|
|
|
|
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/25/2008 7:30:33 PM | so i've been reading, researching, and postulating on this newest "theory of everything" called string theory that has buzzing around the physics community for the last 30 to 40 years...
can anyone answer for me what information the extra dimensions past the 4 (x,y,z, and time) carry?
is it an x,y,z vector for motion and a corresponding x,y,z kinetic energy value or momentum value? i have starting reading another book called "the elegant universe" by brian greene, and it talks a lot about the theory and the implications it has and where it came from, but just like other material... it has yet to delineate what each "extra dimension" that it suggests actually represents.
i kinda started this question off in my own head one day when i was contemplating a thought experiment. the idea is this:
what information would you need to know in order to transport (like in star trek using their transporters) an apple from one spaceship to another without creating applesauce, in other words "keep the apple from smashing into a wall/floor/cieling/person" ??
my initial thoughts are that you would have to know the x,y,z for where to send it, you'd have to know "when" to send it, as well as the momentum and vector of travel at it's arriving destination to match the momentum and vector of the receiving spaceship (think of introducing a foreign object into a frame of reference. in order to comply with the reference frames motion, you'd have to match it's motion relative to where you sent the from).... hope that cleared things up about what i was thinking....
i would like to hear your thoughts! | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/25/2008 11:37:03 PM | I have no idea how pro physicists/philosophers (which is becoming increasingly similar vocations) view it, but I see the 5th dimension as the dimension of different quantum states. Alternate realities, if you will. At a different space on the 5th dimensional register, the X, Y, Z, and time variables for any different particle can be slightly different. An atom or particle in a different state of quantum flux.
Doesn't sound like much, until you consider that every man-made invention begins with a thought... a thought which is the physical result of a minute chemical reaction (the firing of neurons) within your brain. The change of state between an atom here and there in the brain of, say, Nikola Tesla, and we're living in a world without electricity.
Parallel universes, I believe they like to call it in science fiction.
Since the laws of 4-dimensional physics play out pretty much the same way every time, given identical conditions, then life is the only real variable in the universe, near as I can tell. Beings that have "free will" are the only beings in the universe that have a choice of actions in any given situation. That choice is determined by quantum level movements of atoms inside our heads. Since an atom and it's components can be in several places at once until observed, and that the movement of a few atoms is all it takes to start the neuron firing pattern that leads to a thought, alternate realities are constantly being created and collapsed in the minds of every conscious being in the universe. Some ideas make it to the "real" world, most don't.
Meaning, near as I can tell, that beings with "free will" are the instrument of influence from the 5th dimension on the other 4.
I regard that dimension as "Consciousness". I perceive us (humans, as semi-conscious beings) to be a few billion instruments through which the same 5th dimensional force operates.
We may be different tools, but we're all plugged into the same outlet.
Meaning we are all one, in a quite literal sense.
Can ya feel the spirit in ya?! LOL
What happens after 5? My head explodes. That's what. LOL | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 12:21:17 AM | hahahah... i'm sorry. i find it very hard to take any comment seriously coming from an "omnologist" after reading the omnologist manifesto.... hahahaha.... 
http://www.bigbangtango.org/website/OmnologistManifesto.htm
you've got to be kidding me. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 8:35:31 AM | Beats the hell out of working 8 hours (or more) a day for a living.
Your point of view is interesting. Can you clarify something for me?
Are you saying you'd be more inclined to take this particular comment more seriously if it came from a, say, construction worker as opposed to a "omnologist"? (To me, it's simply a more acceptable way of saying "Professional Thinker".) | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 9:14:07 AM | | i'd have to answer your question with my own question.... how do you make any money off of being an "omnologist"... the best analogy i can think of is someone who claims "scientology" as a profession, but this is WAAAAY off topic. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 2:06:40 PM | No biggie... doesn't seem to be anyone else reading this thread.
Ah, I see the miscommunication. Omnology (to me) is based on the principal that crucial information required for advances in field X (say psychology) must lie outside of psychology. If said information was already within the field, someone would have made the advance already. Someone outside the field does not make all of the same assumptions that a person within the field would. Assumptions that may prove, later on, to be untrue.
For example, if you, as a small-time investor want to make $$$ investing on the market, don't bother reading the Wall Street Journal. You'll just be getting the same information that people a lot better at trading had weeks ago. You'll be buying higher and selling lower, because all of the big boys will have had the information you have well before you.
You need to find an edge. You need information that the big mutual and hedge fund managers don't all have before you even woke up in the morning... you dig? Something that you can get use before the big boys come in and drive up the stock price.
Pick up Scientific American.
Pick up The Economist.
Pick up Popular Science & Popular Mechanics.
Hell, pick up PC Gamer & Cosmo.
See where I'm going with this?
But that's just one (practical) application. The entire field of omnology is only limited by your imagination. It's basically an all-encompassing term that allows you to do whatever the hell you want. 
On the side, (not for profit) I'm also pursuing using priciples of evolutionary psychology, anatomy, tantra, hypnotherapy & massage therapy to craft the most intensely satisfying sexual experience possible. I'm thinking of calling it Orgasmology. What'dya think? 
The only similarity between omnology and scientology is that they're both just words that some dude made up out of the air to describe something there wasn't a word for before.
Just because they rhyme don't mean shit.  | |
|
| |
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 2:33:04 PM | a) What thread? There's just you and me.
congratulations on completely destroying this thread
damn, i thought i'd reach some intellect here.
You did, and I was perfectly happy discussing the concepts you asked about. Then you changed the subject to insults, and I was happy to discuss that as well.
I can't help it if your frontal lobes shut down and go into "f*ck you" mode as soon as it sees a word that it finds offensive.
For example, seeing Omnology and associating it with "religous cult", or seeing the word "sexual", and assuming I automatically want to turn it into a sexual conversation.
You're the one focusing on these words, not me.
I have no idea how the neurons in your head are wired, so please forgive me for accidentally hitting an "anger" switch I didn't know was there. That was intended for a laugh, not a meltdown.
If you want to talk science, then by all means, talk science.
What do you think the 5th dimension is? | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 6:06:14 PM | Oh you guys that have nothing to do all day, LoL.
As I understand "M" theory, and I probably don't. The extra 7 dimensions are more about explaining the string itself and the medium that it is in rather than an axis in three dimensions. Depending on the shape of the string and the rate at which it vibrates dictates the dimension that it occupies and what the atom is. And thats as far as I can go with that.
As for transporting apples first you have to get by the Heisenburg principle which states that the position and speed of any particle in an atom is always an unknown variable. You can't lock on to it if you don't know where it is. That's why the folks at Paramount made up a thing called a Heisenburg compensator.
Did you guys here the joke about the Omnologist and the Alpaca farmer that walked into a bar? | |
|
| |
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 8:06:42 PM | From what I understand - and those who say if you understand quantum physics, you haven't studied it enough - the "extra" dimensions are actually "geometric" in nature.
They are basically very small, existing at scales below those that we are familiar with. M-theory, which is the attempt to unite multiple interpretations of string theory, actually predicts that additional dimensions - there are about 11 in total - "curl up" in multi-dimensional spacetime but at scales below the subatomic. Also, because gravity is thought to be "closed loop" strings, they may be the only particles to transverse across parallel universes.
With the LHC coming online at CERN, hopes are high that scientists will begin to see some interesting particles, including perhaps gravitons. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 8:17:17 PM | i'm still awaiting data to show proof of graviton particles in experimental data. i think finding out more about gravitons will give us a lot of missing knowledge we've been looking for.
let me ask again the main question that i was looking to contemplate, but perhaps in a different way:
time is one of the dimensions. if you talk about something, it has a different reality and existence depending on "when" you are talking about it. normally time is expressed as "t" in a formula, yet time is not tangible; you cannot measure it with a ruler, and you cannot point to time. you merely express it's representation in data and numbers or variables. it is this representation of the additional dimensions past the 4 that we know that i wonder about. what empirical information does each add'l dimension contain?
it's hard for me to wrap my head around extra dimensions if the numbers are just slop numbers that are thrown in to make an equation work, but if i can understand their purpose, then the overall picture becomes much clearer. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 8:52:24 PM | If you're asking if anyone has a handle on what time is by its very nature, then no. No one has. In fact, along with gravity, it is the one thing that - at least at this point - is as elusive as gravity in that regard. Attempts to discover a "quanta" of time has proven impossible. Cut time into tiny pieces and you only get tinier pieces. Currently scientists can observe down to 100 femtoseconds (to a second as one second is to three centuries).
Time is the landscape on which everything happens. That's because your view is dependent on your frame of reference. Are you sitting still or travelling close to the speed of light. To a photon, there is no time.
Of course, a theoretical physicist would be a lot more qualified than I. That's just what I've come to understand from far too much time reading SciAm, Discover, Astronomy and Sky and Tel. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 3/26/2008 9:16:13 PM | It is a difficult concept to grasp, I think one good study of it is the book, The Elegant Universe. But I wouldn't stop there, get as many different views of it as you can from as many different authors as you can. Kind of like Stargazer and I are more or less saying the same thing, but in different ways. And as Stargazer also said, don't expect to understand it anytime soon, I sure won't claim that and I doubt any scientist will absolutly make that claim either.
I like to start out thinking of it from our understanding of space time being a three dimensional fabric and then following it down into a gravity well to its deepest depths while trying to visualize how subatomic particles act on this level. One part of super string theory makes it all out to be a membrane in which all subatomic particles are joined together by at the string level. Once you follow the gravity well down to subatomic depths three dimensional space no longer becomes a tangible idea, but yet it is. This is where the new dimensions link with the first four and where matter becomes something that can exist in it. Probably makes no sense, but if you excersize your mind to think that way it will become more clear. | |
|
| |
| |
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/7/2008 7:53:50 AM | Its 12 dimensions.
Strings apear as just little loops in 10 dimensional space, however if you do the same calculations in 11 dimensional space, you get long cords. but if you then do the same calculations in 12 dimesional space, it all steches out into a single infinite supper-string.
Aditionally, if you calculate gravity in this 12Dspace, and then supperimpose onto 3Dspace, you get the same values that are observed here in the real world. This answers the question of why gravity is so much weaker than all of the other forces we can observe.
As a side point. Ussing these same models, we can explain why the strong force is localised by explaining it as a function of 1Dspace. Being constrained by 1 dimensional space means that the strng force can not reach far into 3 dimensions and so only afects quantum particles. | |
|
| |
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/10/2008 8:15:27 AM |
can anyone answer for me what information the extra dimensions past the 4 (x,y,z, and time) carry?
is it an x,y,z vector for motion and a corresponding x,y,z kinetic energy value or momentum value? i have starting reading another book called "the elegant universe" by brian greene, and it talks a lot about the theory and the implications it has and where it came from, but just like other material... it has yet to delineate what each "extra dimension" that it suggests actually represents.
Loosely speaking, the extra dimensions are what we see as the electromagnetic, strong and weak force in four dimensions. The idea is the following. In general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is the gravitational field and so gravity is not a force. The elliptical orbit of the Earth, for example is just the force-free spacetime trajectory of the Earth. So, four spacetime dimensions buys you the gravitational force. The gravitional force is therefore fictiotious and exists only as an artifact of spacetime curvature.
There are three other forces. Electromagnetism, the strong force which binds quarks into hadrons (protons, neutrons, etc.) and the weak force which is responsible for beta decay among other things. Kaluza and Klein first attempted to create a five-dimensional theory which would model E&M the same way as general relativity did gravity, thus creating a five-dimensional theory which explained both the gravitational and electromagnetic force as artifacts of freely moving particles in five dimensions rather than as forces. The goal here is to reduce two forces described by two free (arbitrary) parameters (empirically determined constants ) to a theory with fewer free parameters.
The theory wasn't successful, for some technical reasons, but many years later, it was found that it might be internally consistent if the striong and weak force were included (along with the extra dimensions required to make the idea work.) The natural question to ask is why we don't see the other dimensions. The answer is that the dimensions are curled up (compactified in the jargon).
The place to start is with the original Kaluza-Klein theory of electromagnetism.
As an intro to the idea of a curled up dimension, a simplified Kaluza-Klein model for flat spacetime is obtained by defining a metric:
ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + dw^2
You can then take the mass in the the energy-momentum relation in relativity, E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (using c = 1 as is standard in the literature), to be the momentum in the 5th dimension for a massless 5 dimensional particle. Finally, if the dimension given by the w coordinate is intrisically circular such that we define it by some radius R and an angular variable dq, then one can attempt to obtain the elctron charge by relating it to the radius of this dimension. (This doesn't work, by the way, which is why the Kaluza-Klein idea was abandoned for something like 30 years before being resurrected as string theory.) | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/11/2008 2:13:45 PM | Kalidor posted the same video, someone in another forum posted for me to watch.
I could not understand it though.
After the 4th dimension the video relies on alternate time lines.
It postulates everything is random to some degree.
Even when randomness is seen in quantum physics, it's not truly random. It's definitely defined in every point in the 4th dimension otherwise it would be impossible to even get 1 measurement of it.
And it is definitely observed to have progression, or else we wouldn't even come close to predicting any outcome.
If something is believed to be random it's more likely the result of ignorance of it's complexity and avoiding the acceptance that we simply do not know all variables involved. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/11/2008 8:41:04 PM |
Even when randomness is seen in quantum physics, it's not truly random. It's definitely defined in every point in the 4th dimension otherwise it would be impossible to even get 1 measurement of it.
And it is definitely observed to have progression, or else we wouldn't even come close to predicting any outcome.
If something is believed to be random it's more likely the result of ignorance of it's complexity and avoiding the acceptance that we simply do not know all variables involved.
That is incorrect. Quantum mechanics is truly probabilistic. Moreover, nature would not make sense if the uncertainty principle were not true. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/11/2008 10:47:29 PM | I most have misunderstood what I read then.
I thought I read that physicists could not prove that all quantum wavelengths were deterministic. But I have to always say, I am no expert. It's all so overwhelming to me.  | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/11/2008 11:11:50 PM | | Quantum mechanics states that there are certain measurements which cannot be performed simulatneously such that both can be performed with arbitrarily good accuracy. Those measurements are called canonically conjugate. Examples include positiion and momentum; phase and particle number and many others. The issue is not a lack of experimental precision, because no assumption is made regarding the sufficiency of the measuring instruments. It's inherent in the theory. | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/11/2008 11:53:43 PM | I think I may be understanding now.
Is that because it's encountering so little resistance, it is making the use of time in measurements more difficult?
Almost like it's jumping over points in time rather than traveling through all points? | |
|
| String Theory and the 10, or is it 11(?) dimensions
Posted: 5/13/2008 11:29:15 AM | i'll not waste too much of my "time" with this but... some of the people on here need to study before they post ... and not just fanatical sites...
time is a marker that we have come to use as a "dimension"
this "marker" is much the same as taking your pulse or or the calvin scale...
.... it is a misleading step in the wrong direction for humanity to understand it in the wrong fashion...
... my "time" is not wasted if you decide to study and "prove me wrong" ... THAT IS A CHALLENGE!!!
as well as prove einstein right with his twin theory | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
