Dimensions, number of . . . etc

Posted by PURPLEMOOSEMAN on November 25, 19100 at 13:13:26:

I've seen that this has already been adressed here, but . . . I think a rehash would be timely. Why do the physicists involved with these theories that need more than 4 dimensions have to shrink the extra ones? Just because our perception seems confined to 3 spatial dimensions and the relentless(?) motion along a time axis . . . why do our theories have to only have those dimensions? If they work good enough for our present purposes, what's to say they aren't right about the existence of them extra dimensions. Also, in the above context, what is a dimension anyway? A degree of freedom, or what? Also, what is different about the variable 't' and the 'x','y','z' in einstein-style space-time? Are they different? Or is it just labelling and our perception? Any thoughts?

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 11/25/100 (7)
  • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/07/100 (6)
    • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 12/07/100 (5)
      • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/11/100 (4)
        • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 12/11/100 (3)
          • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/13/100 (2)
            • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc phobos 12/13/100 (1)
              • Re: Dimensions, number of . . . etc ronron 12/19/100 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :