What Do 5, 6, 7, and 11 Dimensions Mean in Higher Dimensional Space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3 dimensions Dimensions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the meaning and implications of higher dimensions, specifically 5, 6, 7, and 11 dimensions, in the context of theories such as String Theory and M-Theory. Participants explore whether these dimensions are spatial, temporal, or a combination of both, and how they relate to our understanding of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the nature of higher dimensions, questioning whether they refer to spatial dimensions or include time as a dimension.
  • One participant describes the concept of a tesseract to illustrate how dimensions can extend beyond three, suggesting that while we cannot visualize higher dimensions, their existence can be logically deduced.
  • Another participant notes that in standard String Theory, there is one time dimension and the rest are spatial, while acknowledging that multiple time dimensions present additional challenges.
  • Some participants argue that spatial dimensions must be orthogonal to each other, raising questions about the feasibility of having more than three spatial dimensions.
  • There are mentions of theoretical constructs, such as a 2D creature's inability to conceive of a third dimension, to highlight the limitations of human understanding of higher dimensions.
  • One participant suggests that the relationship between gravity and time could influence how dimensions are perceived, although this remains speculative.
  • Several posts include links to external resources, indicating a desire for further exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express confusion and uncertainty about the nature of higher dimensions, with multiple competing views remaining on whether these dimensions are spatial, temporal, or a combination. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the definitions or implications of these dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific theories and concepts, such as String Theory and M-Theory, but the discussion remains open-ended with unresolved questions about the nature of dimensions and their implications.

Dissident Dan
Messages
236
Reaction score
1
I'm confused about what people mean by 5,6,7, and 11 dimensions.

Are they referring to spatial dimension? Are they referring to different dimensions like time is a "dimension" in addition to space?

If we're talking about spatial dimensions, how can you have more than 3? Spatial dimensions are defined as all being orthogonal to each other. Once you get past three, you cannot be orthogonal to all dimensions. The axis is made with components of other dimensions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The extra dimensions often spoken of in String Theory and other QM models can be mathematically deduced. Not by me, you understand, but I'm told that they can.

The whole problem with perceiving them is that they cannot exist in our 3-D world. For me, the best way to understand this is the illustration of a "tesseract". If you start with a zero-dimensional point, and extend it along one dimension, you get a line segment. Broaden the line segment by extending it along another dimension, and you get a square. And at the corner of this square are two lines that come together at 90o angles. Extend the square along another dimension, and you've made a cube, and at the corner of the cube, three lines come together, all at write angles to each other. Now, if we extend the cube along another dimension, we get a tesseract, a 4-D object at the corner of which a fourth line comes in at 90o to the other three.

If you attempt to picture this in your mind, you won't be able to. There is no angle with which you are familliar, or which you could imagine, that would be at a write angle to the three directions represented at the corner of a cube. But even though we can't see it, or even picture it, we can logically deduce its existence.

EDIT TO ADD :

Although the extra dimensions of M-Theory, e.g., may all be spatial there is, according to Green and some others, nothing that says they must be. So there could be 8 spatial directions and 3 temporal ones, or any other combination that includes three or more spatial.

Now isn't that spatial?!
 
Last edited:
In normal string theory, there is one time dimension and the rest are spatial. Multiple time axes raise different problems and there are a few papers on that (see "many fingered time", a phrase that goes back the Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne's Gravitation).
 
Fundamentals on the Brane

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages12/113.html

Rotation is a result of moving first through longitudal and transverse dimensional interpetation that is first geometrically define, and having reached the z direction time becomes the undertanding of Gr and gravity?

Sol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I'm confused about what people mean by 5,6,7, and 11 dimensions.

If we're talking about spatial dimensions, how can you have more than 3? Spatial dimensions are defined as all being orthogonal to each other. Once you get past three, you cannot be orthogonal to all dimensions. The axis is made with components of other dimensions.

Obviously we only sense three spatial and one time dimension. By definition, another dimension would be orthoganol to all others.

A theoretical 2D creature couldn't concieve of a third dimension, either. Even if the plane he existed in was in three dimensions. He could concieve of width and depth, but the concept of height wouldn't make any sense to him. Unless we had somehow experienced another spatial dimension, trying to understand it is useless, except as lower dimensional spaces compared to 3D.
 
Dimension is Relative to Time

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/extraboard/messages12/722.html

If one undertands gravity, is also equal to time what value would we have found in distances?

If one undertands the analogies of the http://superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages11/691.html in which I have relayed, the quark to quark measure, still retains some relationship to the energy?

I am open to corrections.

Sol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Gravity to Supergravity

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages14/112.html

I was looking for practical applications, in which I could compare the understanding here, in regards to Heliosphere and seismology in the Sun, seemed a most appropriate place in which to look?

Any corrections or comments?

Sol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Supergravity and Dimensions

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages13/218.html

Hope the previous links help.

Sol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
High School Why does physics consider only 3 of 6 dimensions
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
High School I can't understand more than 3 spatial dimensions
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Undergrad Testing string/m-theory extra dimensions prediction
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Graduate What characterizes each dimension in M-theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate The logic of the 11 dimensions in M theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
9K
Graduate Spacelike additional time dimensions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Variables & Dimensions (total noob)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Huygens principle in odd/even dimensional flat space
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K