everyone (hopefully) knows that we live in three dimensions. this isnt going to be debated, however, according to string theory there are 11 dimensions(there might be even more), but what are these dimensions beyond the third?

a commonly accepted theory is that the fourth would be time. if we lived in four dimensions, we would be able to travel through three spatial dimensions as well as time. what about after that?

i surmise that the fifth dimension could be the dimension of possibility. some say that there is an alternate universe for every possibility of events. if you were to flip a coin, for instance, it would create two new realities; one in which the result is heads, the other tails. in the fifth dimension, you would be able to travel through space, time, and possibility. you would be able to travel to a place where hitler was never born, or one where he ruled the world. if this is so, what would the sixth dimension entail?

i think the sixth dimension could be the realm of consciousness. every thought, feeling, experience, and emotion, a reservoir of all the awareness of all living things. traveling through 6 dimensions would be very cool indeed. imagine if you could travel through space(as you normally can), time, possibility, and the experience of those who lived in these places, times, and possibilities.

after this i wouldnt even be able to guess what the next dimension might be. any ideas? as well, i cant attest that any of this is right or prove any of it. it is only theoretical. rebuttal is welcome and encouraged.

Hmm,

What you are describing is the typical dimensions of say, a 3D application. which is fine, however Kristos Mavros has an interesting twist
I read an interesting PDF on this, freely available on his website.

In particular "A Journey into the Mind of a Mad Man", when he writes about "Omega" and "Time" and his model in understanding these in dimensions.

He may/maynot be correct in his theories, however everything is theories, so if you like you can read, enjoy his diagrams and algebra...

being that both my parents are math majors...
i hate math.
i much prefer thought experiments, but im gonna read up on what that guy says anyway

In physics, a "dimension" is an independent "degree of freedom" in movement. So, I can move left-or-right without moving up-or-down, or vice versa, or mix and match. Thus, there are at least two physical dimensions. The argument that resolves at least four dimensions is obvious.

String theory attempts to explain or model everything (for want of a better word) as hypothetical vibrations of hypothetical objects it calls strings. In order to have the versatility of movement required to make the model work, the strings need to move in more different ways than are available to objects with only four independent degrees of freedom. Eleven would be nice.

The interpretation of these extra dimensions is the same as for any other dimension: the string can move this-way-or-that without moving up-or-down, vice versa, or mix and match.

This is modeling, and you can have a fully successful predictive model without any physical reality whatsoever to the elements in the model.

For example, if I stand in front of a plane mirror, then light behaves just as if there were things behind the mirror - exquisitely "just as if," I can perform accurate calculations on just that basis. But those things are not really behind the mirror, they are in front of it. No matter to the success of the model.

Even if it turns out that strings are real, and that the (apparently) required dimensions are also real. there is no reason to think that the dimensions would correspond to abstract concepts. "Possibility," for example, is easily incorporated in a one-dimensional (model) universe, where it does not serve as the single dimension in play.

Hope that helps.

Hmmm...
The theory I'm familiar with goes like this:

0. Point
1. Line
2. Square
3. 3D
4. Time line
5. The possible splits off of that timeline(IE- all the 'what could have happened''s) Try and remember each 'could have been' is in a different part of the 5th dimension.
6. THe 6th dimension is like a shortcut; an instant jump into a completely different 5th dimension, as though you are folding the 5th dimension.
7. The 7th dimension is ALL the infinite possible 5th dimensional tracks(all the possible 'could have beens') since the begginning of the universe, to the end.
8. I think the 8th dimension is all the possible begginnings, all the possible parallel universes(each universe, which started differently, each has an infite could have beens).
9. We repeat the pattern of 'folding'. We fold the 8th dimension into the 9th to get into any universe at any point.
10. All the possible universes, with every possible beginning and end, with all the possible 'could have beens'.

Wow. Still makes my brain hurt. Imagine if we had a machine that had control over all 10 dimensions......
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Honestly i think all this talk about so much dimenions is a bunch of mumbojumbo
Dimensions are merely a tool to make maths possible.
We use X,Y,Z dimensions to calculate simple maths, we add time to have another variable.
All thos new dimensions are just extra variables they need to make difficult maths possible.

Stringtheory is just what it is, a theory, pure math.
After this they will just find another more complex theory to keep building from this, and so on and so on.
Eventually the true answer might be so simple that we cant comprehend how simple it is.
Nature always takes the most simple ways cause its the most effective one, so why would the universe be so overly complicated.

Just my opinion.

nature always takes the simpleest route?

the human nervous system is simple?
weather patterns are simple?
the migration patterns of whales are simple?

nature seems pretty complex to me personally.

you mean most effiecient(sp?) not simple right?

look at a river; simple would be all one depth, all one direction, all one speed, etc.
the most effiecient(sp?) would be big river, to small river, to creeks and streams. Much like human veins.

there is a train of thought that says our roadway would be more effiecient(sp?) if it were 1/3 highway, 1/3 main roads/connections to highways, and 1/3 small roads. Just like rivers, and just like arteries, veins, and blood vessels in our bodies.

So what is the most effiecient(sp?) universe?

I have no idea, but I bet it came about in levels like the above examples.

who is to say the universe isn't creating even more complexity as we speak?

Evolution does not breed simplicity.

EDIT: and no I don't have spell check, not the download from this site, and not one in my head either.

-Muddy

xkcd

I completely agree.

Some of the problem we have, when it comes to understanding, is exactly like the river muddy was typing about.
People are asking questions like, why is the river flowing that way? it's very simple.
Scientists end up trying to explain it to you in math.
Why is that ebb in the river going in the opposite direction?
Scientist then end up making more equations explaining it, then sometimes getting frustrated at some of the math, then getting into arguments on who's math is right.

A wise man told me once there are 4 dimensions, Mind, Spirit, Body, and that which is higher consciousness (Call "it" what you wish).

Nervous system is very simple, we dont understand it yet, but thats cause it seems too simple, we fabricate computers that consist of hundreds of different components, and its still in every way inferior to a human nervous system.
Weather is simple aswell, it is just a constant action and reaction chain that keeps going an and gets influenced by many things. Sure we cant calculate exactly how weather will behave, but thats just cause theres an enourmous amount of data wed have to process in order to predict weather 100%.
Same with the wales, they know why they do things, it looks difficult to us cause we dont knew whales 100%.





Comparing a river and the human veins really doesnt work. as they are completely the opposite.
Human veins branch out because they Have to reach every cell in our body.
Rivers on the other hand merely seek a path of least resistance towards lower grounds, which eventually ends in a sea, ocean or lake.

Nature (and i mean the whole universe with that) is build up very simple, because its the most efficient way. But we just dont know everything about nature yet.
Thats why they keep producing new theories based on math constantly, the theory before the new one just didnt explain enough.
Each new theory will bring new problems tho, it will never end, as there will always be new questions after a theory tries to solve question.

So to get to the point, the bunch of new dimenions are merely tools for an intermediate state in maths thats trying to reach a final answer (which they prolly will never find )

...so i recomend everybody to keep their minds open, believing in current science might fool us some of it may prove to be wrong in future as what have been happening the way people today prove science in past is wrong

more than 11! i only thought that there was 4 i already know that they are length, width,height and time. maybe there could be more explaining where you go when you die and maybe cyber space is another dimension. or is that just a speed?

See my post, and the video in it.
It does the best job of explaining 10.

Trying to look at the different dimensions as a whole is extremely difficult because we only understand the 3rd dimension really. Thinking about every other dimension is only going to be stretched out across the third because we have a third dimensional way of looking at it. Every dimensions is concentrated to a point in the 4th dimension. That is our reality. How each dimension acts is irrelevant because you only need to worry about the 3rd's effect in the 4th now EXCEPT for when your talking about the future or different possibilities of the future because nothing is limited there, worrying about the past doesn't matter because anything that changes in the past changes where you are now anyways. The creation of this universe somehow limited everything to space-time. Before this universe was along I believe we existed in a maybe eleven dimensional plane where time is incorporated within the 11 dimensions (which is why we run into problems when we try and run back TO the eleventh dimension via backtracking through the universe's history because we literally have nowhere to go after we get to the point in the big bang because it folds out into 11 dimensions. (Btw, not actually sure about the 11 dimensions thing, just going on string theory.)

That was extremely badly explained for how I view it and apologise . If you're really curious I can try and elaborate more.

It just doesnt all logically make sense.
I can understand their vision of our universe being part of a fourth dimension
not talking about time, but a 4th spacial dimension.
f which the third is a projection of the fourth dimension
Just as a 2 dimensional thing is part of our world in the third dimension.

But they say theres like 6 dimensions curled up into a tiny size somewhere where the strings are located.
But how can a dimension occupy space in another dimension?.
The second dimension occupies no space in the third dimension, since it has no thickness.
And all of the second dimension is part of the third dimension.
That would mean all of the Third dimension is in the 4th dimension.
And all of the fourth is part of the 5th.

They make it look as if the 6 other dimensions would part of the third.
Just doesnt sit right with me.

You have to understand that just because you have a whole other dimension doesn't mean that it has to be completely part of that dimension. You can have a string going on for infinity touching a 2x2 m 2d plane at the smallest point. I think this is similiarly what happens to the other dimensions projected onto the third. The forces of this universe limits the possibilities of the other dimensions.

I agree with muddyfrog. They are virtual dimensions used in equations to overcome anomalies and unknowns. Without them the ‘what ifs‘ would stall and theoretical physics would come to a halt.