Dimensions

I

I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E

Registered Member
Hello everyone

I have a question I am not sure where to ask and I am not even sure what it would or might be called to search for it on the internet.

It's simple really and has to do with string theory and the multiverse.

For string theory and many other equations to work it requires extra dimensions all of which are "smaller"

Quantum physics deals solely it seems with the small, the micro ect.

But are there dimensions which are larger? What would a dimension outside our macro be called and do we have any representations or equations to express what that might be?

Why is the 5th dimension smaller than our 4D spacetime?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
The dimensions have no inherent order. That is entirely a human preference.

Science does not address "why" questions. Science attempts to model nature.
Click to expand...

But with the seemingly endless supply of educational material I possess and hundreds of hours of programming from physicists such as Brian Greene and all the debates along with every piece of TTC material concerning physics I can get my hands on, I for some reason can not gleen from it why there are no dimensions up/out.

I am a classical mechanics kind of guy, I kind of hate QM, it's like Marxism to me for some reason lol (very hard to explain)

If dimensions were represented on a graph such as the EM spectrum then why does everything go to the left (smaller/in)

Is it somehow unscientific to ask what is larger? Why is it OK to speculate on the infinitely small and unseen but not the opposite way?

I'm missing something here... what's that called? Why don't they talk about it?
 
Smaller and smaller is ok but larger and larger isn't?

Aren't we somewhere in middle like the visible spectrum is on the EM representation?

I hate QM because math has problems, well known problem that are conveniently ignored because math still works but only to its breaking point as Russell and Frege exposed.

Math is illogical and Frege devoted his life to trying to prove that math was in fact "logical" but it is not, it breaks...

The problem stems from the number 0 and as QM now tells us (nothing doesn't exist)

0 does not exist, we must deny 0 -Frege

imo 0 is infinity not "nothing"
 
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E said:
If you do not know why the 5th dimension is smaller...

10^-33 centimeters

just say so :D

You seem to be very aggressive for some odd reason.
Click to expand...
As I understand it (I do not pretend to be an expert. As a chemist I understand a fair amount of QM but not string theory), these putative extra dimensions (really just mathematical constructs) are needed in the maths to give the required extra degrees of freedom for gravitation and QM to be combined. As there are no observable aspects to them, they can't be extensive - I think.

Dave, by the way, is one of the least aggressive and most polite posters on this forum. You on, the other hand, seem to be trying to provoke him, for some reason.
 
exchemist said:
As I understand it (I do not pretend to be an expert. As a chemist I understand a fair amount of QM but not string theory), these putative extra dimensions (really just mathematical constructs) are needed in the maths to give the required extra degrees of freedom for gravitation and QM to be combined. As there are no observable aspects to them, they can't be extensive - I think.

Dave, by the way, is one of the least aggressive and most polite posters on this forum. You on, the other hand, seem to be trying to provoke him, for some reason.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite from my observation and interaction so far...

Is there an ignore option? I am sure that poster has little to offer me besides ridicule.
 
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E said:
Quite the opposite from my observation and interaction so far...

Is there an ignore option? I am sure that poster has little to offer me besides ridicule.
Click to expand...
Yes. But if you are that thin-skinned you won't learn much science, here or anywhere else, as you will cut off all the people that try to challenge or correct what you say - which is how one learns in discussion. Relax.
 
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E said:
imo 0 is infinity not "nothing"
Click to expand...
imo, 0 is a dimensionless, timeless, permittive state or condition. It has no mathematical relational restrictions and allows for everything.
Hence "something from nothing" (1) is not mathematically prohibited. Maths kick in when there is 1 + 1 ...;)
 
QuarkHead said:
Is it exactly halfway? Why? Is there a proof?
Click to expand...
Not proofs, but axioms, such as:
  • the definition of zero,
  • the definition of one,
  • the additive operator '+' defines that 0+1 = 1,
  • the subtractive operator is defined as the inversion of addition: 0-1=-1.
 
Last edited:
Great for fields, but "halfway" impies a) an order and b) a notion of distance. Some topologies can give you these.

Don't mind me - I was being miscievous in asking for proof .
 
Write4U said:
imo, 0 is a dimensionless, timeless, permittive state or condition.
Click to expand...
This is new-age gibberish........
It has no mathematical relational restrictions and allows for everything.
Click to expand...
......and this is quite simply mathematically false, as is easily proved
Hence "something from nothing" (1) is not mathematically prohibited. Maths kick in when there is 1 + 1 ...;)
Click to expand...
And this is even better - new-age rambling AND false!
 
QuarkHead said:
This is new-age gibberish..............and this is quite simply mathematically false, as is easily proved
And this is even better - new-age rambling AND false!
Click to expand...
And zero is half-way between +1 and -1 is science? Actually it is mathematics. You know the new-age kind.
THE TWILIGHT ZONE!

OK, prove that "nothing is permittive of everything" is mathematically false.

And mind the term "not mathematically prohibited" not as being causal but as being permittive.

Nothing is permittive of everything, there are no mathematical restrictions in nothing.
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
Zero is not "nothing". Zero is just halfway between 1 and -1.
Click to expand...
But that is a meaningless equation.
You might as well say that "nothing" is halfway between "plus something" and "minus something" and that makes no sense at all.

It does mean that mathematically Nothing is permittive of Everything.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top