Explain the 11th dimension to me

[HeavenLord]

Time isn't really the 4th dimension, more like a direction. You can also look at the 4th as a spatial dimension. This really didn't help me at all with understanding how the 11th would function though. I guess I was right with thinking it would imply some sort of god perspective? I mean it would need to be removed from "existence" to be able to look "down" at everything else.

God or religion should not be involved with any explanations in the dimensions, its irrational. Like Sythe said, mathematical equations and formulas are used to explain each dimension with a new factor coming in every new dimension.

 

[Alternative Illusion]

... How is it irrational? The 11th dimensional perspective would BE god from what I can tell, and if I'm wrong (which is what I'm asking), what is it?

 

[FreedomFight]

... How is it irrational? The 11th dimensional perspective would BE god from what I can tell, and if I'm wrong (which is what I'm asking), what is it?

What if it doesn't exist?

And this argument to assert god exists is just stupid, dimensions are defined by parameters, a parameter doesn't define a dimension.

This isn't science, its more like a mathematical religion.

I disagree that we should disregard its possibilities just because the empirical evidence as it stands is lacking. Science is a culmination of theories where the best one will eventually come out on top...

It would be bad practice in science to completely disregard other theories or invest into one single theory (such as string theory) until complete evidence provided, but it's not bad practice to explore different methodologies of explaining the same phenomenon.

 

I disagree that we should disregard its possibilities just because the empirical evidence as it stands is lacking. Science is a culmination of theories where the best one will eventually come out on top...

It's not just that empirical evidence is entirely lacking, it's that the theory itself is self-contradictory. It contradicts causality, which it relies on in order to exist in the first place. Quantum mechanics has the same problem. Both theories are logically incorrect. And we know that logic is derived from reality, so anything that is logically incorrect must also be incorrect in real terms.

It would be bad practice in science to completely disregard other theories or invest into one single theory (such as string theory) until complete evidence provided, but it's not bad practice to explore different methodologies of explaining the same phenomenon.

It would be bad practice in science, if you can even call this science, to construct a theory about the world using a misapplication of spacial geometry, or any theory which is overly complex (occams razor) with no reason to be so.

In otherwords, a hypothesis should be constructed to fit the empirical evidence. Science starts with what is, not what 'might be'.

 

[DylanAn]

I am confused as to why they can come up with stuff after the 4th dimension by mentioning time, how can you "fold" time?

It just sounds like "Theorizing in the dark."


EDIT:


If the 10th dimension has all infinities for all possible universes, how can there possibly be an 11th dimension?

If you COULD view the 10th dimension from the 11th dimension, you would in my theory, be looking at you looking into the 10th dimension.

If you tried to fold thw 11th dimension, what the HELL would you get?

If you tried to view the 11th dimension from a 12th dimension, could you be possibly looking at you looking at the 10th dimension?

If the 11th dimension is possible, are not an infinite amounts, seeing as 10 should eb the logical end?
BUT, seeing as there could be an infinite amount, would not the 10th dimension be completely filled with the infinities from every single one?


Discuss.
It is 3AM, be easy, to a time for me to be thinking.


Posted a thread on another site for more discussion.

 

[FreedomFight]

I am confused as to why they can come up with stuff after the 4th dimension by mentioning time, how can you "fold" time?

It just sounds like "Theorizing in the dark."

Just because you can't visualize doesn't mean it's impossible, or that scientists (who know much better than you do) are theorizing in the dark. You must also keep in mind that the youtube video posted is a much simplified version of scientific definition.

Yes, we have exceeded the point where our techonology is unable to test every hypothesis, and we therefore only have observational studies to relate to. It's already a well known premise that SPACE and TIME can be bent.

M-theory/Supergravity accounts for a 11th dimension, where I will not pretend to understand wat it means.

 

[FreedomFight]

It's not just that empirical evidence is entirely lacking, it's that the theory itself is self-contradictory. It contradicts causality, which it relies on in order to exist in the first place.

I'm sorry, but your going to have to point out how the theories are contradictory (or link me to a reference where I can read up on it). I know that the gap between quantam physics and large-scale physics has been a gap that scientists have been trying to bridge for a while, but I'm not sure what else you mean.

As I see it, it's the other way around - String theory makes logical sense, but is perhaps overly complex, and has no testable hypothesis as it stands.

It would be bad practice in science, if you can even call this science, to construct a theory about the world using a misapplication of spacial geometry, or any theory which is overly complex (occams razor) with no reason to be so.

By spacial geometry, do you mean Euclidian geometry? Because we are way beyond that...

I'd also point out that the electric universe theory is:
1. Not flawless.
2. Not neccesarily contradicatary.
3. Not testable (with modern technique).

If anything, we have observed a combination of theories over the years (particle and wave physics) for example, after each hypothesis becomes more and more testable.

 

[Alternative Illusion]

I don't really see the 4th dimension as time. For a 2d being, time may appear to be the 3rd dimension. We move around in 3d so we can figure out pretty quickly that the 3rd isn't time, so we pushed that to the 4th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw
^4th spatial dimension

And we know that logic is derived from reality, so anything that is logically incorrect must also be incorrect in real terms.

You assume that logic that applies in this universe in 3d terms would apply in other universes or from other-dimensional perspectives. There is no reason to think this would be the case. You're just guessing.

"This isn't science, its more like a mathematical religion."
^I didn't say this just for the record. FreedomFight quoted me.


There is an 11th dimension basically because the math requires it. Read up on how the string theory people found that adding an 11th dimension unified the 5 different theories they had to a single... thing. The super gravity and string theory people both found that there were indeed 11 and not 10. This 11th dimension would be outside of the first 10 and allow for a new perspective, one that looks "down" on the rest of the omniverse. What this perspective would show is TRUE existence, a timeless, infinite portrayal of everything that can EVER possibly be imagined. If you don't want me to call it the god perspective then make up some other term, but that's basically what this would be, no? Nothing would even really ever happen from this perspective. I don't really understand how you can see an infinite number of occurrences as a single object either, but whatever.

 

I don't really see the 4th dimension as time. For a 2d being, time may appear to be the 3rd dimension. We move around in 3d so we can figure out pretty quickly that the 3rd isn't time, so we pushed that to the 4th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw
^4th spatial dimension

Again, this is a misapplication of geometry. Simply claiming that time is a dimension does not make it one, and even if it were a dimension there is no reason to expect that it would be compatible with spacial geometry and the mathematical operations supported by spacial geometry.

You assume that logic that applies in this universe in 3d terms would apply in other universes or from other-dimensional perspectives. There is no reason to think this would be the case. You're just guessing.

No. We begin with logic, that is the tool you are using to reason in order to make your argument. If your argument concludes that logic is invalid or is only valid relative to this small slice of reality then your argument is self contradictory. You must assume the universal validity of logic in order to pose a logical argument.

There is an 11th dimension basically because the math requires it.

Mathematics requires nothing. Mathematics is a logic tool derived from physical reality for the purposes or predicting and assessing reality.

Empirical reality first, math second.

Read up on how the string theory people found that adding an 11th dimension unified the 5 different theories they had to a single... thing. The super gravity and string theory people both found that there were indeed 11 and not 10. This 11th dimension would be outside of the first 10 and allow for a new perspective, one that looks "down" on the rest of the omniverse.

This isn't science. If you want to postulate 99.9999999999999999999% of what exists we can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear then be my guest. But that isn't empirical and it isn't science. And, worse, it's not based on anything empirical. It's a bunch of misapplied mathamatical models layered one on top of eachother.

What this perspective would show is TRUE existence, a timeless, infinite portrayal of everything that can EVER possibly be imagined. If you don't want me to call it the god perspective then make up some other term, but that's basically what this would be, no? Nothing would even really ever happen from this perspective. I don't really understand how you can see an infinite number of occurrences as a single object either, but whatever.

It's just a stupid mathematical equation.

To illustrate, let's be highschool physicists for a minute. Our task is to measure this phenomenon which occurs in a jar. We measure the amplitude, and the frequency and the duration, the energy given off, the change in chemical properties in the substance in the jar. We take all these great measurements, and we put the data together and we abstract out a mathematical model.

This mathematical model is a formula we can use to predict the outcome of similar experiments without doing those experiments. This is what a mathematical model is for.

But wait, here comes an astrophysicist, and do you know what he wants to do? He wants to misapply our model! Instead of having it apply to the chemicals we were using in the jar, he wants to apply it to SOUND, or something equally ridiculous. And instead of using the model's variables within the ranges that they are valid for, he wants to feed in NEGATIVE time, and INFINITE heat energy. And he's going to sit there and manipulate and mutilate our innocent little mathematical formula until he invents A GREY HOLE; A completely new hypothetical entity, for which there is no evidence other than 'the math' and about which he is going to write a paper and secure funding and research grants and media coverage and all that good stuff.

So he writes his paper on grey holes, explaining that the math fits perfectly if you have an infinite concentration of heat energy in negative time using chemicals which haven't yet been discovered, and the grey-hole theory fan club clap and cheer and wave and all is well in the world of pseudo-religious mathematical bullshit.

Now, at some point, a REAL scientist is going to come along and point out what a load of garbage all this mathematical butchery is. And do you know what will happen to him? "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER" "9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIST" "CRACKPOT" A modern day witch hunt.

Do you think the above is absurd?


Dark matter?
Dark energy?
Black holes?
Neutron stars?
The big bang?
10 dimensional space?

Where's your evidence? It's all misapplied mathamatics.

 

[FreedomFight]

Black holes?
Neutron stars?
The big bang?

We have very clear empirical evidence for all of these. In fact, until recently, Stephen Hawking had made a bet that black holes did not exist...then retracted the claim as more advanced technology came up. Neutron stars have been acknowledged for a very long time, we can measure density of a star, and the particles emitted from them. The big bang: leftover radiation, outward expansion from a central point, etc etc.

Empirical reality first, math second.

The problem occurs when the empirical reality makes no sense with the simplest models (occum's razor) and we must therefore postulate additional more complex models.

But wait, here comes an astrophysicist, and do you know what he wants to do? He wants to misapply our model! Instead of having it apply to the chemicals we were using in the jar, he wants to apply it to SOUND, or something equally ridiculous. And instead of using the model's variables within the ranges that they are valid for, he wants to feed in NEGATIVE time, and INFINITE heat energy. And he's going to sit there and manipulate and mutilate our innocent little mathematical formula until he invents A GREY HOLE; A completely new hypothetical entity, for which there is no evidence other than 'the math' and about which he is going to write a paper and secure funding and research grants and media coverage and all that good stuff.

This example made me chuckle, but is actually fairly accurate for the most part. The part about the "no evidence"... is just untrue. Sometimes evidence is still to be collected, or in the process of being collected. Nearly all theoretical math has it's basis in empirical roots.

I also think you fail to realize where we are today is because scientists 100 years ago were postulating things 100 years ahead of their time. Almost all science theory comes out before real solid evidence can be provided for it, and much of it is disproved in the future. That is to say that the first man to say the earth was round was probably laughed at as a fool, but 500 years later you'd be a fool not to.

 

We have very clear empirical evidence for all of these. In fact, until recently, Stephen Hawking had made a bet that black holes did not exist...then retracted the claim as more advanced technology came up. Neutron stars have been acknowledged for a very long time, we can measure density of a star, and the particles emitted from them. The big bang: leftover radiation, outward expansion from a central point, etc etc.

This is basically circular logic. The reason these hypotheses were formed was because these phenomena exist, and now you want to use those same phenomena to prove that the hypothesis is correct? Science does not work that way.

Neutron stars, for example, (which are a violation of nuclear physics) were postulated because astrophysicists could not explain rapidly 'spinning' pulsars, so they needed to invent a super dense form of matter to explain the phenomenon. Now you come along and tell me that we KNOW neutron stars exist due to their emissions. No we do not KNOW that. The emissions are the reason they were invented in the first place.

Neutronium is not just offensive and ridiculous to nuclear physics, it is also a FIFTH phase of matter. Here you have a single phenomenon, for which astrophysicists have simply invented -- postulated without evidence -- an entire new type and phase of matter with its own behaviour. That's rubbish science, it should never have been published.

If you can build neutronium in a lab and prove that it has the qualities described then your hypothesis ('neutron stars') is closer to validation, but it is still far from being knowledge or truth. It hasn't been validated empirically.

The problem occurs when the empirical reality makes no sense with the simplest models (occum's razor) and we must therefore postulate additional more complex models.

Actually the entire universe makes perfect sense if you throw out gravity as the main driving force and replace it with electromagnetism, a force a thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful, and the medium by which we view the universe in the first place.

I also think you fail to realize where we are today is because scientists 100 years ago were postulating things 100 years ahead of their time. Almost all science theory comes out before real solid evidence can be provided for it, and much of it is disproved in the future. That is to say that the first man to say the earth was round was probably laughed at as a fool, but 500 years later you'd be a fool not to.

I think you fail to realise that mainstream scientists at almost any point in history have been dead wrong, and their behaviours and attitudes have held the human race back.

Did you know that newton almost took his understanding of the universe TO THE GRAVE, simply because of the way he was treated by the mainstream. The same is true of many inventors and philosophers. Pasteur was laughed out of the room when he suggested that illness was caused by bacteria.

So you're not doing science any favours by supporting the ridiculous -- and it is ridiculous on its face -- mainstream in cosmology.