Topic: The Fourth Dimension

[Kairus]

According to Einstein's relativity, time can be considered as a spacial dimension, but besides that, there's a scientific theory that says you need ten or eleven dimensions to explain the universe as it works currently. I don't remember if the superstrings theory said something like that, too. Some of those dimensions, though, are not like the spacial ones we're used to but are folded around the atom nucleus. I don't remember quite well how it worked but it was something like that... pretty hard to understand for us simple humans.

[InCreator]

I'm not sure what definition of "dimension" you're using when you say we can only sense one, because we live in a three-dimensional world. Are you talking about parallel universes or something?

My grammar/typing mistake - I didn't mean a single "dimension" but a "set of only three dimensions" or an "environment consisting only three dimensions"... actually, I don't find my vocabulary enough to put these words properly... but Remixor, I think you got the idea anyway.

[Peter Thomas]

there's a scientific theory that says you need ten or eleven dimensions to explain the universe as it works currently

Correct. The String Theory relays 10 dimensions.

You do realise that the 4th Dimension is time... don't you?

Time is the 4th dimension in OTHER forms of argumentation. Incidentally, it wasn't truly einstein who gave it the spatial definition, because it is known as the Minkowski 3 space, 1 time geometry of relativity. Einstein just CONTINUED to use it because everybody else had already understood it this way.

So, for this conversation, time is NOT the fourth dimension.

[TerranRich]

The way that I understand it, there must be 10 (or 11?) spatial dimensions for the Universe to work properly (you know what I mean). What I was talking about was a fourth spatial dimension. True, it woudl be technically impossiible to accurately depict a 4D object on a 2D surface, but the closest we can come with today's technology is a 2D surface, and adding a 3rd virtual dimensional with 3D glasses.

My argument is that the program is not just something the author pulled out of his ass, it is based upon what a 4D object MIGHT look like to us, in wireframe mode. Maybe if there were a program which took it a step further and used polygons, we'd see them intersect each other strangely. If you're just looking at the hypercube when it loads, you don't get the full effect. Try playing around with the W axis, especially Z-W rotation.

Stop the petty bickering and use your imagination, my friends! WAHEY!!!

[Peter Thomas]

Yes. I agree that this is probably the most accurate assumption of what 4d would look like.

The string theory recognises 10 (and I emphasise 10) spatial dimentions. The confusion with the 11 comes from an often misplaced dimension from the BISONIC string theory (which, in total, has 26 spacetime dimensions.)

[TerranRich]

Yes. I agree that this is probably the most accurate assumption of what 4d would look like.

Excellent! That's all I'm saying.

The string theory recognises 10 (and I emphasise 10) spatial dimentions. The confusion with the 11 comes from an often misplaced dimension from the BISONIC string theory (which, in total, has 26 spacetime dimensions.)

Right. I wish I knew more about superstrings than what little (or none) I do now. Perhaps I'll start learning about extradimensional space someday. For now, school, work, and creating games.

[Peter Thomas]

You want to keep as far away from the string theory as possible.  

Once you sign the eternal petition to swap your soul for an understanding of the 26 spacetime dimensions, you'll realise what a fool you were.

Homework never looked so appealing...