The 10 dimensions of string theory explained

Really nice flash animation which explain and visualize the ten dimensions of string theory, truly interesting indeed. Click here to be enlightened ( press imagining the Ten Dimensions in navbar)

*shudders* that was the most fun 10 minutes I've ever had

They did a good job simplifying it.

Absolutely brilliant, thanks for posting the link.

Whoa!

Im gonna need an aspirin now...thanks a lot....

Rattex at it again?? lol
ITS THE MINING THEORY!

The Nightbird said:

*shudders* that was the most fun 10 minutes I've ever had

They did a good job simplifying it.

Click to expand...

Yes
But that doesn't mean that it is correct or that will ever be correct.
Anyway it's a interesting perspective althouth I doubt that it will ever be usefull after the 5th dimenssion.

MG Mighty said:

Yes
But that doesn't mean that it is correct or that will ever be correct.
Anyway it's a interesting perspective althouth I doubt that it will ever be usefull after the 5th dimenssion.

Click to expand...

In case nobody noticed, even Stephen Hawking had to recall some of his black hole theories where he was concerned that information was lost, making the Universe part of a dead-end future process.

Anyway, they could have done a better job, I listened to "The Universe in a nutshell", (as in audio material) and I got more information from it than this squishy foldy animation (still informative, good technical work).

Nice.

Now I'll just test the existence of these dimensions with an experiment....oh....wait.

Sweet vid. Thanks for sharing.

It is wise to point out this is THEORY but it stems from some basic facts and proven quantum physics.

String Theory is all mythology and BS. It's wasting millions of dollars and too many talented minds in academia.

Epictetus said:

String Theory is all mythology and BS. It's wasting millions of dollars and too many talented minds in academia.

Click to expand...

What would you suggest then? Wasting million of dollars and too many talented minds in Entropia Universe?

Check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756

"Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors."

Wait a second.. I though there were 11 Dimensions of String Theory... No really....

The whole ST industry was invented to get as many academicians tenure as possible before the world found out they are all full of shit.

It is all meaningless as a long game of Dungeons and Dragons.

Well, ehrr....i tried to do draw those dots on a pice of paper and connecting them with lines like they did, but every time i do it i just get a picture of Marco?
Why is that?
I'll go shoot some argos insted..

Epictetus said:

String Theory is all mythology and BS. It's wasting millions of dollars and too many talented minds in academia.

Click to expand...

Well, aint bullshit, but it can be too general framework...
That means, there are too many "free" parameters so
string theory can be matched to anything. Usually
we want to find simplicity and beauty - even if it comes
with restrictions to application. And now some physics folks
try to find a little more restrictive framework, which
could explain for example long distance gravity observations
with some internal structure in the theory.

Here is a nice treatise how string model has developed .

OK, that's just a bunch of whooie. they started out fine, but quickly jumped into scientific babble to disguise junk.

Let's look at each "dimension" separately in their explanation.

1 Line (height)
2 Split (width)
3 Fold (depth)
So far, so good. 3-dimensions of space. Pretty easy to understand. Then the bullshit begins.

Folding a piece of paper doesn't make it 3-dimensional. Just means it folded through the 3rd dimension. Changing this _ into this V doesn't create depth. Look at their own example, they make a fold with a 2-dimensional object and it stays 2-dimensional. We have to imagine the 3rd dimension they wish to explain. Imagine a 2-dimensional straight racetrack folded to make a 2-dimensional donut racetrack. We've gone from drag racing to the Indie 500, but we haven't created depth.

4 line (time)
Obvious. Take the basic 3 dimensions and time and you can pinpoint any spot in the universe at any given time. No problems here.

5 Split
Their explanation about branching time was to compare it to a mobius strip, which MUST come back upon itself, where time doesn't. Also, a mobius strip doesn't branch. This is junk. The time line doesn't split.

6 Fold
Mentions trying to go to a possible future that "you can't get to from here". Then proceeds to change the beginning point as an explanation. That's not a fold, that's moving the start to a whole new branch. This was the worst explanation in the set.

7 Point/Line
Points weren't complete dimensions before, but are now? I'll give them half credit, as this may just be poor explaining on their part. For sake of consistently ripping this apart, we'll pretend they meant "Line"

So they want 2 separate batches of all possible combinations of height, width, depth, time and matter. Sorry, no can do. They try to explain creating new infinities (which for some reason didn't count in the original batch) by simply making 1 slight step back in the triggering phase. Instead of starting at mixing the ingredients in the bowl, they step back to deciding what ingredients are to be used. Somehow this is ok for making new infinities, but didn't count in the original infinities in step 7.

8 Split
Split how? Even taking 3 separate sets of infinities, which for some reason don't count as 1 set, how would they branch? Are these "branches" in between these non-connecting infinities possible? Nope. it's not like width, height and length which can all have varying values, and still be easily identified. Branches connecting various non connected infinite batches makes no sense. In short, there's nothing to split.

9 Fold
If there's nothing to split, there's nothing to fold. End of story.

10 Point
Again, points weren't complete dimensions before, but are now? Fine, let's move on.

Um, isn't this just all possible combinations of the first 4 dimensions, space and time?

There are only 4 dimensions, 3 for space, and 1 for time. All other is junk science founded upon too many bad theories piled upon what-ifs, using mind-numbingly bad examples.

JohnCapital said:

There are only 4 dimensions, 3 for space, and 1 for time. All other is junk science founded upon too many bad theories piled upon what-ifs, using mind-numbingly bad examples.

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. There are many mind games involving multiple spatial dimensions. Even multiple timelines at once.

We can see, feel and apprehend 3+1 dimensions. But that's no proof that there could be more dimensions of which we aren't aware of.

An attempt to approach the problem (with my insufficient english):

Imagine an ant running through your garden. From the perspective of the ant, everything looks giant. Single blades of grass seem to be high sequoia trees. And single grains of sand are like mighty rocks. Suddenly, the ant has to stop because a massive and glossy wall rises high into the sky.

If we now change the scope from the "microscopic view" of the ant to our "normal view", we will see that the massive glossy wall is just the hosepipe lying in the grass. Change the view again and imagine looking out from a high place, like from a high tree or maybe an airplane (well, this could be too high...): the hosepipe, a 3-dimensional object, "shrinks" to a 2-dimensional line, lying on the ground. And from a satellite's view, the 3-dimensional hosepipe is lying on the surface of a giant sphere - the earth. (Remember: centuries ago people thought that the earth is flat instead of a sphere!)

From this point of view, we can't see the 3-dimensional nature if the hosepipe anymore. We still know that the hosepipe is a 3-dimensional object. Imagine someone who always lived on an airplane with no connection to the ground. And he always wanted to know more about those funny lines lying on some green something...

That's the situation we are in now. Well, part of it. There are maybe some more dimensions, wrapped around our 3+1 "everyday life dimensions", but we can't be aware of them, because we're the giants.

I suggest reading of "Diaspora" by Greg Egan. It's an awesome science fiction novel with a plot set into multidimensional universes. Highly entertaining Hard SF.

The problem, Vin McMillan, is you're talking about size, which has no real relation to new dimensions. Galaxies are much to large for us to comprehend, but that doesn't make them qualify as new dimensions.

I subscribe to the basic concept that reality does not change based on who observes it.

Our Universe appears to have the 5th to 7th dimensions curled up around the lower dimensions, making normal matter less likely to exhibit their properties.

Unusual normal matter formations, such as our own Sun, can create time/space warps (curvatures in the 4 dimensions) and actually curve light travelling in the vacuum of space.

Now allow me some study on gluons and micro-wormholes and then I can see how distant 3-dimensional points of space can become continuous in matter.

MG Mighty said:

Anyway it's a interesting perspective althouth I doubt that it will ever be usefull after the 5th dimenssion.

Click to expand...

Which made a very good band btw

thewebbie said:

Wait a second.. I though there were 11 Dimensions of String Theory... No really....

Click to expand...

Depends on which String Theory "expert" you talk to. But that was my first thought too... Where is the 11th dimenssion?

Dino said:

Depends on which String Theory "expert" you talk to. But that was my first thought too... Where is the 11th dimenssion?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember in the 80's when 5 dimensions were being tossed about by counting electricity and magnetism. (or was it electromagnetism and gravity, or something like that?) Then it just kept on growing.

In fairness, multiple dimensions was a concept even back in Einstein's day, I've just never found good enough proof of any.

Eh string theory! I used to study astrophysics and Gerard 't Hooft (physics Nobel prize winner for string theory some time back) was one of my professors (Utrecht University ftw!). I've attended several of his special seminars about the subject.

Before, I thought Quantum gave me a headache! Never was able to fully get my head around it (string theory that is), and that flash isn't exactly helping. Dimensions wrapping and rolling around others, etc etc. I still see no reason to believe in that, the theory explains nothing, predicts nothing, is undelightfully awkward - but then again, who knows what the research at the Large Hadron Collider and such will bring, or maybe M-theory will solve it eventually. And furthermore, I didn't think relativity or quantum was logical either 'til I followed all the classes on them, and I still don't think time is an actual dimension

As for the 11 dimensions, I recall it being something like string theory was postulated at one time with 11 dimensions (Supergravity theory IIRC) but they later found they didn't need #11 and dropped it. But then again, IIRC there's also a string theory version with 7 dimensions instead of 10 or 11. Who knows what's real

In the end though, Hooft's seminars in high energy particle physics, black holes, 'very tiny stuff' (approaching planck length) and such were many times more interesting

i do not think time is a dimention either, good to see there is another believer! we should start a cult or somthing

i couldnt understand most of it. and tbh, dont want to waste more brain cells trying to. does seem interesting tho.

wait a sec, you can get a Nobel Prize just for a theory?! well thats bolloks. i'd have thought u would at least need to have it proven. im in need of some cash, i think ill just put somthing together and base it on what i read this morning on the back of a cerial box. not sure wether its true, but it might be possible to get a tiger addicted to frosties and teach it to walk, talk and play football

and john, about the different infinitys: i was under the impression that these different infinity universes were all "built" with different laws. by that i mean different rules. eg speed of light is 2 m/s instead of 299,792,458 m/s. gravity repells instead of attracts (though im not sure if gravity is one of those all important numbers/factors. i think it is, but i just made up this wacky law ), etc. that would explain why all these different infinitys wont all fit into one, because it would then be impossible to have light travelling at 300M m/s when it should only be travelling at 2 m/s (or the other way around).

As theory I got most of it. But could someone explain this folding issue a bit differently? That really confused things for me.

As to level 5 or 6 orso. I just saw a long documentary about this quantum theory stuff ( or whats it called ) and it says there have been tests which prove the 5 or 6 dimension but the "observer" as they called it ( here as well ) is the reason they can't seem to test beyond that. Well something like that..

I found this clip not to hard to understand, but the animations didnt help to much, the spoken explanation did the most for me.

And I also have heard about some 11th dimension once. Dunno what or how though. Just heard it from someone.

Oh lol there was a voice too? No wonder it didn't make any sense! (I have music on which is shoutcasted to the PC with the big amp attached, and no speakers on this pc since all these dingies and dongies and websites with music etc etc annoy the crap out of me)

Folding a piece of paper doesn't make it 3-dimensional. Just means it folded through the 3rd dimension. Changing this _ into this V doesn't create depth. Look at their own example, they make a fold with a 2-dimensional object and it stays 2-dimensional.

Click to expand...

If you fold a newspaper (assuming it has no depth, aka 2 dimensional) it becomes a cilinder (with a depth, aka 3 dimensional). Or at least that's the way I got it.

With subjects like this I'd like the see some academic degrees (lower then PhD won't cut it) or equivalents first before taking posts too serious, no offense to anyone If I learned one thing in my education it's that we at most know a fraction about a subject without specialising in it. To 'know' stuff takes decades. Unless you take a shortcut through the sixth dimension of course.

Leafren said:

If you fold a newspaper (assuming it has no depth, aka 2 dimensional) it becomes a cilinder (with a depth, aka 3 dimensional). Or at least that's the way I got it.

Click to expand...

I didnt get it 10 minz ago, but trying to formulate an correct question just now gave me the answer, I think. I don't think they were trying to say it becomes a cilinder, it does, but i think the point was:

The "jumping" in the second dimension is only possible through possibilities in the 3rd dimensions.. They are trying to explain how the impossible for one dimension would be possible with the help an extra dimension..

So when you take time and the different timelines, jumping timelines would only be possible if there was an extra dimension. That is assuming there are multiple timelines ofcourse.

I think thats the idea of folding and jumping and stuff.

That's the general idea Squee, create enough dimensions so in the end it all 'works out', or computes, if you will. And also the problem with seeing time as dimension, because it would create an 'infinite loop' of dimensions to be able to do anything with it or really describe it. Or at least thats what _some_ scientists say. Can't find the 'easy explenation' of it I read a while ago but it was really interesting (the question is if it's true though). Wonder what string theory does with that.

As for Leafren's comment, too bad no PhD'ers around here on that subject ey Something my one of my quantum mechanics teachers said comes to mind though: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you're only proving you don't". Guess with stuff as complicated as quantum and string theory, there's hardly anyone around who really understands the details and complications, even so far as theories go at this time (even the PhD's, and Nobel prizers).

Wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes in the end. This would not be a bad time for some smart aliens to land and give us the answers, methinks. At least then we'd know before my existance has expired

In the meantime: go scientists!

Leafren said:

If you fold a newspaper (assuming it has no depth, aka 2 dimensional) it becomes a cilinder (with a depth, aka 3 dimensional). Or at least that's the way I got it.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that you made a 3 dimensional cylinder, but you didn't give the 2-dimensional newspaper any width. Repositioning a 2-D object can never make it 3-D.

Heh... the only thing that is "real" in all that is the 3rd dimension. All the rest are just theories and speculations. Even the 1st, 2nd and 4th dimensions don't really exist.... imo of course.

I guess calling it the 3rd dimension without a 1st or 2nd doesn't really makes sense either... its just... what "IS"... if that makes any sense... lol