Do We Live in a 10-Dimensional Hologram?

['andersom']

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

Maybe you can help.

I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you)  or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.

If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?

I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.

It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.

Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed. 

I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?

AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?

I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.

I expected a     face.

... But thank you.

I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.

Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.

I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event,"  each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.



 

The problem with defining any multidimensional model beyond Euclidean space is that our ability to visualise it in our minds is limited, to say the least. It does not need to be a problem when writing the equations (although it is), but it is a huge problem when imagining such a model, since our brains require "common sense".

And common sense just isn't what you expect it to be, here.

That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.

Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.

[DirtDawg]

Interestingly, as the mind matures toward a line/point/space (not sure which or is it simply a point/line/space Or all three leading up to something to do with time, whether it is time left or time passed) ones imagination seems to balloon. I wonder what it must be like for one ( You know who) who has little more than a mind from which to do all his work. 


(TeH HORROR!!   TeH HORROR!!)

How does he ever "carry?"

 

[odeon]

That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.

Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.

What kind of maths did you study at the uni?

[odeon]

Interestingly, as the mind matures toward a line/point/space (not sure which or is it simply a point/line/space Or all three leading up to something to do with time, whether it is time left or time passed) ones imagination seems to balloon. I wonder what it must be like for one ( You know who) who has little more than a mind from which to do all his work. 


(TeH HORROR!!   TeH HORROR!!)

How does he ever "carry?"

 

I hope he's got help, in some way or another.

[RageBeoulve]

Exactly. Explain the math to me, or its fucking religion and/or fantasy. Either that or give me a physical demonstration of the phenomenon you're trying to illustrate.

The physical demonstration of string theory is rather boring in imagery. Like thinking about it as religion too, but find nothing wrong with god particles.

Imagery. Exactly. 

[odeon]

And "imagery" is why this all is so difficult.

Not everything is readily available for projection into something we already know.

[RageBeoulve]

Agreed. I never said that science like this was easy to explain or prove. I guess what i'm trying to say is that a big chunk of the theoretical physics community tend to get a little ahead of themselves.

[odeon]

Actually it's what theoretical physics is about.

['andersom']

That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.

Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.

What kind of maths did you study at the uni?

Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.

Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. 

I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.

It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.

['andersom']

Agreed. I never said that science like this was easy to explain or prove. I guess what i'm trying to say is that a big chunk of the theoretical physics community tend to get a little ahead of themselves.

But, getting ahead of themselves, they may find things they could not find by expanding on what can be imagined, yet it may work in practice.

[odeon]

That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.

Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.

What kind of maths did you study at the uni?

Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.

Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. 

I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.

It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.

Perhaps it is, for their purposes? I'm assuming they leave out a lot of the fun stuff?

['andersom']

That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.

Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.

What kind of maths did you study at the uni?

Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.

Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. 

I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.

It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.

Perhaps it is, for their purposes? I'm assuming they leave out a lot of the fun stuff?

They made math an obligatory exam subject for pre-uni secondary schools. So, they had to come up with a version that could be doable for students that suck at math.
They also made two foreign languages obligatory for those students. I would have had a problem had that been true in my time. I had Dutch, English, and the rest was bèta subjects. I loved my program then.