About the dimensions of the universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mafarazzo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dimensions in the universe, particularly focusing on the implications of higher dimensions and their relationship to physical objects and existence. Participants explore theoretical concepts related to dimensions, including their existence and how they might affect our perception of reality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if an object has any dimension equal to zero, it cannot exist, leading to the question of whether all objects must occupy space in all dimensions that exist.
  • Another participant proposes that in hyperdimensional models, higher dimensions may be curved and not perceptible, yet all existing things must occupy these dimensions, including empty space.
  • A different participant questions the concept of extended extra dimensions, noting that some theories suggest we might exist on a 3-dimensional brane within a higher-dimensional universe, and seeks clarification on how to differentiate between curled and extended dimensions.
  • One participant mentions that physical models can be simplified to 2+1 dimensions, indicating a method of exploring complex theories.
  • Another participant acknowledges the discussion of multiple dimensions and expresses curiosity about the differences in the universe's structure depending on whether dimensions are curled up or not.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of dimensions and their implications, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a consensus on the existence and characteristics of higher dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of dimensions and their implications for existence, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion also touches on theoretical models that may not have definitive experimental support.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K