[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 350x350, 2496549360-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4677541 No.4677541 [Reply] [Original]

How many dimensions are there?

I heard it's either 11 or 13. What are inside those dimensions?

What dimension are we in? I assume the 3rd dimension?

>> No.4677549

We are in all dimensions. We only perceive in 3rd dimension.

>> No.4677563

Since we can only percieve 3 or 4 dimensions (depends on if you call our perception of time legitimate). Dimensions aren't a "plane of existence", they're axes of measurement. We don't live in the "3rd dimension", we live in 3-dimensional space translating through 4th dimensional time. Theoretically, there are infinite dimensions beyond our perception, though we've only noticed certain anomalies that imply existence of further dimensions.

>> No.4678328

there are exactly 9

>> No.4678349

>>4678328
Wrong. It is impossible to tell a certain number, because you can't know if there are more dimensions and you are just lacking the 'Sensors' to perceive and interact with them. Of course there are different theories(!!!) on the number of dimensions based upon the theories perception of elementary parts, but since there is not even a consens on the basic structure of these( even if the Superstring theorie is strongly dominating) there is no exact way to say it. And even if they find a way, to prove one of these theses(highly unlikely), would it still be unclear, if there isn't unknown interaction in other dimensions. Also it sould be sayed, that the dimensions used in the Theories aren't allways dimensions of time and space but also pure mathematical dimensions, which are needed for some calculations.

>> No.4678365

>>4678349

Like this Guy said, there are exactly 9.

>> No.4678387

>>4677563
>certain anomalies that imply existence of further dimensions
What are such anomalies?

>> No.4678392

>>4678328
>>4678328

Yeah, I'm friend's with a physicist and he has a Phd in this kind of stuff.

He said it's definitely 9.

>> No.4678398

>>4678328

I work at MIT and this Guy is correct.

>> No.4678417

>>4678328
I'm pretty sure this guy is right. I can tell from some of the numbers and from seeing quite a few dimensions in my time.

>> No.4678425

>>4678398
>I work at MIT (as a janitor)

>> No.4678440

>>4678425

How'd you guess? It affords me time to study any topics I want, and I can solve equations on whiteboards outside of classrooms anonymously.

>> No.4678506

>>4678425
Good will Hunting

>> No.4678516 [DELETED] 
File: 313 KB, 1000x800, dolan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678516

I'm this guy and let me explain why it is 9 as vaguely as possible. Hopefully you guys won't be as rude as the faggot that was on last night.

It is nine because there are 3 rows of 3 columns of dimensions

point, line and 2 lines are the columns

>> No.4678549

>I work at MIT and this Guy is correct.

Well, I'm convinced.

>> No.4678560

There are 2.

The 2-Dimensional butthole that OP has gaping and the 1-Dimension dick that's fucking it

Hope that helps

>> No.4678562

>>4678560
holy shit, this this thiiis

fucking sides

>> No.4678574
File: 118 KB, 900x900, Untitled-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678574

>>4678349

wrong. i'm no scientist, but through logical reasoning it is clear why there are only 9 dimensions. I will explain.

I tried to explain some theories last night, but there were some faggots online who believe in circlejerking to science. I won't tolerate faggotry in this thread and will cease explaining if anybody pulls shit like that. just fucking listen and you might learn something.

there are 3 rows of 3 columns of dimensions.
the columns are line, 2 perpendicular lines, and 3 perpendicular lines.

When you hit the 9th dimension, all possible outcomes of all possible universes are contained. There are no higher physical dimensions.

>> No.4678590

>>4678574
> I can't imagine it, therefore it doesn't exist.

>> No.4678598
File: 202 KB, 310x426, 1303907075042.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678598

>>4678590

nigga there is no need for dimensions higher than the 9th. all possible outcomes of all possible universes are contained in 9. Theoretically and hypothetically, yes you can have more than 9 dimensions, but they do not exist in nature.

>> No.4678624

It's 11 spacial dimensions, 1 time dimension. As predicted by string theory. The first three are the only dimensions that are significantly large, which is why they are the only ones that we "see". On small enough scales the extra dimensions should become significant.

>> No.4678647
File: 19 KB, 500x332, 1305419171002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678647

>>4678624

string theory is an inherently flawed concept.
I assure you there are 9

>> No.4678650

My friend trained with the Bene Gesserit and is also a certified Mentat and he told me there are exactly 9 dimensions.

>> No.4678678

>>4678598

give examples of the nine.

>> No.4678679

Can someone actually explain these 9 dimensions? What is each one and what is its significance.

>> No.4678688
File: 173 KB, 800x600, 174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678688

>>4677549
>We only perceive the third dimension.
We only perceive from 2D downwards. You can use this equation to figure out how many you can perceive:

n-1=p, where n is the highest dimension that you can freely move in, and p is the highest dimension you can freely perceive.

>But we obviously see in 3D!
That is incorrect, we see in 2D. If we could see in 3D, then by looking at a die you could see every side simultaneously. You actually see in 2D, but because you have two eyes (hopefully) you are given the illusion of seeing in 3D when actually you are just seeing two 2D images stacked on top of each other. Try closing your eye and looking at something (fight the temptation to move your eye in order to see different angles).

>But if we can only see in 2D then why do we have a sense of time?!
Because you CAN have a mental understanding of higher dimensions, you just can not actually perceive them.

Source: A sci-fi novel.

>> No.4678707

>>4678688

n-1=p

Why should this formula be taken seriously? Why do we need to see all sides of a three-dimensional object at the same time to be viewing in 3-d?

It just sounds insanely arbitrary and pointless to say we're looking in 2-d instead of 3-d.

>> No.4678711

>these troll responses
oh god i lol'd. never change, /sci/

>> No.4678713

>>4678711

There are no troll posts on /sci/. Only pretentious people saying stupid stuff.

>> No.4678716

>>4678707
Do you know what the fuck a dimension even IS?

>> No.4678723

>>4678688
You are retarded.
We can perceive depth. The mechanism is irrelevant.
Your argument that we can't see the 3rd dimension, because it's basically 2 2d images stacked, is about as retarded as saying that an anologue tv is actually 1 dimensional, because it's actually a bunch of lines stacked on top of eachother. (This is how PAL tv's work.)

>> No.4678724

>>4678688

Can't we perceive depth? Or is that illusory?

Srs qstn.

>> No.4678729

>>4678716

That's your retort? Attacking whether or not I know what a dimension is? Our mind let's us perceive the third, we are looking at three-dimensions as three-dimensional beings. Saying that you need to see all sides of a 3-d object at once is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

>> No.4678730

>>4678707
>Why should this formula be taken seriously?
I just threw it together because I didn't want to just say "subtract 1".

Take a picture and look at it. Do you agree that the picture is 2D? Now close one eye and look at the same thing that the camera took a picture of. In both instances you are only getting one angle of what you are seeing, thus I would argue you are seeing in 2D.


Here is a link to an explanation, albeit it is obviously not professional. If you can find a more professional article, I would love to see it so I can get a more professional explanation myself.
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100617061842AA82YlN

>> No.4678736

>>4678688

i just closed one eye and the world still looks 3d. what now, punk?

>> No.4678737

>>4678679
>>4678678

see

>>4678574

what is there not to understand?

>> No.4678739

>>4678730

First off, you just used a yahoo answer to back up what you're saying, which is... yeah... to say the least. Apart from that your highest voted answerer opposes your statement that we only see in 2d.

"If we have both eyes open, then we see in 3d. We can see the height and length of objects (2 dimensions) but also we can relate these objects together by using our perception of depth (3rd dimension)."

Right there...

So, what in the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.4678741

>>4678730

That would only work of we had one fucking eye.

>> No.4678747

>>4678688

this guy is slightly right.
imagine your vision is your computer screen. Your computer can clearly render 3d images, but they are displayed on a 2 dimensional grid of pixels.

your eyes work the same way. They display a 3 dimensional image on a 2 dimensional display

>> No.4678749

If there are only nine dimensions. What happened to the 11th dimension You know super-gravity? , did they start grouping dimensions togather? Also, can someone tell me what the 5th dimension is? Thanks.

>> No.4678752

>>4678747

The fact it is represented on a two dimensional display doesn't mean we cannot perceive depth, though.

If we can perceive the length, height and depth of an object we can hardly say we're only perceiving two spatial dimensions.

>> No.4678753

Is 4th dimension d-box technology??

>> No.4678754

>>4678747

No. Without the brain you wouldn't be seeing shit, so trying to separate the mechanisms from the eye's cones and the brain is absolute shit to try and make a point.

If he wants to make a point that photoreceptors only retrieve images in 2d, then that's fine, but he's trying to stretch that to the entirety of viewing, which is wrong.

>> No.4678757

>>4678574
I don't get this thing about "all possible outcomes" and "all possible universes". Mind explaining?

Sorry I can't really into science tbh.

>> No.4678761

i solved p=np and the answer is 9 btw

>> No.4678764

>>4678739
Yes, I do understand that I was using a bad choice of a site. It wasn't really to 'back me up' so much as it was to explain it in different words, since I know that sometimes I'm bad at explaining things. Again, I apologize if using yahoo answers angered you, as that was not my intent.
Me and the answerer have two different definitions of 3D. He believes that if you can see in depth then you are seeing in 3D, which I agree is correct, however I also believe that if you truly saw in 3D then you would be seeing every side. In other words, let's say that you can see in 4D (I radical example, but stay with me). Obviously you wouldn't just be seeing one point of time, otherwise we could say that humans also see in 4D.
I believe a better word instead of 'perceiving' only 2D would be that we can only 'sense' 2D and below. Then our brains stack those two 2D images (much like how the new 3DS works) and gives us an illusion of 3D (though not truly seeing in 3D, since we don't see every side of an object. However, we now see depth).

>> No.4678767
File: 133 KB, 900x552, dim1-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678767

>>4678749

string theory is wrong.

>>4678757

I will spell it very slowly for you. stop me if you dont understand.

here are dimensions 1-3
these are the

>> No.4678769

>>4678574
What if I say that the 10th dimension is all possibilities of all possible multiverses?

>> No.4678771

>>4678757

It's pop-sci. A bunch of people that probably haven't actually done any math involved with M-Theory. They watch that 11-d youtube video and start to make idiotic assumptions based on the logic of the video instead of the actual field and knowledge contained therein.

>> No.4678772

>>4678757
Here is a youtube link that is following the same thought process as the other poster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

>> No.4678790
File: 134 KB, 333x500, 1336507963287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678790

>>4678749

>Implying all super gravity theories require 11 dimensions. 11 dimensions is the limit of dimensions in supergravity theories.

Only 9 dimensional sugra theories are taken seriously.

>> No.4678794
File: 109 KB, 900x900, dim 4-6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678794

>>4678771
dimensions 4-6

>>4678771
LHC has proven that theories with large extra dimensions are flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_extra_dimensions

>> No.4678807

just to clear something up, at the corner of a cube, you know how all 3 dimensions are at 90degree angles? well in 4D, there are 4 orthogonal dimensions.

so pictures like this are nonsense:
>>4678574

>> No.4678812

>>4678764

There's a huge difference between not being able to see all sides of 3d object and 4d object when viewing something. If a non-transparent tesseract and cube were floating in the air and we were able to stop time... I would be able to walk around and see all sides of the cube, whereas there would always be some sides of the tesseract impossible for me to see.

Having to see every side of a 3-d object from one angle of viewing seems like such a completely unnecessary rule. It's fine if you want to think this way, but entire fields have been built up on the foundation of certain criteria for dimensions, and yours isn't in line with that criteria.

So you have the option of attacking the grounding on thousands of years of assumptions made on arbitrary rules, or just accept that your paradigm of dimensions is just as arbitrary and hop over to the side that has already spent millenniums doing research and putting the issue to rest.

>> No.4678814

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Cool vid about that

>> No.4678827
File: 155 KB, 900x900, dim 7-9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678827

dim 7-9

>>4678807

this is a graphical simplification that makes it vastly easier to understand higher dimensions.

>> No.4678840

>>4678812
Ok, I'll change my standing and change my definition of 3D to only having to observe depth as well as length and width, but I'm still staying with my idea that we are only seeing an illusion of 3D since we're given two separate 2D images stacking on top of one another, albeit in practice the illusion is almost the exact same thing.
If you're willing to continue, I'm willing. I'm not purposefully ignoring everything you say and calling it incorrect, I'm just sticking with what makes more sense to me. Everything you said so far makes more sense than what I have said, thus I switched over for the most part. Is this fine, or is there reason to believe that what I restated in this post is also incorrect?

>> No.4678854

http://www.thebeatlesneverbrokeup.com/

>> No.4678865
File: 441 KB, 900x2235, dim 1-9 explained.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678865

and here is the explanation of why there are only 9 dimensions

>> No.4678889

>>4678840

This isn't exactly an argument that can be won. Like I said, this issue is completely based on arbitrary units. I attacked your original statement in hopes of saving some lurker /sci/entist who would eventually get into a curriculum that involved physics, from unneeded confused in his/her classroom when this issue is brought up.

>> No.4678891
File: 33 KB, 500x409, 1294936531847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678891

>>4678865

fukken saved

>> No.4678893

>>4678790
oh okay then. But then where dose gravity come from. I'm not really good at physics. I managed to slip by with a C in my intro to college Physics class. But I still love learning about it.

>> No.4678917

>>4678688
What did this image come from?

>> No.4678930

But these dimensions do not actually physically exist anywhere, right? They are just a mathematical expression of probability, yes?

>> No.4678932

Do ants experience reality in 3 dimensions or only 2?

>> No.4678935

>>4678930

does math physically exist anywhere?
same answer with the same reasoning.

>> No.4678936

>>4678889
>Argument
Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I just wanted to hear the other side so I could change my thoughts on the topic a bit, which in the end I did, so thanks. I hope I didn't confuse any student like you feared.

>> No.4678938

So, is this like meta-physics thread or something?

>> No.4678939

>>4678930

There has been no evidence to support the idea of spatial dimensions higher than three, correct.

>> No.4678952

>and 1 of time.
Is that true? I thought time was only an abstraction and doesn't actually exist as a dimension.

>> No.4678967

>>4678944
Prove that dimensions are "static and universal".

>> No.4678977

>>4678967

Prove that math is "static and universal"
same logic

>> No.4678980

>>4678962
What about FTL travel? Doesn't that make you move back in time in the frame from which you departed?

>> No.4678995
File: 24 KB, 251x236, 1295651563233.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678995

>>4678980

ftl travel is unnecessary.
simply travelling normal speed through higher dimensions is a better option.

>> No.4678997

>>4678977
It isn't.

>>4678979
Are you implying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

>> No.4679002

>>4678979

Since we're still hung up on singularities and probably will be for a while, we can flip-flop on whether it has an effect on the dimensions that it's apart of.

>> No.4679005

>>4678995
You can't move through "higher dimensions" of they do not exist.

>> No.4679009

>>4678998
Superlumal radio waves exist. Can't you technically send a signal backwards in time?

>> No.4679014

>>4679005
Then where does the matter that goes into black holes go?

>> No.4679016

Morning /sci/, if there are multiple dimensions in a sense as this >>4678814 video implies, does that mean that everything in a given universe and timeline is determined? I mean, if it wasn't, then our timeline would clash with another timeline for example, is it possible according to this theory for two exactly the same timelines or universes to exist simultaneously?

>> No.4679017

>>4679005

they do exist.

see: schroedinger's cat
quantum entanglement
etc

>> No.4679018

>>4679008
I didn't say there's reason to think so. I was merely pointing out that your claim of dimensions being "static and universal" was unscientific.

>> No.4679020

>>4679009

Source?

>> No.4679021

Why are dimensions thought to be integers?

>> No.4679022

>>4679016

yes they are determined but there are an infinite amount of predetermined universes so you dont know which one youre on

>> No.4679024

>>4678893
>>4678893

Comes from the same place as in 11 dimensional or 10 dimensional sugra theories. Gravitons. Without all that 11 dimensional 3 gauge field, p brain bullshit.

Like what was posted, 9 dimensions. contains all possible outcomes to al possible outcomes in all universes. So why would you need 11 dimensions?
)

>> No.4679026

>>4679021

give an example of a non-discrete dimension.
that's why

>> No.4679030

>>4679026
Sierpinski's triangle

>> No.4679034

>>4679024

you dont, physicists who created it just dont want to look like retards in their lifetime so we will have to wait till they die to make a better model.

>> No.4679036

>>4679030

how is that a non-discrete dimension?

>> No.4679041

>>4679036
I don't know if this explains it but I am too lazy to find a better link

http://icaruscalling.tumblr.com/post/22035393782/fuckyeahmolecularbiology-so-what-is-a-fractal

>> No.4679044

Is there any proof that randomness exist? Quantum level randomness? Or is this just a case of "we don't know, therefore (insert some made up nonsense like randomness") case?

>> No.4679051

>>4679044
ur mom

>> No.4679055

>>4679044

einstein was correct with his "paired glove" explanation of why quantum randomness and entanglement occurs.

stupid eggheads can't see into higher dimensions so they blame it on "spooky action"

dammit sometimes I wish I had done physics as my major so I could prove all these retards wrong.

>> No.4679060
File: 89 KB, 702x568, fc56948_1277659970104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679060

>>4679005
Wrong. You have to stop thinking of "dimensions" as "spaces" and think in mathematical terms instead.

Also, stop thinking of "lives"; that is just a convenient way to explain it to puny human minds, since we can understand the concept of linear events occurring in 3D space along 4D motion easily, by construing it as a "life". But a human life or human perspective is not the determining unit.

Think of the basic unit instead as the position of one subatomic particle, say an electron. In one "life", this electron makes the transition from one atom to the other when you pour a bit of magnesium into a bowl of water. And that is a 4D function; the electron moves directionally, and the reaction takes place in time. However, possibly, the electron could have jumped from the atom it landed around to an entirely different atom (ostensibly - let's not get into energy states here). Then, that would have been an alternate series of events. And instantly, we've gone up from 4D to 5D - from a strictly linear series of possible events, to a square of different events from that point.

>> No.4679062

>>4679044

lrn2quantumindeterminacy

It might be that we can gradually narrow the probability fields to the point where we can actually predict what's happening though.

>> No.4679077

You have to be trolling. In generally accepted theory, there are 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension. In string theory there are 11, and instead of space being on a space time grid, it's all on string thats so jumbled that it creates space, so instead of having 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t) to tell a position, we have 1 coordinate to tell where and when something was. Do some research on string theory, it's cool.

>> No.4679083

>>4679062
So, you're telling me that the only reason why we assume quantum world is random, is because we currently cannot predict anything with 100%? Confirming what I just said?

>> No.4679085
File: 72 KB, 400x300, 1332876055411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679085

>>4679077

>> No.4679090

>>4679077

string theory has been proven incorrect by the LHC

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp

for the real description of the dimensions and what they are , see this post: >>4678865

I've simplified the concepts so that even /b/ could understand it.

>> No.4679095

>>4679085
Trolling. Definitely trolling. Half of it seems like Wikipasta, half seems like misdirection.

>> No.4679107

>>4679083

We also have reasons for making the assumption that it may indeed actually be indeterministic.

Science is never 100%, as it uses inductive logic.

>> No.4679111

>>4679107
Then what are these reasons? Except the good, ol' "I don't know"?

>> No.4679116
File: 12 KB, 200x200, 1295822824069.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679116

>>4677541

>How many dimensions are there?

9

Proof: >>4678865

/thread

>> No.4679119

>>4679090
It didn't prove string theory incorrect, all it did was shown that it MIGHT be incorrect, it's still not a certainty.

>> No.4679133
File: 67 KB, 350x280, 1295742586440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679133

>>4679119

>the universe is made out of lots of very small strings.
>wtf am I reading
>mfw

fairly obvious that this is not the answer to the theory of everything. don't need to be a scientist to know that probably isnt correct.

>> No.4679136

>>4679133
>high schooler
>thinks he knows shit about science

>> No.4679146
File: 33 KB, 436x316, 1306628027286.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679146

>>4679136

> doesn't believe anything that isn't written in books
> doesn't question things that dont make sense
> believes he is actually intelligent.

>> No.4679164

>>4679146
>implying I BELIEVE in string theory and not simply discard it because it doesn't make sense at first sight
>implying I don't know enough about string theory to see why it's a valid theory
>Implying I don't question things
>Fucking creationist logic
Yes, I do believe I'm relatively intelligent, especially considering that the world is filled to brim with people like you.

>> No.4679181
File: 28 KB, 363x310, 1298440502464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679181

>>4679164

no my friend, the world is filled with people like YOU
people who don't think for themselves.
people who assume that since everybody believes something, it must be true.
people who think that they know more than everybody else.
you are one of these people that is keeping science from advancing.

>> No.4679209

>>4679133
There's some crazy new theory that matter is waves. I know right?!

>> No.4679244

>>4679181
If you're going to accuse me of something, then at least make sure that you know what you're on about instead of pulling out accusation from your ass.

>> No.4679409

>>4679014
It is integrated into the total mass of the singularity.

>>4679020
Pulsars emit superluminal radio waves. That's just one example of their occurrence.

>> No.4679909

bump, you pieces of shit