Number of Dimensions

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

I can think of FAR more than just SIX dimensions. Here is a short list of what I have been painstakingly and laboriously constructing myself:

 

1. The Universe as we can observe it.

2. The Universe or Universes or Multiverses as we cannot observe them.

 

Within our our Universe itself exist several types or layers of dimensions:

 

1. Space.

2. Time.

3. Matter.

4. Energy.

5. Spacetime.

6. Gravity.

 

Then there are the species types and layers and their own particular dimensions:

 

1. The Humans.

2. The Animals.

3. The Aliens (if there are any).

4. The Gods (they are definitely there).

 

Within each of these are four dimensions or types or layers to each:

 

1. Body.

2. Brain.

3. Mind.

4. Soul.

 

I hope that is enough. I must say that I am baring scratching the surface in this post here. I will definitely get into more details when further queries are brought up which they undoubtebly will. I am just going to have my dinner and watch some TV and then I will be right back. See ya soon.

[swansont]

One of the properties of dimensions we consider is in physics is that they are orthogonal to one another i.e. the dot product between two vectors each completely contained in one is zero.

 

Space, time and spacetime cannot be distinct dimensions. Space and time are subsets of spacetime. Energy isn't a vector — it doesn't have a direction. Likewise with matter. Gravity has a direction that is described by existing dimensions.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Please take a very close look at these two particular images from New Scientist magazine:

 

And please see these as well:

 

Could the Forum Moderater please remove the duplicate images which i have accidentally attached to my post. And please also reverse their order as well as that was meant to be the correct order but i got that wrong also.

[ACG52]

I can think of FAR more than just SIX dimensions. Here is a short list of what I have been painstakingly and laboriously constructing myself:

 

1. The Universe as we can observe it.

2. The Universe or Universes or Multiverses as we cannot observe them.

 

Within our our Universe itself exist several types or layers of dimensions:

 

1. Space.

2. Time.

3. Matter.

4. Energy.

5. Spacetime.

6. Gravity.

 

Then there are the species types and layers and their own particular dimensions:

 

1. The Humans.

2. The Animals.

3. The Aliens (if there are any).

4. The Gods (they are definitely there).

 

Within each of these are four dimensions or types or layers to each:

 

1. Body.

2. Brain.

3. Mind.

4. Soul.

 

I hope that is enough. I must say that I am baring scratching the surface in this post here. I will definitely get into more details when further queries are brought up which they undoubtebly will. I am just going to have my dinner and watch some TV and then I will be right back. See ya soon.

Nothing you've listed is a dimension.

 

What is with the Indian educational system?

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Space is not a dimension? Time is not a dimension? What is with the American educational system?

[krash661]

What is with the Indian educational system?

i have no clue.

I have a lot of indian physics students and such on my facebook,

i swear they are being taught incorrect physics.

i'm always having this thought cross my mine when reading or conversing with them on physics discussions or such.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

With the second largest population in the world, they have what is called the Indira Gandhi National Open University where I am currently trying to decide whether to do a course or not, because you don't learn in school what you learn out in the real world, be it in America or be it in India.

[krash661]

I'm not sure how population is what creates accurate teachings of such, if any thing population creates a less of that,

but i'm not sure.

[studiot]

In general, science and technology tries to have a single consistent definition in use for any specific word so that scientists can readily communicate with each other.

 

Unfortunately 'dimension' is one of those exceptions where there are at least three different uses in science plus one more in mathematics.

 

Normally which one is meant is obvious from the context, but I have witnessed many a silly argument between people who are using different definitions of a particular word.

 

One thing that 'dimension' does not mean in science is something akin to the eastern mysticism of etherial planes, which seems closest to what you are implying with your list.

 

go well

Edited May 1, 2013 by studiot

[ACG52]

Space is not a dimension? Time is not a dimension? What is with the American educational system?

Space is not a dimension.

 

Time is a dimension.

 

Animals are not a dimension.

 

Humans are not a dimension.

 

Gods are not a dimension.

 

Energy is not a dimension.

 

Matter is not a dimension.

 

In fact, to sum it up, nothing you've listed is a dimension.

 

A question for you: Do you know what the definition of a dimension is? Do they teach that at the Indira Gandhi elementary school?

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Populations create more knowledge, because people share their knowledge with each other, whether in reality or on their machines in their houses, so I hope you get it by now.

[John Cuthber]

Science isn't a democracy.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something is true if an experiment shows that it isn't.

And, since you are arguing about the meaning of a word in English, perhaps you should accept that the English speaking world is likely to get the meaning right.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

With the second largest population in the world,

 

Quality is more important than quantity, when it comes to knowledge and technology.

 

One Einstein is worth more than billion cave mans.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Guy n Girls

please ensure this doesn't become a nationalistic flamewar. Concentrate on the physics and the question and avoid characterising entire nations and their education systems

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Just a reminder to keep attacks focused on the argument and not the people involved, please.

[krash661]

Populations create more knowledge, because people share their knowledge with each other, whether in reality or on their machines in their houses, so I hope you get it by now.

not necessarily true at all.

 

manifested population creates spewing.

the question is ,is what is spewed accurate.

sharing what ever is spewed does not make it accurate.

as we look at society as a whole, this is obvious.

 

hmm..weird.

Edited May 1, 2013 by krash661

[Phi for All]

sharing what ever is spewed does not make it accurate.

as we look at society as a hole, this is obvious.

 

!

Moderator Note

Winner of the Ironic Misspelling of the Week Award.

[krash661]

I apologize,

I was thinking of something else while wrote that.

again i apologize.

just to clear things up,

I'm almost 100% vocal, i do not like to type and such,

so this my cause incorrect spelling and such.

if anyone needs me to explain please ask if interested.

but all in all,

thanks for your help, i did not notice that.

Edited May 1, 2013 by krash661

[studiot]

Moderator Note

 

 

Just a reminder to keep attacks focused on the argument and not the people involved, please.

 

Did my post#9 get lost in the war?

 

[Bignose]

A single particle can have many more than just 6 dimensions.

 

1) position in the x direction

2) position in the y direction

3) position in the z direction

4) velocity in the x direction

5) velocity in the y direction

6) velocity in the z direction

7) acceleration in the x direction

8) acceleration in the y direction

9) acceleration in the z direction

 

each of those is independent of one another... a particle may be at position (0,0,0) at time t, but it could be moving in any direction, and further accelerating in some other direction.Further more, we can repeat all of the above if the particle is not perfectly symmetrical.

10-12) orientation in the x, y, z directions

13-15) rotations in the x, y, z directions

16-18) angular accelerations in the x, y, z directions

 

Then we can begin describing things like the particle's volume (19), density (20), composition/chemical makeup (21), etc. If this 'particle' were something like a cell, can include dimensions like age since the cell last divided (22), location of the nucleus (23), etc.

 

All this just to describe a single particle.You double the number of dimensions we start to describe a system with 2 particles in it.Just think of the number of dimensions if there are a million particles!The equations that govern how such a system evolves in time are known as Liousville equations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville's_theorem_(Hamiltonian) and they are a key step in developing statistical mechanics. In short, what it is used for is to look at an equation with millions of dimensions and decide 'yikes! this is probably unsolvable' and start to apply proper averaging techniques to significantly reduce the number of dimensions.

 

But my bigger point is to echo swansont's note about how dimensions are taken to be orthogonal with one another. Or in other words, you only invoke additional dimensions when you cannot describe something with the dimensions you are already using. Such as being completely unable to describe a particle's rotation using the position dimensions.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Bignose

[John Cuthber]

Not to mention all three jerks and jounces.

But, as far as the use of English in science is concerned, most of the things in the OP are not dimensions.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

In general, science and technology tries to have a single consistent definition in use for any specific word so that scientists can readily communicate with each other.

 

Unfortunately 'dimension' is one of those exceptions where there are at least three different uses in science plus one more in mathematics.

 

Normally which one is meant is obvious from the context, but I have witnessed many a silly argument between people who are using different definitions of a particular word.

 

One thing that 'dimension' does not mean in science is something akin to the eastern mysticism of etherial planes, which seems closest to what you are implying with your list.

 

go well

The word that scientists and psychologists use for the origin of language is called Epistemology.

 

I am an extremely skilled Mathematician and can rattle off an infinitesemal number of things extempore because I have had severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

 

I am not implying ethereal planes, I am implying Meta Physics, and I am a master of that as well.

[John Cuthber]

The word that scientists and psychologists use for the origin of language is called Epistemology.

 

I am an extremely skilled Mathematician and can rattle off an infinitesemal number of things extempore because I have had severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

 

I am not implying ethereal planes, I am implying Meta Physics, and I am a master of that as well.

LOL

So skilled, but not skilled enough to know what infinitessimal means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

And I don't think OCD is rare enough round here to impress anyone.

[krash661]

I am not implying ethereal planes, I am implying Meta Physics, and I am a master of that as well.

yeah for me it is obvious.

[studiot]

Whilst I agree that the OP hasn't offered anything substantial or scientific to support his proposition, I cannot agree that dimensions are per se orthogonal.

 

Buckingham dimensions have no orthogonality and, conventionally, there are six of them.

 

I note Bignose echoing my comment about generalised coordinates.