How the universe could possibly have more dimensions

[Admin]

String theory is a purported theory of everything that physicists hope will one day explain … everything.

How the universe could possibly have more dimensions : Read more

 

[punktyras]

sting theory→string theory

 

[rod]

String theory is a purported theory of everything that physicists hope will one day explain … everything.

How the universe could possibly have more dimensions : Read more

Quite a report and interesting 2:46 video from Paul Sutter. The report made some interesting comments.

"With further mathematical insight, it was found that the extra six spatial dimensions needed in string theory have to be wrapped up in a particular set of configurations, known as Calabi-Yao manifolds after two prominent physicists. But there isn't one unique manifold that's allowed by sting theory. There's around 10^200,000. It turns out that when you need six dimensions to curl up on themselves, and give them almost any possible way to do it, it … adds up. That's a lot of different ways to wrap those extra dimensions in on themselves. And each possible configuration will affect the ways the strings inside them vibrate. Since the ways that strings vibrate determine how they behave up here in the macroscopic world, each choice of manifold leads to a distinct universe with its own set of physics. So only one manifold can give rise to the world as we experience it. But which one? Unfortunately, string theory can't give us an answer, at least not yet. The trouble is that string theory isn't done — we only have various approximation methods that we hope get close to the real thing, but right now we have no idea how right we are. So we have no mathematical technology for following the chain, from specific manifold to specific string vibration to the physics of the universe. The response from string theorists is something called the Landscape, a multiverse of all possible universes predicted by the various manifolds, with our universe as just one point among many. And that's where string theory sits today, somewhere on the Landscape."

The math of string theory leads to a *multiverse*. I have other reports in cosmology that shows the multiverse contains 1E+500 or more different universes and now I see 1E+200,000 Calabi-Yao manifolds in the report. The video indicated problems continue with quantum gravity used in quantum mechanics called loop quantum gravity with gravitons. Apparently each universe that evolves in string theory can have its own unique set of physicals laws or likely no natural laws operating.

In astronomy I enjoy using my telescopes to observer Jupiter and the Galilean moons. Well predicted events take place at Jupiter like Io eclipses and transits. In the heliocentric solar system, Kepler's laws (elliptical orbits), Newton gravity, laws of motion, predict those events accurately and are verifiable using telescopes. It seems someone in a multiverse could live in a geocentric solar system then, but verifying this looks difficult . Presently, astronomical observations showing the multiverse is true like the debate between geocentric astronomy vs. heliocentric astronomy where the geocentric teachers were falsified, is a work in progress.

So here is my bottom line. The heliocentric solar system is more verifiable than the multiverse with 1E+500 or more different universes and now I read about 1E+200,000 Calabi-Yao manifolds. Very interesting math and physics developed to explain the origin of our universe. The model(s) seem to have a long way to go before they meet the science testing standards used in the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate in astronomy. I enjoyed this report because I can see more details then past reports I read about string theory. I am of the school in science - publish the report showing warts and all

 

[William Pennat]

Riddle me this. The extra dimensions of string theory are themselves supposed to be very very small. But this means those dimensions also have a size relative to the three ordinary spatial dimensions. Not sure that makes a lot of sense, given the definition of "dimension". Time is a dimension and time does not have any "spatial size". That's what dimension means, a fundamental way of measuring some aspect of existence. But if that measurement itself has a spatial measurement, how fundamental is that. The other problem with string theory is that it strikes me as basically unverifiable. (Not to say that it violates Occam's razor big time.) Plus there doesn't seem to have been a whole lot of progress in this area in the last couple of decades. A lot of highly ingenious mathematical thinking has obviously gone into the whole theory and I think this is a lot of its attraction.

 

[LijeBaley]

Einstein's General Relativity made specific, testable (these days) predictions. And so far General Relativity has proven correct every time. None of the new theories can or have been confirmed through experimentation or observation. It's all math at this point, speculation. I don't even know the data being used to justify a theory to explain it. I understand the goal is to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics in a grand theory of everything but the Quantum side has not progressed vey much at all so far.

 

[jayh]

Considering that the Universe as we know it represents only one living entity, there are probably many billions of other Universes that are unknown to us. Of course our Universe is in contact with them just like we are in contact with other people. We are each a "universe" unto ourselves.

 

[Anonymous010]

So there are parts to this that I don't agree with.

First, the statement that we would've noticed extra dimensions by now if they existed. I'm not sure that's true - after all, the ancient Greeks thought the same thing about stellar parallax (they thought that they'd have seen it if it was there, so the Earth had to be the center of the universe). We see the universe in a very specific way because we have a subjective view of space and time. We can't even visualize how to put a fourth axis on a standard Cartesian grid, so how would we even know what we are looking for when it comes to extra dimensions, and how could we be sure we'd recognize it if we saw it?

Second, the bit about the extra dimensions being very small seems like an unnecessary extra complication. Why would these extra dimensions be so tiny while x,y,z and t are not? Yes, the math works out if you do this, but that could just as easily be a red herring. Physical evidence is very much needed.

 

[Bigrob215275]

Scientists can ONLY explain 4-6% of this unique Universe and then they want to suggest 11 dimensions and or multiple universes. Their atheistic religion is looking like a Hale-Bopp justification of foolishness. The problem is because they are scientists, everybody, bows in obeisance to their presumed intelligence and supposed reason and logic. They are NOT gods and in fact, most scientists and the science they support are found to need correction by future scientists.

 

[C. R. MacCluer]

We already live in more than three spatial dimensions. General Relativity takes place in a locally three-dimensional differential manifold that is observed to have more than three actual spatial dimensions, as verified by the precession of Mercury, GPS errors, or the famous observations during eclipses. It is very misleading to assert, as the author does at the outset, that we know only four dimensions --- that view belongs to the warm up exercise of special relativity. Space is curved near mass.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Considering that the Universe as we know it represents only one living entity, there are probably many billions of other Universes that are unknown to us. Of course our Universe is in contact with them just like we are in contact with other people. We are each a "universe" unto ourselves.

As Above so Below. The ancients knew this long before these University driven scientist are trying to figure it out. I find it interesting that only science is finding out now what the Ancients new long long ago and taught in the mystery schools.

 

[Truthseeker007]

On a guitar are 12 frets. 12 dimensions of how the strings can be played. On the 12th fret it starts over just on higher octaves working up to 22-24 frets. So I would think guitar string theory isn't much different then well string theory.lol! So it would be my estimate that their are 12 dimensions. Especially since in most ancient writings 12 is an important number. We are in the 3rd dimension at the moment.

 

[punktyras]

sting theory→string theory

 

[Bigrob215275]

We already live in more than three spatial dimensions. General Relativity takes place in a locally three-dimensional differential manifold that is observed to have more than three actual spatial dimensions, as verified by the precession of Mercury, GPS errors, or the famous observations during eclipses. It is very misleading to assert, as the author does at the outset, that we know only four dimensions --- that view belongs to the war

 

[Bigrob215275]

C.R>MacCluer you do not seem to understand 3-dimensional Geometry. All your examples exist within 3-dimensional space, and Time is the only added dimension to 3-dimensional space. The SPECULATIONS of Strings and 10 or 11-dimensional space and Multi-Universes are totally unfounded and ridiculous spit-balling. Scientists only understand 4-6% of the Universe.

 

[egribble]

Scientists can ONLY explain 4-6% of this unique Universe and then they want to suggest 11 dimensions and or multiple universes. Their atheistic religion is looking like a Hale-Bopp justification of foolishness. The problem is because they are scientists, everybody, bows in obeisance to their presumed intelligence and supposed reason and logic. They are NOT gods and in fact, most scientists and the science they support are found to need correction by future scientists.

 

[egribble]

What you have explained is the nature of science. Scientists simply put forward hypothesis to explain what they observe. These hypothesis are testable and enable our technology. Scientists are fully aware that every theory put forward may be incorrect, however, how can society advance if we reject every testable hypothesis?

 

[Bigrob215275]

What you have explained is the nature of science. Scientists simply put forward hypothesis to explain what they observe. These hypothesis are testable and enable our technology. Scientists are fully aware that every theory put forward may be incorrect, however, how can society advance if we reject every testable hypothesis?

 

[Bigrob215275]

Scientists have gotten to the point that there are no testable hypothesizes which are reasonable. String theory, for instance, would require a telescope so large it would be larger than the Earth and then that is only speculative. The fact that No additional dimensions have been observed makes scientific theorizing for 10 or 11 dimensions or a multi-universe, ludicrous. There is no evidence for such speculation and the use of mathematics can be made to visualize nearly anything you can imagine if you insert variables designed to create your vision. Many so-called geniuses of science have made predictions completely proven ridiculous but their standing kept science in the dark for generations because scientists blindly followed. Eventually, a scientist or two, come along to challenge the authorities and make great discoveries like DNA, the true nature of the solar system center, or vaccine efficacy, but until then science is held back by foolhardy sheep following ludicrous ideas in bad science.

 

[rod]

FYI, last night I enjoyed some great views of Venus before, and after sunset, lovely clear, cold skies. I used two telescopes testing the optics, a 90-mm refractor and 10-inch Newtonian reflector (both provided great views, the 10-inch much brighter and easier to see some cloud bands using a blue filter). Shortly after sunset (29 minutes), more stars were visible in the 10-inch field of view but both telescopes showed a brighter star near Venus. Epsilon Pisces about 35' angular separation from Venus. Venus was near 0.939 a.u. distance from Earth when I viewed, the star near 182 light-years distance based upon stellar parallax.

Bottom line. I do not see published ephemeris tables for Venus using String theory or quantum gravity, that predicts the position and phases of Venus that will be viewed using telescopes, a critical piece of testing during the geocentric vs. heliocentric solar system debates. The math used to explain the origin of the universe and what existed before the Big Bang (multiverse) that presently no telescope can see. It does not appear that a practical application for basic astronomy observing is offered for testing. If I were to ask what does String theory predict or demonstrate concerning the space between Venus in the eyepiece and the star, Epsilon Pisces last night I viewed, what would it be that could be readily tested?

 

[Bigrob215275]

FYI, last night I enjoyed some great views of Venus before, and after sunset, lovely clear, cold skies. I used two telescopes testing the optics, a 90-mm refractor and 10-inch Newtonian reflector (both provided great views, the 10-inch much brighter and easier to see some cloud bands using a blue filter). Shortly after sunset (29 minutes), more stars were visible in the 10-inch field of view but both telescopes showed a brighter star near Venus. Epsilon Pisces about 35' angular separation from Venus. Venus was near 0.939 a.u. distance from Earth when I viewed, the star near 182 light-years distance based upon stellar parallax.

Bottom line. I do not see published ephemeris tables for Venus using String theory or quantum gravity, that predicts the position and phases of Venus that will be viewed using telescopes, a critical piece of testing during the geocentric vs. heliocentric solar system debates. The math used to explain the origin of the universe and what existed before the Big Bang (multiverse) that presently no telescope can see. It does not appear that a practical application for basic astronomy observing is offered for testing. If I were to ask what does String theory predict or demonstrate concerning the space between Venus in the eyepiece and the star, Epsilon Pisces last night I viewed, what would it be that could be readily tested?

 

[Bigrob215275]

Wow, how smart and fortunate you are but totally irrelevant to my post . Theories, Postulates, and ideas are supposed to be testable. String, Multi dimensions and Multi Universes are NOT, and Not testable in the foreseeable future.

 

[rod]

*totally irrelevant to my post*, and I say but not to the article report. I am told the multiverse contains at least 1E+500 different universes (I have very good sources to back this up), string theory could have 6-11 dimensions, and 1E+200,000 Calabi-Yao manifolds according to the article. I provided the space distances between Earth, Venus, and the star Epsilon Pisces when I viewed using my telescopes, so this is relevant. String theory at the present did not provide a specific observation test for these very specific distances that can be tested to show I was looking through 6-11 different dimensions or I was sitting in one of 1E+500 different universes in the multiverse while using my telescopes. However, in cosmology, string theory can be used to explain the origin of the universe via naturalistic, cosmic evolutionary processes that are no longer working between Earth, Venus, and Epsilon Pisces star I viewed. I understand the *science* now.