nerd topic: the ten dimensions

[downwithpants]

here's a flash that describes the ten dimensions as posed by string theory
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

it looks like dimensions follow a pattern of: line, split, fold with dimensions 1-3 through space, dimensions 4-6 through time, and dimensions 7-9 through initial conditions. the model is appealing. it attempts to explain not only space and time, but also probability, human perception, and causality. but at the same time, there is no evidence given supporting the model and im too lazy to read up anymore on it.

any physics nerds here? is the flash accurate? is there any proof supporting or contradicting the model of the dimensions? is there any substance to string theory or is it just speculative fodder for drug-influenced conversation?

[Minion]

the whole flash is theory. i'm personally not a believer.

theres no proof of there being a first or second demension. even a cartoon character on a piece of paper has some depth. that depth being how high up the lead is on the paper.
an atom, and the smallest portion of an atom we can imagine still has depth, and is thus still 3 demensional.

we have the understanding of what a second demension could be, and thats all. the second demension is only a thought. like the image in out minds of a cartoon playing on the tv.
we can think in 2 dementional objects, but thoughts and perception are not matter.


without there being a a REAL second demention, i find it hard to believe that there can be more demensions based off of time, variables (alternate realities), and so on to more complicated demensions.


WHEW!

[Otohiko]

I personally find that rather cool and, given sufficient evidence outside of a flash animation, I might well be converted. I'm not a physicist so I can't judge; though a lot of this is in line with my own views about the universe (which don't go as far, but I'd be willing to take them there).

[downwithpants]

theres no proof of there being a first or second demension. even a cartoon character on a piece of paper has some depth. that depth being how high up the lead is on the paper.
an atom, and the smallest portion of an atom we can imagine still has depth, and is thus still 3 demensional.

well hold on a second. doesn't every real object have duration? there's no such thing as a three dimensional object with no time dimension because it would have to exist for one split second then cease existing before the very next split second. thus, 3 dimensional objects aren't real or at least not perceiveable.

furthermore, no object has a predetermined future (well, we could argue this), so there's no such thing as a 4-dimensional object with no extension into the 5th dimension.... and so forth till you reach the 10th dimension.

[Kristyrat]

I saw this a while back, and I'm actually really tempted to get this book. As I see it, the whole, shortcut over a 2-d space made in 3-d, thus there needing to be a shortcut for 3-d space in 4-d seems pretty plausible, just maybe not our accessability to this shortcut. One neat extrapolation of this idea is a sculpture (forget the name or artist :X) of what a 4-d object's shadow would look like, since 4-d objects have 3-d shadows, as 3-d shadows have 2-d ones.

Another interesting offshoot of this, is the whole consideration of time. For all intents and purposes, time does not exist (imo), it's merely a creation of humans for organization. The world does not pass through time, there is no real past or future, so it is essentially impossible to travel through time, but perhaps possible to travel to time, if one was to consider the possibility of multiple universe and the theory of events as a river flow, rather than a simple line from point A to point B.

But this is where things start to ride towards the philosophical rather than the more or less concrete realm of physics. Just some food for thought I suppose

[Kristyrat]

[Minion]

time does not exist (imo), it's merely a creation of humans for organization.

this is what i believe.
and it would debunk most of the improbably theories, since most of the really crazy ones have time somehow linked to it.

for instance, einstein believed that if 2 people got in seperate rockets, and traveled around the earth in opposite directions near the speed of light; that time would be moving faster for one of them. at a crazy rate too. like, one would be 8 years old while the other is turning 70.

and i think that theory is bullshit, and means nothing if time doesn't exist.

[Fall_Child42]

All math is theoretical to a point. It is completely based on axioms that are impossible to proove, and require a certain amount of faith.

[godix]

While I don't want to join the 'science is bad' group I will point out that the string theory violates one of the most basic aspects of science. Does it predict anything observable? According to the theory, no it doesn't. There isn't a single test or observation about our universe which can prove or disprove it. I mean at least Einstein had the whole starlight bent during an eclipse thing. It took awhile for us to be able to observe it, but his theories had a way to prove/disprove them. String theory? Nada. I don't demand proof right now to believe scientist might be right but it'd be nice to know that somewhere along the line there's a chance to get proof. So we have a complex belief about how the universe works that makes no predictions and has no chance of ever being proven wrong. That ain't science, that's a religion. Although a very unusual one in this case.

[Minion]

you don't know the history of science. i do

lets ask xenu

[guy07]

/me head spins
Thats some deep shit right there. I understand about half of it : /
question: this does 10 dimensions, i didn't read the whole thing but does it state that there are only 10 dimensions or can dimensions be infiniate? I wonder ...