Jump to content
Rick Sanchez D137

String Theory Dimensions?

Recommended Posts

Just curious a couple of questions, kind of looking to be proven wrong so feel free to do so. Is it possible for the 11 dimensions in string theory or superstring theory to be classified hypothetically by saying there is an antiverse to every universe (I know this isn't generally accepted because of anti symmetry isn't generally accepted) But if it were and there was a parallel antiverse is it possible mathematically for the spacial dimensions to be described as -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5. My question is more or less is there any way this would conflict with string theory, or M theory. What if the extra dimensions are parallel and not compactified? 

This also kinda assumes that time is also a spacial dimension, which is a bit of another question for me. Is there any reason time could not be considered a spacial dimension itself? 

And if I'm posting this in the wrong place please point me in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

Is it possible for the 11 dimensions in string theory or superstring theory to be classified hypothetically by saying there is an antiverse to every universe

Every universe? How many are there? What's an anti-universe? In what sense is it anti-?

30 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

anti symmetry isn't generally accepted

What anti-symmetry isn't generally accepted? Anti-symmetry in the sense of matrices or operators? If you mean it in that sense, it is not only accepted, but it is a part of the formalism of, e.g., electromagnetism or General Relativity with torsion. If you mean something like in the sense of Hermann Weyl (symmetry as an operation after which something is unchanged), I'm not aware of any extension to anti-symmetry concept. All of those sign-changing operations are symmetries. Any anti-symmetry is a particular kind of symmetry.

 

37 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

What if the extra dimensions are parallel and not compactified? 

I'm not aware of any sense in which an extra dimension can be parallel to the previous dimensions. You can define it as perpendicular, but parallel is the only thing it can't possibly be. If it's parallel, I can see no way in which it could be extra. It would be the same dimension. Also, it's not either "parallel" or "compactified." Rather: It's either infinite or compactified.

People talk about parallel universes, I know, but that's a very serious misnomer. Nothing is parallel to our universe in those (hypothetical) dimensions. Misnomers are a problem with popular science (and sometimes with serious science too.)

Like, for example, Hubble's constant. It's not a constant. This makes science more confusing than need be. :(

 

42 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

This also kinda assumes that time is also a spacial dimension, which is a bit of another question for me. Is there any reason time could not be considered a spacial dimension itself? 

There is, and a very strong one. The metric of space-time and the invariance of the speed of light.

There are strong elements of imprecision in your questions. I would like to help, but I don't know how, because I don't understand very well what you mean.

Sorry I wasn't able to prove you wrong. I hope this helps, though, to clarify your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, joigus said:

Every universe? How many are there? What's an anti-universe? In what sense is it anti-?

What anti-symmetry isn't generally accepted? Anti-symmetry in the sense of matrices or operators? If you mean it in that sense, it is not only accepted, but it is a part of the formalism of, e.g., electromagnetism or General Relativity with torsion. If you mean something like in the sense of Hermann Weyl (symmetry as an operation after which something is unchanged), I'm not aware of any extension to anti-symmetry concept. All of those sign-changing operations are symmetries. Any anti-symmetry is a particular kind of symmetry.

 

I'm not aware of any sense in which an extra dimension can be parallel to the previous dimensions. You can define it as perpendicular, but parallel is the only thing it can't possibly be. If it's parallel, I can see no way in which it could be extra. It would be the same dimension. Also, it's not either "parallel" or "compactified." Rather: It's either infinite or compactified.

People talk about parallel universes, I know, but that's a very serious misnomer. Nothing is parallel to our universe in those (hypothetical) dimensions. Misnomers are a problem with popular science (and sometimes with serious science too.)

Like, for example, Hubble's constant. It's not a constant. This makes science more confusing than need be. :(

 

There is, and a very strong one. The metric of space-time and the invariance of the speed of light.

There are strong elements of imprecision in your questions. I would like to help, but I don't know how, because I don't understand very well what you mean.

Sorry I wasn't able to prove you wrong. I hope this helps, though, to clarify your questions.

By anti symmetry, I mean a universe made out of anti matter (matter of what I believe to be equal but opposite energy) 

It's not generally accepted that there is an antimatter universe, parallel to ours. I say parallel because it would be completely identical to our Universe if it did exist. If virtual particles were actually anti-particles of our "anti-universe", and time moved in the opposite direction but still forward, if that makes sense. 

My definition of a perpendicular universe would be one that's adjacent to ours similar to the multi world theory. I think every perpendicular universe or "world" to us, also has its own anti matter antiverse. 

Being 3D objects could it be that we just cannot perceive the 4th dimension as a spacial dimension quiet as easy. If you were to map out a specific point of a sphere you would need length width and height coordinates, to map out a specific point in the universe would you need all three plus time as well so to map out a spacial point as true or false (particle or no particle in that location, you would still need all 4 coordinates) 

I would say there is near infinite 4D universes, I'm a strong believer of the many world theory for this reason. 

What I'm thinking is basically, and I may be very wrong is, when a blackhole forms it collapses in on itself and creates a 5th dimensional hypersphere (a point where the 4th dimension basically can't contain the energy/matter within) time appears to stop relative to us, but on the other side a universe is created, and this is the reason we don't see white holes, because each white hole itself is actually a big bang similar to our own universe. If this were true it would be logical if there was a near infinite amount of 4D universes within, just as a near infinite if not infinite amount of 3D space is contained within our 4D universe. Similar to cutting a 3D sphere with a 2D circle, or drawing a 2D circle with 1D points. Though in reality, there is a length of a point, a plank length, nothing can be more condensed without the extreme force of gravity, so it wouldn't be truly infinite. 

Edited by Rick Sanchez D137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

By anti symmetry, I mean a universe made out of anti matter (matter of what I believe to be equal but opposite energy) 

Anti-matter has the same energy (ie. mass) as normal matter. It is electric charge that is the most obvious difference (eg. negatively charged electron vs positively charge anti-electron, aka positron).

1 hour ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

I would say there is near infinite 4D universes

Do you have any evidence for this? 

Quote

What I'm thinking is basically, and I may be very wrong

Yes, you are very wrong 🙂

I'm afraid there are so many misconceptions in your post, I wouldn't't really know where to start with an attempt at answering any of your points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are specific symmetries in Topology, anti-symmetry is everything that is not symmetric, and, as such, there are infinite possibilities for 'anti-symmetry'.

Dimensions are not 'alternate universes'. They are independent variables like length, width, and height, each of which allows for two degrees of freedom ( moving forward or backward ). Time is also an independent variable, as you note; you need a time co-ordinate to specify an event in space-time, however it is different in the fact that it doesn't allow for any degrees of freedom ( no forward or backwards motion. SString theory uses extra compactified dimensions ( variables or degrees of freedom ) to account for EM, color and weak forces.
( sorry if I'm stealing your thunder, Mordred )

A 'white hole' is not similar at all to the Big Bang event. While the Big Bang expands by separation between adjacent points increasing, a 'white hole' is a source, that continuously emits matter/radiation, and is more like a continuous explosion. IOW, there would be a specific spot in the universe where all matter/radiation originates, and expands from. A 'center' of the universe , if you will.
That is clearly NOT the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So dark energy couldn't be explained by the big bang being a white hole? As the black hole absorbs more matter it slowly expands? If it was a 5D hypersphere it would expand at every point I would imagine. I don't think that the spacial dimensions are alternate universes. I think the oscillations between our universe and the antiverses' spacial dimensions are the cause of the four fundamental forces. I think an anti matter universe, parallel to ours is also the cause of fundamental forces. And I think there are an "infinite" amount of 4D universes contained within, one with every quantum propagation possible since the beginning of our time. 

What if size is just as relative as time and space, the implosion of particles resulting in the initial bang.  

Also if you were a 2 dimensional object moving in 3 dimensional space wouldn't you only move in one 3 dimensional direction ? 

 

It seems more logical to me that virtual particles are an actual physical particle than a made up coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree with @Strange that your proposal is littered with misconceptions. Also, with @MigL that a WH is a construct that works very differently to a BB.

And as I was reading all your answers I have remembered the particular sense in which the term "parallel universes" appeared in the scientific literature. It had to do with structures similar to the Einstein-Rosen bridge. I think the original motivation was with D-branes, if I remember correctly. So yes, there is a specific sense in which you can talk about parallel universes, but it's not related to extra dimensions, but with curvature. The "funnels" that you see in the picture can extend as to become parallel to each other.

Extra dimensions are perpendicular, rather than parallel.

17 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

So dark energy couldn't be explained by the big bang being a white hole?

No. Dark energy has to do with a scalar field, which is a completely different thing than curvature as it appears in a black/white hole.

Speculation in physics with just words is hopeless. You must make calculations, and understand the mathematics. And fit experimental data, of course.

Edited by joigus
minor addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Definitely believe there are perpendicular 4D universes. If that's true though and their are multiple "worlds", they must be contained within a higher spacial dimension. Please point out specific misconceptions though. I'm definitely not a quantum physicist as you can see lol. But knowing my misconceptions will help me with research. 

Also, if a blackhole was a 5th dimensional object, as it got bigger I would imagine the 4th dimensions contained within would expand on a scalar field.

Edited by Rick Sanchez D137
Left info out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

Please point out specific misconceptions though.

The most obvious to me is the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. A couple of paragraphs with words about dimensions, parallel universes and such does not make a theory.

Where are your predictions?

You're not addressing any questions of observational cosmology, so you have no theory, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

Definitely believe there are perpendicular 4D universes.

Why? What evidence is there for this (remember, this is a science site not a belief site).

9 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

If that's true though and their are multiple "worlds", they must be contained within a higher spacial dimension.

There are multiverse theories but they use only the known four dimensional space-time. (And there is no evidence for them anyway. Although some are potentially testable.)

So, misconceptions...

10 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

So dark energy couldn't be explained by the big bang being a white hole?

A white hole (if such things exist) would be an object in (otherwise empty) space that ejected matter and energy into the space around it.

That is completely different from the Big Bang model. In that it has absolutely nothing in common. In the Big Bang model, space was completely and uniformly full of hot dense matter. It is not an explosion.

Also, why would a white hole cause expansion to accelerate?

 

10 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

If it was a 5D hypersphere it would expand at every point I would imagine.

"I imagine" is not good enough. If you want to promote this idea, you would need to show that a mathematical model based on it produces results consistent with what we observe. That is how science works.

10 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

I think an anti matter universe, parallel to ours is also the cause of fundamental forces.

How can this anti-matter universe be "parallel" to ours? I have no idea what that means.

How would it create the fundamental forces? And what aspect of this would create the wrong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces?

10 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

It seems more logical to me that virtual particles are an actual physical particle than a made up coincidence. 

Virtual particles are not a "made up coincidence".

The term is used for how forces are transferred (and they are misnamed because they are not really particles at all).

It is also used for the transient existence of particles due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (and the non-zero energy of a vacuum). 

 

9 hours ago, Rick Sanchez D137 said:

I'm definitely not a quantum physicist as you can see lol.

Most of what you have discussed here is cosmology rather than quantum theory.

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the evidence for potential perpendicular universes would be single photon wave interference patterns, though this could be interpreted many ways as just a wave break issue. There are strong believers of all sorts of different interpretations of this. I myself am a strong believer of the Many World's interpretation. (Theoretical quantum physics) 

 

As the black hole absorbs more matter, if also theoretically, (again I posted this as a speculation to see if anyone could object or point me to source material that explicitly suggests otherwise, because I thought this was a place for theoretical quantum physics, also by saying theoretically I mean it is my hypothesis and not an actual scientific theory I have came up with or some bs, hypothetically is a more correct term to use) if the adjacent side was the formation of a white hole I would imagine it would constantly be growing in size because of like, common logic? Though this is definitely an assumption of the interior of a blackhole which is a very hypothetically/theoretical concept. The math says that there should be white holes as well, an equal amount, but we look into space and do not see any of them. The closest thing we do see is the big bang, if you know of something closer to the math of a white hole that actually exists within the viewable universe please link source material. 

I posted this here to see if anyone could point me towards mathematical proof that this is not the case, not speculation of why it could not be the case. 

By parallel I mean a mirror universe, which was something commonly thought. I think the theory is called cpt theory? (I could link source material if neccisarry)That there is a mirror universe where time flows in the opposite direction but still forward relative to the mirror universe. 

My hypothesis is that the interaction between our universe and the mirrored universe could be the cause of all wave like oscillations. If my hypothesis is correct the strings in string theory may be the actual 2nd spacial dimension itself, which would seem logical, it would also explain all 11 of the dimensions required for super string theory and supergravity theory to be correct. 

What is the mathematical difference between a particles' virtual particle and it's anti matter particle? 

Idk how to quote, kinda don't care to find out because I may be looking elsewhere for answers to my questions. 

~ This is in response to Strange

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's start with the term dimension in physics. This includes string theory.

Dimension is any independent variable or mathematical object that can change in value without changing any other value. The common example bring (t,x,y,z) each of these coordinates (spacetime) can change in value without affecting the other value.

 Now in particle physics including QFT and QM. The effective degrees of freedom from the various particles will often be described under a dimension basis. For example the SU(2) group is two dimensional. While the SU(3) group is three dimensional.

In string theory they describe a point particle as a string. This describes its Langragian ie how the particle will behave. It isn't some fundamental component on its own but rather a method to describe its wavefunctions. There is no separate parallel universes involved in the use of the term dimension.

The 11 dimensions of string theory is referring to independent mathematical objects. Phase space or configuration or parameter space is simply a means of representing different types of graphs. Ie one can graph the relations between different parameters and how the evolve. The space does not necessarily entail a physical volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you think it would be impossible for the other spacial dimensions to be parallel to the four known? Really parallel may be a bit misleading. This whole assumption pretty much also is only valid if something like cbt theory is the case. 

And a point particle isn't the string itself, but an excitation of the string right? A 1D excitation of a 2D string ? 

And I definitely get that you can't have volume in these lower dimensions. (But I also think there is a limit to this in reality, even though on paper there is not. My reasoning for this is if you were to take a 1D point and try and draw a 2D circle on paper the math for pi would go on forever because there is no limit to possibility of the curve, you could keep cutting to curve into smaller and smaller pieces with no consequences. But in reality is this actually the case? Because the planck length is an actual definable length in reality in which you could not curve an object smaller than, meaning in reality there is a definable measurement for pi, even if there isn't on paper, and in reality you could draw a 2 dimensional circle with 1 dimensional point particles. Although actually doing do so in reality would be near impossible ofc, it could be done on paper, to mimic reality, right?)  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

now an example of a Langrangian that describes the standard model would be

Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

now an example for the standard model Langrangian is.

latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex]

more details here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117992-the-lagrangian-equation/

The gauge groups for the SM model of particles being

[math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math]

(the U(1) group is often referred to the circle group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_group

note the reference to the complex numbers.

all these groups reside in the SO(3.1) Poisson group which describes spacetime. (Though the actual space will vary) more often than not its infinitismal spaces.

The String length would be of the order of roughly [math]10^{-32}[/math] cm. You replace the Feymann diagrams with surfaces and the World line of the particle by a world sheet. Now under string theory to describe all the Bosons would require 26 dimensions. To include fermions there you need more dimensions depending on the string theory variation. Such examples being Hetoric SO(32) and [math]E_8\otimes E_8[/math]. These employ Super symmetry. Now in order to describe the entire standard model of particles plus their supersymmetric partners. One needs 10 spacetime dimensions (keep in mind the definition I gave above). You have the usual 4 dimensions of GR plus 6 others. The other six are considered extremely small ie the value at the beginning of this thread. They would be used to describe rotations etc such as particle spin. (do not think of a particle as a ball) The spin angular momentum term is describing an instrinsic spin that involves magnetic moments. For example it takes a spin 1/2 particle takes 720 degrees to return to its original state. However a beach ball only requires 360 degrees.

Now each wavefunction can be described under a space however infinitisimal. I prime example is Hilbert or phase space. Each of these spaces can be described as a field. A field is simply a set of values (or other mathematical objects) under a coordinate basis. So physicists needs a way to describe numerous different fields in the same volume of spacetime. Fields or world sheets (string theory) can reside in the precise same locations but be treated seperately. Some worldsheets or fields can affect other world sheets or fields. So you can have connections between them. Others have no affect upon other fields and remain disconnected.

However regardless of whether your using Strings, worldsheets, Fields etc. These are all abstract mathematical objects. They  are descriptive's we use to explain the math the verbal descriptive's we assign to the relations we are describing. They are not fundamental objects. The term dimension is also an abstract mathematical term.

Hope this helps

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is a good article covering string theory 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3967.pdf

He will provide some introductory into the various action theories and how they relate to Strings.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to add in some words of caution here.

Dimensions are often identified with degrees of freedom.

Both have a (numerical) value.

These concepts are not the same, although sometimes their values coincide. They are all too often confused with each other.

Further it is important to identify the 'space' in which you are working - phase space, configuration space, geometric space and so on.

The dimensions of these different spaces can (and often do) differ for the same 'system'.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.