M-Theory : listing the 11 dimensions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Argentum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions M-theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of M-Theory and the proposed existence of 11 dimensions in the context of string theory. Participants explore the nature of these dimensions, their implications, and the relationships between different string theories. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, conceptual clarifications, and personal reflections on understanding the topic.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant lists four familiar dimensions (height, width, depth, time) and suggests that the additional seven dimensions may relate to Kaluza-Klein theory and various string theories.
  • Another participant questions the classification of dimensions, suggesting that time may not be the fourth dimension and that the order of spatial dimensions is arbitrary.
  • A participant proposes a model involving time and duration as dimensions, introducing concepts like frequency and offsets to explain additional dimensions.
  • Some participants discuss the formulation of the un-unified standard model using Kaluza-Klein dimensions, noting the need for unification and chirality in models.
  • One participant argues against the existence of 11 dimensions, suggesting instead that there are groups or sets of dimensions that may be based on different mathematical frameworks.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between nouns and verbs in discussions about unification in theories, suggesting that the focus should be on gathering foundational concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature and number of dimensions, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the existence of multiple dimensions, while others challenge the notion of 11 dimensions and propose alternative interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding and the complexity of the topic, indicating that assumptions and definitions may vary. The discussion reflects ongoing exploration rather than settled conclusions.

  • #31
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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?
 
  • #33
calceus said:
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, let's 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
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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 O_o". There's my novice opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
tangent21 said:
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
At least 10-15 posts in this thread are nonsense. I'm going to ask the moderators to do something about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
This thread has provoked too many speculative, pseudo-scientific, and non-scientific responses, so I have closed it.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What is time in string/M-theory and Four-dimensionalism?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate String theory and locality of small dimensions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate String Theory in N dimensions?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Brane cosmology without string theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate M theory dimension change and large N_c, are they related?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Graduate Why is it necessary to have 11 dimensions in M Theory?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
High School How can a dimension be "curled up" and have a finite extent?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate Different symmetries or no symmetries in string theory?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
683