How many dimensions are there, really?

  1. i've seen talk jof 4d, 5d, 10d, and even 26d space when talking about string theory. Have any experiments been conducted to show those extra dimensions exist, or are the extra dimensions just theoretical; just the best explaination for the behaviors of particles and strings we've observed in these three dimensions?
  2. jcsd
  3. Not to date, but there are conjectures that if you give enough kinetic energy to a string, then it can "leap" to another dimension. Imagine that you have a bubble chamber, where you follow the trace of a particle. If this trace suddenly stops, then the particle is not there anymore, if this can be observed in future experiments, it can be an evidence of other dimensions
  4. probably infinite- [but it must be understood that space's dimension is-as-it-is and is not quantized into integers of axes- although “larger” <unquantized> dimensions are possible- the concepts of fractal dimensionality seem to be closer to nature ]

    and I think that it is reasonable to say that extra dimensional spaces are proven becasue there are many discovered/invented "stable" universe simulations in higher dimensions- therefore it is possible to build virtual/artificial/digital universes with higher dimensionality- if a viable hyperdimensional space can be programed- then complex natural process somewhere in the universe should have already allowed such universes to emerge- also if something is created by an intelligence ultimately it is just as natural as anything else that forms- the only difference is that part of the emergent dynamics includes the operation of intelligent systems- a nest is a natural thing built by birds .'. an hyperdimensional continuum is a natural thing built by sophonts

    in fact there is an argument that it is more likely that our universe is an alien artifact/simulation than natural based on anthropic reasoning/ Bekenstein's ideas/ and the seemingly digital discreteness of the Planck-scale


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2004
  5. marcus

    marcus 24,226
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    ----quote from the recent AJL paper, page 2----
    ...This may be seen as a particular case of a more general truth, not always appreciated, that in any nonperturbative theory of quantum gravity
    "dimension" will become a dynamical quantity, along with other aspects of geometry.
    ----end quote----

    might interest participants in this thread
    the paper is
  6. marcus

    marcus 24,226
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    "dynamical quantity" means you dont get to pick what the dimension of spacetime (observed at macroscopic scale) is going to be at the outset

    the number of spacetime dimensions is one of those aspects of geometry that emerge by running the model---in a computer simulation or in solving the equation that say how the univese evolves

    they use a simplicial quantum gravity model which they implement in a computer to generate universes with various spacetime geometries
    and the universes have been tending to come out 4 dimensional
    as they report in their paper:

    "Emergence of a 4D world from Causal Quantum Gravity"
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2004
  7. marcus

    marcus 24,226
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    another quote from hep-th/0404156

    ----AJL paper, page 3----

    In what follows we will report on the outcome of the first ever Monte Carlo simulations of four-dimensional causal dynamical triangulation...We will present strong evidence that the Lorentzian framework produces a quantum geometry which is both extended and effectively four-dimensional. This is to our knowledge the first example of a theory of quantum gravity that generates a quantum spacetime with such properties dynamically.

    --------end quote-----
  8. and then those who watched "sliders" can say: "we told you so".
  9. Marcus I wanted to add this link ( just click on page and scroll down immediately, bypassing heading) here because of the issues in regards to triangulation, in terms of the model gravitationally built in the Monte Carlo effect. It's a bit of artistic addition, but I think you will see some significance here?

    I hope you can see that I can switch back and forth between M and LQG in terms of the issues of discreteness and continuity. I think both sides exemplify one of these stance repsectively? Would you agree or disagree?

    It would be as important as distinquishing back ground versus back ground independance?
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2004
  10. marcus

    marcus 24,226
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    the 1911 painting "Le gouter" (teatime) is pretty
    even in the reduced size version.
    I never saw it before

    who is the person in the blue baseball hat?
    it doesnt say

  11. Sliders was awesome!!! :biggrin: they mentioned M-theory on the show less than six months after Ed Witten gave his famous talk and introduced it to the world-


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories
  12. The origin of dimensions

    Astrophysicist Paul Davies once wisely asked if mathematics was built into nature or just a concept of man. More than likely dimensions along with geometry in general are just abstraction of thought and are not reality itself.
    Mathematics and geometry are like topographical maps in that they are depictions but are not reality itself, like a photograph of your family. The photograph is a picture of your family but not actually your family.
    I tend to lean towards a holographical model of the universe. If this is so, then it is likely that in real sense the universe is dimensionless.
  13. Back to SetAI in post #3

    I'm not asking how many dimensions we have thought about, I'm asking how many dimensions have been proven to exist scientifically. You can think about all the dimensions you want, but if only four dimensions really exist, what good is all your guesswork?

    The vanishing path-bubble chamber in post #2 is an excellent example. Two questions about it though. Can we observe strings in bubble chambers? and Assuming we can observe strings in bubble chambers, has there ever been a bubble chamber experiment wherein one trace simply vanished, suggesting the guilty particle leapt to another dimension?
  14. Yet another possible testing of extra dimensions:

    "What the theory also predicts -- not necessarily but possibly -- is that energy can escape from our known dimensions and leak into these extra dimensions under appropriate circumstances. Those appropriate circumstances might be generated in high-energy collisions that will take place at the new atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider.

    So it's possible that through these high-energy collisions we will find that there is less energy at the end of the collision than there was at the start. If the energy loss is of just the right sort, it could be very strong evidence that the energy has seeped off into these extra dimensions. If that were true, if that were the best explanation we could find, that would be strong evidence that the extra dimensions are real, and that in turn would be strong evidence that the framework of string theory is correct."

    By Brian Greene
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2004

  15. I didn't really address whether there are "naturally" occuring hyperdimensional objects/spaces- [becasue we don't have enough information to even GUESS yet :wink: ]- but I would say "probably" that dimension is emergent from fundamantal relational physics- and completely arbitrary- so universes of unlimited dimension surely exist in a classical sense [ but I often change my mind about this!] it seems to me unavoidable that if a hyperdimensional space can be made either artificially or as a virtual simulation- that you have in ANOTHER WAY proven extra-dimensions- as you say- "really exist": by creating them instead of finding them-

    my conjecture is more of an ancillary bit of reasoning that deals with the more fundamental issue of what does intelligence DO from a cosmic/ontological perspective and what can be said to "exist"- does a nest or a beehive exist in nature? if so then you must also agree that any possible artificial/virtual univeres must also exist in nature- becasue having been made by some natural being does not invalidate it's existence- in fact there is no consistant way to seperate a natural process like a big bang or the birth of a star from another natural process like an advanced intelligence building an artificial universe with 67 dimensions- big bangs and artificial universes both result from complex dynamics- the only difference is that some of the dynamics involved int the synthesis of an artificial universe are also processes that we have identified as being intrinsic to intelligence- if a virtual universe works- then it is just as natural and real as any world- our current computer science has shown that we can build stable "simulations" of universes of any/every euclidian [and non-euclidean] dimension- this would seem to be very solid circumstantial evidence for other-dimensional worlds "out there in Nature" becasue even if there aren't worlds with extra-dimensions "naturally" occuring- there are still the universes that were made by someone else which can have any dimension that the builder wishes

    it isn't guesswork-it's an unnavoidable conclusion of intelligence: when an intelligent agent "thinks about" something- in many respects this is an act of creation- anything that we can build exists as much as any other thing exists-

    I'm in no way a mathematical platonist nor do I believe that our notions of mathematics are actually fundemental- but I do recognize the full implications of intelligent systems- when Man thinks a thing or builds a thing- that thing has become manifest in Existence- it becomes real and part of the natural forms in the Cosmos


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2004

    The questions about dimension are important ones from what I see.

    What happened for me knowing full well that GR and Qm have been joined in the complexity of the "information," wondering if it could speak to the dynamcial nature of reality? Is it that gravity had now formed as an carrier particle(thanks to wittens contribution here) as its discriptor(much like the "photon" as a Em disciptor).

    But now, if we engaged in interactions here, how would we describe dimension in relation to the graviton?

    Lets just say for a minute, even Peter Woit in his strong consideration of strings was to answer this question above? Would it not have come from some formulation that such a question could arise, where all other attempts have been limited from particpating in such a question?

    We have created a question in regards to the energy levels for consideration and an scaling consideration having been now introduced? So what then would help us see these interections, if not in context of the issue of photons having fully been recognized, that em consideration and gravity have been joined? What is the result?

    We needed a viable means for consideration of quantum geometry, arising out of quantum gravity. Is this feasible as a direction considering the energy values assigned to the string windings and the KK tower for consideration?

    The complex turns in the Calabi Yau would be very difficult to discern in a compacted universe of dimenisons, yet such "energies," have pointed out the twists and turns in that string? This would have to become a scalable feature in relation to dimension?

    Fermions and bosons then become figures in a choreograph dance of maxwell equations with the eqaution of GR. How woud one then see this new geometry arise with the graviton? Brane realizations then move these considerations to the bulk, and the gravitons ability to roam?
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  17. Dimensions in Universe 0-infitie

    my 3 top choices
    1. 4
    2. 11
    3. 3
  18. So we exist within a 4 dimension+ universe? How can this be if we can only function viewing the universe in 3d. Wouldnt functioning be impossible?
  19. Talking dimensions like this, i.e. as if the number of dimensions might be (locally?) variable. Is there anybody who have analysed the possibility of this? It seems that our nice inverse square laws puts strict limits to such schemes, no?
  20. If inverse square law in regards to gravity is being considered, how would we contain the wave equivalants to gravitons and not call them representation of dimensions? There had to be a energy value considered, and as in the quantum harmonic oscillator, zero point vibration limitation to all points of view?

    If we can change the way we see the nature of all particles as in their windings, then what signatures could we have given any element? Is it not universal then?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: How many dimensions are there, really?