How do physicists approach dimensions higher than 3rd?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relevance and understanding of dimensions higher than the third in modern physics. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, mathematical representations, and the implications of these higher dimensions, touching on concepts from string theory and thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that higher dimensions can be understood mathematically as separate measurable axes, with no inherent mystery beyond their representation.
  • Others argue that while mathematical descriptions exist, the physical relevance of dimensions beyond the third, such as those posited by string theory, lacks empirical evidence and may not correspond to reality.
  • A participant mentions that dimensions can be viewed as variables, suggesting that relating these multi-dimensional concepts to our three-dimensional experience may lead to confusion.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of dimensions versus components, with references to thermodynamic state vectors and the curvature of dimensions in string theory.
  • One participant highlights the challenge of visualizing higher dimensions and suggests that mathematical representations can abstractly depict these concepts, though they may not align with personal experiences of three-dimensional space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature and significance of higher dimensions, with no consensus reached regarding their physical relevance or how they should be interpreted.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of empirical evidence for higher dimensions as physical entities, the dependence on mathematical frameworks for understanding, and the potential confusion arising from relating abstract dimensions to tangible experiences.

ElDiplodocus
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I know modern physics theories make use of really high number of spatial dimensions, I wonder how relevant these high dimensions are for physics. I am only a guy from High school interested in physics, but I would like if possible a formal answer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.
We do it with maths... carefully describing the relationships between the dimensions.
At this stage the thing you need to understand is that each dimension is just a separate thing that can be measured. Its a different axis on a graph... making it a space axis is just a matter of picking the units we record it in... i.e. time becomes space if we multiply by the speed of light.
Something like a 10-speed bike needs a lot of dimensions to describe it... there are 3 dimensions for its position, then there is the angle of the handlebars, that's another dimension... the angle the wheels have rotated through (2 more) and so on.
So there is nothing very mysterious about having more than 3 dimensions.

A dimension is higher than another one or not depending on how we order them... some people count time as the 1st dimension and others as the 4th for example. It doesn't matter.
 
While Simon is completely correct, I think what he is describing is coordinates within the 3 spatial dimensions in which we exist and I interpret your question as being about actual physical dimensions. String Theory posits 9 spatial dimensions (or other numbers depending on which specific theory) but there is currently zero evidence that any such thing exists as anything other than mathematical niceties with no correspondence to reality.
 
I'm being entirely general about "dimensions".
i.e. a thermodynamic state vector would have three entirely non-spacial dimensions and special properties.
The position 4-vector has 4 space dimensions, but does not follow euclidean rules. Iirc thevstring theory dimensions are also space dimensions... but some have lots of curvature.
We'd usually refer to components rather dimensions.
 
If we look at Dimensions as variables, then we have no real problem. If we want to relate multi-dimensions to the spatial ones we can see and touch, then we are going to be disappointed; the 'distances' between objects in several dimensions are not going to make direct sense if these extra dimensions are not 'like' our XYZ representation. Maths neatly takes care of the problem but you must trust what it does and accept the resulting answers (a bit of a leap of faith, like with a lot of maths answers).
We accept that a 3D picture can be represented on 2D paper so it should not be too big a step to appreciate how 4D could be represented on a 3D model - which in turn, could be photographed and put on a 2D surface.
http://fathom-the-universe.tumblr.com/post/61285845800/this-is-a-calabi-yau-manifold-it-is-a shows one approach to representing multi-dimensions. Very pretty but it is a different matter to relate it to personal experience of 3D.
PS You have started your PF career with a really hard one!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K