Imagining All 10 Dimensions - Explained Step By Step
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
john titor
Captain
the science in that is all wrong
sounds good to me
Yeah, maybe in the future from where you come it seems that way...John Titor!
I only watched a couple minutes of it, but it perpetuates all the worse misconceptions of how dimensions work. The narration links the need of a third dimension to non-Euclidian two-spaces. This is a handicap that most people have in that they require the crutch of a higher dimensional (Euclidian) space to visualize non-flat topological spaces.
This fallacy started him making some bizarre conclusions... which was where I stopped watching.
Any real attempt at visualizing this type of stuff must first start by removing the crutch of embedding or immersing topological spaces within a higher dimensional Euclidian space. Most immersions introduce distortions which confuse people and hide the truly important intrinsic properties of the topological space you are wanting to study.
Sadly, there is no easy way to learn this type of thing and most people are only interested in easy answers so that they can claim they understand it (even if they don't).
This fallacy started him making some bizarre conclusions... which was where I stopped watching.
Any real attempt at visualizing this type of stuff must first start by removing the crutch of embedding or immersing topological spaces within a higher dimensional Euclidian space. Most immersions introduce distortions which confuse people and hide the truly important intrinsic properties of the topological space you are wanting to study.
Sadly, there is no easy way to learn this type of thing and most people are only interested in easy answers so that they can claim they understand it (even if they don't).
Life in the third dimension is confusing enough.
I call bull shit. We can dump one dimension easily. All possible variations of a Universe (be it gravity, speed of light etc), I get. But from the inception of the big bang - whatever the conditions might be - cannot have an infinite number of variations.
edit: I just rewatched and retract my above statement. I am now determined to add 2 additional dimensions - watch this space.
I call bull shit. We can dump one dimension easily. All possible variations of a Universe (be it gravity, speed of light etc), I get. But from the inception of the big bang - whatever the conditions might be - cannot have an infinite number of variations.
edit: I just rewatched and retract my above statement. I am now determined to add 2 additional dimensions - watch this space.
most people are only interested in easy answers so that they can claim they understand it (even if they don't).
Oh, come on now -- with this info, anyone can become a hit at parties!
The most obvious issue with the video is that the author has decided to go through the "ten dimensions".
The 'ten' figure he's using appears to correspond to the ten dimensions predicted by string theory (and he says as much at the end of Part II), but then goes on to try to relate all ten of these to some sort of extensions of the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory.
It's true that one can describe superpositions of possible states in an MWI universe ('multiverse') using higher dimensions (six, to be exact), but I don't recall them ever being suggested as being anything to do with the predicted extra dimensions that String theories have suggested.
The 10 dimensions predicted in String theory, if they do indeed exist, are thought to be either curled up, and thus invisible, or sitting out there in 'braneworld', existing, but not accessible to us, since hypothetically we may be stuck a 4-dimensional slice through the bulk called a 'brane'.
ICBW on this, of course. I'm sure someone who is more expert can crank out the maths if necessary.
It all made sense and seems on par to me and don't see how it could "be wrong" anymore than it could "be right" as much of it dealt with ideas and concepts far beyond anything we can prove or realize.
At the end of the video, it did say that the explanation is not the scientifically-accepted one, but the idea was to make it easier to visualize how you could have 10 dimensions at all, since most people only understand three.
It might have made more sense if the first few dimensions were shown as being curled up inside the ones we perceive. The groundwork was certainly there, so I don't know why they started off with the three dimensions we are most familiar with.
I also thought I'd read that the universe was topologically "curved"--an expanding hypersphere. Is that still the current thinking?
It might have made more sense if the first few dimensions were shown as being curled up inside the ones we perceive. The groundwork was certainly there, so I don't know why they started off with the three dimensions we are most familiar with.
I also thought I'd read that the universe was topologically "curved"--an expanding hypersphere. Is that still the current thinking?
Similar threads
