who refused to believe the earth wasnt flat, maybe Im like the ones who realised that maybe you didnt drown in your own bodily fluids if you slept lying down. Who knows?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or maybe you just don't have the proper background to understand.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

Maybe Im one of those people who refused to believe the earth wasnt flat, maybe Im like the ones who realised that maybe you didnt drown in your own bodily fluids if you slept lying down. Who knows?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or maybe you just don't have the proper background to understand.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

on what basis do you presume to believe you are correct in this statement? I see no evidence to support Kaftan's inability to understand, simply his refusal to accept this theory.. which is not the same thing ... don't be so presumptious as to believe yourself capable of understanding things better simply because others do not accept what you take for thruth or reality..

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, this screenshot from 3ds MAX shows exactly how I see theworld/reality/the universe/whatever.

 

 

 

Youve got width (X) height (Y) depth (Z) and the timeline in the bottom. Your basic four dimensions with a fourth representing time. Everything that can be illustrated within this is real.. like a ball bouncing off a wall, an atom being ionized or light bending in the gravity well of a superdense body etc. If it CANT be illustrated within this, then it cant exist... like a hypercube or anything else that require an extra dimension or two to work.

 

 

 

Now when you ask my dad the engineer what dimensions exist, he says length, mass, electric current and time. So, clearly the word "dimension" has a whole bunch of different meanings and we're only arguing semantics.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Nartwak]

So... your argument is that because 3DStudio Max doesn't render dimensions it wasn't programmed to be capable of rendering, these dimensions cannot exist.

 

Wow. Just... wow.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Nartwak

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, then you show me something real, anything, that cant be drawn in 3D

[alanschu]

Someone moving from point A to point B.

 

And no, you can't draw that. You can draw a single instance of someone in time doing that, but to draw locomotion...that would be an accomplishment.

 

Movies and whatnot are also done with still frames that take pictures of various instances in time. They don't film locomotion, they take a whole bunch of pictures of instances between the movement between both points. When shown quickly, our brain will decipher it as movement. But it's still just a whole bunch of still frames. Instances of time.

 

Same with 3dsmax. When you animate something, you quickly display many still images.

 

As for your Dad's educational background, I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Science is different from Engineering.

 

 

On a final note, people are far too dismissive of the word "theory." It seems as though people think it means that it's nothing more than a guess. Most of science (as mentioned earlier) is simply a theory. Gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

[metadigital]

Yes. 3D space is real and proven whereas 4D+ is something that may or may not be proven true in the future.

sorry, your understanding of the subject matter is incorrect. there is no "proof" of 3D space. only observation and perception.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Further, you lot are all just a very noisy bunch of delusions in my (don't say solipsistic!) existential plane of perception-consciousness.