Why do we assume that the other 6 dimensions that are curled up are spacial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of the six additional dimensions in theories like M-theory, questioning the assumption that they are exclusively spatial. The argument highlights that these dimensions are necessary to reconcile the forces of nature within the frameworks of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It points out that temporal dimensions operate differently than spatial ones, which is crucial for the physics involved in higher-dimensional theories. The conversation also touches on the concept of time as a dimension, referencing the space-time model from relativity, while provoking thought on whether time could be perceived as spatial. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the complexity of dimensionality in theoretical physics and the need for clarity in understanding the roles of different types of dimensions.
Jack
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Why do we assume that the other 6 dimensions that are curled up are spatial dimensions? Could they not be dimensions of time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Originally posted by Jack
Why do we assume that the other 6 dimensions that are curled up are spatial dimensions? Could they not be dimensions of time?

The other spatial dimensions arise out of necessity when one wishes to explain all of the forces in a manner that pleases both Relativity and QM.

They couldn't all be temporal dimensions, because time dimensions work slightly differently than spatial ones, and the physics of higher dimensions (in such theories as M-theory) require the spatial kind of dimension.
 
plus these extra dimensions come from strings/branes twisting and vibrating and whatnot, so spatial dimensions are required for these "spatial" components.
 
wait ...why do we assume that time itself is a dimension...I know its because of the space-time notion in relativity...why don't we believe that time is spatial...I know its a common stupid question...so please try to control your words...thanks...
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Back
Top