I couldn't really think of a suitable question title, I'm not sure if it's completely related or not.

But this is as far as I know (well, I thought it all up last night and it seemed extremely logical so I think it's probably what scientists believe):

There are 11 possible dimensions, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on and each dimension consists of all the dimensions below it, e.g. the 6th dimension consists of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th, the 4th of which is time, which allows for existence because of course there must be time for existence as you need time to forward to exist. So this means that the space-time (the 4th dimension) must be the lowest dimension with possible existence as that is the lowest dimension to include a dimension of time. So we, as humans, must exist in the 4th dimension because we need time to exist and because all the gravity, space and space curvature around us is governed by the extra dimension of time, creating space-time/4th dimension, but time isn't a spacial dimension so our view of the universe doesn't change because of the extra dimension of time, which is why we only see it as 3-dimensional, because they are the only 3 spacial dimensions that we can actually see/visualise.

Are my views correct and a physicist would agree with me or are they completely wrong? If they are wrong, could someone explain what I have explained, but correctly please.


closed as not a real question by Raskolnikov, Ron Maimon, David Z May 30 '12 at 15:25

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is just a very bad question. It makes no sense, is so rife with confusion that the best thing we could possibly do is to tell you to go read at least a popular book on the subject like a book by Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene. $\endgroup$ – Raskolnikov May 30 '12 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ Some of my answer in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29078 might be relevant. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie May 30 '12 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Try to read this physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5217/what-are-dimensions $\endgroup$ – HDE May 30 '12 at 18:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ BTW, "I couldn't really think of a suitable question title" is a really bad sign. It suggests that you are not yet able to formulate the question in a answerable manner (if, indeed, there is a answerable question in there). It might be better to think on it for a while longer next time. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 31 '12 at 1:19

The "dimensions" in n-dimensional physics aren't separate realms. If you just think of 3-dimensional space for a moment, and look for "three separate dimensions", all you have are the three directions given by a particular coordinate system, and if you rotate the axes of the coordinate system, you'll get three new directions which are combinations of the old directions. For example, if you stand somewhere on the surface of the earth, facing in a particular direction, then you can define three directions - up vs down, left vs right, forward vs back. But if you turn to one side a little, up vs down stays the same, but left vs right and forward vs back will change. And if you bend over a little, and define a new up vs down by the direction that your spine is pointing, the new up vs down will be a mix of the old up vs down and the other "directions".

The extra directions in n-dimensional physics have this same quality, you can rotate among them. Even when there are distinctions between one group of directions and another group of directions, you still don't get the scenario you describe. For example, suppose we have nine space dimensions and six of them form a small hypersphere, so there are three large dimensions and six small dimensions. You can swap the three large dimensions among themselves as I just described, and possibly you can do the same for the six small dimensions, but you can't swap small for large, at least on large scales. So there is a subdivision or factorization of space into a large three-dimensional space times a small six-dimensional space. But it's not the scenario of "dimensions inside dimensions" that you describe, where you have a "sixth dimension that contains the lower dimensions", and so on. Mathematically you can describe such an object (e.g. a "flag manifold") but it doesn't naturally apply even to familiar three-dimensional space - there is no special "third dimension that contains the first two dimensions", except in the artificial sense of using a particular coordinate system.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.