13 2


If we live in a 3D world, we say the dimensions are length, width, and height.
We can add Time in there for another dimension.
There is (a lot of) talk that we actually live in a 10+ dimensional world. I've heard tell that the other dimensions are theorized to be crazy shapes that fold in on themselves. ( Calabi-Yau shapes )
Does anyone understand this concept?
And can anyone tell me why, if length and time are dimensions why are ... say... rotation (orientation) or even temperature not considered dimensions?
They can all be measured and quantified.

scurry 9 Apr 8

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Now, if anyone understood quantum mechanics, it was probably Richard Feynman.


Rotation is the direction of the dimension to be measured. Temperature is also a variable.
We LIVE in lenght width and depth, 3 D , then with space time we get into time being a dimension relative to our own space but then again time and space are one entity alone. With that our space alters and the dimensions we realize are many.

EMC2 Level 8 Apr 9, 2018

Have you read Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions a satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott, first published in 1884 by Seeley & Co. of London.


If you haven't you may reconsider many things after reading it!


The most fundamental problem with the higher dimension theories is that they fail to yield spacetime from within their theories. The term 'emergent spacetime' will link into quantum gravity theory, yet they still do not have it. It turns out that by generalizing sign pure arithmetic carries correspondence with spacetime, including unidirectional zero dimensional time [] . The fact is that the three dimensions of ordinary space are observable and so provable within our local extent. That said these 'dimensions' are inherently tied to the real line as fundamental, which polysign makes a break with. The simplex coordinate system as a family of geometries use the ray as fundamental, and in hindsight it is clear that the ray is more fundamental than the line; the line being composed of two rays. Rather than needing six directions to address 3D space(up, down, left, right, forward, backward) P4 needs only four directions(minus, plus, star, sharp).

Physics has offended mathematics and logic in the last century, but humans go on mimicing, with academia enforcing that mimicry. For instance tensor mathematics requires consistency such that the rotations the OP mentions can be carried out universally and still preserve the substance that those arbitrary rotations act upon. Einstein did this on spacetime, claiming it to work out, but where are the discussions of unidirectional time being converted into a bidirectional real line of spatial extent? This is about the simplest rotation possible and it does not work. In hindsight Einstein quickly backs away from the tensor generality to the lightcone projection, which dissolves that 4D state. The simplest vector into this denial of mine is to question whether time is even bidirectional. This then leads into doubt on the isotriopy of spacetime. Portions of relativity may be correct, but that does not mean that there is a next step, for we are engaged in a progression that is not yet done.

Isotropy of space is a fundamental claim within cosmology, yet it is always carefully stated to be on average. This stipulation is ridiculous as we see that anything will turn out isotropic on average. Instead we should consider that spacetime is structured. As elements of spacetime we may not have access to its fundaments. This leaves us guessing and constructing from thin air with correspondence our principal measure. This is where we are at. The problem is open to future superior solutions. The system as I see it deserves to be dissected and parts of it disposed of so that the next generation does not face the vast accumulation that ours has. It used to be in Newtons time a complete library of human knowledge could be contained in a modest building on paper.

How much of modern physics is science fiction? I do not believe that the quantum computer will work out as they predict. If not will there be consequences on the theory of quantum physics? Let's not forget that these are humans; descended from apes; doing this work. We cannot bow nor defer to the greats though they be great apes who are truly impressive. The system must ultimately be left open to future and revolutionary ideas. We have been taught to eat particle/wave duality, yet some youngster who reads this may one day find an answer so far aside from modern theory that carries consistency that he should express it here, and like Shakespeare's monkeys we may eventually land on a convergence that plainly ousts the divergence that is modern physics. PhD's need niches and journals to publish in and so the quantity of PhD's and their system of funding could be directly blamed for the situation we face. Doctor's of Philosophy? Most of them in the physics community tossed philosophy aside roughly a century ago.

Through polysign there may be a semiclassical approach that does yield, for though polysign is general dimensional it still carries support for spacetime, and that said with unidirectional time. The assumption of the real number as fundamental is disproven, and this casts the progeny back in time some four hundred years; to a simper time when the mysteries abounded; and still do.


In string theory, there are 21 dimensions, but in superstring theorry, who knows, this is being discussed. Temperature is not a dimension, it is a measure of entropic activity

Well crap!
Here I thought I was messed up trying to figure out what was going on wtih 10 or 11 dimensions.
Now we've got 21 or more.
Zoiks! ?
But thank you for the temperature info. I remember reading something about that... Now that you mention it, not that I fully understand entropy either.


Seems a few people have trouble recognizing 6 inches !

Excuse me?


This is something I'll have to learn for my Bachelor's of Science degree. I like this post.

Thanks. 🙂
If you happen to learn all the answers, please share. 😉

@scurry In a few years I will.

@Sarahroo29 perfect! I'll stay tuned. 😉

@scurry Cool.


You Would Have Too Go Into The Realm Of Quantum Theory Too Answer That.Ie Imaginary Numbers, The Box Is Both Full And Empty,Till It's Opened.Physics Is Based On Maths, So You Have Proven Absolutes.Quantum Theory,You Can Make All Short Of Shit Up,And Dare Someone Too Disprove It!

Coldo Level 8 Apr 8, 2018

Hmm. I'm as good at making shit up as anyone.
As for the box... I get it, but is it only full (or empty) because 'you' opened it vs. someone else? Does who is doing the observing affect the outcome, or just the act of being observed ?? I don't know, but again, good questions... No?
I love this sort of stuff even though I can't answer, or maybe because I can't.
Thanks for the comment.


I'm sort of a physics/astrophysics fanboy. This video explains it pretty well. It takes a little bit of imagination to grasp.

Ok, ya! I like this a lot. I've not seen this particular video before, but i've seen this concept layed out in much the same way.
I guess it's all theoretical, but I thought that the current understanding is that there are 10 dimensions plus the dimension of time. (Making it 11??)
Regardless, I really appreciate the video!
Still not sure where the Calabi-Yau shapes 'fit' in. Pretty sure it has do to with string theory and how each multiverse would be constructed (probably not the right word).
If you have any other recommend videos, I would love to check them out.


Good questions. I stop at four dimensions and state that if there are all these other ones they do not bother me so I will ignore them for now.*

My headache would agree with you.
I guess I get suckered into the 'what if' of it all and keep wanting to know just a little bit more. Though, I may never really know anything...


I don't have the answers for this and I have heard all the theories. All I know is that it seems direction is only valid while on a sphere like our earth. The universe (which may have always existed) is traveling and expanding. We are ourselves time traveling but it seems like we can only go forward. We appear to only be able to guess at how big the universe really is.

Ya, I'm starting to get that... Seems that we are unable (at least yet) to be able to figure some (most?) of this stuff out. Certainly the size/shape of the universe and time (does that even exist?) are all still very conceptual and theoretical.
Something to think about ?


Tiime, length, width, and depth are integral features of space. As gravity warps space, as evidenced by gravitational lensing, time is distorted as well. This is proven by the shift in the wavelengths of light.

JimG Level 8 Apr 8, 2018

Yes, but what about the rest if it??
What about the other dimensions and what is the definition. As is applied here?

@scurry I'm not as confident on the rest of it. There are various forms/shapes that can exist mathematically in unexpanded or folded dimensions. I believe that those dimensions were ones that were not incorporated into the Big Bang.

As far as evidence of those quantum dimensions goes, there is the weakening of gravitational force over distance. Since it appears to link to objects in a single dimensional bond, it's strength should be inversely proportional to the distance. In actuality it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance which could indicate that there is a diffusion of its strength over dimensions that are not apparent to us.

@JimG Humm. I won't pretend to understand that completely, but I think I kinda get what your saying. But to be honest, I'm not sure if I'm more or less confused now than before.
It's a mind boggling topic and I'll probably have to read a lot more to make any headway.
Thanks very much.

@scurry Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and Lisa Randall's Warped Passages are great books to start with, if you're interested.

@JimG I love Brian Green!! He has a way of explaining stuff and making relatively easy to understand. I'll look into Lisa Randall too.
Thanks very much!


No. But I get double points for answering first. X

Ha ha!!! Nice. ?

@irascible - Actually have you seen how many points you need to get to a level 8? I'm not even trying. And I don't like the t-shirt - too obvious. I prefer one I already have, which is just the red atheist "A" on a navy background. If people recognise it for what it is, it's great. If not I just tell them my name is Anne.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:53014
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.