What Do Dimensions 5-14 in String Theory Really Mean?

[Aftermarth]

I was told by my old physics teacher that there is proof (mathematically) for around 14 dimensions or something crazy like that. I think he said it was in relation to string theory and the amount of dimensions they need to oscillate as we think

but seriously, we have x,y,z planes and time

what more could we need?
so what does dimensions 5-14 cover?

 

[Shackleford]

Eleven dimensions is needed in string theory.

 

[AzonicZeniths]

so what does dimensions 5-14 cover?

It covers more spatial dimensions. I'm 90% sure that no matter how many spatial dimensions there are, there is only one time dimension.

 

[Flexo]

It covers more spatial dimensions. I'm 90% sure that no matter how many spatial dimensions there are, there is only one time dimension.

I don't think one time dimension is absolutely necessary for a hypothesis to be sound.
The extra dimensions(5-10 spacial) are only needed for strings to be able to move in different fashions.
Consider a one-dimensional universe. There exist two strings on that plane, both charged electrically positive. Some force pushes them together(the means by which they come together is not important). As they come together, more and more repulsion occurs, and the points want more and more to separate in some way. The force that is pushing them together, however, is too strong to fight, and so the string bend into another dimension.

Or, for an example that's commonly used for plate tectonics, pretend I have two folded towels on a table. I push them together, and eventually they bend up due to the forces acting on them.

Without the extra dimension that they bend into, the theory breaks down. Keep in mind this is not a great metaphor.

 

[AzonicZeniths]

That is a great metaphor. But, theoretically what you just stated, means that we could force two things together and they would move into a fourth spatial dimension?

 

[Flexo]

That is a great metaphor. But, theoretically what you just stated, means that we could force two things together and they would move into a fourth spatial dimension?

Very theoretically. However, for our purposes, three dimensions is enough. Only at a very small scale do things start to need more room to act.

 

[jablonsky27]

check out the kaluza-klein theory. it too talks of more than 4 dimensions(3 spatial ad 1 of time). according to it, the extra dimensions have curled up on themselves to such a degree to be hardly noticable. something like taking a rectangular piece of paper(2 dimensions) and rolling it up a lot so that it becomes a tube with a very small radius. so it has effectively become a line(1 dimension).

 

[gstrosx]

if there were more than 3 dimensions then why can i not move in more than 3 directions (neglecting the 0.5d of time)

 

[Phrak]

The count actually runs something like this. String theories requires 10 dimensions. Super Symmetry requires 11 dimensions. The two theories come together in some fashion in an 11 dimensional points theory, or M theory, or brane theory.

At one time it was said that string theory required either 10 or 24 dimensions. As near as I can understand, the extra 14 dimensions are still around but thought of as internal degress of freedom.

These extra dimensions--over 4, implement the 4 forces.

 

[Aftermarth]

so if these other dimensions represent forces, does that mean we exist in more than 4 (or 3.5) dimensions as well?

it is really hard to visualize as we are so use to our 4
reminds me of trying to visualize the 'singularity' hahah

there is some experiment too where you take a strip of paper, and you turn one end upside down, then bring it back to meet the other end so that you have a 1d shape (only one surface). is that like the paper tube one posted before?

 

[Phrak]

Aftermath. It's difficult to visualize this of course, but, yeah we're already there, and as jablonski says adding one rolls up like a tube of very small circumference.
Where does this 3.5 dimension stuff come from? surely not from established physics or any significant thought.

 

[Monocles]

I've never seen anyone say it before but I'm guessing some people might consider time to be only half a dimension because we only move in one direction through it.

 

[Diffy]

I've never seen anyone say it before but I'm guessing some people might consider time to be only half a dimension because we only move in one direction through it.

So far as you know...

 

[Nabeshin]

There has been talk (not sure how much research or study into) of more than one time dimension. I think it simply stems from asking why there shouldn't be another time dimension, and considering the ramifications of another one. After all, I would argue we hardly understand time at all, so the possibility certainly isn't off limits.

 

[AzonicZeniths]

I think I know what you are saying about having more than one time dimension, there is a theory that states that all electrons in existence are exactly the same because they are all copies of each other. Some are just going backwards in time, and some are going forwards, but when this forward-backward time movement happens, things can make carbon copies of themselves. I read this in the book, Beyond Einstein- The cosmic quest for the theory of the universe. by Michio Kaku. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385477813/?tag=pfamazon01-20
This theory would suggest the two, forward and backward time dimensions.

 

[Nabeshin]

I'm not really sure how serious to take Kaku anymore. Seems he just writes a lot of pop-sci books and does NOVA specials these days. :(

 

[AzonicZeniths]

I'm not really sure how serious to take Kaku anymore. Seems he just writes a lot of pop-sci books and does NOVA specials these days. :(

Yes, he does, but he is still a reputable physicist and a very good one at that, a person who writes pop-sci books can still be very reputable. And, his books do go considerably in depth.

 

[TR345]

Is the rolled piece of paper analogy an example of only one extra dimension?

Electrons can be at multiple places at one time. Is this one of the reasons why we need more dimensions?

Are these extra dimensions simply answers to unexplained movement, ie. when something behaves contradictory to how is is expected. Like if physical laws say it will do one thing in 4 space, but it does not, so it must be operating under physical law, but just in more dimensions than previously thought?

 

[robertm]

Yes, he does, but he is still a reputable physicist and a very good one at that, a person who writes pop-sci books can still be very reputable. And, his books do go considerably in depth.

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with attempting to spread a few shreds of truth to the masses. Neil Degrass Tyson is a good example.

Also Kaku started with physics and ended up on t.v... not the other way around.

 

[jablonsky27]

no, the rolled paper analogy is for many dimensions. atleast this is how i read it in a book loong back(i ll dig it up).

as far as i know, all these theories sprang up because of inconsistencies in quantum physics at the time. 'infinities springing up all the time' is a well advertised problem. another motivation was in trying to unify GR with quantum physics.

and as mentioned earlier, the extra dimensions are not of space.

 

[Loren Booda]

Kaku, like any effective communicator, is a good salesman too. I saw him at the Smithsonian where he was "hawking" his book on Einstein.

 

[TR345]

Kaku kind of bores me, at least when he is on TV. I'm not gullible enough to buy his quasi sci-fi stuff. I have never read any of his serious stuff though, I'm sure he knows more than me, so I can't dis him, he obviously is successful, and I would guess that is what he is going for, so good for him. He loses my interest though because he talks mostly about stuff that I believe to be too far fetched.

 

[Aftermarth]

what books does this Kaku write... if i ever get some spare time i might have to read this if you guys seem to think it is worth it?
maybe in mid-semester break or something lol

so a forwards and backwards time dimension? that sounds crazy. if a backwards time existed would it be possible for us to move into it?

 

[AzonicZeniths]

Kaku mostly writes stuff about theoretical astrophysics, stuff I really enjoy. And yes, you should really read a Kaku book, he is a very talented author and a very in depth physicist.

And, I am not sure if it would be possible for us to move into the backward time dimension, the only way we could is if we turned all the electrons in our body into antimatter electrons. (I think :\)

 

[madmike159]

Is the rolled piece of paper analogy an example of only one extra dimension?

I like to think of extra dimensions as a human hair, from far away it looks 1D but when you look close up you can see its extra dimensions. It is the same for higher diemesions but on a smaller scale. It could also be that we are inside a much larger dimesion and seem very small in comparison, but i think this sounds a bit si-fi.

 

[Twigstar]

I'm still not seeing what these other dimensions are, based on this conversation. I haven't taken the effort to enlighten myself thus far, but it appears not many people have either. So what you're saying here, is that in order to class a dimension as such, you just need to exert a force in a way that is still relative to our known, three dimensional, view? To me, dimensions has always meant that of visual perception, or otherwise, an interactive state. It's not sounding like such?

So, in short, what are these dimensions? (Metaphors not required).

 

[madmike159]

Its very hard to explain what extra dimensions are like, there out side of what we know so it is hard to imagine and even harder to explain. There really used to make the maths of string theory and super symmetry.

 

[TR345]

What I would like to understand is the differences between these extra dimensions. They add
7-10 extra dimensions, but what is the difference between dimension 5 and dimension 6 etc. Why the need for so many when we have such a hard time understanding just one extra? Does anyone know how the extra dimensions are represented mathematically and how they differ in that sense?

 

[pallidin]

I'll take a stab at this.
The progression of dimensions are not necesarily direct or related. For example, dimensions 1-3 are spatial, and even at that, whereas dimensions 2 and 3 are easily understood and conceptualized, dimension 1 does not exhibit the the same aspect, so proof of "spaciality" could be argued, and Dimension 2 is not "tangeable" in the sense that who has ever constructed a true 2-D object(or 1-D).
Dimension 4 could be described as a relationship of change.
Given this, Dimensions 3 and 4 are our conceptualized reality with abundant proof of their reality in our world, so-to-speak.
To complicate matters further, D-4 is non-linear. It can go forward, backwards or into an infinie loop.
D-5, in a similar sense is removed from the constraints of D-1 through 4, but how could one describe it? I don't know.

 

[Aftermarth]

so d-5 can go forwards, backwards, into an infinite loop and still do other things?
or could it be like a combination of the four previous ones like a time-position reference?

and how on Earth do u prove that an extra dimension exists using maths? or is it mere speculation?