i 've read somewhere that scientist / physiscts say there's got to be 6 dimensions to everything in and the universe itself, on the Discovery channel , they said people have found until the 5th one, what are the others, and y does anything in the universe have to have 6 dimesions ?
134134
www.a729.piczo.com\nwww.murderousmaths.co.uk\nwww.bbc.co.uk/revision\nwww.bbc.co.uk/bitesize\nwww.yahoo.com
37354
Actually from mathematical point of view you are correct but from physics point of view there is what called planck dimensions. It is supposed in quantum gravity that you cannot divide space to reach lower than these dimensions (1.6X10^-33 cm).
431970
The concept of "beyond space" is flawed; space-time has no beyond for there to be anything in at all. Our limited perception of the stuff around us in three dimensions leads us to imagine the universe or even all of space as some giant sphere or disc of matter floating in space, but really, space and time being the same thing mean that our universe and all within it is everything we can perceive, full stop. Ergo, there is no inside to be outside of. \n\neither that or its turtles all the way down :-)
332634
Wow, what great questions.  Just so you know, we don't know the answer to what was before the big bang.  One idea is that our universe expands, then contracts on itself, over billions of years, and the whole big bang repeats over.  In other words countless universes preceded our own.
211452
When two universes colide, the time difference and the size of each universe is so great that we should not feel any difference except a slight increase of radiation from other stars that were previously not in our universe. Universes should exist in the other dimensions as superstrings, which are smaller than quarks, have exibited ability to go to 16 other dimensions other than our own.
213619
It all dependend where you are filling time. In an insane intitution there are people who experience 4 ,5 of more dimentions . so far I have heard of 26 dimensions being filled including many dimentions of time.\nSpace and time have the same thing in common they can be filled both at the same instance!
134083
Size & volume of the current universe have little bearing on how "big" or "small" the singularity was at the moment this universe came into being, since the structures of the various sub-atomic particles that make up atoms and unltimately the "stuff" you have difficulty in "compacting" were not yet defined sufficiently for your question to have meaning.  Not that it's a bad question.  It's just in the same family as "well i know the Universe is infinite, but what's outside it?"\n\nStephen W.Hawking might be a good place to start.
262029
Is our universe in another universe?  \n\nBefore we can address that question, we must first define universe.  \n\nThe word universe denotes all space and everything (matter, energy) contained within it.  The prefix uni means one.  The root verse means word, carnate message, meaningful substance, matter.  Questions regarding our universe persist today.  Does it have a beginning and end, or does it go on forever and ever?  Is it linear or curved?  If it has limits of length or curvature, then what lies beyond the Universe?  If something lies beyond the Universe, then can’t we accurately call that the Universe?\n\nSome lay people and some scientists conceive of the universe as infinite space.  Others define the universe as finite, or limited (perhaps curved), space.  Still others incorporate the elements of matter and/or energy into their definition of the universe, as opposed to the space beyond matter and energy.\n\nGiven these concepts of our universe, some scientists conclude that the “totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite. (Scientific American March 2005).”  \n\nAs to the notion that we live in an ever expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time, some scientists are careful to point out that “\nAndromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nIn accordance with your supposition that our universe is in another universe, “it has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).” Modern astrophysicists talk about multiple "pocket" universes that branch off from one another.  Stephen Hawking points out that parallel pocket universes can have no effect on a real observer inside a single pocket, so, according to Hawking, they are theoretical baggage that should be eliminated from cosmology, the study of the origins of the universe.\n\nSome string theories define the universe as a three-dimensional space in an invisible space having more dimensions. This is, in essence, a universe within a universe.  Our zone, a “braneworld” could periodically bounce into another parallel braneworld.  This may create what would appear as a Big Bang from one perspective or a Big Bounce of alternating expanding and contracting universe from another perspective.  Such a cataclysmic event is thought to occur 300 billion years from now, resulting in the rearranging and creation of a new universe.\n\nIs our universe inside another universe?  Well, apparently the Men in Black had it right.  Our universe seems to be inside of something else, another universe, called the multiverse.\n\nSteve\n:-D
459118
I think it is some calculation based on the most distant objects we can see (with radio telescopes etc.) and interpretation of 'background' radio echos attributed to the big bang. One figure gave the universe a diameter of 26 billion light years.\nI have heard about the big bang theory and people say they have evidence and the scientist are not really disputing it. As a lay reader this will do it for me.\nBut other possibilities do exist that remain consistent with what we have found out about our universe.\nIs this the first big bang in this universe, could we be expanding in the wake of the last such explosion that occurred in this part of a larger universe?.\nHow many universes are there?\nFrom a mental point of view I find it hard to assign a boundary to the universe and just accept there is nothing beyond it.
150350
of course it is theoretical. It is like my answer to another question, what contains the Multiverse? "What's after that?" I had said. It is theoretical and we like to think that the universe has a finite space and something holds our universe with another finite space. We like to think this way because that's the extent of our view and understanding. We live in the 3rd dimension and we can only understand physical things in the third-dimension. We can only have so much understanding on our universe that everything about it has to be based on theories. Even the fact that the 4th dimension is time is not really a fact, but still a theory because we can't think in that dimension. We haven't been through the 4th dimension (i know the theory is that we're going through it in one direction but it still is a theory). Our understanding of our own universe is very limited because we live in a finite world.\n\nAnd it doesn't answer your question, i know. But I like to think of the multiple universes that you're talking about as the Alternate Universe theory where something doesn't happen in this Universe, it happens in another and if it is this case, there is almost infinite number of them. And the wormhole thing works with Einstein's theory of Relativity as a Super Massive Black Hole is strong enough that it bends the space-time continuum so much that it will make an advanced dimensional hole in another (if not all) universe. I devised an un supported theory that that hole created by the black hole is actually a 6th dimension because it disappears as matter from the universe then exist in another. A total violation of the law conservation of matter unless it actually goes through a wormhole, which would go with the theory of relativity AND conserves matter. But it still is a theory that I accept.\n\nPS Penguins!!!
578921
My opinion through many meditative thoughts:\n\nI believe our universe exists as a point in what you call 'the void'. A point having the geometric meaning of no volume, dimensionless.\n\nI believe what you are considering the void is what I call space. Our universe is what we can view, touch and explain through science we have developed. Space on the other hand is an infinitely dimensional medium, in which our universe was born. \n\nOur universe is nothing more than a 'disturbance' in space, and in space our universe exists as a point. This point is a fraction of infinity, yet everything is a fraction of infinity. So in the humble realization that we are nothing (a fraction of infinity), we realize we are equal to everything we can fathom, as it too is a fraction of infinity no matter how large.\n\nSo, through the realization that we are nothing comes the discovery that we can be equal to as much as we can fathom. \n\nI believe this means everything that makes up the universe and space has its own existence or presence known to space and must exist.  This existence holds true for our universe and what we would consider other universes. The disappearance, or non-existance of any defined object and its position in space no matter how small, down to a point, would truly have mind boggling consequences. \n\nIf time travel is possible than there must be alternate universes, as we know it.  It is a deadening thought to ponder.  Almost pointless until we figure out gravity, which I believe will open the door to all other understandings.
414399
12,000,198 microscopical creatures\n\nit's 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 17 x 7 x 6 x 7 = 12,000,198\n\nBy the way, why is this in Words and Wordplay not Math?\nAm I missing something?
277495
Remember the fact that what they say( that outside our universe is the void, which is absolutely nothing, NO SPACE OR AREA) is only a strongly held VIEW, or CONCEPTION. As far is science is concerned, there is no evidence that there is " no matter beyond the area within which the universe is existing ".\n             Suppose you have balloon. Imagine it to be the universe, then, people living inside the balloon, cannot acually guess about the fact there is no matter beyond the balloon, unless and until they are being confronted with the FATE of the ballon. Remember that the universe is like a balloon, continously expanding, so, there is a high possiblity that it might all actually begin to compress after some billion years or something. \n            What I meant to say is that, there is no solid method to find out about the matter beyong the universe, as the FATE of universe alone will answer these questions. OR, there is a lot of matter beyond the universe, just as air beyond the balloon, may be the expansion of the UNIVERSE would NOT allow us to determine whether or not, ther is matter beyond the universe, as for now, we cannot say anything.\n          Hence, what I have said above is also a conception, a theory, a prediction, which MAY be TRUE.\n\nDa Vinci.
320529
Any line you can make in this physical Universe is 3-dimensional.  A drawing has a 3rd dimension - no surface is ideal, and there has to be something beyond this surface.\nIf you draw a line, it is also 3-dimensional (otherwise, you would not see it - it would be infinitely thin, and if it is not, it is a rectangle on an uneven surface).\n\nIf you ask whether truly 1-D or 2-D objects can exist in our Universe, there is an answer: no and yes.\n\nNO for macroscopic objects: the reason is that there is a minimum unit of space: Planck length. Therefore, you may think of all non-elementary objects in this Universe as being at least 1 Planck length thick in all 3 dimensions.  \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length\n\nYES for elementary particles. They are viewed either as zero-dimension (points) or one-dimension (strings, with the size of - I think you guessed it - Planck length).\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
319015
"...What are the dimensions (length, width, and height or thickness) of the physical universe (in light years)?..."\nThe universe can't be measured in terms of length, width, and height. Such parameters require some reference point from which measurements can be made, along with some distant boundary where the measurement would end. You simply can't do that with the universe because the universe is isotropic, meaning it's the same in all directions from any observing point. From Earth we can look outward in any direction and 'see' about 13.7-billion light years. From Earth that represents a boundary. Here comes the tricky part: if some alien in a galaxy 13.7-billion light years away from Earth looked outward in all directions (including back towards Earth) they'd 'see' a universe that appeared to be 13.7-billion light years in scope. In other words, the universe has no boundary. To have one it would have to be inside some "thing" else, and there's absolutely no evidence that such is the case.\n\nTo confuse the issue even more, if we had the ultimate telescope with limitless viewing power we still will never be able to see into the universe beyond a certain range. That's because at almost the same instant of the Big Bang the universe briefly expanded faster than light (this doesn't violate relativity because it was the space of the universe that did the expanding). In our 'normal' universe the speed of light is the speed limit which prevents us from ever seeing any of that inflation because it's moving away faster than the speed of light.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n"...I've read that the universe is thought to be "saddle shaped..."\nMore recent observations point more towards the universe being geometrically "flat." This simply means that the universe appears to be infinite, that its space will expand forever while cooling more and more over the eons.\n------------------------------------------------------------\n"...What does it mean for example, to say that the universe is expanding at a rate of 70 kilometers per second per (x number of light years)?..."\nYou've described the so-called Hubble Constant. (70 km/sec/Mpc) It means if galaxy 'A' is 1 Mpc (1-million ly) away from us it's recessional velocity will be 70 km/sec. If galaxy 'B' is 2 Mpc away then it's velocity will be 140 km/sec It's important to keep in mind though that it's space that's expanding like that, not the galaxies moving THROUGH space; they just get carried along.\n------------------------------------------------------------\n"...I was not able to find a rate of acceleration of expansion..."\nI've been looking for a figure too. So far the only thing I've come up with is -3.15^36 /sec/sec  Darned if I know what the units of measurement are though. Maybe someone else on Yahoo can help us out with that.
297429
Oh my, have you opened up a can of nightmarish confusion.\n\nYou are referring to String Theory, and it is way too complicated to describe here.  Here is an exerpt from an article on wikipedia of String Theory that describes these extra dimensions:\n\nOne intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts the number of dimensions which the universe should possess. Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand". The first person to add a fifth dimension to Einstein's four was the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza in 1919. The reason for the unobservability of the fifth dimension (its compactness) was suggested by the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein in 1926.\n\nInstead, string theory allows one to compute the number of spacetime dimensions from first principles. Technically, this happens because for a different number of dimensions, the theory has a gauge anomaly. This can be understood by noting that in a consistent theory which includes a photon (technically, a particle carring a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry), it must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions since for a larger number of dimensions, there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefor, the photon will be massless - and the theory consistent - only for a particular number of dimensions.\n\nThe only problem is that when the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time), but twenty-six. More precisely, bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation (see technical details in the preprint "Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings - Revisited"). However, these results appear to contradict the observed four dimensional space-time.\n\n \nCalabi-Yau manifold (3D projection)Two different ways have been proposed to solve this apparent contradiction. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable in our phenomenal experience. The 6-dimensional model's resolution is achieved with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are compactified by causing them to loop back upon themselves.\n\nA standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If the hose is viewed from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. Indeed, think of a ball small enough to enter the hose but not too small. Throwing such a ball inside the hose, the ball would move more or less in one dimension; in any experiment we make by throwing such balls in the hose, the only important movement will be one-dimensional, that is, along the hose. However, as one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. Thus, a ant crawling inside it would move in two dimensions (and a fly flying in it would move in three dimensions). This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, or if one "throws in" small enough objects. Similarly, the extra compact dimensions are only visible at extremely small distances, or by experimenting with particles with extremely small wave lengths (of the order of the compact dimension's radius), which in quantum mechanics means very high energies (see wave-particle duality).\n\nAnother possibility is that we
253147
I would think there may be as many as six. I asked a question on here a few months ago, trying to find out if it were possible for matter to have mass but not take up space and vice versa. I think it's completely possible and if it is, I like to call it inverse matter. That would be the 6th state of matter and might be descriptive of "black holes".