[Guille]

I think that in actual fact it is impossible for us to answer the question (how many dimensions are there in the universe?) because we aren't able of perceiving higher dimensions. Maybe why we don't understand compeltely our brains and minds is because they are 5dimensional. We can see smaller dimensions but not higher. We haven't yet accepeted the fourth dimension (time) in our brains.

[AntonioLao]

the strict definition of dimension is necessarily linked to the concept of topological spaces. So, until a complete topological description of the physical universe is realized, its dimension is open to any possible logical mathematical explanation. see more about dimension at

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html

[Guille]

another very good question about dimensions is what are they?

Can we define an object's dimensions as the number of infinite sums of a lower dimension object?

Isn't it just stupid or illogical to have infinites in math/physics? I think it is. We have to re-model and re-define dimensions. Even time dimensions. This is a hard job, but we this is why we are in this forum: we like challenge and dificulty.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

another very good question about dimensions is what are they?

Dimensions are directions. There is only one direction or dimension between two points on a surface (bear in mind that this surface can be embedded in a multidirectional or multidimensional coordinate system).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

bear in mind that this surface can be embedded in a multidirectional or multidimensional coordinate system).

this is the problem for me to understand you here: The word you use I think is wrong and is what gets me confused. For me, there are two possible directions in one dimension. What I call direction you call degree of freedom in other posts, isn't a direction a degree of freedom? I have two directions: going to my room and going to the kitchen, so I have a degree of freedom of 2. Do you have mathematics to the direction-dimension ideas?

[AntonioLao]

each direction has two degrees of freedom and on the number line these are the positive and negative integers. But a direction is just the whole line itself. I am inventing my own math using singular Hadamard matrices of zero determinants.

[Guille]

I have two main problems with the accepted 4d space-time:

1) If you understand SR and GR, you will know that the space-time is plane: thus, 2 dimensional. The third spatial dimension is caused by gravity thus the curvature of dimensions creates a dimension.

2) If you think about the general description of time is motion, but, motion ios a property of space and spatial dimensions: it's the change in spatial dimensions.

Both the third spatial dimension and the fourth 8time) dimension are proeprties of dimensions. I think a property of something can't be that something. (i.e. Rusell paradox: a member can not logically be a member of it self).

I just realised I was wrong:

When one first things about something 8gravity) being the curvature of space-time, you imagen or visualize iin your head a two-dimensional-euclidean space, add time to it, and get a ball falling into it and curving it. You say: hey! the hight is created by curvature, but in fact no, the four dimensiosn first exist, and then the mass/energy curves all of the dimensions.

I'm still thinking that time should be changed as concept. A property of dimensiosn cannot be a dimension. I think time should be a dimension, but should stop being considered a property of spatial diemnsions i.e. movement/motion in spatial dimensions.

[Masa Hiryuu]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I just realised I was wrong:


When one first things about something 8gravity) being the curvature of space-time, you imagen or visualize iin your head a two-dimensional-euclidean space, add time to it, and get a ball falling into it and curving it. You say: hey! the hight is created by curvature, but in fact no, the four dimensiosn first exist, and then the mass/energy curves all of the dimensions.

I'm still thinking that time should be changed as concept. A property of dimensiosn cannot be a dimension. I think time should be a dimension, but should stop being considered a property of spatial diemnsions i.e. movement/motion in spatial dimensions.

I dont agree with you here Guile Time should not be its own dimention Time is a property of Observation and Interaction not space like in reletivity. I am sorry but this is where I think Einstien went wrong with his theory of reletivity. Space is a property of force, interactions and observation happen through force and Time is a property of interaction. Space does not require Time to exist. But Time requires Observation and interaction in order to exist.

[Guille]

masa:

Not only space, but everything needs the fourth dimension to exist i.e. time. Time needs to exist so that you can exist-observe-change...

[Masa Hiryuu]

Very True Q7 there is much wrong with not challangin Ideas just because they are 800 years old I myself have based my theorys on trying to explain Multiverses and how universes propogate for the very reason you stated about our "Shoebox View" because we can never understand the laws of our universe without first understanding where they come from and why and how they work. Human perception about what is and is not true is the greatest hurdle that mankind fases in the quest for a TOE...