About the dimensions of the universe

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the nature of dimensions, asserting that objects must occupy at least three spatial dimensions plus time to exist. It questions whether all objects in the universe must occupy additional dimensions, suggesting that if higher dimensions exist, they may influence our perception of reality. The conversation touches on theories like M-Theory, which propose that extra dimensions could be compact or extended, impacting how we understand the universe. Participants express curiosity about the implications of these theories and how they might differentiate between curled-up dimensions and extended ones. Overall, the thread delves into the complexities of dimensional existence and its effects on our understanding of reality.
Mafarazzo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have been reading about dimensions, and I understand that:

A dot has no dimensions
A line has 1 dimension
A square has 2 dimensions
A cube has 3 dimensions
A tesseract has 4 dimensions
And time is another dimension just like those

In theory we can think of lines and squares, but we can't build them in the real world. If any of all the dimensions of an object is zero, then the object does not exist. For example:

If a square has 0 depth, it can't exist in the real world, or can't be built because even a atom has 3 dimensions. The same applies to time, because if a tridimensional object exists for 0 seconds, than it never existed.

(all above is what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong)

But what I really want to ask is:

If nothing can exist or be built in less than 3+1 dimensions, does that mean every object in the universe must occupy some space on all the other dimensions that exist?

For example, if our universe is described by 4+1 dimensions, and tesseracts can be real objects and be built somehow, then our bodies, cars, houses and anything we can build, must occupy some space on that fourth dimension, or they couldn't ever exist on our perceptible 3+1 dimensions. Because if the length of a body on the forth dimension was 0, it couldn't exist at all.

If that is true, than everything we see and touch must occupy some space on all other dimensions the universe has, even our own bodies. Does that mean there's a portion of our ourselves we can't see or perceive?
 
Space news on Phys.org
That is indeed one of the implications of higher dimensions. In most hyperdimensional models (M-Theory and the like), the higher dimensions are so sharply curved as to "close up" on themselves at scales too small to technically qualify as "existing," in the scientific sense. So, one could call these "virtual dimensions," just like virtual particles. If these extra dimensions do exist (and there is strong circumstantial evidence to support that they do), then all existing things must occupy them. In fact, even empty space must contain these extra dimensions.
 
How does this relate to the notions of extended extra dimensions? I've read that some theories don't require 'closed up' dimensions, that we might live on a 3 dimensional brane in a higher dimensional universe. Is this more than conjecture? How would we tell the difference between this and having all dimensions curled up?
 
Sometimes physical models (like those of quantum gravity) will be calculated in 2+1 dimensions for simplification.
 
Yes, I've seen that done. But the high level guys talk about multiple dimensions which may or may not be curled up. I just wonder how our universe would differ between the two. I will dig further ... just found out about ITunes courses on line, so I shall be getting smarter.
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top