0
   

How many dimensions are there?

 
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 07:41 pm
Key word are there, meaning not hypothetical. But, of course, if you would like to explain M/string theory, I would be more than eager to listen.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,870 • Replies: 52
No top replies

 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:30 pm
@Diogenes phil,
eleven in M theory.
Nature would be constructed of vibrating strings not point particles.
The different "particles" would be various vibrations or resonances of the "strings".
The strings are too small Planck lenghts to be detected with any known or forseeable technology and so are the extra dimensions.
Still a very elegant, beautiful and symmetrical theory
The Official String Theory Web Site
serunato
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:53 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;165522 wrote:
Key word are there, meaning not hypothetical. But, of course, if you would like to explain M/string theory, I would be more than eager to listen.


Hypothetical doesn't mean they don't exist, nor does it mean that they do exist. No one can say how many dimensions there are and not be speaking hypothetically. According to the standard model there are four dimensions, roughly height, width, length and time. Hypothetically.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:00 pm
@Diogenes phil,
It all depends on what we mean by "dimensions," yes? Spatially, there are 3...in any usual sense of the word. Assuming that scientists come up with some useful equation suggesting their are 11 or 111, what would this mean, exactly? We would not be using "dimension" in the same way. These would be abstract dimensions. Mental models rather than "transcendental intuitions." As far as the time dimension, I think time is conceptual. Kojeve is brilliant on that.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:25 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;165934 wrote:
It all depends on what we mean by "dimensions," yes? Spatially, there are 3...in any usual sense of the word. Assuming that scientists come up with some useful equation suggesting their are 11 or 111, what would this mean, exactly? We would not be using "dimension" in the same way. These would be abstract dimensions. Mental models rather than "transcendental intuitions." As far as the time dimension, I think time is conceptual. Kojeve is brilliant on that.

Everything that is "real" or "acutal" or that "exists" is not part of the realm of human sense experience, human mental construction or even accessible to human reason.

The goal is a mathematical expression that combines the four known fundmamental forces of the universe (gravity, nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and electromagnetism). Virtually all physical laws are expressed in mathematical form which should raise some fundamental question on its on merits.

Einstein combined gravity with spacetime in four dimensions in special relativity.
It was possible to combine Maxwells equation with special relativity in five dimensions. This is what led to the formulation of additional dimensions as a way of combining the fundamental forces into a single mathematical system.

String theory of which there were five different versions (some with closed strings, some with open strings, some with left handed particles , some with right and left handed particles) required ten dimensions.

M theory by adding an eleventh dimension was able to show that the five different string theories were really only different solutions to the equations of M theory.

In M theory branes emerge of p dimensions.

Of course the additional dimensions of these theories are not accessible to human perception or even intelligible to human spatial conceptions (sort of like god in a way). The strings are of Planck size as are the dimensions and thus undetectable by current instruments or human perception..

There are many different potential solutions to these complex equations (one of which hopefully represents our universe) but working out the mathematics is a tedious process.

I quess I object to the notion that unless we can sense perceive it, or make a mental construct of it that these are in some way imaginary things. Some truths are only accessible to reason not sense perception. There may be other truths that lie beyond even reason. The ability of mathematics (a form of formal logic) to so accurately model and represent our universe is one of the reasons I believe in divine logos as a higher reality than human sense perception or human mental constructs.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;165934 wrote:
It all depends on what we mean by "dimensions," yes? Spatially, there are 3...in any usual sense of the word. Assuming that scientists come up with some useful equation suggesting their are 11 or 111, what would this mean, exactly? We would not be using "dimension" in the same way. These would be abstract dimensions. Mental models rather than "transcendental intuitions." As far as the time dimension, I think time is conceptual. Kojeve is brilliant on that.


I grew up thinking there were 3 spatial dimensions, but now I have reason to believe there are 4.
We easily concieve of the original 3, the fourth is more difficult.
Along with the outward dimensions we now have reason to believe there is an inward dimension where things are infinitely small.

I have understood the new collider to demonstrate this to a degree.
However I may be all wet, what do you think?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 10:23 pm
@prothero,
prothero;165945 wrote:
Everything that is "real" or "acutal" or that "exists" is not part of the realm of human sense experience, human mental construction or even accessible to human reason.


oh please

so the reality of needing air and water , let alone food , for Humanity to exist makes no reasonable sense ?

where are you ?
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 10:31 pm
@prothero,
prothero;165945 wrote:
Everything that is "real" or "acutal" or that "exists" is not part of the realm of human sense experience, human mental construction or even accessible to human reason.

I see where you are going, but isn't this non-human reality an abstraction within human reality? Of course I see its usefulness. And in a practical sense I "believe" in it. But it seems logically important to acknowledge that we simply cannot and have not experienced the world devoid of us truly. Smile

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 11:34 PM ----------

prothero;165945 wrote:

I quess I object to the notion that unless we can sense perceive it, or make a mental construct of it that these are in some way imaginary things. Some truths are only accessible to reason not sense perception. There may be other truths that lie beyond even reason. The ability of mathematics (a form of formal logic) to so accurately model and represent our universe is one of the reasons I believe in divine logos as a higher reality than human sense perception or human mental constructs.


I can sympathize with this. And despite appearances (Smile), I'm not an idealist. Or a realist for that matter. Being is revealed by discourse. I would argue that position. I personally think that any description of reality must include this same description. This ties into Hegel's concrete real. Natural science deals with abstractions, ignores the concrete real. This reduction is useful and effective for certain purposes, but dangerous for philosophy, in my opinion.

with respect,
z
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 11:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Naturaly , three ( depth , length and breadth )
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:42 am
@prothero,
prothero;165945 wrote:
Everything that is "real" or "acutal" or that "exists" is not part of the realm of human sense experience, human mental construction or even accessible to human reason.

The goal is a mathematical expression that combines the four known fundmamental forces of the universe (gravity, nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and electromagnetism). Virtually all physical laws are expressed in mathematical form which should raise some fundamental question on its on merits.


It's a good point. Those other 8 dimensions somehow wrapped up in the strings were posited in order to construct a system that unified the four forces.

Without spacial dimension the forces have no meaning. The additional 8 spatial dimensions were posited in order to explain each of the 4 forces as different manifestations of a single force. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think it is that far off to say that the extra dimensions allow for this single force to act in 11 different directions and any combination of those 11 different directions rather than just the 3 that we are equipped to experience and perceive.

We usually think of Gravity (and please just keep to the spatial dimensions set aside relativity for a moment) as a force that attracts objects in three dimensional space but if we added a dimension or two perhaps we would see that it is really electromagneticgravity that attracts over say 5 dimensions. If we added a few more dimensions we could say that electormagneticgravitystrongforce attracts in 8 dimensions and a few more electromagneticgravitystrongforceweakforce attracts over 11 dimensions.

Interesting. Prothero can you confirm that this gels with the Superstring theory approach to the problem?
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 01:25 am
@prothero,
prothero;165570 wrote:

Nature would be constructed of vibrating strings not point particles.


My theory - reality is not made of anything. There really are trees, cars, people, buildings, and so on, but what they are 'made' of is no more substantial than what they are.
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 05:26 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;165522 wrote:
Key word are there, meaning not hypothetical. But, of course, if you would like to explain M/string theory, I would be more than eager to listen.
Think most M/string theorists are on a wild goosechase.

As I see it, there are 3 main dimentions, then 2 holographics (1 internal of matter, 2 external of matter ..projected)

Then it's the sub string particles that just behave differently in different enviroments.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:04 pm
@jeeprs,
[QUOTE=north;165958]oh please [/QUOTE]
north;165958 wrote:

so the reality of needing air and water , let alone food , for Humanity to exist makes no reasonable sense ?
where are you ?
I probably need to write more carefully and/or you can read more carefully.
There is more (not less) than sense perception, human mental constructs and perhaps even reason can detect. It is basically a protest against the notion that "man is the measure of all things" or that science is the only source of "knowledge" and "truth". Nothing to do with food and water being necessary for human survival (I agree they are).

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;165964]I see where you are going, but isn't this non-human reality an abstraction within human reality? Of course I see its usefulness. And in a practical sense I "believe" in it. But it seems logically important to acknowledge that we simply cannot and have not experienced the world devoid of us truly. [/QUOTE] Quite simply "neither man nor science is the measure of all things". It is important to remember (Kant and Hume) that there are limits both to human perception and to human mental constructions. There is probably more to "ultimate or total reality" than we are capable of conceiving. Humility (only the penitent man shall pass) and "through a glass darkly" seem appropriate. One interpretation of the "fall" in the "garden" is that it represent the pride or arrogance of the notion that we are the measure of all things and our subsequent estrangement from both "god" and "nature".

Having said that, our understanding of nature and our ability to create and manipulate our world is truly remarkable (made in the image, but still merely a reflection of god and nature not the ultimate purpose and not the ultimate creator).

[QUOTE=Deckard;165999]It's a good point. Those other 8 dimensions somehow wrapped up in the strings were posited in order to construct a system that unified the four forces. [/QUOTE]
Deckard;165999 wrote:


Interesting. Prothero can you confirm that this gels with the Superstring theory approach to the problem?
I cant although it sounds plausible. I have only a lay understanding of string or M theory derived from reading Michio Kaku or Brian Green and other theorectical physicists who write for the interested public. I do know gravity is posited to be leaking into our dimensions, and likewise dark energy, etc. I also know the notion is that only the three spatial dimensions we typically are aware of inflated to cosmic dimensions. As someone remarked else where why invoke the supernatural when the natural is so mysterious?

[QUOTE=HexHammer;166050]Think most M/string theorists are on a wild goosechase. [/QUOTE]
HexHammer;166050 wrote:

As I see it, there are 3 main dimentions, then 2 holographics (1 internal of matter, 2 external of matter ..projected)
Then it's the sub string particles that just behave differently in different enviroments.
There are M theory and string theory naysayers (lots of them). The development of M theory and the demonstration that the five different string theories can be derived from M theory has reignited interest in the theorectical physics community. Many younger enthusiasts are now being trained in the difficult mathematics and working on various solutions (possible universes) to the equations.

I do not know of any other theory that has the comprehensive elegance, symmetry and beauty of strings. It is true breakthroughs often come from unexpected quarters. Is there any formal presentation of your "as I see it" theory?

[QUOTE=jeeprs;166017]My theory - reality is not made of anything. There really are trees, cars, people, buildings, and so on, but what they are 'made' of is no more substantial than what they are.[/QUOTE] There are many ways to construct worldviews from the science, philosophy, and religion categories. In general my orientation is scientific. I accept the notion that the information we derive from the scientific investigation of nature is among the most reliable we have. I also know the scientific method can inherently yield only a partial and incomplete knowledge of our world especially in terms of mind, experience and notions of value, meanings and purposes. I also take pains to distinguish between what science actually presents and the metaphysics (materialism, determinism, mechanism, and reductionism) that people confuse with science. Still I try to eliminate from my philosophy and from my religion those tenets which are not compatible with the scientific information and understanding of the world we have.

I agree with you in many ways that "matter" is not the substantial actuality that we commonly assume. In fact "matter" is constructed from process (a form of experience (not restricted to human experience mind you). Strings vibrating at different resonances and harmonies in a universal cosmic symphony is a much more spiritual view than inert insensate billiard ball point particles bouncing around in mindless trajectories.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:47 pm
@prothero,
prothero;166159 wrote:
There are M theory and string theory naysayers (lots of them). The development of M theory and the demonstration that the five different string theories can be derived from M theory has reignited interest in the theorectical physics community. Many younger enthusiasts are now being trained in the difficult mathematics and working on various solutions (possible universes) to the equations.

I do not know of any other theory that has the comprehensive elegance, symmetry and beauty of strings. It is true breakthroughs often come from unexpected quarters. Is there any formal presentation of your "as I see it" theory?
It's just that I reject the M theory by the useage of time, gravity as defined dimentions, these different M theories has different amounts of dimentions, but still I entirely refude that part of the theory ..I just don't buy that salespeech.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 04:36 pm
@Diogenes phil,
I can't get my head around string theory. But I do know that physicist Lee Smolin, who has written a critical book called The Trouble with Physics, is very dubious about the whole concept. Here is an excerpt from his review of Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos:
Quote:
[INDENT]Even today, more than three decades after its initial articulation, most string practitioners believe we still don't have a comprehensive answer to the rudimentary question, What is string theory? . . . [M]ost researchers feel that our current formulation of string theory still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the heart of other major advances.[/INDENT]Indeed, string theory has been "promising" for more than 30 years. And like those perpetual students one meets in the cafes of any college town, it has yet to grow up and earn a serious living. That is to say, it has yet to make any unambiguous prediction that could be tested up or down in doable experiments. It is fun to speculate about many unseen dimensions and particles, but they have remained just that: unseen.


---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 08:39 AM ----------

the other point about these speculations is that they really are written in the language of mathematical physics. I don't think the layman is equipped to understand them other than by way of the most rudimentary analogies. I have been reading Brian Greene, Bernard D'Espagnet, Paul Davies, and others and I despair of ever really understanding what they are talking about. The only joy that I get out of it is that they have yet to get to the 'bottom turtle', so to speak. And so there is at least some room left for the poetic imagination.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 06:08 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;166017 wrote:
My theory - reality is not made of anything. There really are trees, cars, people, buildings, and so on, but what they are 'made' of is no more substantial than what they are.



Ah, now I like the sound of this, brother!

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

jeeprs;166204 wrote:
The only joy that I get out of it is that they have yet to get to the 'bottom turtle', so to speak. And so there is at least some room left for the poetic imagination.


I love the "bottom turtle" reference. Laughing

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 07:12 PM ----------

HexHammer;166166 wrote:
It's just that I reject the M theory by the useage of time, gravity as defined dimentions, these different M theories has different amounts of dimentions, but still I entirely refude that part of the theory ..I just don't buy that salespeech.


So you think the extra dimensions are questionable? I understand mathematical dimensions. There are even infinity-dimension spaces in math. But I do thinks its utterly beyond our intuition of space. Not that there's anything wrong with mathematical/conceptual dimensions. They are exciting.

I suppose the proof for laymen, if such is possible, will be the application of said theory --technology that can give us new "miracles."
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 06:21 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;166232 wrote:
So you think the extra dimensions are questionable? I understand mathematical dimensions. There are even infinity-dimension spaces in math. But I do thinks its utterly beyond our intuition of space. Not that there's anything wrong with mathematical/conceptual dimensions. They are exciting.

I suppose the proof for laymen, if such is possible, will be the application of said theory --technology that can give us new "miracles."
I belive these extra dimentions only being activated by a critical mass, ie gravity. (yes scratch what I said earlier about gravity xD )
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 06:30 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;166017 wrote:
My theory - reality is not made of anything. There really are trees, cars, people, buildings, and so on, but what they are 'made' of is no more substantial than what they are.
So why is there something rather than nothing?
Answer: There's not, it is all nothing?:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 05:37 PM ----------

jeeprs;166204 wrote:
Ithe other point about these speculations is that they really are written in the language of mathematical physics. I don't think the layman is equipped to understand them other than by way of the most rudimentary analogies. I have been reading Brian Greene, Bernard D'Espagnet, Paul Davies, and others and I despair of ever really understanding what they are talking about. The only joy that I get out of it is that they have yet to get to the 'bottom turtle', so to speak. And so there is at least some room left for the poetic imagination.
There will always be room for the "poetic imagination" Jeeprs. In fact there is more room now then in the age of Carestian space time, Newtonian mechanics and Descartes dualism. There will always remain the frontiers, the unknown and the unseen. The TOE will not address values, meanings, purposes of significances for science inherently is ultimately a view from the outside and a partial story.
Spirituality will always be a "leap of faith" a form of "romantic idealism" and unseen but not unfelt.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 09:30 pm
@prothero,
prothero;166244 wrote:
So why is there something rather than nothing?
Answer: There's not, it is all nothing?:bigsmile:


Well - not really. The idea that the world is not made of anything has just come to me recently. It is actually a way of expressing the Buddhist philosophy of emptiness (sunyata). But it also serves to illustrate something very fundamental about Western philosophy and science so bear with me here.

Idealism, on the one hand, posits a 'realm of truth' which is higher or hidden from the normal senses. Reductionism, on the other, supposes that reality is disclosed by reducing the gross phenomena to their subtle constituents, namely atoms, which are eternal and unchangeable. Atomism sought to locate the eternal in the midst of phenomena, as it were. Now both idealism and reductionism are still within the ambit of classical Western philosophy, and the discussion between Platonism and the atomists.

And isn't this why we believe that we will find 'The God Particle' in the LHC? Don't you see why it is called that? Isn't it the search for 'the ultimate thing', that from which all else is derived?

In Buddhist philosophy, by contrast, there are no 'essences' nor is there 'an ideal realm'. What we actually see all of the time are conditioned realities. These are not unreal in a gross sense - step in front of a bus, and it will hurt. We are, it seems, part of this conditioned realm, at least insofar as we too are conditioned beings. But they are also not real, either, insofar as they consist of a myriad of parts, each of which is composed of parts, and which are in a constant state of change and decay 'arising and ceasing according to conditions'. (cf Heraclitus).

Accordingly the Lankavatara Sutra says 'the world is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise'.

So that is something to meditate on.:bigsmile:
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 03:46 am
@Diogenes phil,
Incidentally this idea is the subject of my favourite philosophy book. If you visit it on Amazon you will notice my somewhat gushing review.

Amazon.com: To Meet the Real Dragon (9780956299901): Gudo Nishijima, Jeffrey Bailey: Books
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How many dimensions are there?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2018 at 08:25:56