String theory suggests that there are likely at least 11 other dimensions besides the one we are used to....
133797
Ever since man took an interest in the sciences, from perhaps the time of Aristotle onwards, from time to time great ideas have been put forward. Some of these have seemed initially ludicrous, and turned out to be so. Others, with a little development, have given us a great insight into the way that the world works and enabled us to move on. \nAt a given moment of time, it may appear that what we know is fairly correct and will correct timelessly. However, history has shown that this is not the case. Eventually, perhaps, we will know everything, but right now this is far from the case. \nTake one of the fundamental aspects of physics, for instance. For a long time now people have thought that the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles; atoms and their sub-components. This is the model we learn and that everyone worked around. \nYet in recent times, this has been challenged, by what is known as string theory - and it now seems that this is a better model, perhaps the more 'correct' one. \nString theory, against the traditional theory of matter, says that matter is caused by the vibrations of a string-like structure. These are the fundamental building blocks of matter. It is a bizarre sounding radical theory at first, but now has much support. \nJust like a violin string when plucked will produce sounds, and different sounds when plucked in different ways, so it is with the universe - with string theory, the fluctuations give rise to matter. On this view, the universe may romantically be described as a symphony. The framework of the vibrating string causes the song that we see around us. \nThis, then, in outline is string theory, and it has greatly changed the way that modern physicists do their subject.
278783
i don't know... this is all theoretical, and i would guess that this either \na- does not and cannot happen, or\nb- happens all the time and is therefore not something to be concerned about\n\ndid you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? or Fabric of the Cosmos? (same author) \nI suggest these for further understanding of the string theory.... without having to consider the complexities of the mathematics behind it.
277089
the sensors we have in our body are only able to detect the 3 dimensions that we see. some physicists think that there are up to...11? dimensions existing, however we are unable to detect them and therefore...its not possible to "go" there. the same as we are not able to "go" into a 2D world...unless someone has figured out a way to become flat
66810
There are two main kinds of strings: cosmic strings, and then strings that are postulated to be building blocks of matter.\n\nCosmic strings are attempts to explain the irregularity of matter in the cosmos.\n\nThe other string theory postulates that matter is not built out of zero dimensional objects (particles) but out of one dimensional objects (strings). These are very small and they vibrate to produce various effects. There are different varieties of these building block type string theories, which you can read about below.
563247
Beyond our universe is a multitude of other universes moving through a multiverse.
24244
Actually, the wiki on this one is unusually good (and right, for once):\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string\n\nCosmic strings are sometimes confused with the strings of string theory.  There's considerably more observational evidence for the former than the latter. \n\n(I say they're different things, but every time someone like me says something like that, some party-pooper like Bohr comes along and makes a liar out of us.  There's a chance, in my mind at least, that they could be closely related somehow since, supposing either of the things even exist, they're both topological defects in space.  But, that's pure conjecture on my part).\n\nMichio Kaku of the City College of New York has written on both.  If you're looking for something on string theory, and not cosmic string theory, Barton Zwiebach has written the only introductory book worth reading.  If you really did mean cosmic strings, there are several recent journal publications listed in that wikipedia article (and they're all, for once, actually referreed journals).\n\nAs an aside, I see a lot of people posting on both of these around here as though they were somehow proven fact.  There is almost no observational evidence for cosmic strings, and there is none at all for string theory.  There isn't anything wrong with thinking about things like this -- that's where new answers come from.  It's just that I'd like to see the certainty levels turned down a bit.  In the case of string theory, the theory is in much better shape than it was a few decades ago, but it still has no real central theme, it has no real sharp predictions (like the Higgs-Boson, for example, of the standard model of particle physics), and absolutely no experimental verification or support of any kind.\n\nIt just kind of torques me a little that so many people run around on these boards decrying the theory of evolution as unproven, wild-ass conjecture (when, in fact, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution has been more exhaustively catalogued than it has been for probably any other theory in history), while still others are lauding string theory as something as sure as Maxwell's equations.  String theory is a fun idea, and probably a necessary one, but it isn't a sound idea just yet.
604501
No matter how many 'experts' around here claim that there are alternate universes or other dimensions or a brick wall, nobody--repeat NOBODY--really knows. Tons of theories, but not one single shred of evidence to support any of them.\n\nScientific research has repeatedly indicated that our universe is infinite in scope, and that it will expand forever although its contents (mass and energy) will very, very gradually fade away to nothing.\n\nBefore our universe began, and right now, there's probably nothing else but an absolute and infinite void totally without energy, mass, spacetime, dimensions or anything else.
543731
According to Superstring Theory, gravity operates in 10 dimensions (for M-theory, it would be 11 dimensions) and the gravity that we feel is just a little leakage (like a leaking sprinkler), and that's why gravity is so weak compared with all the other forces. So in a sense, your alternate reality is in fact the othe 6 spatial dimensions outside our 3, but we can never see or touch them.\n\nBTW, the reason physicists say that they don't understand gravity is because we current do NOT have a complete quantum theory of gravity, but we do have a very well tested classical theory, and that theory is called General Relativity (by Einstein).\n\nRight now, Superstring theory and Supergravity are the 2 contending theories of quantum gravity. However, physicists have found that Superstring theory and Supergravity may in fact be the same theory but described differently mathematically.\n\nBTW, anti-gravity does exist and has been discovered recently, but was theorized by Einstein back in the 1920's. He called it, the Cosomological Constant. Today physicists call anti-gravity, Dark Energy, which exists everywhere in space and is part of spacetime itself. Again, we find that our own little reality is more than strange enough that we really don't need an alternate reality to make it stranger.
180564
sure, there are many other possibilities also. i believe that they all happen at the same time.
246450
It does contradict Einstein's notions of locality. Yet laboratory experiments have demonstrated the non-locality of particle entanglement. The philosophical implication is that another dimension, call it hyperspace, transcends ordinary space. The universe is a single hyperparticle.
322398
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings, but also higher-dimensional objects.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of energy of the Planck length (about 10-35 m) which vibrate at resonant specific frequencies[1]. Another key claim of the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., physical processes in a dimension of size R match those in a dimension of size 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.
420485
You might be interested in M-theory of the universe. It suggests that the universe, ie the big bang that we see is the result of two higher dimensional membranes touching each other. Other membranes may actually touch and produce other kinds of universes but with physics that might be unstable or unusual
153228
Currently man believes or percieves only 3 spacial dimensions.  Height, length and depth.  String Theory, the unification theory of quantum and relative gravity hypothesizes up to 11 other spacial dimensions.  God resides where man can not comprehend and angels fear to tread.  Remember, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
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
260392
Its in a different dimension.  A different plain of reality.
36183
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Studies of string theories have revealed that they require not just strings but also higher-dimensional objects.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of energy of the Planck length (about 10-35 m) which vibrate at resonant specific frequencies[1]. Another key claim of the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.\n\nInterest in string theory is driven largely by the hope that it will prove to be a theory of everything. It is a possible solution of the quantum gravity problem, and in addition to gravity it can naturally describe interactions similar to electromagnetism and the other forces of nature. Superstring theories include fermions, the building blocks of matter, and incorporate supersymmetry. It is not yet known whether string theory is able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that is observed, nor how much freedom to choose those details the theory will allow. String theory as a whole has not yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested, though various special corners of the theory are accessible to planned observations and experiments.\n\nWork on string theory has led to advances in mathematics, mainly in algebraic geometry. String theory has also led to other theories, supersymmetric gauge theories, which will be tested at the new Large Hadron Collider experiment.
574827
Dimensions are not the same thing as a parellel universe.  It's one popular misconceptions carried on by mystics but created by turn-of-the-20th-century scientists when spirits were thought to exist in higher dimensions.\n\nDimensions are concepts of sides of objects and time, no more, no less.  We exist in what is visually a four dimensional universe, height, width, depth, and time.  We can't visualize objects in higher dimensional space because there is no evolutionary advantage to such a thing; tigers don't leap out at you from the fifth dimension.  String theory suggests there are 11 dimensions (or more); at the Big Bang all the dimensions existed at once then split apart.  Our 4-dimensional universe expanded in the however many other dimensions (the number depends on the theory) shrunk down to the Planck length (10^-35 meters).\n\nA parallel universe is usually what people and mystics mean when they say dimensions.  Even though a parallel universe is technically just another universe existing just out of reach of our own (possible even nanometers away).  This theory seems to be common to multiverse theory, string theory, m-theory, and a few others.\n\nOnward, if we shrink to smaller than an atom, down to the Planck length for example, we'd not lose our four-dimensionalism.  We'd just be really, really small.  We wouldn't be visible to the naked eye nor the most powerful of electron microscopes.  Nothing that exists today can probe down to that desperately small scale; there are plans to eventually do so, however.  We wouldn't slip into another world or into a 3-dimensional space (length, width, and time).\n\nThis isn't an insane question, nor is it stupid.  It's actually asking something very simple.  Remember Einstein asked himself a simple question when considering light.  "What would happen if you were to race alongside a beam of light?"  Einstein was a master of looking at things at their simplest level; from that question above came one of the most remarkable and elegant theories ever to exist: Relativity.