Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Living in seven dimensions

  1. 27

    3 vote(s)
  2. 11

    8 vote(s)
  3. 10

    4 vote(s)
  4. 7

    2 vote(s)
  5. 4

    3 vote(s)
  1. Sep 6, 2003 #1
    i believe we live in a seven dimensional universe. three spacial dimensions, three non-physical dimensions, and time. seeing reality from a higher dimensional perspective allows you to make connections that aren't apparent in three dimensional space; such awareness comes as intuition and insight where things not having a three dimensional connection have one in higher dimensions.

    may your journey be graceful,
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 12, 2003 #2
    as long as I can remember according to the theoretical physicist we live in a 5 dimesional universe. Although I'm not sure on this, anyone else who can back this up?
  4. Sep 12, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    IIRC, M-theory postulates 11 dimensions, and F-theory 12.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2003
  5. Sep 12, 2003 #4
    is anyone else besides me considering the possibility that the univeerse is infinite dimensional? but then the next question would be WHICH order of infinity...

  6. Sep 13, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I'll gp with 11 just for kicks. This is the traditional number for M-theory. 1 for time, 3 for ordinary space, 6 coming out of 3 complex dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, and one "emerging" from perturbative string theory.
  7. Sep 16, 2003 #6
    3 Dimensional. Having time be the 4th demension is a distortion of the definition of dimension in my opinion. Man may very well discover amazing things that he has not even thought of before, and many people will probably consider them new "dimensions" by further distorting the true definition, but there always has and always will be only 3 dimensions. It is easy to say things like "we simply cannot understand what more dimensions than we already know of could possibly be like," but by using that logic, many ridiculous statements can be backed up. (the 1st and 2nd dimension exist only for mathematical purposes, and even in theory, there could be no entity or THING whatsoever of fewer than 3 dimensions.)
  8. Sep 17, 2003 #7
    someone alert the string theorists! they're wrong!

  9. Sep 17, 2003 #8
    Most likely... The theory is so far from things tangible to humans, that it is simply very unlikely that it is correct. It is... after all, just something that someone dreamed up.
  10. Sep 19, 2003 #9
    Uh, I thought you said that it had seven dimensions. It can't be infinite-dimensional and seven-dimensional at the same time...
  11. Sep 19, 2003 #10
    Thank you, selfAdjoint. I (of course) picked the same answer.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

    Long Live M-THEORY!!!
  12. Sep 19, 2003 #11
    Oh, puh-lease! You've got to be kidding. I must come to defence of one of my favorite theories...

    First off, if all of the "right" theories were easily conceptualized by humans, then there would be no need for science, since we could just go with what "felt right" (and theories like QM or BB or GR wouldn't exist, even though they have some of the strongest experimental backing of any theory I've ever heard of).

    And, equally importantly, no one just "dreamt up" M-Theory, it's been the product of alot of careful and arduous theorizing over the past two decades.
  13. Sep 19, 2003 #12
    Thats not what I mean,,, no human can even IMAGINE what more dimensions could possibly be like, and this theory is an attempt to not only state that they exist, but go into relative detail.
  14. Sep 20, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    We can deal with it mathematically, using dimensionality-invariant equations. The only way your argument can work is if our entire system of numbers is wrong, and that is rather more unlikely. M-theory can also come up with predictions, which we can test. There are many things we cannot visualise, but turn out to be true.

    Tell me, could you imagine what a strawberry tasted like before you had one? Does strawberries then not exist?

    GR insists on the action of time as a fourth dimension.

    What is your definition of dimension, anyways?
  15. Sep 22, 2003 #14
    And why shouldn't it? Have you ever tried to conceptualize Quantum Mechanics? It's not only impossible, but frustrating and protentially unnerving. No human can conceptualize QM, and yet it's one of the most strongly supported theories in existence. As I said before, if Science only described what could be conceptualized in the human mind, then there would be no need of Science, as the natural "common sense" inclinations of the mind would already be correct.
  16. Oct 2, 2003 #15
    Dan...you said this: "Having time be the 4th demension is a distortion of the definition of dimension in my opinion"

    First of all I too would like to know what your definition of a dimension is.

    Secondly, have you heard of the experiements where 2 atomic clocks were syncronized with each other perfectly, then one placed on board an SR-71 BlackBird Jet, the fastest jet ever built (that we know of right now) and one left one the ground...the jet takes off, and traversed the planet at supersonic speeds (or flew very fast for a very long flight) ...then when the time on the clocks were compared, they were different? The one on the jet had not used up as much time as the one on the ground, even though they were syncronized perfectly...if time (actually spacetime is the correct term) isn't the 4th spatial dimension, then how can this be? Why was Einstein correct in the prediction that as mass (mass exists in space) accelerates (acceleration having to do with time) ever closer to the speed of light, (any acceleration is a fraction of the speed of light) that it will not age as quickly as a body at rest? Ever heard of the twin paradox Dan?

    This isn't a conjective theory Dan, it's a scientific theory (or working model if my memory serves me). That is, there's PROOF.

    If anyone cares to make any corrections to what I have said please do, help me out here; I have a disease which affects my memory. Thank you.

  17. Oct 28, 2003 #16

    see section 986.850 -986.857 for bucky Fullers relplacing "dimension" with "power(ing)" to arrive aat 33-Pow/Dim.

    THe tetrahedron(tet). as the bosonic --ergo graviton-- minimal-volumetric space-enclosing system-of-structure.

    The four 60-degree-coordinated metaphysial imaginary-planes of the tet., each have an imaginary center-point that is perpendicular to a diametrically-oppposing vertexial-point/viewpoint.

    This 12-angled 60-degree interrelatisonship of the four metaphysical imaginary-planes produces the four diametric-diagonals of the cube --cube stabilized with 12 surface diagonals of two opposing tets. (duo-tet-)-- ergo four hyper-dimensions --axi(s) of roation-- as proposed by Kaku in "Hyper-space." with his drawing of cube.

    We may label the four-planes A,B,C,and D as metaphysically-mathematical 2-D spatial-dimensions of geometry

    THe four 90-degree-resultant hyperspace-diametric-diagonals of the 12-angle 60-degree-coordinated tet. can now formulated-as having the four 2-D imaginary planes and four 1-D axi(s).

    That may total as, 4 + 8, or 4 +4, or just-only 4 metaphysical dimensions or powers or combinations of both.

    Now we enter time into this scenario-of-equations as time be inherentlly-coexistent to each of three phycial dimensions/powers ergo 1 of time(t) and 3 of dim/pow.(XYZ) = 4

    Now we have many 4's or combinations thereof accruing here.

    There exists seven primary axi(s) that derive all metaphysially-mathematical volumetric spatial-dimensions of geometry.

    Four of these are of the seven mentioned above ergo we need to add three more axi(s) too our four of due-tet. mentioned above. See 1040.00 in above link to see all seven primaryaxi(s).

    They are seen as the seven parrallel planes of the cubo-octahedron a.k.a the Vector Equilibrium a.k.a the
    metaphysically-mathematical Great-Momma Goddes-of-geometry. :smile:

    Now we have 7-Dim/Pow. metaphsycally-mathmatical primary axi(s) + 3 XYZ(cartesian) physical-Dim/Pow. + 1 of time(t) = 10-Dim/Pow.

    That is first time --i.e. incidence/expereince-- of my doing the above formulations to arrive the significant 10 plus 1 of time to arrive at 11. Excellent Rybo!

    Well that seems like plenty, for the moment(s), and quantum bits fo Loop-Quantum-Gravity(lQG) space-time even if we are only the 2-Dim/Pow. of a holographic Universe as viewed in the mathematics of Jacob Bekensten(Spe.).

    Gotta go, hope to hear from you.
  18. Nov 17, 2003 #17
    According to Nigel Tufnel, "It goes to eleven."
  19. Nov 25, 2003 #18
    Very well said.
    I couldn't possibly agree more.
    Thank you.

    Let me add a question (phrased as mutiple questions)...
    Please temorarily disregard the "Is time/spacetime a spatial, temporal or neither dimesion?" argument for the sake of this question...
    What is the necessity of conceptualizing "greater dimensional planes" (for lack of a better expression at the moment)?
    Other than to fill in the blanks of the vairous unnecessary string hypotheses (I really wish people would refrain from refrring to them as "String Theories" being that not one of them can rightfully be considered a theory), interesting sci-fi plot-lines and pretty pictures, what is the purpose of it?
    What makes anyone think they exist?
    What valid evidence is there to support, or even suggest, them? (BTW, being a required integral aspect of incomplete conceptualized physics hypotheses does not count as valid evidence in my humble opinion)
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2003
  20. Nov 28, 2003 #19
    Definitions of dimensions

    When we describe an atom, it’s like describing a radio by describing all the electrical things that are happening in it, but without describing the mechanical workings of the radio. I was never satisfied with that description of an atom, which says it is made of tiny particles the size of peas that are as far apart as Cleveland and Pittsburgh. If you were to describe the electrical workings of a radio, without describing the radio, you might also say, “If this electrical charge is the size of a pea, it would be is as far away from this electrical charge as Cleveland is from Pittsburgh; which leaves the impression that most of the radio is just emptiness. But it’s not, it’s a very physical radio.

    It’s possible that most of an atom is not emptiness, either; but is a bunch of circuits or strings that are not in use at the moment.

    What is a string? We accept the definition of a string as being: a fat hollow tube that is 2-dimensional with walls that have no thickness. I agree with that definition 100%. And my other definition of a string is two points of real pea-like matter that are separated by a distance. You have to go all the way back to the Big Bang to properly describe it.

    There was this sea of matter. The Bible says it was without form, and it says God flew over the waves of this liquid abyss. It is a quivering drop of water surrounded by nothing. If it is surrounded by nothing, that means it is not even surrounded by space. Space is something. In real estate, space is usually very expensive. All the matter in the universe is surrounded by truly nothing. The matter is all there is. God exploded that matter into the nothing.

    The one quivering drop, the abyss, was a singularity, even though it was very large. There was no concept of space, back then. There was matter. And there was nothing, which are two things. That was all there was, two dimensions. To have existence, you need three things, three dimensions. Nothing exists that isn’t three dimensions. Let’s take the original abyss and separate it into two abysses. Now you have three things. Abyss One, Abyss Two, and….Nothing. This was the first string. Its two physical dimensions (Abyss One and Abyss Two) are surrounded by a manifold of nothingness. The manifold of nothingness that surrounds Abyss One and Abyss Two is like a fat hollow tube with walls that have no thickness. That is our definition of a string, and we know strings have tension. Abyss One and Abyss Two are separated into something that does not have the concept of space, like putting two large pieces of packing material into a trash bag. The two large pieces are going to get as close together as they can because there is no space in the trash bag. In the same way, Abyss One and Abyss Two want to get as close together as possible, because there is no space around them. But they are currently separated by a distance, and since they are apart they have identity.

    If you try to pull them farther apart, you will experience a great tension, because there is no space.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook