• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

How many dimensions are there in the universe?

Trish

Greenlighter
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
17
The basic three spatial dimensions representing up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Movement is only defined in these terms. These may also be referred to length, width and height for objects. In addition, it is believed that time is the fourth dimension. [time not being spatial].

Although scientists are brilliant people I rather hear what us common people believe regarding the dimensions.

What do you think?

What could be other possible dimensions?

Maybe thought can be one. The mind is a marvel.
 
I think this has been largely discussed. My answer is 10. This video explains why: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php And time is spatial if you're in the 4th or higher dimensions.
i haven't even opened the link but know for sure what it is

i think it's around the fifth time that i comment on this video

- first, i disagree with it
back when i first saw it, i watched it more than once to try to understand but it still appeared to me that it was taking biiig short-cuts that ralied on no explanations

- second
i know you haven't said so, but before anyone does ; there is NO connection between this video and the 10 dimensions of string theory
2 books are not the same because they have the same number of pages


personally, no idea
although i really like the idea of folded dimensions of string theory
and all it could imply ; and the fact that for now nothing contradicts as far as i know

so i would be glad if CERN could tell us that there are 11 (M-theory, more probable than string theory). time + 3 large spatial ones + 7 small folded ones
 
Thought isn't a dimension.

You have to be clear what sense you're using the word "dimension" in. Fundamentally, dimension is a mathematical concept -- roughly, the number of different independent numbers needed to describe something. You can talk about the dimensionality of lots of things. For example, think about the shape of (normal, rectangular) windows on your computer screen. How many numbers do you need to describe that? Well, you could do it with the horizontal & vertical distances to the upper-left corner of the window, plus the height and width of the window. That's 4. So the space of "rectangular windows on your screen" has 4 dimensions.

When people talk about dimensions of the universe, they normally mean dimensions of space (or space-time.) It seems pretty obvious that space has 3 dimensions. And it turns out that time, though it naively appears to be something totally different, is actually mixed in with space in a very basic way. So it makes sense to combine them and talk about "space-time" as a 4-dimensional space. (It's a weird space, though: distances don't work the way you might think.)

While it seems obvious that space has 3 dimension, it's not really. Clearly there's only 3 accessible, big dimensions -- if there were others, we would see things moving around in them. But there can be extra spatial dimensions in two ways.

1) The easiest way to understand is that ordinary matter could be "stuck" on a 3-D surface in a higher-dimensional space. Think of an ant trapped between two panes of glass, like in an ant farm. Its world is basically 2-dimensional, even though reality is really 3-dimensional, because he can't move in the 3rd dimension. If all normal matter were stuck on a 3-D surface (called a brane), we wouldn't see the extra dimensions even though they were there. The only way to discover them would be to observe particles that weren't stuck to the surface -- those particles would seem to be able to fly "away" from us without actually moving.

2) The other way to have more than 3 spatial dimensions is if those dimensions are just really small. Imagine if there were another spatial dimension, but its size was only as big as a single atom. Ordinary stuff could move freely in the extra dimension, but it couldn't get any further away than 1 atom's worth -- which we can't see with our eyes. And since each atom would "take up" the whole space, two objects couldn't "pass through" each other by going around in the extra dimension. So for all practical purposes, it would be like living in a 3-dimensional world. Except once you started doing experiments looking at very tiny particles and very close distances. Then you'd notice that things were a bit different.

Theories like this are popular in physics today, partly for that reason -- they offer hope that we might discover the extra dimensions soon. Also, quantum mechanics adds some neat twists to the picture; it turns out that all particles will be "wrapped around" the extra dimensions in some sense, and this leads to a very specific pattern of apparent new, heavier particles (which are just the old particles wrapped around the extra dimensions tighter.)
 
For example, think about the shape of (normal, rectangular) windows on your computer screen. How many numbers do you need to describe that? Well, you could do it with the horizontal & vertical distances to the upper-left corner of the window, plus the height and width of the window. That's 4. So the space of "rectangular windows on your screen" has 4 dimensions.
i don't understand how that's not simply two dimensions (because the horizontal and vertical measurements are all in the same 'plane' for want of a better term).

is this simply a difference between the layperson's idea of a dimension and the mathematician's?

alasdair
 
It's x, y, and z. The mathematician and the layperson differ only in the amount of precision they assign to measurements. Mathematicians still have to drive cars forward, switch lanes, back up, and then stand to walk to a restaurant. What they say about it has no bearing on the underlying reality. Math is a language that can not be described outside of its own definitions. The word 'dimension' is a mathematical construct used to aid in the application of math to what reality actually is, so that consistent observations and predictions can be made.

The idea of a dimension is pretty complete and surprisingly cross-translational between the layman and the mathematician. It's just a way to measure phenomena. As far as we're concerned, there are three ways to measure distance if we need to tell someone where we're going to be, and one way to describe when. Those comprise the four 'big' dimensions through which everything travels.

In my opinion, the combination of space and time into space-time is apt due to gravity. It is the common denominator between everything in the macrocosmic universe. Without it, there would be no concept of time and probably not even an abstract way to describe space.

The Planck scale and beyond is filled with the mechanics of what make this large reality function. It is still speculative at this point because the mathematics of string theory are insane, but we are also moving about - not in a traditional sense - through tiny, closed dimensions too. To a graviton, movement through the microcosmic universe has more spatial options than backward, forward, up and down.
 
I was adding on to what he was implying, which is basically that the idea of a dimension is just that: an idea. It's a consistent idea, but it would also be consistent if other qualities were arbitrarily labeled as dimensions.
 
it's something I don't think most people will ever grasp. Trying to get our brains around it isn't possible.

It would be like me showing and explaining peice by peice how a radio worked to a chimp. No matter how good my teaching techniques were or how much time I took there is something not quite wired correctly in the brains chimp to comprehend what I'm talking about.

Only the brainiest few alive today can almost grasp it and they are probably struggling
 
I was adding on to what he was implying, which is basically that the idea of a dimension is just that: an idea. It's a consistent idea, but it would also be consistent if other qualities were arbitrarily labeled as dimensions.
thanks for the response. i understand what you mean. i am still interested to hear zorn's response.

alasdair
 
thanks for the response. i understand what you mean. i am still interested to hear zorn's response.

alasdair
me too, isn't the vertical measurement the same as measuring top of screen to bottom, and horizontal measurement likewise same as measuring left to right? aka x,y? aka 3 dim?
 
i don't understand how that's not simply two dimensions (because the horizontal and vertical measurements are all in the same 'plane' for want of a better term).

is this simply a difference between the layperson's idea of a dimension and the mathematician's?

alasdair
Yes, sort of. I was trying to underline the difference between the mathematical idea of "dimension" and the particular idea of physical spatial dimension. Physical space has dimensions, and that's what people often talk about, but lots of other things have dimensions.

Here, the key thing is that we're talking about the configurations of rectangular windows on the screen, not the locations of points on the screen. The location of points on the screen is two-dimensional, because you only need two numbers to label any point. Just x and y, or alternatively you could use r and theta -- the distance from the corner of the screen r, and the angle from that corner theta. But the configuration of a rectangular window is different. Two numbers won't do it there. Whether you pick your two numbers to give the location of a corner of the window, or the center of the window, or whatever, they're still not enough to describe it fully. You can always come up with lots of different windows that will have those same two numbers (the same corner location, or center location, or whatever). You need 4 numbers. So the set of rectangular window configurations is 4-dimensional. Yes, each point in a window only "lives" in a 2-dimensional space. But because windows are more complicated objects than points, the set of configurations of windows is 4-dimensional.

---

The point is that 'dimension' is a bigger concept than just spatial dimensions, though it applies to space too. Probably I picked a bad example, since it involved space. You can have dimensions without involving physical space at all. For example: musical tones. Physically, sounds are pressure waves in the air. They have frequencies & wavelengths, like any wave. For example, the frequency of a low A is 110 Hz. Higher tones are higher frequencies; middle C is 261.63 Hz. So if we talk about the space of different tones, then that's a 1-dimensional space. You only need 1 number, the frequency, to define a tone.

You could also talk about the space of sounds made with just one pure tone. Besides the frequency of the tone, the only other thing making up the sound is its loudness, or amplitude. So there's a 2-dimensional space -- frequency of the tone and its amplitude. Pure tones, however, aren't very common -- they're those annoying sounds you hear when you're having your hearing tested. What about notes? Well, a note is not just a pure tone -- it involves many different frequencies of sound all together at once. What defines a musical note is that every note is made up of a "tower" of frequencies f, 2f, 3f, 4f, 5f, .... When you play a low A on any instrument, you get not just the 110 tone, but also a 220 tone, a 330 tone, a 440 tone, and so on.

So what is the dimension of the space of sounds made by one note? Well, there's the frequency f of the note. That's 1. Then there's how loud the tone at f is. That's 2. Then there's how loud the first "overtone" at 2f is. That's 3 dimension. But then there's how loud the second overtone at 3f is, and at 4f, and so on for all the others. But there are an infinite number of those overtones! So that's an infinite-dimensional space. :)
 
dear dr zorn,
big fan, long time reader, upteenth question:
wouldn't a far more simpler example of the mathematician's definition of "dimension" be something like: a cube has 3 dimensions, its colour can be assigned a number to describe it mathematically. that number is a 4th dimension.
??
layly forever
-impacto
 
back when i first saw it, i watched it more than once to try to understand but it still appeared to me that it was taking biiig short-cuts that ralied on no explanations
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. And it takes ZERO shortcuts. That's the point. It applies the same principle over and over again. Each step in that video is the exact same thing. It holds true between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, all the way up to 10. Applying the logic of step-wise increase from dimension to dimension, you can only have 10 dimensions for the reasons described. It doesn't mean, however, that this is the absolute end-all be-all - that is only the case *within* this construct. It is true that there are plenty of other theories that make sense and are completely different, like the 10 or 11 dimensions of string/M-theory, but it doesn't negate the valid logic of the example in the video.
 
the video simply allows someone to imagine how a tenth dimension could exist. it has nothing to do with physics, only a mathematical/philosophical exercise. as rnr said physics is more nuanced and yet doesnt make the video "wrong" per se, it's just that video is not giving you a "picture of the universe" in any way whatsoever
 
Top