/sci/ - Science & Math

interesting
but useless nonetheless

>>3034787

Not often you can say that about something. OP is to be commended!

Well...

It's an interesting theory I suppose. Is it based in anything?

Is this dimensions as understood in string theory, or just some shit OP crapped out?

Why thank you *bow*

This youtube video the 10 dimensions explained had the basis of this

>>3034828

OP I'm glad that you took the initiative to make this, but that video is pop-sci shit.

Ehh.... Fair enough, was intended for a s sci-fi class anyways. Just assumed it had more accuracy.

thats wrong you fucking moron. the string theory dimensions are spatial, not temporal, and even if they were temporal it's juvenile to assume multiple time dimensions are just "divisions of possibility" because that doesn't correspond to anything in the physical world

remember what a dimension is: a parameter necessary to specify where something is. if we assume that branching quantum phenomena (this is the only candidate for "possibility" i'm aware of) necessitate new dimensions, then we need a new dimension for each quantum phenomenon rather than any set number of them. nothing coherently links "possibility" to "temporal dimension"

>>3034956
nah, a dimension is just a geometers way to masturbate.

Looks like you shit out a bunch of derp about spectrum and probabilities in a misguided attempt to look deep.

>>3034956
>>3034966

Dimensions in string theory are just a way for mathematicians to give their equations more 'slack'. You can prove anything if you give you math enough 'space'.

So what are you saying, does that mean the 4th dimension is not time? You said a dimension was a further phenomena not a set of properties.

>>3034737
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS FUCKING NONSENSE AND FUCKING MEANINGLESS.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING SUCH BULLSHIT FROM?

>>3035001
>thanks godel

>>3035006

Time is not a spatial dimension. Whenever they refer to it in physics it's usually referred to as 3 + 1.

>>3034737

OP doesn't know the difference between Euclidean and Minkowski space and some bullshit he probably saw in a youtube video.

>>3034737
>Is this correct?

No. It is nice to see a very very young person interested in advanced mathematics and theortical physics, however all you are doing is misinterpreting nonsense.

This is not string theory, in any sense. I don't know where you are getting such bad information from, but you should stop. FAUX News is not a valid source of information.

>>3035006

When we refer to the 3 dimensions length, width, depth... we're referring to spatial dimensions. In physics they usually say 3 + 1 dimensions as in 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimensions. It sounds odd trying to say time is the 4th dimension when you've shown the previous dimensions to be spatial. It's like making a list:

Banana
Cherry
Orange
Chair

Sorry, but this is pseudo-science bullshit.

When string theorists refer to the 10 or 11 dimensions, they're referring to spacial dimensions, only three of which we can actively perceive.

Oh, jesus. Okay. So. Let's review what a "dimension" is.

Sometimes we need a certain amount of information to accurately describe some object. For example, we might say, "Bananas are yellow, delicious, and cheap." "Plums are purple, yummy, and moderately priced." The dimensions in both of these are "color, taste, price." The descriptions are THREE-dimensional.

Similarly, if you wanted to talk about a point on the earth, you might want to tell us the longitude and latitude. Two pieces of information, so TWO dimensional. But if you were in an airplane, you might want to tell us your altitude, too! That's THREE-dimensions now.

When physicists say they need tons of dimensions for things, it's not necessarily SPACIAL (that is, where do these things lie in the universe around us?) but also qualitative (that is, what does this do compared to other things?).

Having said this, let's critique your chart. The first three are the standard Euclidean space. Adding the 4th gives us what is commonly called space-time or Minkowski Space (a name you will hear over and over if you ever take functional analysis). This is all fine.

Then you get to the 5th. This represents "possibilities" of the present; but howso? If you are referring to some sort of past-present multiverse thing, then this is slightly out of place. The 6th is similar; how does this "dimension" give us information?

What I mean is the following. Let's consider two things with the same first 4 dimensions and different 5th dimension.

(x,y,z,3pm, _____)
(x,y,z,3pm, _____)

So these things are at the same place, the same time. Is your 5th dimension saying that, say, something happens in one universe that does not happen in another? Or am I misinterpreting this?

Either way, regardless of interpretation, the 7th and 8th are redundant (the 7th is contained in the 8th) and the 9th is just the universal set of the 8th. The 10th makes no sense, as it is actually a thing, not a description.

I can't really say if you're accurate unless you clear this stuff up.

I guess what mixed me up was that the whole concempt was being displayed with the idea of folding dimensions. Granted that all may be bull shit as well. Thought it to have more validity than I thought.

Pop-sci bullshit.
>hurr durr if we fold time we can wormhole and become type xenu civilisation
Nth dimesions are spatial dimensions.

Could someone explain to me what it should look like or is it such a concept that can't be diagramed in such a simple manner?

I gotcha, must have just screwed it all up.


Also is this guy full of crap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

>>3035409
lrn2 calabi-yau space