Extra Dimensions

[Original Poster]

M Theory suggests there are 11 dimensions. How could this be possible, and what is it they're referring to? Rather than consider changes in states of consciousness to be literal transportation through dimensions I consider them to be modes of perception where more dimensions can be understood which are imperceptible with a segregated state of consciousness (waking state). Much like how a brain projects a flat image into our minds and only through movement of either ourselves our world are we able to understand space-time, we can only understand extra dimensions by perceiving new forms of movement and new relationships between points. Imagine two eyes of zero dimensional value staring at each other. By itself the line between them contains one dimension but if we include a third point, perception takes on two dimensions because each point can form a triangle with the other two and perceive a plane. We can also include the dimension of movement/time for the same effect because each point will perceive a past and present opposite point creating the same triangle. If you include both movement and a third point or include at least four points, the three points can compare their movement or the four points can compare each other's positions enabling them to comprehend space-time. However, from there it does not matter how many objects are in view, their relationship changes do not present us with any more measurable qualities other than space-time. At least in our waking state. Defining a dimension as Movement or Distance between various points does not represent reality but rather represents our ability to measure reality with the eye alone. The universe may have more ways of measuring movement and distance just not from the perception of the eye. Perhaps when objects interact in an abstract sense, we are dismissing forms of movement as abstract that may contain dimensional values. Perhaps when we dream these dimensional values are perceptible. Or perhaps these extra dimensions are contained within our psyches and can be measured through psychological change. Perhaps there is a dimensional value to measure the transformation between such polarities as strangers and intimate friends or love and fear.

[Xei]

I don't think there are any philosophical implications of M-Theory, other than the fact (which is accessed by other means) that human intuition is only local rather than representing some kind of a priori truth, and that there seems to be a strongly abstract mathematical basis for the universe. The extra dimensions are just formalism. They don't mean anything, they're just consistent with a hypothetical generalisation. For a physicist the difference between 3D and 4D is just (x,y,z) and (x,y,z,w); just symbols. The mind is based on 3 spacial dimensions and a time dimension and that is all we'll ever have meaningful access to. It seems to me that almost all of these discussions come from misuse of words. Dimension is very often abused, meaning at least three different things: the mathematical dimensions of a space (which is what it means in M-theory), alternate dimensions as a slang for alternative universes (as in a multiverse or the quantum interpretation), and finally the whole spiritual 'planes of being' thing. They have nothing to do with one another; it's just a homonym of human construction. There's no truth here. I mean, why does nobody ever of the philosophical implications of, for example, E8, which may be the symmetry group of the universe? It's just as abstract and formal as dimensions.

[Wayfaerer]

I don't think we know enough about space and time to even completely trust our current use of dimensions, let alone start adding more with the same process. If space is expanding at every point, would a 3 dimensional Cartesian coordinate system make sense anywhere?

[Xei]

Depends what you mean, but an inflating universe is basically a property of GM, and GM doesn't use Cartesian axes. I could do a course in this next term, but I don't think I'm going to.

[Wayfaerer]

Hm, what do you mean by GM?

[Xei]

General Relativity.

[Wayfaerer]

Why the M? I guess I just want to grasp how there can be directions with permanent relative positions to each other that would define the 3 spacial dimensions when space is always constantly being created and dynamical.

[Xei]

Why the M? I dun goofed. I guess I just want to grasp how there can be directions with permanent relative positions to each other that would define the 3 spacial dimensions when space is always constantly being created and dynamical. Well you could picture some points in standard Cartesian axes, and then replacing the coordinates with double their initial values. This would resemble the 'creation of space' whilst maintaining three fixed dimensions. But the full answer is much more complex and mathematical; and like I said I don't intend to study it.

[Wayfaerer]

Ha yeah, it would be like the coordinate system itself would have to be some weird function lol Do you plan on studying something else?

[Xei]

Well I'm studying mathematics, and geometry is one of the possible courses next term... this is geometry in the technical sense of alternate geometries, including differential geometry which is the basis of general relativity. It sounds interesting and maybe I'll read it over the summer, but I'm simply too busy next term doing courses closer to my interests. Theoretical physics is pretty much the one subject that I can firmly say will have no relevance to what I want to do... that along with really pure maths like topology.

[Wayfaerer]

That's funny because that's all I want to do lol Mathematics in itself is a fascinating subject and honestly mystifies me as to what it actually is or is uncovering, but I plan to only go into it as far as physical ideas require lol

[Xei]

For a really good grounding, certainly for theoretical physics, I'd say you essentially do need a degree in mathematics. Probably 75% of the stuff I've done I'd say would be pretty important for a mathematical physicist to know.

[Original Poster]

I don't think there are any philosophical implications of M-Theory, other than the fact (which is accessed by other means) that human intuition is only local rather than representing some kind of a priori truth, and that there seems to be a strongly abstract mathematical basis for the universe. The extra dimensions are just formalism. They don't mean anything, they're just consistent with a hypothetical generalisation. For a physicist the difference between 3D and 4D is just (x,y,z) and (x,y,z,w); just symbols. The mind is based on 3 spacial dimensions and a time dimension and that is all we'll ever have meaningful access to. It seems to me that almost all of these discussions come from misuse of words. Dimension is very often abused, meaning at least three different things: the mathematical dimensions of a space (which is what it means in M-theory), alternate dimensions as a slang for alternative universes (as in a multiverse or the quantum interpretation), and finally the whole spiritual 'planes of being' thing. They have nothing to do with one another; it's just a homonym of human construction. There's no truth here. I mean, why does nobody ever of the philosophical implications of, for example, E8, which may be the symmetry group of the universe? It's just as abstract and formal as dimensions. I have to disagree. If 11 dimensions are required for a universal theory then that means that you can't simply imagine a w axis for the sake of the theory, it means that w axis is a fundamental part of reality. We just can't perceive it. As far "states of being" goes I think you very much misinterpreted what I said because one of my first statements was that they are not the extra dimensions in themselves but rather they allow us to perceive the extra dimensions. Though I am open to the idea that the change that occurs to our consciousness as we experience different states of being may be a change along one of these new axes.

[Xei]

Yes the w axis is a part of reality; I just don't think that has any human or philosophical implications whatsoever. I mean, would it mean anything different to you if there were 12 dimensions? That is the point I am trying to express. It is just a piece of mathematics, you can't deduce anything interesting from it, and you don't personally interact with it. And even if you did it wouldn't mean anything, any more than interacting with the 3 spacial dimensions which we do perceive means anything particularly interesting (as opposed to if we interacted with 2 or 4). Obviously we'd have different experiences, but we'd have different experiences if we lived on the other side of the world or if we could hear frequencies lower than 20Hz... neither of these things would have philosophical implications as such.

[Original Poster]

Yes the w axis is a part of reality; I just don't think that has any human or philosophical implications whatsoever. I mean, would it mean anything different to you if there were 12 dimensions? That is the point I am trying to express. It is just a piece of mathematics, you can't deduce anything interesting from it, and you don't personally interact with it. And even if you did it wouldn't mean anything, any more than interacting with the 3 spacial dimensions which we do perceive means anything particularly interesting (as opposed to if we interacted with 2 or 4). Obviously we'd have different experiences, but we'd have different experiences if we lived on the other side of the world or if we could hear frequencies lower than 20Hz... neither of these things would have philosophical implications as such. I consider this to be very dismissive. If you don't even understand what kind of new depth these objects are able to take on with extra dimensions then how can you be sure they have no value?

[Xei]

Which objects?

[Original Poster]

The only way we're able to perceive three dimensional space-time is by tracking movement and measuring relationships between locations. Segregated perception is locked into a series of still, 2-dimensional imagery from which it must infer a 3 dimensional, flowing universe. In other words the perception of space-time requires points of reference to be in specific locations in order to to clue the perceiver in on the new axis. For perception to conceive of two dimensions, it must find a reference point outside of a straight line. For perception to understand space, it must find a new reference point outside the plane. For perception to understand time it must be able to note change, implying the dimension of age. You can claim that there's no philosophical relationship in life but guess what? I don't believe you. I believe there are many kinds of depth but the only way to understand them is to have the motivation to travel through them and the awareness to observe the change that occurs.

[Xei]

The only way we're able to perceive three dimensional space-time is by tracking movement and measuring relationships between locations. Segregated perception is locked into a series of still, 2-dimensional imagery from which it must infer a 3 dimensional, flowing universe. In other words the perception of space-time on points of reference to be in specific locations in order to to clue the perceiver in on the new axis. For perception to conceive of two dimensions, it must find a reference point outside of a straight line. For perception to understand space, it must find a new reference point outside the plane. For perception to understand it must be able to note change, implying the dimension of age. Okay? You can claim that there's no philosophical relationship in life I don't understand what you're saying but it doesn't seem to be anything I have said. I believe there are many kinds of depth Yes, the word 'depth' is a homonym, well done. I have only been talking about one specific meaning of the word, which is spacial depth. Please stop conflating what I have been talking about with something I have not been talking about.

[Original Poster]

Why are you being so pouty? I'm trying to describe things we have not yet invented terminology for. I'm obviously not referring to spatial depth by the word depth unless I'm talking about depth in the spatial dimension. I used depth to convey distance between reference points on an axis.

[Wayfaerer]

Omnis, I'm not sure I follow what your talking about, but all that just made it seem like it really is just mathematics. One of your points seemed to be that 2-Dimensions infers a 3rd, but when's the last time you saw something with length, width, but no height in reality? For a really good grounding, certainly for theoretical physics, I'd say you essentially do need a degree in mathematics. Probably 75% of the stuff I've done I'd say would be pretty important for a mathematical physicist to know. Yeah, they do seem to inevitably overlap. Good thing my current degree is in mathematics, figure it would lead to the same place.

[Original Poster]

Omnis, I'm not sure I follow what your talking about, but all that just made it seem like it really is just mathematics. One of your points seemed to be that 2-Dimensions infers a 3rd, but when's the last time you saw something with length, width, but no height in reality? Please read carefully. Reality gains spatial depth through interaction of multiple points of reference, whether 3 points of reference change through time or 4 points of reference exist outside the same plane. What I am talking about is not mathematics but perception. The eye flattens the world in the mind, so in answer to your question, I cannot perceive depth without movement therefore I perceive plenty with width and height but I've only ever inferred depth. In the same way, multiple axes can also be inferred by noting change through time along other axes besides width, height or spatial depth.

[Wayfaerer]

I don't think it's solely dependent on perception, we perceive what we do with photons, which came from places of relative depth whether we perceive it that way or not. I don't think the time dimension naturally follows with this reasoning either, it seems to be more of a unique connection Einstein figured out because of the invariant speed of light.

[Original Poster]

I don't think it's solely dependent on perception, we perceive what we do with photons, which came from places of relative depth whether we perceive it that way or not. I don't think the time dimension naturally follows with this reasoning either, it seems to be more of a unique connection Einstein figured out because of the invariant speed of light. What reasoning are you getting at exactly? I'm not trying to figure out the steps. I'm trying to explain that just because we cannot perceive multiple dimensions does not mean they're not there, but rather if we use the qualities with which we are able to perceive dimensional space in the first place we can further infer what the axes of these multiple dimensions are. Space and Time are one universe. just two axes to judge the universe by. Photons hit our eyes from various depths but they hit the same flat surface of the eye pupil and so our perception of 3D space-time is flattened. We use movement to find reference points outside this flat plane (ie we shift our heads and see its really 3D not 2D). In the same way, if you shift your head through other axes other than just width, height and depth, you can perceive the extra dimensions.

[Xei]

But you can't shift your head through other axes. The macroscopic universe is 3D.

[Original Poster]

But you can't shift your head through other axes. The macroscopic universe is 3D. Your argument has been exactly the same for this whole thread. I'm getting a little sick of it. Try to apply some thought. This thread is not a thread asking for Xei's infallible opinion about the universe. Your opinion is fucking garbage because you don't bother considering possibilities, you just regurgitate cynical axioms without thought or intelligence. I've responded to this point enough already so if you can't even bother trying to wrap your head around extra dimensions just go away.