Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: spook1456 on 16/04/2011 15:45:14
-
[???] Personally I think that there are 12 dimensions comprising of height,length,breadth,space-time,speed,mass,force,energy,distance,direction and electric charge
-
Okay, but do you have a question here about dimensions or M theory?
-
Are distance & direction not part of the height, length & breadth dimensions?
-
[???] Personally I think that there are 12 dimensions comprising of height,length,breadth,space-time,speed,mass,force,energy,distance,direction and electric charge
M theory has 11 diensions, what is the extra dimension you seek to add? please note I think you'll find some of the dimensions you have listed there are not a part of M theory.
-
I found this:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=273388
in m theory the extra five dimentions as follow
M-theory on circle IIA in 10 dimensions
Wrap membrane on circle IIA superstring
Shrink membrane to zero size D0-brane
Unwrapped membrane D2-brane
Wrap fivebrane on circle D4-brane
Unwrapped fivebrane NS fivebrane
So I believe the full list of M-theory dimensions are as follows, The four spacial dimensions, gravity, space-time(as one) then wrap membrane, shrink membrane, unwrap membrane, wrap fivebrane, and finally the unwrap fivebrane
I saw somewhere a person depicted them like layers
unwrap fivebrane $$$$$$$$$
Unwrap membrane ^^^^^^^^
3 dimension Spacial or gravity ect
Shrink membrane(At a guess I'll put it in the middle, but I think this is the string dimension it has no opposite)
3 dimensions Spacial or gravity ect
wrap Membrane ###########
wrap Fivebrane ************
In all they form a bubble, which leads to the idea of a multi-verse made of many bubble universes.
I know that is off, but at the same time it's in the right vain, so hopefully someone else can clarify the errors
-
M theory comes from string theory. This one does a fair job I think, describing how it came to be, starting with strings. M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings. (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/qg_ss.html)
-
well i found on a website that the first four are definitely height width length and time 9 width is also known as breadth) and the rest is Extra dimensions in string theory
Superstring theory is a possible unified theory of all fundamental forces, but superstring theory requires a 10 dimensional spacetime, or else bad quantum states called ghosts with unphysical negative probabilities become part of the spectrum.
Now this creates a problem in d=10 string theory: how to get the d=4 world as we know it out of the theory.
So far there are two main proposals:
1. Roll up the extra dimensions into some very tiny but nonetheless interesting space of their own. This is called Kaluza Klein compactification.
2. Make the extra dimensions really big, but constrain all the matter and gravity to propagate in a three dimensional subspace called the three brane. (For an analogy, your computer screen could be said to be a two brane of three dimensional space.) These types of theories are called braneworlds.
-
well i found on a website that the first four are definitely height width length and time 9 width is also known as breadth) and the rest is Extra dimensions in string theory
Superstring theory is a possible unified theory of all fundamental forces, but superstring theory requires a 10 dimensional spacetime, or else bad quantum states called ghosts with unphysical negative probabilities become part of the spectrum.
Now this creates a problem in d=10 string theory: how to get the d=4 world as we know it out of the theory.
So far there are two main proposals:
1. Roll up the extra dimensions into some very tiny but nonetheless interesting space of their own. This is called Kaluza Klein compactification.
2. Make the extra dimensions really big, but constrain all the matter and gravity to propagate in a three dimensional subspace called the three brane. (For an analogy, your computer screen could be said to be a two brane of three dimensional space.) These types of theories are called braneworlds.
Yeah I think you'll find Gravity is another dimention also, as it was people working in super gravity that used 11 densions that combined with the 5 different string theories each having 10 dimensions, and made M theory.
Strings theory has 5 dimensions added to six others. I'm still not entirely sure what the extra dimension is, Three spacial X, Y and z, gravity, and then space-time- is five so there is one more to add.
-
[???] Personally I think that there are 12 dimensions comprising of height,length,breadth,space-time,speed,mass,force,energy,distance,direction and electric charge
I found this:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=273388
in m theory the extra five dimentions as follow
M-theory on circle IIA in 10 dimensions
Wrap membrane on circle IIA superstring
Shrink membrane to zero size D0-brane
Unwrapped membrane D2-brane
Wrap fivebrane on circle D4-brane
Unwrapped fivebrane NS fivebrane
So I believe the full list of M-theory dimensions are as follows, The four spacial dimensions, gravity, space-time(as one) then wrap membrane, shrink membrane, unwrap membrane, wrap fivebrane, and finally the unwrap fivebrane
I saw somewhere a person depicted them like layers
unwrap fivebrane $$$$$$$$$
Unwrap membrane ^^^^^^^^
3 dimension Spacial or gravity ect
Shrink membrane(At a guess I'll put it in the middle, but I think this is the string dimension it has no opposite)
3 dimensions Spacial or gravity ect
wrap Membrane ###########
wrap Fivebrane ************
In all they form a bubble, which leads to the idea of a multi-verse made of many bubble universes.
I know that is off, but at the same time it's in the right vain, so hopefully someone else can clarify the errors
Just as a slight correction spook1456.
In the quote I referenced it staes "Wrap membrane on circle IIA superstring"
So I think actually that is the dimension that travels through everything Ergo it should be in the middle. and the shrink membrane is the dimension that surrouinds the universe, I am am guessing again but I think that's a better guess....
So it should if I'm right look like this
Shrink membrane ************
Wrap fivebrane ^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 normal dimensions &&&&&&&&&&&&
Wrap + unwrap membranes ---------
3 normal dimensions &&&&&&&&&&&&
Unwrap fivebrains ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Shrink membrane **************
The orders could be slightly different, but basically I think that's how it works.
If you add in all the other dimensions you listed to the middle then there would be 18. I think actually mass might be the dimension missing(as it relates to gravity- but that is another guess).
-
In a way I like string theory and branes (M theory). Probably because I expect SpaceTime to be smooth and as we're talking about one dimensional 'strings' 'loops' (loop quantuum theory) or/and 'branes'. It makes a very weird kind of sense. But I do not like the idea of dimensions as 'singular' entities.
I don't think SpaceTime is defined like a 'Lego' myself. I think of it as a Jello where all goes into each other and the arrow of time creates 'particles' for us. At least I do so for the moment :) When it comes to charge as a 'dimension'? I'm still not sure what a dimension should be seen as? But if you take something, not measurable in its own right but only as a outcome of a interaction, and lift it up to a dimension you will have problems.
Myself I'm thinking of 'Gravity' as a possible 'dimension', that and 'energy'. Both because I expect them to exist everywhere a 'SpaceTime' exists, but then we come to what we can quantize and there it seems as 'energy' only comes in 'quanta' which differs it from 'gravity', as far as I know. 'Charge' and 'energy' seems both to be quantize-able whereas 'gravity' still isn't. But I'm not sure on anything in fact :)
==
You might want to define a wave as continuous, and so define 'energy' as continuous too, and you might be perfectly right there? But then we have 'frequency' and defining a 'wave' as 'vibrating', creating those 'peaks & throughs' defining its 'energy'?
Gravity doesn't, yet :)
==
To see what I mean you can consider 'gravity propagating', like away from those binary stars spinning around each other. There you have two points of view to choose between. Either define it as a 'gravitational radiation' propagating at some 'frequency', or do as I and see it as the 'Jello' distorting itself, the 'distortion' moving under our arrow at the speed of light, as all 'motion' obeys that constant. Then you have a 'field' of a sort, like a spiders web defining a 'space' containing a 'distance' as defined macroscopically.
==
You might then want to take the spiders web analogy a step further. In a spiders web the motion/vibrations in it travels at the speed of sound, alerting the spider to its prey getting caught in it. In 'SpaceTime' you instead have the speed of light in a vacuum defining that 'propagation'. So if we look at the 'web' you might want to define 'gravity' as instantaneous in a sense, that as I define it as being existent even where you can't 'measure' it. If you look at Newtons spheres we find a possible 'zero gravity' in the middle of any sphere of invariant matter. That it is unmeasurable there doesn't mean that it isn't existent as I see it, it simply mean what it states, it is unmeasurable.
So the 'web' becomes a 'dimension', in 3D + time macroscopically, and as I expect, probably all the way down past, and beyond, Planck scale, eh, maybe? :) In that same manner we can find the idea of 'energy' existing on all scales, from 'virtual particles' to our 'SpaceTime'. So I'm of two minds there :)
==
( Can you see why we need it in 'New theories'? It's getting real 'wild' here, ahem. )
-
In a way I like string theory and branes (M theory). Probably because I expect SpaceTime to be smooth and as we're talking about one dimensional 'strings' 'loops' (loop quantuum theory) or/and 'branes'. It makes a very weird kind of sense. But I do not like the idea of dimensions as 'singular' entities.
I don't think SpaceTime is defined like a 'Lego' myself. I think of it as a Jello where all goes into each other and the arrow of time creates 'particles' for us. At least I do so for the moment :) When it comes to charge as a 'dimension'? I'm still not sure what a dimension should be seen as? But if you take something, not measurable in its own right but only as a outcome of a interaction, and lift it up to a dimension you will have problems.
Myself I'm thinking of 'Gravity' as a possible 'dimension', that and 'energy'. Both because I expect them to exist everywhere a 'SpaceTime' exists, but then we come to what we can quantize and there it seems as 'energy' only comes in 'quanta' which differs it from 'gravity', as far as I know. 'Charge' and 'energy' seems both to be quantize-able whereas 'gravity' still isn't. But I'm not sure on anything in fact :)
==
You might want to define a wave as continuous, and so define 'energy' as continuous too, and you might be perfectly right there? But then we have 'frequency' and defining a 'wave' as 'vibrating', creating those 'peaks & throughs' defining its 'energy'?
Gravity doesn't, yet :)
==
To see what I mean you can consider 'gravity propagating', like away from those binary stars spinning around each other. There you have two points of view to choose between. Either define it as a 'gravitational radiation' propagating at some 'frequency', or do as I and see it as the 'Jello' distorting itself, the 'distortion' moving under our arrow at the speed of light, as all 'motion' obeys that constant. Then you have a 'field' of a sort, like a spiders web defining a 'space' containing a 'distance' as defined macroscopically.
==
You might then want to take the spiders web analogy a step further. In a spiders web the motion/vibrations in it travels at the speed of sound, alerting the spider to its prey getting caught in it. In 'SpaceTime' you instead have the speed of light in a vacuum defining that 'propagation'. So if we look at the 'web' you might want to define 'gravity' as instantaneous in a sense, that as I define it as being existent even where you can't 'measure' it. If you look at Newtons spheres we find a possible 'zero gravity' in the middle of any sphere of invariant matter. That it is unmeasurable there doesn't mean that it isn't existent as I see it, it simply mean what it states, it is unmeasurable.
So the 'web' becomes a 'dimension', in 3D + time macroscopically, and as I expect, probably all the way down past, and beyond, Planck scale, eh, maybe? :) In that same manner we can find the idea of 'energy' existing on all scales, from 'virtual particles' to our 'SpaceTime'. So I'm of two minds there :)
==
( Can you see why we need it in 'New theories'? It's getting real 'wild' here, ahem. )
Looking at Einstien Energy is equal to mass X light speed,
I'm sure gravtiy is considered a dimension in M-thoery. I suggested mass as the other, but actaully maybe it is energy.
3 spacial dimensions
5 string dimensions
leave three more diemensions to get to 11, Space-time or just time, gravity, energy or mass, electrical charge being the only one I think Spook1456 adds really.
Energy as the missing dimension- I suppose would include mass and light speed with it.
So what do you think Yor_on?
3 spacial, 1 time, 5 string and then- energy and gravity as the missing two dimensions?
Would be helpful if someone that studied String could answer what are the six dimensions the five strings are added to was tho.
-
In a way I like string theory and branes (M theory). Probably because I expect SpaceTime to be smooth and as we're talking about one dimensional 'strings' 'loops' (loop quantuum theory) or/and 'branes'. It makes a very weird kind of sense. But I do not like the idea of dimensions as 'singular' entities.
I don't think SpaceTime is defined like a 'Lego' myself. I think of it as a Jello where all goes into each other and the arrow of time creates 'particles' for us. At least I do so for the moment :) When it comes to charge as a 'dimension'? I'm still not sure what a dimension should be seen as? But if you take something, not measurable in its own right but only as a outcome of a interaction, and lift it up to a dimension you will have problems.
Myself I'm thinking of 'Gravity' as a possible 'dimension', that and 'energy'. Both because I expect them to exist everywhere a 'SpaceTime' exists, but then we come to what we can quantize and there it seems as 'energy' only comes in 'quanta' which differs it from 'gravity', as far as I know. 'Charge' and 'energy' seems both to be quantize-able whereas 'gravity' still isn't. But I'm not sure on anything in fact :)
==
You might want to define a wave as continuous, and so define 'energy' as continuous too, and you might be perfectly right there? But then we have 'frequency' and defining a 'wave' as 'vibrating', creating those 'peaks & throughs' defining its 'energy'?
Gravity doesn't, yet :)
==
To see what I mean you can consider 'gravity propagating', like away from those binary stars spinning around each other. There you have two points of view to choose between. Either define it as a 'gravitational radiation' propagating at some 'frequency', or do as I and see it as the 'Jello' distorting itself, the 'distortion' moving under our arrow at the speed of light, as all 'motion' obeys that constant. Then you have a 'field' of a sort, like a spiders web defining a 'space' containing a 'distance' as defined macroscopically.
==
You might then want to take the spiders web analogy a step further. In a spiders web the motion/vibrations in it travels at the speed of sound, alerting the spider to its prey getting caught in it. In 'SpaceTime' you instead have the speed of light in a vacuum defining that 'propagation'. So if we look at the 'web' you might want to define 'gravity' as instantaneous in a sense, that as I define it as being existent even where you can't 'measure' it. If you look at Newtons spheres we find a possible 'zero gravity' in the middle of any sphere of invariant matter. That it is unmeasurable there doesn't mean that it isn't existent as I see it, it simply mean what it states, it is unmeasurable.
So the 'web' becomes a 'dimension', in 3D + time macroscopically, and as I expect, probably all the way down past, and beyond, Planck scale, eh, maybe? :) In that same manner we can find the idea of 'energy' existing on all scales, from 'virtual particles' to our 'SpaceTime'. So I'm of two minds there :)
==
( Can you see why we need it in 'New theories'? It's getting real 'wild' here, ahem. )
Looking at Einstien Energy is equal to mass X light speed,
I'm sure gravtiy is considered a dimension in M-thoery. I suggested mass as the other, but actaully maybe it is energy.
3 spacial dimensions
5 string dimensions
leave three more diemensions to get to 11, Space-time or just time, gravity, energy or mass, electrical charge being the only one I think Spook1456 adds really.
Energy as the missing dimension- I suppose would include mass and light speed with it.
So what do you think Yor_on?
3 spacial, 1 time, 5 string and then- energy and gravity as the missing two dimensions?
Would be helpful if someone that studied String could answer what are the six dimensions the five strings are added to was tho.
Also makes we wonder what Dark matter and energy might do to M-theory also.
-
Who knows? Read up on Smolin :) He's very interesting and I enjoyed 'Three roads to quantum gravity' immensely. He seems like he question most of the ideas we have, including his own. Which I think of as a sign of sanity when it comes to this :)
In my world there should be a 'smooth' manifold with nothing 'sticking out' on that smallest plane (QM/Planck and under) And although i might be able to accept loops or strings or branes as where from the 'smallest' interactions creating us comes they are not the ocean, as I see it. But to us they might be the starting points for 'time', possibly? And for what 'forces' we see macroscopically and in QM I still see them as manifestations of 'interactions' simplified down to a level from where we find it hard to search further. It's not a proof per se of 'forces' to me, rather a description of a elegant universe as I think Feynman put it? Needing just a few principles/constants to create us all. But sure, the 'dimensions' we live in may be more than what we can observe macroscopically, but in my 'Jello' they are all one 'thing'. In our universe we have 3D+time defining it macroscopically, and that is what jello we can directly observe. That it mathematically can be found to carry further definitions of 'dimensions' won't change this. And those 'dimensions' if so, will be a part of what makes our 'SpaceTime (3D+time) possible to live in if so.
what i don't like is the idea of SpaceTime as puzzle, where we can rearrange the pieces as we like. I just don't expect that to be true.
-
Here is a fine article about some classical Unified field theories (and dimensions):
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2
-
This was on today, a discussion on Psyics and String theory
Conversation with great minds, Big picture
part one
Part two
-
This was on today, a discussion on Psyics and String theory
Conversation with great minds, Big picture
part one
Part two
It appears looking at what he says in that film that the fifth dimension is a dimension underlying the atomic dimension.
Which the hadron colider is looking into.
Spacial X,y, and z, then space-time, 5th dimension(sub atomic), gravity or energy, then the five string dimensions.
-
If you really wanna learn about string theory then the only real source of video on the internet is leonard susskind's "the theoretical minimum"
I will warn you that there is around 200 hours of lectures before enough is known to introduce strings and a good working knowledge of linear algebra (try Mit OCW 1806 - about 30 hours lecture time) and integral calculus (try MIT OCW Single Variable Calculus to start with - again about 30 hours lecture time) is a prerequisite to understanding anything in depth. Additionally this is seen by most academics as ludicrously short!
With respect; videos by Michio Kaku do more harm than good - whilst he is a great physicist he seems to have lost the plot when it comes to his public engagement of science.
-
If you really wanna learn about string theory then the only real source of video on the internet is leonard susskind's "the theoretical minimum"
I will warn you that there is around 200 hours of lectures before enough is known to introduce strings and a good working knowledge of linear algebra (try Mit OCW 1806 - about 30 hours lecture time) and integral calculus (try MIT OCW Single Variable Calculus to start with - again about 30 hours lecture time) is a prerequisite to understanding anything in depth. Additionally this is seen by most academics as ludicrously short!
With respect; videos by Michio Kaku do more harm than good - whilst he is a great physicist he seems to have lost the plot when it comes to his public engagement of science.
I cannot really comment about Michio Kaku, I do disagree with his proposed solution for fukushima tho.
As a quick question do you by chance actually know what all the 11 different dimensions are, that they use for M-theory?
-
Here is a fine article about some classical Unified field theories (and dimensions):
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2
Looks real nice CPT.
Thanks for that one.
And yes, unfortunately Kaku very much seems to 'play up to the audience'.
A lot of physicists getting irritated there it seems :)
But I'm sure it's a good show.
-
If you really wanna learn about string theory then the only real source of video on the internet is leonard susskind's "the theoretical minimum"
I will warn you that there is around 200 hours of lectures before enough is known to introduce strings and a good working knowledge of linear algebra (try Mit OCW 1806 - about 30 hours lecture time) and integral calculus (try MIT OCW Single Variable Calculus to start with - again about 30 hours lecture time) is a prerequisite to understanding anything in depth. Additionally this is seen by most academics as ludicrously short!
With respect; videos by Michio Kaku do more harm than good - whilst he is a great physicist he seems to have lost the plot when it comes to his public engagement of science.
I cannot really comment about Michio Kaku, I do disagree with his proposed solution for fukushima tho.
As a quick question do you by chance actually know what all the 11 different dimensions are, that they use for M-theory?
There are 3 normal spatial dimensions, one time dimension and as many other spatial dimensions that are compacted as you need to get your maths to work. The other dimension are only unusual in that we have never noticed them - they are not gravity, uncertainty, colour etc. What must be understood is that the maths underlying string theory and in essence creating string theory is incredible recondite and complex; the heuristic view of string theory is all very well (and has sold a lot of books for brian greene and others) but you need to get down and dirty with the maths.