Dimensions

[hardyivan007]

How many dimensions are there in the universe? what are they?

[Omni]

Let's say you're somewhere in the universe and you moving is not made impossible by obstruction of some sort then you can move in every direction. It's called 3d and movement implies time so why not call time also a dimension and there you have it...4d. 3d means where you have length, width and height at the same time and you can turn an object all ways possible and it will always have length, width and height at the same time. I gues that pretty much sums it up besides ofcourse there are people thinking that 1d, 2d, 9d and "fill in your own favorite-d" are possible.

[Guille]

I think omni's post was right: If you are talking about the universe, then there are 4d; scientifically-oficially-speaking, of course. There are many "diff nº of dimensions" theories. But the dimensions of the universe is actually the number of dimensions that the maximum-dimensional objects have in the universe. In this universe, the maximum-dimenisonal obejects is matter, and it has 4d. that's why we say the universe is 4dimensional. but energy, for example, is 3d. Antonio Lao's continuose and quantized spaces are 2 and 1 dimesnional consecutively.

[Guille]

continuation:

We can't say how many dimensions the universe has, because these two reasons:
1) we are inside the universe, and so, can't see it (we can see other amtter and understand the 4d, we can see the reactions and way of behaving of energy and know its 3d.....)
2)if it were to have higher dimensions, we would probebly don't "percieve" them with our eyes or senses: we are reduced to 4d.
So the universe could be 5d or 6d, but we will probably never know.

[dleviwing]

Hardy;
Regardless of what you read, what you see on TV, or any other commentaries, the universe is only 3 dimensional; length, width, and depth. All the other dimensions are mathematical terms used to express the functions of the material substances of the universe. The oddities of mathematical gauge theories are too often hyped as real by media to promote interest in the subjects. Most of the mathematical dimensions referred to by the equations, are only interactions between material objects changing their states of position, structure, and motion.
Don't take gauge theory explanations literally.

Best regards;
Dave

[dleviwing]

Please enlighten us,
recomend research library article under mathematics, 'The Pure Mathematics of Space-time'.

Quanta07;

"Enlighten us"; it sounds like something my children might say when they were teenagers.

It would seem that there are many scientist and students of physics who have yet to comprehend the differences between concepts of measurement and concepts of reality. These concepts have been given names that allow them to be placed in the pigeonholes of positivism or realism. Those who say we do not have to know what is real to measure it, are in the positivism column. Those who believe the mathematics and measurements should reflect a fundamental concept of cause and effect, are placed in the realism column. Like politics, most of us fall somewhere between the two concepts. Though positivism allows us to advance technically, sooner or later we must find a true relation between the mathematical abstracts and our concepts of a reality. Our ancestors started this process by placing the sun at the center of our solar system and thus allowing the mathematics to be simplified and to relate to a closer understanding of reality. Our mathematical gauge theories, Relativity, Quantum Physics, and String Theory, do not allow the simplicity required to define reality.

As far as the pure mathematics of "Spacetime" you may wish to read the source. "The Meaning of Relativity" by Albert Einstein

Best Regards;
Dave

[dleviwing]

Quanta07;
My mind is far beyond these theories. I know why they work for some applications and fail with others.
Relativity shows that physical objects including clocks are affected by uniform motion.
Quantum Physics takes into account the wave functions or chaos motions of matter and uniform motion.
String Theory is pure BULL and only mathematically functional with gravity and magnetism.
If you want to understand reality; study the conservation laws and figure out why THEY work.
Spacetime Continuum is a mathematical geometry; not a real entity of the universe.

You may be able to solve TOE if you ask yourself the right questions.

Best regard;
Dave

[dleviwing]

Q7
(If you truly believe something is 'BULL', state WHY? Prove it is 'BULL'.)
Those making the extraordinary claims are responsible for providing the evidence.

(This site offers the opportunity to 'Be a thinker', not a JUDGE, anyone can judge.)
Your playing in the wrong key and your fingers are on the frets Q7; the song is old and muffled. Try playing the grand bar. I evaluated research papers for 15 years; would you like me to judge yours?
(Positive thinking is an art.)
How dose this relate to TOE; did you just finish yoga class?

(Its time to set forth YOUR original concepts, now Dave.
This is the place to show the world what you have LEARNED and can prove, Lots of us wait patiently for insight,)
I have provide the fundamental key in other posts; use your amazing thinking power and find the answer. The key also appears in many areas of the Standard Model and in E=mc^2 if you THINK it through. Many member have found pieces but have not been able to shed the academic brainwashing of terminologies to advance their concepts further; nor have you.

There are many research papers at academic websites that do not make publication in Discover Magazine or other pseudo science magazine; nor do you find them in books. If you take the time to see what's out there, you'll find I'm not the only one to think that string theory is BS. You will also find that many of the concepts expressed on this and other websites are mire reinventions of the wheel using different words and terminology.
My mind is not closed; I've come to realize when someone is trying to use it as a trash can.

Are you looking for a TOE, or looking for an audience?

Have a nice day;
Dave

[AntonioLao]

How many dimensions are there in the universe?

my educated guess is that in a universe without any force, the number of dimension of the universe is the same as the number of degree of freedom (dof) and its magnitude is infinite. Infinite dof means total freedom of movement, which include dimensional crossing into higher or lower LOEs.

[zeroca]

How many dimensions are there in the universe? what are they?

I would modify the question a little for me:
“How many dimensions are necessary to characterize the universe?”
----------One will not get by without time:
Time presents itself successional attribute of motion, of rather successional attribute of the universe.
(Two directions of time are enough to describe the motion – to mark it out towards some relative instant, i.e. to differ two separate phases of motion: past and a future, i.e. one parameter, as past = -future)
----------And one will not get by without space:
The space presents itself localizational attribute of motion, or rather localizational attribute of the universe.
But space “spreads” from any of its point to all directions. So if we choose any of these directions as parameter, we’ll have infinite number of “spatial” parameters, but only any three (inter-perpendicular) of them (6 directions) are enough to characterize (describe) any exact, precise location.
I.e.:
The 3D-space presents itself conventional localizational attribute of motion, or rather attribute of the universe.
So it comes to 4D-conventional parameters of motion, or rather 4D-conventional parameters of universe.