Is there any prove at all that other dimensions even exist?

[Xminent]

Is there any prove at all that other dimensions even exist?

[houserichichi]

No physical proof yet, but theoretically they very well could be. Well, aside from the 4 spacetime dimensions we live in, if that's what you mean.

[Xminent]

so is all theoretically i mean i can say theoretically there is superman i mean is there any like good reason to back it up

[wendy]

Xminent wrote:

> Is there any prove at all that other dimensions even exist?

Let's look at the question, it has several undefined segments.

A dimension is itself an abstraction. That is, it is a mathematical entity or desciption, like 'three'. The same question can be easily phrased as "is there any proof that three even exists?"

Certianly the usefulness of multiple dimensions is important, since it resolves things that are freely independent of each other. The current model of space, depending on who one listens to, is more than three dimensions, the symmetry breaking rules generate three unwound dimensions.

In terms of "is there any proof of life-forms living in a world of other dimensions", the answer is that no evidence exists for it, and no evidence exists against it. That is, no one has shown that this issue must happen, or that it can not happen: ie no proof either way.

[houserichichi]

wendy had it on - the theory is what the experiment is meant to verify (if you work in that order). So theoretically superman can exist...until we find reason why humans cannot fly, for example (which we have). Theoretically we need more "room" to unify the the fundamental forces (or at least if we HAVE more room it can happen), so in that respect it's a very promising candidate to experiment and verify. Until then it's nothing more than a result of the mathematics - a necessary evil (in a physical sense, of course).

Now will our future understanding reveal that this necessity for higher dimensions turned out to be a load of poppycock (that's right, I said poppycock) remains to be seen, but for now we have to work with what we comes from theory.

[wendy]

The fundemental question about anything like this is not that it doesn't support *our* brand of physics, but *any* brand.

The same question raged over the hyperbolic geometry issue. This is the same as euclidean geometry, except it does not have the postulate v (parallel axiom). If hyperbolic geometry is self-invalidating, then the parallel axiom is proven.

Many attempts at proving it involved substituting it with something it was equal to (eg a triangle exists with an angle-sum of 180 degrees). However, these is not provable from the nine, and require the postulate v to be valid: ie a circular argument.

On the other hand, the theorms based on "every triangle has less than 180 degrees" leads to no contridiction. Therefore postulate v is an axiom.

The arguments about the laws of physics and four dimensions, eg shoud take to account that the laws of physics is based on three-dimensional geometry, (even relativity), and one can not presuppose they exist in four dimensions. Some do, like mechanics. Some don't, like vortex-theory (on which magnetism, and hence relativity) don't, because you don't have the curl-function in four dimensions.

This does not mean that four dimensions can not be stabilised. We note that quark-theory is based on 1d physics (ie force-at-a-distant independent of distance), and the nature of gravity + electricity + magnetism might interact together to generate vortices.

None the same, we can safely posit a four-dimensional world *like ours*, but be guarded to keep an eye on the maths (etc) and see if a logical contridiction exists. I have not seen any yet.

[houserichichi]

Not to nitpick, but curl is an operator, not an ordinary function :wink:

I'd love to see physicists in 500 years...see what they make of the current state of theoretical physics. Is this a golden age or an abomination? Either way, they're creating lots of new math for me to play in.

[RQ]

A dimension is itself an abstraction. That is, it is a mathematical entity or desciption, like 'three'. The same question can be easily phrased as "is there any proof that three even exists?"

A spatial dimension is a direction of motion that is at a 90 degree angle with the other dimension(s). The reason for that in physics is because perpendicular motions are independent of each other.

The reason for that in mathematics is because you cannot have motion in another dimension unless it is at a perpendicular angle with respect to the motion you are traveling in, since that is the shortest path to your hyperdimensional point on your dimensional plane:

For example if you have a 2D car traveling, to reach 3D you would be bending a 90 degree angle, since from the 2D universe to the 3D coordinate point that under that angle is the shortest distance.

Is there any prove at all that other dimensions even exist?

Of course there is a 4th dimension! Look at the stars! The fourth dimension is in the mind!!!!!

[PWrong]

So curl doesn't work in 4D? I don't know how curl works exactly, except that something to do with vector fields and Maxwells equations. Does this mean that there is no simple analogy for electromagnetism in 4D?

I've been considering the possibility of a third type of electromagnetic field in 4D. As photon moves forward, an electric field oscillates up and down, and an magnetic field left and right. In 4D, there would be another field oscillating ana and kata.

Couldn't there be some property of 4D fields that is similar to curl?

[Peligroso]

I thought I would end this debate with direct proof of the 4th dimention in terms of physics.

If you take a point charge and you want to find the potential around it it forms an eqation of the form P(x,y,z) = 1/(Sqrt(x^2+y^2+Z^2)).

Where X, Y, Z are independant variables and P is the dependant varialbe. If you want to learn more you will have to study a bit about partial derivatives and how they are used to make mathimatical models of objects. This can be plotted leaving out the z term, with software like mathmatica.

It is also quite reasonable to say that the potential created by a point charge interacts with the world around it in a way that can not be seen in 3 dimentional space.

[PWrong]

Sorry, I don't see how that's a direct proof. A variable like potential isn't the same as a spatial dimension.

Your equation is simply the reciprocal of the 3D pythagoras theorem. It basically says potential is 1/distance. When you say potential, do you mean potential energy? Energy is measured in joules, not in m^-1, so that can't be right.:? And what is the "1" measured in?

It is also quite reasonable to say that the potential created by a point charge interacts with the world around it in a way that can not be seen in 3 dimentional space.

:? Is it in 3D space, or not? If it is, then it can be seen in 3D space, can't it?

I have been about partial derivatives, although I haven't technically studied them.
I just looked up curl, and I don't see anything that couldn't be extended to 4D. It just needs a 4D "nabla", and a 4D version of the cross product.

In Maxwell's equations, there are two equations for each field, one linking divergance to a constant, and one linking the curl to the change in the field. I'm not sure about the J, or several other bits and pieces, but I think there would have to be 6 equations in 4D.

One problem with Maxwell's equations is that the right hand sides seem a bit arbitrary. We'll probably have a lot of options in 4D.

[Peligroso]

Sorry was talking about electrostatic potential which is measured in volts.
Volts is a potential differance. This can be considered when thinking about 3d space. Just try to imagine what happens in capacitors, transistors diodes and mosfets. which is all about particles being influensed whithout actual contact.

It's also alot more about the laplace's equation where there is a whole branch of Mathematics-Potential-Theory devoted to this problem and it's solution.

The point I am trying to make is the effect of fields. More to the point how they can be thought of as a dimention.

If you look at quantum teleportation for instance. Experaments have been done where photons are intangled in such a way that if 1 of the spins were to be changed the other particles would also change. This has been done with 5 particles. No matter where the other particles were and it would also be instantanious.

[PWrong]

Voltage makes a bit more sense, but voltage is proportional to distance, not inversly proportional. :?

P=W/t=VI
I=q/t
W=Vq
Fs=Vq
Voltage = distance*Force/charge

A field is more of a bunch of vectors than a dimension. Although any variable can be plotted on a graph, spatial dimensions are already plotted on a graph- the universe. So any "extra dimensions", at least on this forum, should be no different from ours, except possibly their size.

I didn't know they'd done quantum teleportation with 5 particles, although I do know that they did it over the Blue Danube river.

However, according to Brian Greene's "the Fabric of the Cosmos", the teleportation isn't actually instantaneous. I was very disappointed when I read this.

Say you have two entangled particles far apart, A and B. You don't know what state they're in until you observe them. When you look at A, it instantly picks a state at random. But at exactly the same time, B also picks the exact same state. So it's as if information is travelling faster than light. But because the state is picked at random, there's no actual information transfer.

There is a way you can exploit this, so that you can teleport an object, but you first have to send the information at an ordinary speed. The method is a bit complicated though.

[wendy]

Nambda (d/dx + d/dy + d/dz ...) exists in all dimensions. We can take the gradiant of a vector or scalar (Nv, Ns), to give div and grad respectively.

What does not exist is the cross product (x), and hence curl (Nx). The orthogonal to two vectors is not a line but a plane.

This is not to say that stable forces can not exist in four or higher dimensions, it is just intrinsicly different.

One must note that maxwell's equations are not the definition of electromagnetism, but a set of equations from which you can derive other equations: a minimal span. None of the equations serve as a definition for anything, either in form or language.

For all we know, electromagnetism might be the interaction of three elements at the corner of a triangle. None the same, we assume that maxwell's equations take a different form.

There is no harm setting c = 983574900 ft/s, either.

In terms of the electrical quantities etc, the numbers do change.

One can write, eg P=VI, V=IR etc, but what doe these things mean. You need to define voltage or current or something

energy magnetic nr 3d 253 4d 264
charge magnetic nr 3d 132 4d 143
voltage magnetic nr 3d 121 4d 121
resistance magnetic nr 3d -10 4d -21

The magnetic number is defined on

200 density 10 velocity 1 time 0 magnetic constant.

W

[PWrong]

The orthogonal to two vectors is not a line but a plane.

What about the orthogonal to three vectors?
Surely in 4D, three different vectors can determine a fourth vector. There may be more than one way to do it, but since the 4D universe doesn't exist, we can just pick one at random.

Physical constants are pretty much irrelevant for this kind of thing. As long as the units are consistent, we should be fine.

We can keep the electric field pretty much as it is. Some particles are electric monopoles with a positive or negative charge. Opposite charges attract, same repel, e.t.c. The only difference is the inverse cube law.

A moving charge still makes a current, and concepts like voltage, power, and resistance are all the same.

I think my point about the photon still applies. Each field oscillates in a different direction, each perpendicular to the motion of the photon. So we should have three different types of EM field in 4D.

Now we have to decide whether magnetism and the other field (do you think tetric or tetratic field is too unimaginative?), will come in monopoles or dipoles. For some reason I find it easier to visualise two dipole fields.
Magnetic and Tetric flux will be the field strength * volume, instead of area.

How much of the above do you think is valid? Eventually we might have to define things like "hypercurl", or something. The maths is a bit too advanced for me just yet, but I think I can work something out just using basic physics concepts.

[Gilles]

If you wonder if dimension exist, my friend, and if you wanna prove that, why don't you start trying to prove your own existance then? Bet you'll have a hard time doing that...