# M-Theory : listing the 11 dimensions

Argentum
Hi there, I'm new to this but trying like hell to figure the basics of this out, (as I did a while back but failed, then went off and left it.) and was wondering if this is why there's 11 dimensions :

1. Height
2. Width
3. Depth
4. Time

Then we move onto the stuff that causes many of us problems, but after reading up for a while I'm hoping (!) that I at least know why there's 11. Are these the extra 7?

5. Kaluza–Klein combination of gravitation and electromagnetism - 5th dimension.

6-10. 5 different string theories that all appear to be correct at the same time, leading to :
11. M-Theory, which says that the 5 string theories are all correct and part of the same thing, which adds 6 dimensions onto the other 5.

I'm sure that'll be wrong, but I at least feel closer to working out how it's arrived at....the main confusing thing is : those 5 string theories from 6-10 are all supposed to be detecting 10 dimensions aren't they? So I'm sure I'm wrong, but if any of you could try and break it down like that, but with the correct info I'd be really grateful, because it's driving me half mad. I don't want to fail at grasping the very basics of the idea and then leaving it again either, then going off to learn about other things instead, because I'll only come back at somepoint in the future and get just as wound up again with the whole thing.

2nd post added to make it easier to merge if need be :

Nobody? Ok, I just thought about it again a bit and I'm realising that I probably got it wrong with the 5 string theories. (surprise, surprise...) The 5 all say that there's 10 dimensions, but they're not numbers 5-10 like I stupidly thought, they're just 5 theories that add 5 onto the other 5, or 6 onto the 4 of length, width, depth and time. Then M-Theory comes along and says that they're all right, but only when you look at it from this 11th dimension, which as far as I can gather, can view the other 10 from different.....angles so to speak, and is something on a whole other level.

Is that closer? But then that leaves me not knowing what the hell the other 5 are after the 4 and 5th that I listed earlier....will have to read up more.

Last edited:

Argentum
Nobody? Ok, I just thought about it again a bit and I'm realising that I probably got it wrong with the 5 string theories. (surprise, surprise...) The 5 all say that there's 10 dimensions, but they're not numbers 5-10 like I stupidly thought, they're just 5 theories that add 5 onto the other 5, or 6 onto the 4 of length, width, depth and time. Then M-Theory comes along and says that they're all right, but only when you look at it from this 11th dimension, which as far as I can gather, can view the other 10 from different.....angles so to speak, and is something on a whole other level.

Is that closer? But then that leaves me not knowing what the hell the other 5 are after the 4 and 5th that I listed earlier....will have to read up more.

Also : sorry for making this thread, I've quite clearly got it wrong, so maybe it should be merged with the other one that's on this page. (I just merged these two posts aswell, so this can be deleted, and you can just shift the starter onto the other thread.)

starkind
I've been told here that all the extra dimensions of string theory are spatial ones. It is probably not useful to think of time as the fourth dimension.

Consider the 'first three': height width depth. Does it matter if you list them as width, height, depth? or any other recombination? It seems there is no preferred order, and trying to list a heirarchy of dimensions is not useful.

I hope this helps.

First dimension is time.

the Second dimension is Duration. t -> t+1

click click ckick is a frequency?

t+1 is the dimension of length. A dot that is on, as time recedes away. To see the two dimension line ( on ((duration)) + time ), You have to add a third dimension. an offset from the straight-on view of the dot + duration in time. Call it x or y, but the offset now gives us a nice two dimensional graph paper clicking away from us at the speed of click click click. ( x,y,t,)
To add another dimension we need to add another offset. Easy enough. Two eyes set about z apart. ( x,y,z,t,). Our normal perception.

What about including the changes of Yaw, Pitch, Roll, Acceleration, ( all requiring a delta of one or more of the basic four dimensions) and try to put them into the map?

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
Un-unifyed standard model can be formulated with 7 kaluza klein dimensions, in the same way that electromagnetism can be done with just one KK dimension.

Problem is, they need unification and chirality, so the 7 dimensions are not used in most models.

Fritz Reitz
Un-unifyed standard model can be formulated with 7 kaluza klein dimensions, in the same way that electromagnetism can be done with just one KK dimension.

Problem is, they need unification and chirality, so the 7 dimensions are not used in most models.
my (effectively undergraduate) understanding is that with E&M as 1 KK dimension, velocity in this extra dimension corresponds to charge density.

in the un-unified formulation you mention, do velocities in these extra dimension correspond to hypercharge and colors perhaps? perhaps with 2 related dimensions for the weak force's SU(2) and 3 for the strong's SO(3)?

(as a previous class project, I managed to see how KK could encompass e&m, as a current project, I'm trying to see how a yang-mills field could be included.)

calceus
there are not 11 dimentions.

There are 11 "sets" or "groups" of 11s.

HOWEVER, some are Trigonametry based, and some are Calculus based.

Some are also certain combinations of Trig and Calculus "11"s, unified with algebra "11"s.,

The resulting unified math fields, as well as the physically existing structure itself, MUST then "balance" in a "3-D frame of reference" in order for "String Theory" to become "String Fact".

I STRESS: AND I MEAN STRESS, everything as I have "explained" so far are nouns. Verbs come later.

Summing up: there are only three "measures" to consider so far; Algebra, Calculus, Trig. I STRESS: AND I MEAN STRESS those are also just nouns so far.

All string theories, like all advanced mathematics, have a 3-D "heart", or "frame of reference": where the theories begin, and where they are "propossed" to return for unification. "Unification" is ALWAYS a noun, and should never be considered a verb.

For this thread, lets state "unification" as "Big U"; the ultimate "goal" or "solution", and stop to recognize a major "brain buster" people get "confused" with.

As I read every possible theory I come across, the term: "unify", or the phrase "seeks to unify it all together" create errors in elemetary logic. Both "unifys" are verbs there.

When ANY verb is "referenced" or "defined", most people "start it up" too soon.

We are just gathering "materials" so far. We'll "start" it later.

calceus
This post

Number of Dimentions as nouns, are assumed to be "boundless" at this point.

Now NOT each separate physical dimention, they ARE most definately "bounded" as individual "places". That ONLY refers to the MATH, and in no way, states that a dimention can't "expand"

There is "always" an "infinity" aspect to the model, per strait line arithematic. We will "nullify" it later.

It can be stated as FACT, there are 3 dimentions, and the existance of an "observer" in that frame of reference.

"I think, therefore, I am." "And I am somewhere".

NOW, we must recognize another possible "roadblock" point.

I am NOT stating any "has to be " or "must be there" or even "can't be included at all" concepts as to "observer". Lets cross that "bridge" later.

At this point, WE ARE STILL gathering "nouns".

When completed, it must "work" with or without "observation".

All I have "proven" so far is "where" to begin, keeping with the "it must be real" heart of simple Physics.

Basic basics next....

Fritz Reitz
attached are figures taken from greene's fabric of the cosmos and kaku's hyperspace. greene's depicts a calabi-yau manifold at each spacetime point, and kaku's seems to suggest a kaluza-klein-esque combination of forces (he might have been talking about supergravity, I don't remember now).

especially in the kaku figure, it seems tempting to continue labeling the rows/columns of the matrix; presumably what he has labeled "einstein" would have headings of time/x/y/z, though I wonder about the others -- I guess he intends the "yang-mills" regions to correspond to the weak force (column headings of isospin & hypercharge perhaps?) and the "quarks-leptons" region to be strong (red/green/blue headings?).

#### Attachments

• greene kaku.jpg
58 KB · Views: 1,561
Fritz Reitz
on second reading of the relevant section of the kaku book (pp 144-150), I guess my guesses are a ways off, and it sounds like supergravity has problems anyway.

still, I wish I could find some sort of conceptual pegboard to put ideas on as I learn them, a whole that I could relate each new part to.

perhaps string theory or LQG could be that pegboard? is it possible to explain to an (effectively) undergraduate how it is thought that each of the forces might fit into these theories? e.g. if the strong force has an SU(3) symmetry, does that suggest that 3 of the "dimensions" of string theory are reserved for this force?

lucek
in m theory the extra five dimentions as follow
M-theory on circle IIA in 10 dimensions
Wrap membrane on circle IIA superstring
Shrink membrane to zero size D0-brane
Unwrapped membrane D2-brane
Wrap fivebrane on circle D4-brane
Unwrapped fivebrane NS fivebrane

Gold Member
is it possible to explain to an (effectively) undergraduate how it is thought that each of the forces might fit into these theories? e.g. if the strong force has an SU(3) symmetry, does that suggest that 3 of the "dimensions" of string theory are reserved for this force?

This is very old, so it has been already answered in modern threads (and there is a guy actually using Pope's lectures!). But the short answer:

If the group of symmetry is G you take a subgroup H, the biggest you can, and build G/H, so
dimension(G/H)=dim(G)-dim(H).

For G=SU(3), the max subgroup is SU(2)xU(1) (just coincidence), and them dim G = 8, dim H= 4, dim G/H=8-4=4. Actually, the quotient is CP^2, the complex projective plane.

So 4 of the dimensions of kaluza klein theory are reserved for the SU(3) force.

For G=SU(3), the max subgroup is SU(2)xU(1) (just coincidence), and them dim G = 8, dim H= 4, dim G/H=8-4=4.

OK.

Actually, the quotient is CP^2, the complex projective plane.

Why not $S^{5}/S^{1}$?

sam

Gold Member
Why not $S^{5}/S^{1}$?

You mean that $S^{5}/S^{1}$ is not $CP^2$????

You mean that $S^{5}/S^{1}$ is not $CP^2$????

For our purpuses, with abit of hard work, the two spaces can be identified with each other! just don't listen to mathematicians!!

sam

Gold Member
For our purpuses, with abit of hard work, the two spaces can be identified with each other! just don't listen to mathematicians!!

sam

Well, to be honest, we should put some consideration to the case when there are different ways to implement the action of the (sub)group. In this case, I think that there is essentialy only one way to quotient S^5 by U(1). But in the general case we get some parameters in the game, which is interesting.

edpell
Sure looks like three spacial dimensions to me. Yes there is that weird space/time mixing that Einstein gave us. But still three spacial dimension. Now there my be several hidden internal degrees of freedom but why do we have to elevate them to spacial dimensions? And how do we feel about hidden degrees of freedom?

Gold Member
By the way, the other thinking that have been emerging during the last years in the understanding of how different $S^4$ is of $CP^2$, or how similar they are. It is about having a kind of Einstein metrics called "self-dual", built by Hitchin in the late nineties.

rai linga
in m theory the extra five dimentions as follow
M-theory on circle IIA in 10 dimensions
Wrap membrane on circle IIA superstring
Shrink membrane to zero size D0-brane
Unwrapped membrane D2-brane
Wrap fivebrane on circle D4-brane
Unwrapped fivebrane NS fivebrane

Hello,

Sorry to intrude on the ongoing discussion. Not being a physicist, I have a, hopefully, simple question with regards to the 11 dimensions of M Theory. To preface, I understand that there are various spatial dimensions representing corresponding perpendiculars (not observable beyond 3) passing through an axis point. I understand that the time dimension is a particularly "odd" (inside-out?) perpendicular passing through the axis at the square root of -1 (i). I also understand that the 11th dimension represents the line perpendicular to the surface plane of each of the 2 branes that eventually collide to create the Big Bang. (Correct me if I'm wrong in any of the foregoing, please)

NOW MY QUESTION IS: Is this 11th dimensional perpendicular a positive spatial one like the other nine, or is it an imaginary perpendicular (like time), or is it something altogether different? And, if so what?

Gold Member
It is, in your peculiar nomenclature, "positive spatial". IE, the metric in general relativity is (3,1), in string theory is (9,1), in 11D is (10,1), in 26D is (25,1). This number signals the number of positive and negative eigenvalues of a matrix which controls the scalar product of vectors.

Were you to "square root" this matrix into some tensor product of vectors, you could put your "imaginary" there.

Hello,

Sorry to intrude on the ongoing discussion. Not being a physicist, I have a, hopefully, simple question with regards to the 11 dimensions of M Theory. To preface, I understand that there are various spatial dimensions representing corresponding perpendiculars (not observable beyond 3) passing through an axis point. I understand that the time dimension is a particularly "odd" (inside-out?) perpendicular passing through the axis at the square root of -1 (i). I also understand that the 11th dimension XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. (Correct me if I'm wrong in any of the foregoing, please)

NOW MY QUESTION IS: Is this 11th dimensional perpendicular a positive spatial one like the other nine, or is it an imaginary perpendicular (like time), or is it something altogether different? And, if so what?

rai linga
It is, in your peculiar nomenclature, "positive spatial". IE, the metric in general relativity is (3,1), in string theory is (9,1), in 11D is (10,1), in 26D is (25,1). This number signals the number of positive and negative eigenvalues of a matrix which controls the scalar product of vectors.

Were you to "square root" this matrix into some tensor product of vectors, you could put your "imaginary" there.

Thank you, Arivero, for giving me the simple answer first. Gracious of you to refer to my “peculiar nomenclature” when I’m just trying to, however vaguely, understand how the time dimension and the 11th dimension are the two most mysterious of all.

Your clear answer now prompted 3 brief related questions (hopefully, a little less mundane).

To preface, I had just read in the Dec SciAm of Petr HoYava’s new alternative to inflation theory (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space) asserting that time was there originally and that, after the Big Bang, the spatial dimensions begin coalescing, so producing inflation in the process. QUESTION #1: Doesn’t this new theory dovetail splendidly with M Theory, given that both are founded on the premise that time is primary and continuing, and that space is a later consequence of the Big Bang? Can they possibly merge in some way?
QUESTION #2: It would seem that, even though the 11th dimension is “positive” like all spatial dimensions, it is still very different because, like time, it exists before the Big Bang as the perpendicular separating the 2 branes that eventually collide to create the Big Bang. Am I right that only time and the 11th dimension exist in hyperspace prior to the Big Bang?
QUESTION #3: And, if so, wouldn’t a proper classification of dimensions based on “most fundamental” place time 1st, with (what is now labeled) the 11th dimension coming in at 2nd? (and then the rest of the spatial ones?)

Gold Member
QUESTION #2: It would seem that, even though the 11th dimension is “positive” like all spatial dimensions, it is still very different because, like time, it exists before the Big Bang as the perpendicular separating the 2 branes that eventually collide to create the Big Bang. Am I right that only time and the 11th dimension exist in hyperspace prior to the Big Bang?
No, you are no right, and because of it I also avoided to answer another remark in your first statement. I mean, you are fundamentally wrong in the "collision" thing, I can not imagine how you got into that idea except by wrong parallels with accelerator experiments. And in the only "prior BB" theories I know, all of the dimensions exists.

Now, it is true that the 11th dimension seems to have a role different of the other 10,

rai linga
No, you are no right, and because of it I also avoided to answer another remark in your first statement. I mean, you are fundamentally wrong in the "collision" thing, I can not imagine how you got into that idea except by wrong parallels with accelerator experiments. And in the only "prior BB" theories I know, all of the dimensions exists.

Now, it is true that the 11th dimension seems to have a role different of the other 10,

When I spoke of "brane collision" as creating the Big Bang, I am referring to the new Cyclic Model of the Big Bang that, I assumed, naturally came out of M Theory (called "the ekpyrotic universe" by its creators, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok). This has been widely reported in SciAm and even Discovery Magazine. This model is still being debated among the physics community, but is not "deeply wrong". So now that I have done a better job specifying what I meant, could you still attempt to answer my questions again? (and does the 11th dimension only exist in hyperspace?)

Gold Member
Ah, I see. It uses extra dimensions and some inspiration from M theory, but it is not a logical consequence. I think that it is really wrong to speak of collisions, and more in the terms you were using, but I least now I understand what did you mean by "perpendicular".

Really the term "ekpyrotic" is used to avoid the idea of a collision, it is more as a surge of energy perhaps. Well, I do not enjoy cosmology specially.

While I can not answer your questions, I can point you to read the introduction to the original article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239 (press the PDF link there, it is free)

When I spoke of "brane collision" as creating the Big Bang, I am referring to the new Cyclic Model of the Big Bang that, I assumed, naturally came out of M Theory (called "the ekpyrotic universe" by its creators, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok). This has been widely reported in SciAm and even Discovery Magazine. This model is still being debated among the physics community, but is not "deeply wrong". So now that I have done a better job specifying what I meant, could you still attempt to answer my questions again? (and does the 11th dimension only exist in hyperspace?)

rai linga
Ah, I see. It uses extra dimensions and some inspiration from M theory, but it is not a logical consequence. I think that it is really wrong to speak of collisions, and more in the terms you were using, but I least now I understand what did you mean by "perpendicular".

Really the term "ekpyrotic" is used to avoid the idea of a collision, it is more as a surge of energy perhaps. Well, I do not enjoy cosmology specially.

While I can not answer your questions, I can point you to read the introduction to the original article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239 (press the PDF link there, it is free)

This site might be interesting ---a really good BBC program (captured on YouTube) on the "ekpyrotic universe" model:

Hope you enjoy it. I did. Thanks again.

lillie olson
Has anyone else considered that the reason there are 11 dimensions in M theory is that there are 11 notes in a musical scale with the 12 being an octave and beginning the sequence all over again. this can also be described in the abstraction of space using the topology equation of 2n+1. In any n dimensional space, there is 2n+1 0-dimensional points.

Therefore, in 0 dimensional space, there is 1 0-dimensional point or a singularity, a point. In 1 dimensional space, there are 3 0-dimensional points or a line, the x axis. In 2 dimensional space, there are 5 0-dimensional points or a plane, the x-y axis. In 3 dimensional space, there are 7 0-dimensional points or the x-y-z axis. In 4 dimensional space (time), there are 9 0-dimensional points the x-y-z axis plus the 1st quadrant 45 degree rotation from these axes. The 5th, 6th and 7th dimensions there are 11, 13 and 15 0-dimensional points respectively and graphically represented by the 45 degree rotations in the other 3 quadrants of the x-y-z axes. The 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th dimensions there are 17, 19, 21 and 23 0-dimensional points respectively and graphically respresented by the 45 degree inverse or symmetric rotations of the 4 quadrants of the x-y-z axis. The 0 dimension is the representation of the octave of 11 dimensions and the 2nd octave of 0-dimensional points equaling 24.

Just a thought!

Has anyone else considered that the reason there are 11 dimensions in M theory is that there are 11 notes in a musical scale with the 12 being an octave and beginning the sequence all over again. this can also be described in the abstraction of space using the topology equation of 2n+1. In any n dimensional space, there is 2n+1 0-dimensional points.

Therefore, in 0 dimensional space, there is 1 0-dimensional point or a singularity, a point. In 1 dimensional space, there are 3 0-dimensional points or a line, the x axis. In 2 dimensional space, there are 5 0-dimensional points or a plane, the x-y axis. In 3 dimensional space, there are 7 0-dimensional points or the x-y-z axis. In 4 dimensional space (time), there are 9 0-dimensional points the x-y-z axis plus the 1st quadrant 45 degree rotation from these axes. The 5th, 6th and 7th dimensions there are 11, 13 and 15 0-dimensional points respectively and graphically represented by the 45 degree rotations in the other 3 quadrants of the x-y-z axes. The 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th dimensions there are 17, 19, 21 and 23 0-dimensional points respectively and graphically respresented by the 45 degree inverse or symmetric rotations of the 4 quadrants of the x-y-z axis. The 0 dimension is the representation of the octave of 11 dimensions and the 2nd octave of 0-dimensional points equaling 24.

Just a thought!

I like it. I would edit the
Has anyone else considered that the reason there are 11 dimensions in M theory is that there are 11 notes in a musical scale with the 12 being an octave and beginning the sequence all over again. this can also be described in the abstraction of space using the topology equation of 2n+1.

Should point out that it is a 'western musical scale'.

One of the reasons that the 12 tone equal temperament scale exists, is because it was a compromise for keyboard instruments, allowing them to sound good (though slightly out of tune) in every key. *

*I can't confirm that, other than saying I heard it from a very experienced piano tuner.

When you put together a cause or a reason, with an observation about a random musical scale, I don't quite see the connection.

lillie olson
I like it. I would edit the
Has anyone else considered that the reason there are 11 dimensions in M theory is that there are 11 notes in a musical scale with the 12 being an octave and beginning the sequence all over again. this can also be described in the abstraction of space using the topology equation of 2n+1.

Should point out that it is a 'western musical scale'.

One of the reasons that the 12 tone equal temperament scale exists, is because it was a compromise for keyboard instruments, allowing them to sound good (though slightly out of tune) in every key. *

*I can't confirm that, other than saying I heard it from a very experienced piano tuner.

When you put together a cause or a reason, with an observation about a random musical scale, I don't quite see the connection.

I am basing this on spherical musical harmonics where using the equiangular spiral musical chromatic scale of 12 semitones. The musical scale to which a musical scale is usually tuned is the diatonic scale. The "evenly tempered" scale is slightly different, being a mathematically accurate exponential scale. The wavelength from middle c to c', an octave above it, with c' taken as unity: each wavelength k= 1.0595 times that of the semitone above it. Each semitone is derived going through 15 degrees of wavelength x k. c' = 1 or 0 degrees through c = 2 or 180 degrees. This is an equiangular (logarithmic) spiral. This gives the constant angle alpha for the equiangular spiral of music of approximately 77 degrees 55785013 minutes. By choosing the appropriate value of alpha, we can insure that any 2 radii separated by 90 degrees be the ratio of phi:1. Given the condition that r2/r1 = phi, when the angle separating the 2 radii is pi/2, gives an alpha equal to
approximately 72.96760887 degrees. This is the constant angle of the equiangular spiral which incorporates both the golden section and the golden numbers. This uses the definition of the divine proportion, phi, and why I chose that musical scale.

rai linga
Truly fascinating all the musical connections between string theory and M theory. Brian Green has opined that one can reasonably assert that the universe is music. So I then imagined him running through the Kalahari proclaiming excitedly "The Universe is Music! The Universe is Music!"; to which a shaman slowly raised his head from his drum, as the dancers all sing in unison in an attempt to communicate with "All That Is": "So it took you that long to discover what has been, to us for millennia, a simple and obvious fact?"

lillie olson
Truly fascinating all the musical connections between string theory and M theory. Brian Green has opined that one can reasonably assert that the universe is music. So I then imagined him running through the Kalahari proclaiming excitedly "The Universe is Music! The Universe is Music!"; to which a shaman slowly raised his head from his drum, as the dancers all sing in unison in an attempt to communicate with "All That Is": "So it took you that long to discover what has been, to us for millennia, a simple and obvious fact?"

let me further explain the concept of dimension using the topology theory equation of 2n+1. i am a mathematician and the only required class i had to take to get my BS in mathematics from one of the U of MO system was a class called "math thought." this is basically a number theory class in which the proof of the numbers 0 and 1 are derived from pure thought. without this proof there would be no such foundations for mathematics, physics and engineering to even exist.

on the 0 dimension with 1 0-dimensional point, what is this point/singularity (there is no such thing as nothing-any concept of a before and after is meaningless-if you want to define it in a spiritual explanation-it is the "I AM"). in actuality, call it an infinitely observing entity of pure conscious intelligence. why not! the dimensions of space-time (4 of them) are just the human definition of our perceptions. so, what might the 5 dimension be called, how about consciousness in order to perceive the other 4 dimensions. if it wasn't for time, how would we perceive the concept of space which is a position. time gives movement and consciousness allows for observation of these dimensions. in absolute, the naming of dimensions is to explain observation. that is all.

in mathematics, counting is usually started with 0. therefore, what M theory calls 11 dimensions is really 12 dimensions if it includes the 0 dimension. this is the 12 semitones of music. yes, the universe is musical!

lillie olson
another comment on the 2n+1 equation of topology theory: any n-dimension has 2n+1 0-dimensional points. in my opinion, this equation is more powerful than E=mc^2. why? without 2n+1, E=mc^2 would not exist!

lillie olson
another concept on the topology theory equation of 2n+1: in any n-dimension there is 2n+1 0-dimensional points. in my opinion, this equation is more powerful than E=mc^2. why? without the equation of 2n+1, E=mc^2 would not exist. it gives the existence of something in the presence of nothing. there is no such thing as nothing. in 0 dimension, there is the existence of 1 0-dimensional point. the past, present and future exist in an absolute singularity. i don't believe in the big bang as the creation of the universe, only a perception of a partial reality of existence. a singularity causing infinite mass to collapse into a singularity? what is this mass? it is pure consciousness. a singularity collapsing into a singularity-a black hole? doesn't black hole theory analyzed as a membrane paradigm say that anything past the event horizon, radius 1, of 1.1 is distorted? using the natural logarithm between 1 and 2 concept and its musical implications of wave lengths through 180 degrees being 1 to 2 with the k=1.0595 difference between wavelengths of the 12 semitones. the difference between 1.1 and 2 is 0.9. the 90% of the missing mass of the universe-dark matter?

tangent21
there are not 11 dimentions.

There are 11 "sets" or "groups" of 11s.

HOWEVER, some are Trigonametry based, and some are Calculus based.

Some are also certain combinations of Trig and Calculus "11"s, unified with algebra "11"s.,

The resulting unified math fields, as well as the physically existing structure itself, MUST then "balance" in a "3-D frame of reference" in order for "String Theory" to become "String Fact".

I STRESS: AND I MEAN STRESS, everything as I have "explained" so far are nouns. Verbs come later.

Summing up: there are only three "measures" to consider so far; Algebra, Calculus, Trig. I STRESS: AND I MEAN STRESS those are also just nouns so far.

All string theories, like all advanced mathematics, have a 3-D "heart", or "frame of reference": where the theories begin, and where they are "propossed" to return for unification. "Unification" is ALWAYS a noun, and should never be considered a verb.

For this thread, lets state "unification" as "Big U"; the ultimate "goal" or "solution", and stop to recognize a major "brain buster" people get "confused" with.

As I read every possible theory I come across, the term: "unify", or the phrase "seeks to unify it all together" create errors in elemetary logic. Both "unifys" are verbs there.

When ANY verb is "referenced" or "defined", most people "start it up" too soon.

We are just gathering "materials" so far. We'll "start" it later.

The statement 11 set of 11 dimensions interests me and I have not seen direct reply to that comment. Does anyone have any more thoughts or is this statement simply wrong?
Thank you

lillie olson
i have no clue what this guy is talking about. it makes no sense to me.

anyway, if you really want to understand something about the concept of what i was talking about, read a physics book on gravitation, black holes as a membrane paradigm, phi, pi, topology theory and music theory. put the fundamentals all together. sit at a piano or guitar, pluck a string and watch it vibrate through all its oscillations.

zewpals
Nothing like a good video with absolutely no math :D.

To be honest I kind of think this 11-th dimension shenanigans is rubbish. I don't know why every time they come up with a new theory about space and time they've got to put on another dimension. I feel as if these "dimensions" aren't really anything like the dimensions we experience. Guess we could just throw them in with the whole quantam mechanics mess and just say "anything can happen ". There's my novice opinion.

Last edited by a moderator: