About The Missing Six Dimensions of String Theory:

a reply to: DaRAGE

Incoherence.

It's all I'm going to say.
Because I am right and I don't give a # if you get it or not.

What if the dust builds up so much that the floor collapses into the room below.

How does that occur in your reality?

a reply to: DaRAGE

a reply to: Dalamax

Look man im not here to niggle at the details.

I'm just saying you, the true you, is this infinite thing call God. Which is the same as Nothing (spatially), existence, infinite awareness.

All that you truly are is an awareness. You are the one who is aware.
In essence you are God, an infinite awareness, experiencing being a finite thing, by allowing the emergence of space-time (which can't actually be created because nothing spatially exists, which is the reason why god is infinite to begin with .

And when you think about space-time, you only experience space-time when you are experiencing some form of consciousness, not unconsciousness.
Space-time emerges out of consciousness.
If you are calling space-time dimensions, then that is where the other dimensions probably emerge out of as well.

a reply to: DaRAGE

OMG just stop it.
That:

the true you, is this infinite thing call God

is not true. You're not infinite you're not God, even God is not infinite.
That's blasphemy. And stupid.

a reply to: Peeple

lol. Defensive much? It's clear you don't understand.

a reply to: DaRAGE

Defensive? No.
Annoyed.
I understand your entire premise is based on your God delusion.
Where I come from if somebody declares themself God we call them 'insane'.

a reply to: DaRAGE

Space and time don't actually exist. They are emergent properties that emerge out of our consciousness.

I would certainly disagree with that.
Entropy, which is the ultimate controlling process in the universe(s) is also totally constrained with space and time. This is not something we manufacture in our conciousness.

In fact, to me anyway, the multiverse is more of a candidate for something that emerges from our consciousness because we cannot adequately define its existense, nor visualize it.

I don’t think dimensions and the rest needs be more then height, width and depth.

Personally I agree with what you are saying in regards to the creator experiencing the creation.

The folly in your argument is assuming that unobserved means unreal.

Consider that the whole of creation is still not all that there is and hence can move and shake at the whim of the creator.

GOD’s infinite being is still greater then infinity. Do you know much about set theory?



a reply to: DaRAGE

God is infinite. Set theory proves that all infinite’s are not equal.

Here’s a little video about mathematics and infinity’s.



a reply to: Peeple



Self reference is a B*tch.

a reply to: Dalamax

I didn’t say that the unobserved = unreal. I just said its like its not rendered, saving the effort of calculation. I will have to watch the videos tomorrow. Im in bed and tired. Nite

originally posted by: Peeple
Everybody knows our 3 for space + time.

Right, 3+1 makes 4.

And how String Theory just would work out so beautifully.
So where are the missing 6 dimensions?

But it doesn't work out beautifully, it's internally inconsistent.

A wise person once said this:

originally posted by: Peeple
Infinity is never your friend in maths...
Don't do infinity

But, infinity appears to be an internal inconsistency in string theory!

Is String Theory Even Wrong?

First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct.

The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists actually consider this inconsistency to be a virtue, because otherwise they would have an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity on their hands (one for each way of wrapping up six dimensions), with no principle for choosing among them.

So if you listen to the wise person who said "don't do infinity", and string theory contains an infinite sum, then maybe it's time to reconsider the claim that "String Theory just would work out so beautifully".

The only way string theory can "work out" is if it shows some connection to reality which so far it hasn't done, and in that context, it's not even a theory, I'm not sure if it's even a hypothesis unless the hypothesis is simplified to the level of the cartoon in my signature.

We don't say string theory is wrong, because that would imply there's some way to test it and find if it's right or wrong. No, it's worse than that, it's "not even wrong" since there's not even enough fleshed out to test. What I've seen happen is people say "If we see X, then that might be evidence of string theory". Then after we test for X, and get negative results, the excuse is "oh, that doesn't disprove string theory, we just go back and come up with a different version of string theory", which is more evidence it's not a theory.

String theory is dead

The initial hope of 1984-5 was that there would only be a few consistent ways of making those extra dimensions unobservably small, and one of these would give our universe. But all evidence now is that either:

1. There is no consistent way to do this.
2. There is an essentially infinite number of ways to do this (the "landscape"), giving almost anything you want, so unpredictive.

In either case, the idea of string theory unification is simply a failure.

So with regard to #2 about an essentially infinite number of ways to make the extra dimensions unobservably small, we now have even more ways to add to the already essentially infinite number of ways (essentially infinite number plus the OP = an even bigger essential infinity). And still no evidence of any connection with reality.

String Theory Has Failed as a Scientific Theory

The fire igniting critics of string theory is not personal animus or professional jealousy. It's the idea that a single theory has become so entrenched and popular in its field that its failures cannot be addressed truthfully. Now, physicists ask that the rules be bent or changed just to accommodate it. To loosen the principles of our fantastically successful scientific method just to allow for one passing theoretical fad to continue would be a disaster.

Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong

Horgan: Do you still think string theory is “not even wrong”?
Woit: Yes. My book on the subject was written in 2003-4 and I think that its point of view about string theory has been vindicated by what has happened since then. Experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider show no evidence of the extra dimensions or supersymmetry that string theorists had argued for as "predictions" of string theory. The internal problems of the theory are even more serious after another decade of research. These include the complexity, ugliness and lack of explanatory power of models designed to connect string theory with known phenomena, as well as the continuing failure to come up with a consistent formulation of the theory.

Maybe someday someone might figure out a way to make string theory, or some version of it work. But, after decades of research, we are no closer to seeing that happen, in fact we are further away after seeing failed "prediction" after failed "prediction" showing that string theory has so far shown no predictive power.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

1.) you're clearly biased against ST
2.) I am not going to argue against your position (because I can't)

But thanks for increasing the thread quality by a lot with your contribution

a reply to: PeepleIts called dimension repulsion!

a reply to: Peeple

Yeah i heard about this guy called Jesus Christ. He got persecuted as well. But he just like me and everyone else, including yourself are having a son or daughter of god experience.

a reply to: Peeple

Oh and instead of having a go at me about my mental approach to things… perhaps you should read this :

quantumphysicslady.org...

Whilst physics might say there could be 11 dimensions, physics is based on local realism being true. Its not according to quantum physics.

a reply to: Dalamax

Tried your video. One flaw I found in the proof was that they do not have a list reaching infinity to prove it. On a hypothetical it has a question. On an list that does reach infinity I would like to see him prove it. We can make a lot of numbers, but they stop when the machine does.

One bloke stuck on one problem involving infinity got through it by finding another infinity to counter react it.

Yes that’s right. It’s a logic answer to a question that proves some questions in mathematics can never be proven.

Set theory provides a proof of this logical answer.

a reply to: kwakakev

a reply to: Peeple

I was wondering. If you were to drop the string theory part from your question. Is the question still valid?

Are there six missing dimensions? Or, is the question now mute?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Arbitrageur

1.) you're clearly biased against ST
2.) I am not going to argue against your position (because I can't)

But thanks for increasing the thread quality by a lot with your contribution

Thanks, but I'm just being realistic, and it's not just me. If you want to hear from a PhD physicist how we have all been lied to about string theory for decades, here you go. It's her opinion, but she's a PhD physicist who has had an interest in string theory since she was a little girl, so I would say it's an extremely well-informed opinion, perhaps even better informed than mine!


string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Peeple

I was wondering. If you were to drop the string theory part from your question. Is the question still valid?

Are there six missing dimensions? Or, is the question now mute?

I think you mean moot instead of mute, but the fact that our theories are based on three dimensions of space and one of time is well-verified experimentally. The hypothesized (and not even very clearly hypothesized) extra six dimensions of string theory would have to be very small for observations to be what they are. The hypotheses may not even specify how big they are but if they are smaller than a proton we might not observe them because of the difficulty involved in observing things smaller than a proton. But on scales perhaps the size of a proton or larger, there is no room for extra dimensions because observations sort of rule them out.

Higher Dimensions in Physics and Mathematics!

Pseudoscientists lean heavily on the assumption that their readers will know absolutely nothing about science or math. This is a pretty safe assumption, alas. And it requires no effort on the part of the pseudoscientist, because he also invariably knows no science or math either.

It is worth summarizing the ways in which the various concepts of "higher dimensions'' gradually diffused out from legitimate math and science, through hundreds of increasingly distorted, confused and muddled journalistic presentations and sensationalizations, into late 19th Century science fiction and 20th Century pseudoscience.

In the late 19th Century mathematicians became increasingly interested in the foundations of geometry. Our own universe has 3 space dimensions. But what would geometry be like if there were 4 space dimensions? Or 5? Or 10? Or an arbitrary number? Or an infinite number? Mathematicians worked a great deal on geometries with arbitrary numbers of space dimensions.

Mathematicians also worked a great deal on "non-Euclidian'' geometries that violate one or more of the postulates of Euclid. In Euclidian geometry, parallel lines remain the same distance apart. One can imagine a geometry in which parallel lines eventually intersect, and a geometry in which parallel lines gradually separate further and further. Such spaces are usually described as "curved''— an example is the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere, on which lines initially parallel at the equator of the sphere intersect at the poles of the sphere.


Mathematicians had no idea that their work would ever prove useful to physicists, but some of it did have application in the real world. For hundreds of years physicists had worked in a 4-dimensional framework, because it takes a minimum of 4 numbers to specify an event: 3 to specify its space location and 1 to specify when it happened. In 1905 Einstein found that, to be correct, laws of physics must be written in a 4-dimensional form that physicists call "Lorentz Invariant,'' or "Manifestly Covariant.'' The reason is that different observers will disagree as to how much of an event "projects'' onto the space axes and how much "projects'' onto the time axis. That is, different observers can disagree as to how long a process takes, or on the size of the physical space that the process occupies. Only the full four-dimensional aspects of the process remain the same for all observers.

In 1915, Einstein found a more general description of gravitational phenomena, in which the density of matter directly determines the "curvature'' of 4-dimensional space-time. That is, his theory of gravity was purely geometrical. The amount of matter determines the type of geometry that exists in the surrounding space. Other matter travels along the straightest possible trajectory in this curved space-time...

The structure of all known physical laws demands that our universe have only 3 extended space dimensions. For example, the fact— established and confirmed by experiment consistently for nearly 400 years— that all long-range interactions, such as gravity and the radiation field of the electromagnetic force, fall off like the inverse square of the distance, demands that space be precisely 3 dimensional.

So, at human scales or larger, there seems to be no place for extra dimensions in experimentally verified observations.

But at scales smaller than a proton, who knows? It's hard to tell what is really going on at those scales, and theory says we can't even observe a planck length without creating a black hole, which means such a length is essentially unobservable with any conceivable technology.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you Arbitrageur.

Yes. I did mean moot. My bad.

I take it that you think there are only 4 dimensions to our universe? Forgive me if i am mistaken.

And, we can forget string theory.

It is true that our universe is four dimensional. However, that doesn't say it only has four dimensions.

The Poincare group has ten dimensions 3+3+(3+1). From Wiki "The Poincaré group is the group of Minkowski spacetime isometries. It is a ten-dimensional noncompact Lie group. The abelian group of translations is a normal subgroup, while the Lorentz group is also a subgroup, the stabilizer of the origin. The Poincaré group itself is the minimal subgroup of the affine group which includes all translations and Lorentz transformations. More precisely, it is a semidirect product of the translations and the Lorentz group,"

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=The%20Poincar%C3%A9%20group%20is%20the,the%20stabilizer%20of%20the%20origin.