String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?

Yes, fair enough, this is a better place for this discussion.The reason I called the other dimensions fictional, is just because the only reason for imaging these dimensions is because they are necessary to make the numbers fit. I think no one can say what these dimensions are, little yet show evidence for them.To me its a bit like saying 2+2=9 and then when someone replies, no its doesn't it equals 4, and then I said, well in another dimension it equals 9.And then you said, but that other dimension doesn't exist, I simply said, well its theoretical.As far as a test for string theory goes, I guess first we have to define these other dimensions, and I don't think that is going to happen. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Good post...not sure that it makes the needed dimensions for string theory any more believable, but interesting nonetheless.

I think your point is irrelevant. The only reason for believing in these other dimensions that string theory proposes is because without them the numbers don't add up. And no one can even agree on exactly how many extra dimensions we need to add. I should think one would need a better reason for imagining extra dimensions other than simply because numbers don't add up.Its like my earlier analogy of 2+2=9. If I said the reason I know there must be other dimensions is because in this dimension 2+2 does not equal 9, so therefore there simply must be other dimensions, because that's what my theory says.Besides which, I would perhaps philosophically take disagreement that time is an actual dimension in the strictest sense of the word. A dimension is a physical space that can be located by specifying its location. I think if we are speaking clearly, time is not a dimension, because we can not define where it is.Furthermore, one can suppose in their minds all the dimensions they wish, because they are relying on the safety of knowing no one can prove them wrong because we can not (ever) see or experience them. They hold no more reality for us than any other fantasy one wants to create. Its science fiction. Aren't you the one who objects to people believing in a God we can't see?There is certainly a heck of a lot more evidence for a God then there is for any imagined dimensions!Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Define dimension then.And BTW, defining time as something other than a dimension doesn't negate relativity. Calling time a dimension is not much different than calling temperature a dimension. You can if you like, but it doesn't change whether or not you feel hot. Maintain some measure of creative intelligence won't you. It makes the world so much more interesting.And you didn't answer the question-why do you believe in other dimensions when you can't see, touch, or experience them?

Hello CS,I find it a bit amusing how many people here want to say that if someone disagrees with them-they simply must not understand.I understand, that doesn't mean I agree. Just because you say something is a dimension doesn't make it so. The definition of a dimension, if you want to use Wikipedia, is:" In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it"Now, if you want to begin calling all kinds of other concepts dimensions, where do you draw the line? Is a dimension another place? Is it a different condition within an area-like say compression. Is it change? is it a gas? Is it visible? When you start using words so loosely, they lose their original meaning, and can be adapted to whatever the speaker wishes. But that still doesn't make it so. So what's your definition of a dimension?Now are YOU starting to understand?Its almost as if many people here believe that if anyone with the title of 'scientist" proposes something, it is therefore true. That doesn't make for a very impressive mind, when you just accept something people tell you, without question. So what is a dimension? I think we have been looking for them for well over a hundred years and have yet to find even one of them.Care to give me your definition?

Are you using the default position on this website of calling foul every time you feel yourself getting trapped in a debate?Do I need to remind you what this topic is about:Op: I believe he is talking about extra dimensions here, what do you think? So if you are using this as your definition of dimensions, tell me what are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within time? Does that even make any sense at all. Gee, I dunno, I might use the definition of time to define time.But, I guess I am just whacky like that. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

So your definition of a dimension is??

I think your are starting to trip over your own words.The definition I provided stated that "a dimension is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it."You have just stated that lines and time only have one dimension.What one dimension does time have then-the dimension of time? Or does it have the dimension of a line? huh?If time only has one dimension to it, then what dimension has more than one dimension to it? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Whew, A real answer!Refreshing to say the least.Now, why ten coordinates and not eleven?

If a line can be defined as a space requiring only one coordinate to specify a point on it, and time also only requires one coordinate to specify a point on it, then don't a line and time have the same definition? They are the same thing?

The reason you are having such difficulty explaining this in any way that makes sense at all, is because trying to equate time, with the dimensions of space is a futile effort.Time is what it is-we call it a dimension in relativity, because some people have decided that this is what they wish to call it. But the problem comes when you try to make a definition of a dimension-and the definition for one, doesn't fit the definition of the other. And thus you have to fudge the answer by saying things like-"they are different kinds of dimensions!"Yes, they certainly are.

I actually already knew that, and was using that as an indication of the utter hopelessness of an actual cogent explanation of the theory."10 dimensions, 26, ok ok, let's not get all fussy about a few dimensions here are there. Just pick whatever dimension you like" It would make a great Faulty Towers skit.So now does M Theory have 11 dimensions, or are we including time as another dimension, so that makes 12?I think temperature is a dimension-can it be if I want it to be? Its one of the tempera kind.

At the risk of being accused of being off topic, but I can think of no better time to ask thisIf we need time to specify a point in the universe, and if time never actually stands still, how can we ever identify a point.I am not attempting to be obtuse, its a real point. There is no point when time actually is, is there? Time is either coming from somewhere, or leaving somewhere, time doesn't have an instant when it becomes a fixed point.How does math ever come to grips with the fat that we can never define an exact moment in time...does it just throw away some decimal points?

Well, you have suggested that you can't identify a point in space, without knowing the time-so what time are we talking about-whose time? If that requires a math calculation of the time, how do we do that time? Who is observing this time? That's sort of the thing, when it comes to string theory, you don't really have to do the maths, because if they don't work, you just throw in some more dimensions until they do. No need to define that dimension, no need to demonstrate the reality of that dimension-simply say it exists,Are these other dimensions a separate place? Do they contain matter that is separate from what we call the universe? How does one justify theorizing the existence of these alternative universes through the use of math, when the maths can't even agree on the number of universes? And does this theory propose any way in which we could test the number of dimensions? What would that test be other than saying the math fits?

I agree not to argue what I don't know. And as far as I know, I haven't made any declarations of incorrectness of the facts.The "question" is more of what percentage of the concepts are known and what percentage are hoped for. This is a poor statement on your part. That is exactly the reason people come to this forum, and that is exactly what I along with others are here doing. You often weigh in on subjects which are not your major, and I don't think it is appropriate for others to simply tell you, that if you can't follow, go do some learning (like in philosophy for instance).I have asked for these dimensions to be defined.