Panther Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Hi all! I know this subject has been explored before, but I've been thinking about it lately and wanted to have some discussion. Going from memory, I believe I read there are a total of eleven dimensions. This is exciting and I was wondering if anyone had anything interesting to say about this. Comments anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I'm no expert by any means but I believe this is accurate according to super-string theory (possibly other theories as well). I've read some strange things such as gravity originates from the 11th dimension and "bleeds" into our own from there. I can't say how viable it is but the woman that thought it up has the math on her side so who am I to argue? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Hi mwc, thanks for your response. I read a little about the string theory as well, but must admit, most of the sites I have looked up get so technical with mathematical equasions that it is pretty complicated. Here is some info. I found where it seems to explain a little more simply... Link Searching for Extra Dimensions Some info. taken from that link (bold emphasis mine): The reason we do not feel these additional spatial dimensions in our everyday life (if they exist) is because they are very different from the three dimensions we are familiar with. It turns out that it is possible that our world is ‘pinned’ to a 3-dimensional sheet (a so-called ‘brane’) that is located in a higher dimensional space, To illustrate this, imagine an ant crawling on a sheet of paper in your hand. For the ant, the ‘universe’ is pretty much two-dimensional, as it cannot leave the surface of the paper. It only knows North from South and East from West, but up and down don’t make any sense as long as it has to stay on the sheet of paper. In pretty much the same way, we could be restrained to a three-dimensional world, which is in fact a part of a more complicated multi-dimensional universe! For an ant crawling on a sheet of paper the universe is pretty much two-dimensional These extra spatial dimensions, if they really exist, are thought to be curled-up, or “compactified”. In the example with the ant, let’s roll the sheet of paper so that it forms a cylinder. In this case, if the ant starts crawling in the direction of curvature, it will eventually come back to the same point it started from. This is an example of a compactified dimension. If the ant crawls in a direction parallel to the length of the cylinder, it would never come back to the same point (we are assuming that the paper cylinder is so long so that it never reaches the edge). This is an example of a “flat” dimension. According to string theory then, we live in a universe where our three familiar dimensions of space are “flat”, but there are additional dimensions which are curled-up very tightly so that they have an extremely small radius: 10-30 cm or less. --------------------------------- Mmmkay....learned something new here. In some sort of ways, I was glamourizing the idea of extra dimensions in my mind somewhat.... (well, it was fun to imagine a little) ...but probably more so than I should have.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgX Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 For some reason the link's information doesn't make too much sense to me. I akin the ant on paper much like a human scaling a large mountain. As in the cylinder example, there is another possibility: The ant crawling the curvature of the cyliner in a spiral fashion, going around but not reaching the starting point as it is going around but also further away or closer depending on the direction of the spiral path it's taking. I've always wondered if other dimensions, much like light and other things are frequency-based. And since the brain runs at certain frequencies and hold the conscienceness, maybe that is why we can access certain dimentions when our brain is in that frequency. Dream state is one frequency for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Blake Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Some months back, string theory was officially declared a scientific dead end by many of the disgusted scientists who had wasted years studying it. There is no evidence for extra dimensions. Just the three. Time is a man-made measurement which helps us cope with the world and universe around us and we do not use time machines to travel to the Moon. Paradox. If time slows down as you travel faster, why don't you slow down too, in speed so making it impossible to travel fast? The only thing time dilation has been shown to work on is atomic clocks. A powerful magnetic field would probably have the same effect. The number of controlled experiments to show that it is not down to the internal workings being affected by speed (like the heated stream of cesium atoms at 90.C) so far is........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Paradox. If time slows down as you travel faster, why don't you slow down too, in speed so making it impossible to travel fast? You are too stuck in your own experiance, gleaned from living in a high friction, high gravity world. You don't slow down because nothing is exerting a force on you. We arn't talking about slow motion running down a road here, This isn't slow motion, its slow time. Also, its only the objects experiance of time. The rest of the universe carries on as normal. Did you know lengths contract at high speed too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Also, its only the objects experiance of time. The rest of the universe carries on as normal. "Normal" for you. If I travel near the speed of light, my time will seem perfectly normal to me, but to me it will look as if everyone else has sped up. one the other hand, your time will seem perfectly normal TO YOU. There is no "normal" in relativity. The theory of relativity is actually based on the idea that the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s) is CONSTANT for all reference points. The velocities don't add up like you'd expect them to. If you're standing still and you see me driving at 9km/h alongside a train going 10 km/h, then you can assume that, from my perspective, the train appears to be going 1 km/h faster than I am. But at high speeds, it doesn't quite work that way. If you see my in my space-ship flying at 99.99% of the speed of light while chasing a laser beam (which is going at the speed of light), then to you, I'm just barely behind the laser beam. HOWEVER, when *I* measure the speed of the laser beam, it will look like it is going 299,792,458 m/s faster than I am. Um, yeah. Back to string theory then! I'm pretty sure that there are a wide number of dimensions proposed under string theory. I once heard a joke that if an equation doesn't work, a string theorist will just add another dimension to MAKE it work. I know very little about physics, so I don't know how true that is. As for string theory being declared officially dead, I don't think it happened. It wasn't "official", it was just a few physicists expressing their extreme discontentment with the theory. I don't think string theory has been abandoned by a significant number of physicists. One physicists said that string theory is a 21st century theory that somehow sneaked in to the 20th century. In other words, we're just not ready for it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I read a lot of science news on the side and I don't seem to recall hearing that string theory was declared dead. Could someone post a link to the article if they have one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 slashdot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I am thinking of starting a new church to augment the Rock & Roll Church of All Nations, North America (RRCANNA, http://www.opinionsoup.com/ ) and the Church Of My Opinion (COMO, http://www.cultspace.org/cultProfile.php?cult_id=33 ). The new one will be called the Church of the Eleven Dementians and will be dedicated to the eleven most demented persons of all time. Any candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenneyVTX Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 look into M Theory as proposed by Ed Witten out of NJ. He took the 5 flavors of string and actually unified them. The problem is they call for sparticles, even if they exsist we may not be able to detect them with the equipment we have now. As to actually see a "string" that's another thing that is beyond our scope right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 okay honkey, it was just a quick description. Thing about string theory is that it is, as far as we currently know, un-provable, because if a string is the smallest thing around, what do we use to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 okay honkey, it was just a quick description. You and your racial epithets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 okay honkey, it was just a quick description. You and your racial epithets! I got a laugh out of that, but I decided to leave the retort to you. BTW, Fonkey, are you really a Honky? Or a Funky Hunky? A Chunky Junkie? Maybe a Punky Geetahr Plunky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 okay honkey, it was just a quick description. You and your racial epithets! right, I actually didn't notice I'd written it wrong. I forgot what it was when I was doing the replying thang. I'm actually 6'2" with blonde hair and blue eyes so I don't think I can really call anyone honkey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts