Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!

Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions

  1. Sep 14, 2004 #1
    Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions....

    Parallel Universes, 10 dimensions and more.

    This is a theory (more like hypothetical situation really) I came up with the other day as I was thinking about the 10 (or 26) dimensions predicted by string theory as well as antimatter, thermodynamics and the Big Crunch. This may be a little unordered (in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics- sorry couldn’t resist it), so bear with me.

    We know that string theory predicts the existence of 10 dimensions, viz. 3 spatial and one time dimension. Also it is predicted that the other six dimensions are curved up into a very small space, unlike the other four dimensions which flattened out (presumably sometime near the Big Bang). Now what if those six other dimensions, did not curl up?
    Let’s suppose you get two kinds of dimensions: macro dimensions and micro dimensions. Now as the name implies, the macro dimensions would be larger than the micro dimensions. The macro dimensions would act as ‘container’ or ‘housing’ dimensions for the micro dimensions. Imagine a big bubble containing smaller bubbles, the big bubble would be the macro dimension and the smaller bubbles would be the micro dimensions.

    Now suppose we have two macro dimensions, each containing three spatial and one time dimension, giving a total of ten dimensions. Consider the first macro dimension. This is the one in which we exist and which all laws of science were formulated. The second macro dimension would be the dimension containing most of the antiparticles and antimatter in the universe. I say most, because we have observed, in very minute quantities, antimatter in our macro dimension. This could account for the apparent lack of (observable) antimatter in the universe. Also in the antiparticle macro dimensions, the strings that make up the fundamental particles could be seen as vibrating in the opposite manner as those in our dimension. From wave theory we know that these waves would cancel each other out if they are superimposed. However I cannot account for the resultant release in energy which occurs (I’m still trying to figure that out).

    Now imagine a couple of thousand million years into the future, the rate of expansion of the universe drops below the critical rate and the universe starts to contract. Now it might be said that this would not be in accordance to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you considered the macro dimension theory, it would be more feasible (notice how I don’t say possible – I’m already too far out on a limb to go further). As the universe contracts, the two macro dimensions would move closer together, resulting in a more ordered state and thus decreasing entropy. However, as the distance between the two macro dimensions decrease, more particle-antiparticle annihilation reactions would take place, giving off more and more energy. This increase entropy would be greater than the decrease caused by macro dimensions coming closer together. Eventually, a Big Crunch would result.

    Consider this, black holes may be seen as gateways between the macro dimensions. Although, you’d probably never survive the trip and if you do, you’d most likely be annihilated by your antiparticle-self. As we can see, in both these cases the 2nd law of thermodynamics would also hold.

    One question that jumped into my mind as I came up with this is: “If there are two macro dimensions, what’s to say there isn’t another super dimension, in which the macro dimensions are contained??”
    Well, some scientists are working on the possibility that an 11th dimensions exists, which can be used as the super dimension.

    I know this theory may be filled with gaps and/or errors. I haven’t even yet considered CPT-symmetry, although I’m quite sure it would not fit in here. The above theory may however be modified to allow for CPT-symmetry to hold (possibly).

    One last thing before I get flamed to death. I’m only a second year student. So most of what I know of cosmology and string theory was learnt from reading in my spare time.

    PS: I'm suppose to be studying for a physics test, so hopefully this wasn't a complete waste of time.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 19, 2004 #2
    Two dimensions

    Hi Nietsnie,

    I wanted to respond to your email, not to clarify any of your questions, only to introduce you to another concept of dimensionality that may deliver an insight in the world you are living in. I think the word 'dimension' is not used properly in our common language. The three dimensions we know as length, width and height are - according to me - not dimensions but directions. What's the difference, you say? It may be a tiny different interpretation that appears to be semantics only, but the tiny difference of how we name reality, may lead to confusion (and thinking that 26 dimensions truly exist).

    Next to the above mentioned use, the dictionary explains the word 'dimension' also as: Magnitude, Size, Scope, Aspect. As such dimensions are very concrete, while a single dimension (as in three dimensional) is not a concrete aspect by itself (have you ever seen anything with just a width?). Language is important and incorrect use may deliver us a false image.

    I believe a dimension can only exists when it already has two directions, like a flat piece of paper with length and width on which a dimensional painting can be painted. Of course the painted reality is not real, only the painting (frame, paint, canvas) is. If you follow the different use of the word dimension that I propose, reality would then contain two dimensions (which still contains those three directions). One dimension would show reality, but is actually fake. Two dimensions are reality. The directions are real too.

    To see depth I only use two eyes. Two dimensions deliver the depth of the three directional world we live in. Duality is sufficient to deliver a complex world in which sometimes single dimensions get an important place as well which reflect reality but the reflections aren't real themselves (paintings, movies, computer games, but to take this in another direction: ideas can be one dimensional as well).

    To see depth, one eye kind of is not enough. Of course, by moving your head, you can get a second position for a single eye, and the variation of positioning yourself does provide depth. Pigeons, for instance, bob their heads all the time to get more information of depth on what is in front of them - the small difference that exists between both their eyes is therefore significantly augmented by the bobbing of the head.

    The second eye (or the second position) delivers depth. But we already see with just one eye, and ignore depth if need be.

    The aspect of time may further clarify the duality as I present it here: In time there are only two dimensions: future and past. The present in our experience of time is like the depth in our directional world. The flow from one dimension to the other delivers us our present. Our present is all we have; the same can be said of depth, because as soon as we open two eyes (or have two positions) we undeniably see depth - cannot even avoid depth. Just like depth, the present is there. By closing one eye, the experience of depth diminishes; by closing our minds to the present we can bring our memories back alive or spend hours thinking on what we are going to do tomorrow. This way, we flatten our perception: an imaginative painting gets created.

    By making it unnecessarily more complex than need be, we can get lost in multiple dimensions (10 or 26), but what we are doing in reality is closing one eye, loose depth, and sit in our heads thinking about how it all can be. We create a painting inside our heads that appears to accurately reflect reality. I would encourage you to investigate the many ideas on dimensions, but I would also encourage you to not loose track on reality (whether that is explained by two dimensions or three, or ten or twenty-six). Sometimes the ideas people present are nothing but paintings, and on paintings reality may appear correctly, but it isn't.

    The ten dimensions, the eleventh or the 26, are all beautiful Eschers. Reality works fine with 3 dimensions (or like I think with only two) in which paintings have their place, but they are nothing but reflections on reality.
  4. Sep 19, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nietsnie, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of the word "dimension". It makes no sense at all to say that we live in the first dimension. Also, the small dimensions wouldn't be located in the large ones. If the small dimensions exist, they are directions that are independent of the ones we're used to. They're called "small" because if you would travel a distance less than the diameter of an atom in one of those directions, you would have travelled around the universe and returned to your starting point. And while you're doing that, you're not moving at all in the first three dimensions. Is this making any sense to you?

    By the way, just in case you didn't notice...I'm Fredrik, not Fredrick. You got replies from two guys with similar names.
  5. Sep 20, 2004 #4

    It may be that the only spacial dimensions that have have any meaning are those that imply direction. The others may just be artifacts of the model and the mathematics that describe the model, They are not necessarily real.

    Last edited: Sep 20, 2004
  6. Sep 21, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What others? A dimension is by definition a direction.
  7. Sep 21, 2004 #6
    hello to all:

    There is no reason or evidence that the number of dimensions is limited.

    In math we are able to work with any number of dimensions and find nothing unusual when we go past three-dimensions.

    In the spatial dimension we find that we can only go one direction at a time and the maximum rate of transition is the speed of light. There is however no preferential direction.

    We recognize the spatial dimension as having three limited independent dimensions. Any object may be described using three dimensions X, Y, and Z. Any action however is limited to one dimension at a time and you are only able to have three actions that are independent. This can be demonstrated with moving electrons. Moving electrons produce a magnetic field and only electrons that are moving that are perpendicular to each other will be independent and have no influence on each other.

    In the spatial dimension it is only possible to have three perpendicular directions. Thus we recognize three-dimensional space. We may therefore think of a spatial dimension with three sub-dimensions.

    Let us consider the time dimension to be like the spatial dimension. If we then consider the time dimension in relation to the spatial dimension we find that the transition in the spatial dimension is not influenced by our transition in the time dimension.

    The first thing we note is that the time dimension is perpendicular to the spatial dimension. This is stated in the relation of velocity. Time is always plotted perpendicular to distance. V = d/s. this relationship is always the same in all directions.

    The transition in the time dimension does not sum vectors with transition in the spatial dimension. You may move in two directions at the same time in unlimited dimensions. The time dimension and the spatial dimension are unlimited dimensions. The time dimension also has sub-dimensions just as the spatial dimension.
  8. Sep 21, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I just have a couple of comments on this generally correct post:
    1) Although it is true that in math you can have any number of dimensions, even if you are careful an infinite number, physics is another story. The four dimensions of relativity or the eleven of M-theory are not arbitrary but dictated by the physics.
    2) Your last paragraph is not true in relativity. You can't in fact move in space indpendently of time because you are restricted to a finite speed. So to get anywhere in space requires the passagfe of some time.

    I think what this paragraph was intending to say was that the time dimension is orthogonal to all the space dimensions - at right angles - so that distances on the time dimension don't entail distances on the space dimensions, and vice versa. But putting this fact in terms of movement obscures the truth and suggests a falsehood.
  9. Sep 21, 2004 #8

    Not really. In mathematics any unit vector orthogonal to all the other unit vectors representing independent dimensions is considered itself to be an independent dimension. It need not represent a real direction in space/time.

  10. Sep 22, 2004 #9
    SelfAdjoint Thanks for your comments.
    I agree however: The idea of an unlimited number of dimensions is not opposed by any observation. In fact the concept of additional dimensions is required to explain the observed forces, gravity and charge.

    You may simplify the concept of force and unify gravity and charge if you consider that gravity and charge is the result of the same type of action. The forces are only seen as independent and different because the action is in different independent dimensions, or sub-dimensions of time.

    Action in any dimension is limited to transition, change of position. The action that produces the forces must be limited and oscillatory because the sources of the forces are able to be stationary in the spatial dimension. If this action is circular it would than agree with the intrinsic spin. Intrinsic spin or force action when viewed on edge or one dimension removed would result in the math of string theory.

    In my opinion this is the extent of the reality of string theory and M-theory

    The idea of additional dimensions is not in conflict with relativity. This is a simple extension of relativity. I can find nowhere that relativity precludes more then four-dimensions.
    Our transition in the time dimension is limited by the same transition limit of the spatial dimension, the speed of light.

    Our transition in the time dimension is at a rate equal to the speed of light. Note that this is not a velocity that is in reference to itself. This transition is our time base. A transition in the spatial dimension is not only limited by the natural limit of transition, the speed of light, but spatial transitions also run out of time reference at that velocity. This is why we see clocks approach zero as we approach the speed of light.

    In dealing with space-time we convert the time dimension into distance when we multiply time by the speed of light. The success of this conversion tells us that our transition in the time dimension is the same as any transition in any dimension. By multiplying by ( C ) it also tells us that our transition in the time dimension is equal to the speed of light.

    We state our position in space-time by:


    And our change of position by:

    X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 +T^2*C^2

    The passage of time is not a requirement of motion in space. Time passes at the same rate whether we are in motion or not. Only physical activity affected by spatial transition is affected, clocks, mass, length, etc. not time itself.

    Time is our distance outward from the Big Bang. Our transition in any spatial direction does not change this distance.
    I would suggest that instead of obscuring the truth and suggesting a falsehood the concepts opens the door to truth. If these concepts are false all it takes is one observation to prove them wrong. I of course post here to ask for criticism. I am only looking for the truth as I think we all are.
  11. Sep 22, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I think you'll find the position four-vector is X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - C^2*T^2 in your notation. Or you can have the space terms negative and the time term positive, but they have to be of opposite sign. C is both a genuine velocity (of light) and a coefficient that puts space and time into the same units.
  12. Sep 22, 2004 #11
    You are right, the normal expression is a negative term. The term is negative when space-time is viewed from within the moving frame. If your view is outside the moving frame then you have all positive terms with all spatial objects in constant transition in the time dimension.
  13. Sep 23, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This is not so. Minkowsi spacetime is a pseudo manifold with a signature; the sign difference is characteristic of it whether you are within it or looking at it from outside. Its metric is not positive definite, meaning there exist null distances between points that are not identical. This is something you can't just wipe out with a viewpoint.

    I am afraid your ideas are verging on private theory, and that they betray a lack of understanding of the physics and geometry needed to discuss these matters. You can't make up this stuff to suit yourself, there is a bunch of already known facts - mathematical and physical, that come into play.
  14. Sep 24, 2004 #13
    I give you a definition and the mechanism of time that is based on observation and math.

    I show you the relationship of gravity and charge that has no conflict with any current observation.

    Nowhere else has anyone provided a reasonable theory for either time or force unification and then you insult me. True these ideas are simple. Would it help if I tried to make them more complicated.

    Only a more general view of dimensions is required for understanding. This change of view is the same as trying to accept that the earth was not flat or that the earth was going around the sun and not the sun going around the earth. It is now time to again expand our view point.

    I am however always ready to learn. If you could tell me how you view the physical significance of the negative term in space-time I would appreciate it.

    I hope this helps.
    If [ ct ] produces a result of distance then as stated “distances are always positive”. My understanding is that intervals include SR and only apply when SR has an effect on observation.

    As you stated before math is one thing and physics is another story. I think you are saying that math does not always represent reality. I still agree with you.
  15. Sep 24, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    SR always "has an effect on observation". It is the local version of the world we live in, and even relative speeds as slow as one inch per hour have relativistic adjustments, but of course the adjustments are very small.

    You say your theory is based on observation and math. But controlled observation (experiment) always supports SR. The euclidean metric just doesn't work. You should study SR, particularly the notion of worldline, proper time, relativity of simultaneity, and how the Lorentz transformations work - that is, the first six weeks or so of a semester course in SR.
  16. Sep 24, 2004 #15
    A different direction

    It is the framework that is all important, not the contents. Imagine you are standing on a non-spinning planet without any features, and you walk into a direction. Do you know in which direction you just walked? There is no North, no South, East or West on this non-spinning planet. With each step you take no further clarity is achieved. We can use the stars to create a framework, we can use the spin of a planet as the framework, but the two-directional way on the flat (curved) surface itself delivers no distinct information.

    Now jump up a foot or two (or half a meter). Though gravity will prevent you from going into this direction forever, you just went into a whole new direction. This direction is different in that it does not care about spin. It exists despite the spin. It also depends, however, on its framework: the gravitational planet.

    The direction of a jumping person at the equator can be the exact same direction as that of a person walking one or two feet/meters on the North or South pole. The direction is identical, while one occurred despite the spin, and one occurred thanks to the spin. Nobody will have any problems understanding what I just said because I used a clear framework we are all familiar with. But without the framework, we could not have made the distinction of these two people's direction and could have argued for close to forever about the nature (spin or gravity) of the direction. If we talk about directions without the frameworks, it gets quite confusing because data is missing. To mention that there are only three directions — and that's it — is not the whole truth. The truth can never be known about a direction unless we mention the framework at the same time.

    And yes, I do prefer real frameworks.
  17. Sep 24, 2004 #16

    To equate the minkowski metric to a euclidian form, the time dimension must be on an imaginary axis orthogonal to the spacial axes. Then the time coordinate is (ict), which when squared gives you the minus sign.

  18. Sep 24, 2004 #17
    Hello to All:
    Let me with my limited education try and describe the reality of the negative term in space-time.

    If you are on a moving train and you are only able to see the things that you have passed and nothing can move faster than you then all things and actions are described with negative distance from your point of view. If you now move outside and above the train you will now note that the train is always moving with a positive transition as is everything else.

    This is exactly what is taking place in space-time.

    As a part of space-time and moving at the maximum rate for all things you are only able to view the past. With this view all actions have a negative dimension from your point of view.

    As above if you are able to take a viewpoint outside of the time frame you see the universe making a positive transition in the time dimension outward from the Big Bang at a rate equal to the speed of light.

    Your position in space-time is in reality never negative. Your position and all things in the universe have a positive dimension from the Big Bang. Transition from the Big Bang is the same as transition in the time dimension.

    This does not conflict with SR or any space-time view. When you are a part of the time frame only the SR, Lorentz transformations, or Minkowsi space-time present a view of what is taking place. You must be able to free yourself from this limited thought if you wish to go beyond the place that everyone is stuck in.
  19. Sep 25, 2004 #18
    In the first week, no replies, i check back a few days later and BAM. And thats only on the part dealing with dimensions. My understanding of dimensions, just became very much clearer.
  20. Sep 25, 2004 #19

    Of course the time coordinate is always positive. It is only when combined with the space coordinates in a definition of space/time that a negative appears and this only when the time coordinate is squared. Thus, it must be thought of as being on the imaginary axis with a positive value.

  21. Sep 25, 2004 #20
    pardon my ignorance Nietsnie...

    ...but are you imagining bubbles inside of bubbles as ripples in a spherical pond ???

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions
  1. Parallel Universes? (Replies: 15)

  2. Parallel dimensions (Replies: 11)

  3. Parallel universes ? (Replies: 6)