Of course, I do not know much about String Theory, but I have heard that there are 11 dimensions. This theory tries to unify all existing theories. Coulomb's law and gravitational law have the same form. Scientists had the question, "Can we bring electromagnetics, mechanics, thermodynamics etc. under one umbrella"?

Towards the end of his life, Einstein thought that there was a relation between gravity and electromagnetism.

In electromagnetism, as a first step in this direction, it seems to be required to expand the space geometry beyond 3D to be able to define localized photons in such a manner that they conform to Maxwell's equations:

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

I have been researching on similar theories for a year now. All I can derive from the equations of relativity, gravity and electromagnetics, photon behaviour etc. that every equation relates to space and time, at least theoretically. However, another dimension that might be a possible answer according to me is the constituent of interdimensional space or the space between the spaces. It might constitute an element that deviates the laws of light and matter. 

In a metaphysical sense, there are obviously more fundamental spaces than the physical dimensions than length, breadth, height, and Time. There are the quantitative spaces in which the values of the parameters in Einstein's equations are defined, along with the operators that act on them. There are the qualitative spaces in which the names and characterizing attributes of these parameters are defined. There is the informational space in which these parameters are fundamentally differentiated. None of these are physical spaces and so they reside beyond the domain of science.

Thats sounds really great Prof. Kevin R. Harris. I do seconds your thought. But quantifying the metaphysical is always a challenge. Hope some day we can come out with new segments to overcome this. In fact i am in process to establish a centre of excellence of Vedic Informatics too. with regards.. Prof Abhay

The universe seems to be a blooming, buzzing complex of aspects, some of which can be perceived by humans. The aspects we call space and time are human-centric efforts at making the complex manifold more orderly as we quest for human survival. The universe does not come with space and time (or logic, or numbers. etc.); these are concepts created by human societies. Einstein's physics is a success to the extent that it provides a useful view of some of life's 'order and arrangement'. Physics in this sense is not wrong, it is merely a limited case.

Your inquiry could be investigated by studying other notions that could be more foundational than space and time. This seems like metaphysics, as you say; however, just because quantifying metaphysics is a challenge does not mean we cannot seriously pursue a more general, alternate model that (also) contributes order and arrangement to the manifold.    

Very true Prof. Richard Burbank. I do second your thought and this only makes me to talk about the fifth dimension of the world. I  will be sharing with your very soon. warm regards and I do highly appreciate your spirit in helping me. 

Several ideas have been suggested about a physical fifth dimension. Two of these are more or less mainstream:

Less mainstream are e.g. Capozziello's unification scheme, in which our 4D spacetime with massive particles emerges by dimensional reduction from a 5D space with five equivalent dimensions, and Bordé's 5D theory, in which a change in the internal state of a particle corresponds to a displacement in the fifth dimension. I myself are working on a 5D spacetime in which the fifth dimension is spatial and compact: its natural coordinates are the interval [0, 1) which can be seen as degrees of completenes of individual processes.

You might find some inspiration in The Physicist and the Philosopher by Jimena Canales. It gives a very good perspective on the Einstein-Bergson tensions, and therefore on the "science" versus "non-science" debate (which can be read as "quantifiable" versus "non-quantifiable" among other dualisms).

On a light note, this is your world, and you can have as many dimensions in it as you want (to paraphrase Bob Ross in "The Joy of Painting").

Awesome Prof. D. A. Bouchette:  i do feel delighted to have your perfect set of answer. I will definitely look into the book of Jimena... The joy of painting does touched me. Thanks for your wonderful and straight forward reply. Hope to meet and greet you sometime in future too. Warm regards, Prof. Abhay

One more thing, inspired by your list "length, breadth, height and Time." Many ancient cultures seem to have held a sevenfold relationship with extension: North, South, East, West, Above, Below, and Within, where the latter might be considered that which conceives of Time, and Above/Below as that which takes into account the warp of gravity.

Prof. D. A. Bouchette: It sounds pretty good that your knowledge domain is immense and i do appreciate your keen observations. If you follow Indian doctrine there is concept of "Rakshvidhan"  especially when you perform agnihotra. In this ritual they chant mantras for 8 directions along with ups and down and in circle also. There is also a concept of Seven Lokas.. in Vedic perspective. Yes. i do feel that this will surely makes me to come up some thing new and innovative too. Thanks a lot for your kind support and help. regards

Of course we can, it has already been done to at least 11 dimensions in some physics theory and of course mathematicians have studied multidimensional spaces. There is a brief discussion on the subject on the Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

I'm no specialist in the field, but as far as I know, in physics, these multidimensional theories are only conjectures and have little if any experimental validation. Probably you can start there and find some reference that gets you further.

Best regards,

Laurent

thanks a lot Prof. Laurent Cormier for your valuable input. i do appreciate your kind efforts in helping me to get some desired direction. warm regards. Prof. abhay

“Can we think something beyond relativity.. or the fifth dimension of space.? ”

- Matter’s real spacetime is indeed  [5] 4D Euclidian manifold/ “empty container”; i.e. it consists of two temporal [“true time” and “coordinate time”] dimensions/axes and tree spatial dimensions/axes. Correspondingly the spacetime is evidently beyond relativity, which claims that real spacetime is 4D Minkowski / pseudo Riemannian space, where either temporal or spatial dimensions are imaginary.

At that in the reality anything inside the container principally cannot impact on the emptiness, there is/are no “space contraction”, “time dilation”, “spacetime curvature”, etc.

Nonetheless in the SR implicitly there exist “second time” – i.e. “proper time” which isn’t a dimension of the Minkowski space, besides, since the Minkowski formalism is a mathematic tool that is equivalent the Lorentz transformations, it is well applicable if the transformations are valid, i.e. in rigid systems of bodies – the SR, though in this theory some misrepresented spacetime is used,  in many cases predicts results that are adequate to the reality.

Real Matter’s spacetime is, in certain sense, 4D “Cartesian” spacetime, where 4 dimensions are rectangular; when the 5-th, i.e. “true time” dimension, seems essentially as some parameter – all material objects move simultaneously with 4D speeds, which have equal absolute values that are equal to the speed of light, and along the 1D true time axis with the speed of light also.

The dimensions above are main physical dimensions that correspond to main/common fundamental independent degrees of freedom for material objects to change.

Besides well known case, when mechanics often works with n-dimensional systems (qi,pi) in concrete problems there can be introduced any other dimensions that correspond to concrete degrees of freedom for any changing  parameter, for example – one can introduce “charges” dimensions, where every material body will have  [discrete] coordinates and move along corresponding axes when, say, a charge of a body changes. But in every case it seems as rather useful to consider – for what sake?

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Prof Abhay Saxena,

We can think of what may be the substratum of life's five dimensions of earth, water, fire, air, and space.  In other words, what is the energy source of all that has recognizable dimensions?

As a layman, I suppose you can think of multiple dimensions like this.

Suppose there were only three dimensions (x, y and z), So answer this questions: Can two different things occupy the same space? No. UNLESS, there was a fourth dimension. Then there could be two objects, located at [x, y, z], but at different TIMES.

Now take it further, Can two different objects occupy the same location [x,y,z] at the SAME TIME [t]? No, UNLESS there was a fifth dimension, etc.

“…Can two different things occupy the same space? No. UNLESS, there was a fourth dimension. Then there could be two objects, located at [x, y, z], but at different TIMES. ; etc.”

 that is true, but it relates to the concrete problem of the concrete number of dimension in the concrete system of objects “Matter” rather indirectly. This problem   has concrete sense – why Matter’s spacetime is just [5]4D Euclidian manifold, where indeed, there are two dimensions “Time” and three spatial dimensions. Including – in the spacetime two different things cannot occupy the same space, though they are in different 4-th [“coordinate time”] dimension/axis points [and so are in different the spacetime’s points] – because of all/every material objects are always in the same 5-th [“true time”] dimension point/moment.

Thus, including, [with a large probability] there cannot be situation when “UNLESS there was a fifth dimension, etc.”  - simply in Matter’s spacetime there are no other [additional] dimensions; and this fact is indeed fundamental – and is the essence of the thread’s question.

What is explained that,

 because of the number of dimensions of concrete system is determined by the concrete number of independent degrees of freedom at changing states of this system’s  objects [and of the system as a whole],

the objects in concrete system “Matter” have in depth only four independent degrees – three for/at changing their spatial position, so there are 3 spatial dimensions,   and one degree for/at changing of their internal states, including when being at rest in the 3D space; so in the spacetime  there is one, i.e. the “coordinate time” dimension.

The 5-th, i.e. the “true time” dimension, relates to ultimately fundamental and universal Rule/Possibility “Time” , which is necessary for any change in any system in Matter and outside [i.e. it acts in every changing/”dynamic” object/system in whole “Information” Set].

Are or not some other fundamental degrees of  freedom at changing of material objects – that isn’t known now, since with a large probability such degrees, if exist, acts on some sub-Planck scale.

Cheers

Is the distinction between spatial and temporal dimensions man-made? I've seen it written (x, y, z, t). When written that way, there doesn't seem to much difference between the various dimensions. Couldn't we have just as easily written (x, t, y, z)? If so, the "types" of dimensions seem less obvious.

“…Is the distinction between spatial and temporal dimensions man-made?..” etc.

the difference between spatial and temporal dimensions is fundamental and isn’t, of course, “man-made”. Space is the fundamental Rule/Possibility for fixed objects could exist. Time is the fundamental Rule/Possibility for dynamical objects could exist [that is with Space] and change.

More – see the link in the SS post above

Cheers

Maybe I should have started with examples of 1-dimensional space (with an example); discussed 2-dimensional space (with an example); before finally discussing 3-dimensional space and beyond. But since most are familiar with "the three dimensions," I would have lost most people way before getting to my three dimension example, which wouldn't have been good.

Despite what my friend Sergey, the scholar, said, I think an argument can be made that the number of dimensions is man-made. We might actually be living in a 5-dimensional world (four spatial and one temporal), but most humans (including myself) have a hard time grasping that concept.

Plus, even Einstein would have lost most physicists if he had re-framed the time-space equations in terms of (i, j, k, l, and t)... See? I lost you already! Besides, can anyone here prove we don't live in a 5-dimensional world? I didn't think so.

Then there's the hypothetical 3-dimensional world (2 spacial, 1 temporal) discussed in "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions," here:

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

Bill,

“…Maybe I should have started with examples of 1-dimensional space…”, etc.

in abstract science “mathematics” n-dimensional spaces are studied, where n can be even infinite; and so you can suggest in some abstract model, which has no relation to Nature, a space with arbitrary number of dimensions. But physics is principally based on experimental data, when the claim

“…We might actually be living in a 5-dimensional world…”

has no evidence in known experiments till now. What is in accordance with experiments is [5]4D Euclidian spacetime that has two temporal and 3 spatial dimensions.

Cheers

"We might actually be living in a 5-dimensional world"…has no evidence in known experiments till now"

Before Einstein, was there any physical evidence of two temporal dimensions? Einstein was a really "smart guy," but he's not the be all and end all of theoretical physics. Who knows what physical evidence someone in the distant future will devise. Will we someday be able to communicate or photograph the past or the future?

Bill,

“…Before Einstein, was there any physical evidence of two temporal dimensions?…”

in the both relativity theories Matter’s spacetime has only 4 dimensions – it is 4D pseudoEuclidian [Minkowski] space[time] and  4D pseudoRiemannian space[time]. Though in both theories there are in fact two times – “simply time”, i.e. 1D temporal coordinate in the spaces, and the “proper time”, which is a parameter of a moving body.

At that in the spaces either one temporal or 3 spatial dimensions are imaginary, what is evidently strange – nobody till now observed imaginary space or time. Besides in the theories it is postulated that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime, what is rather strange also, etc.

So if you indeed want to understand what is Matter’s spacetime – see the link in the SS post on 2-nd page, including - to understand what are Lorentz transformations and the main other equations in kinematics and dynamics of moving bodies is enough to know the Pythagoras theorem.

“…Will we someday be able to communicate or photograph the past or the future?…”

- we cannot communicate or photograph just "now" – when, for example somebody photographs other somebody on a distance L, on the picture will be the first somebody from the past time moment delta T=-L/c [c=the speed of light], we cannot see what is now on Sun – we see what is Sun 8 minutes ago, etc. But that’s all, and that isn’t a “time machine” when somebody travels in the time arbitrarily, that is inpossible.

Cheers

I was going to interject how the average person views the speed of light.

Yes, it's the greatest possible speed and it is pretty quick, but some might mistakenly think that the speed of light is infinite (instantaneous). The truth is, it's far from it.

The speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is pretty quick terrestrially, After all, the circumference of the earth is only 25,000 miles. But astronomically, the speed of light is snail-like. As you've already pointed out, it takes 8 MINUTES for light to reach the earth from the sun, which is 93 millions of miles away; and it would take light 25 million YEARS to reach the nearest galaxy, outside of our own.

Like I said, astronomically, the speed of light is a slow-poke. 

I think a dimension beyond time and space is that which exists prior to time and space - unknowable because we exist in time and space.  Nevertheless, like eternal consciousness, though indescernible

Maybe a dimension beyond time and space is MIND. With my mind, I can instantaneously relive events in my past,; or travel to a planet that is circling a sun in a distant galaxy; I can even imagine what our galaxy will be like a billion years in the future, although my physical body would not allow me to do any of those things. No, I can't travel backward in time and there isn't enough time for me to actually travel into the distant future.

Bill,

“…Maybe a dimension beyond time and space is MIND….”

that isn’t so. Time [and Space] are Rules/Possibilities that are necessary for anything, what are some things and processes, could exist [both – space and time] and to change [time]; at that as the possibilities they form “spacetimes”.

 Including mind – more correct “consciousness”- is some dynamical thing and so it isn’t a spacetime, it uses [to exist and to operate] some spacetime. This spacetime obligatory uses the same “true time” dimension  as the Matter does [5-th dimension] since this Rule/Possibility is fundamentally universal and common for all dynamical systems; but very probably the consciousness doesn’t use the 4-th, i.e. “coordinate time” dimension of the Matter’s spacetime.

 At that rather probably the space in the consciousness’s spacetime is other then the Matter’s 3D space, or, at least it indeed contains other then three  Matter’s spacetime spatial dimensions.

 Cheers

Sergey said, "...it uses [to exist and to operate] some spacetime." Time, yes, but space? In humans, yes. But there might be mind beyond the 3-temporal dimensions. That was the basis of my conjecture, above. If I had agreed that mind worked within spacetime (3 space - 1 time), then I wouldn't have suggested it might be the 5th dimension...

“…Time, yes, but space? In humans, yes. But there might be mind beyond the 3-temporal dimensions…”, etc.

A next time a few points relating to the problem of the dimensions for/in some changing [dynamical] objects/systems of objects:

The number of dimensions and types of dimensions are determined for/ “by” every concrete object/system of objects; besides the temporal “true time” dimension, which is fundamentally universal and common for all dynamic objects/systems of objects in the Set;

In the Set there can be – and are seems infinite set of spatial dimensions, when, again concrete object/system chooses its limited concrete set of dimensions. At that a choosing of the number of dimensions for/in concrete system at modeling processes of the system in the science should be reduced, as a rule, to minimal set of indeed fundamental degrees of freedom at changes of this system.

For example – in Matter somebody can choose the spatial dimension “[electric] charge” in the space of charges and all material objects will be practically in different points and move in this space when a body changes its charge – and in corresponding Matter’s [6]5D spacetime. Other somebody can introduce the dimension “mass” and again all material objects will be practically in different points and, say, a human will move in positive direction in this mass space from the birth, say, through distance from 4 kg to 100 kg; etc. However in, e.g., physics, such introduced dimensions have practically no sense.

“Mind”, i.e. the human’s consciousness is non-material and so it operates in some other spacetime where are some possibilities for changes of this non-material system; but seems till now that is all what we can say relating to this point; there is seems no any data about the number and “content” of these dimensions. Nonetheless from the fact that non-material consciousness impact on material objects – for example it governs material human’s body, it operates in the Matter’s space also.

Bill, a next time – to invent a next “dimension” in/for some system there are practically no problems, the question is – for the what sake?

Cheers

Apparently the different versions of string theory all require extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. Spacetime is 26-dimensional in bosonic string theory, 10-dimensional in superstring theory, and 11-dimensional in supergravity theory and M-theory. Thus, these extra dimensions, at least so far, look like "inventions" (i.e. mere conceptions) for the sake of avoiding inconsistency. But one such invention may still turn out to be an accurate description of reality. Mendel explained his mathematical formulation of observed inheritable traits in terms of a conception of "discrete inherited units" (i.e. genes, although he himself didn't use that term), which were not observable at the time.

“…Apparently the different versions of string theory all require extra dimensions for mathematical consistency.….”

The number and the nomenclature of dimensions of Matter’s spacetime is defined by the number and nomenclature of independent changing [at material objects existence and interactions] parameters of material objects and number and nomenclature of corresponding mutually independent degrees of freedom of the changes, and it [the spacetime] is nothing more then the possibility for the changes.

Till now the number and nomenclature of utmost fundamental changes are well observed up to utmost fundamental scale, i.e. up to Planck scale, and that is determined by well observed constants: the Plank constant, ћ, and the standard speed of light, c. The last is, with a large probability, simply the speed of propagation of “flipping point” of sequentially switching each other Matter’s fundamental logical elements (FLE)”; and it is equal, if the FLEs’ “sizes” are equal to the Planck length, lP and the time of a flip is equal to the Planck time, tP, c= lP/ tP.

For that it is enough for the FLE to have 4 dimensions, and so further for Matter it is enough to have 4 dimensions also. Thus with the “true time” dimension, which is absolutely fundamental and universal and so exists in every changing object/system’s spacetime, Matter’s utmost fundamental spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold/ “empty container”, where every material object and the system of the objects “Matter” as a whole exists and changes. Nothing else indeed fundamental is observed [see also the SS post above].

More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

The string theories are invented practically only aimed at, first of all, the quantization of Matter’s spacetime and by this way to solve the problem of the inconsistence of quantum mechanics and the general relativity theory. What is quite unnecessary, the GR isn’t real theory of Gravity. Nothing in Matter can impact on and to “bend” the spacetime; as well as the spacetime has no forces that could impact on material objects; and the GR doesn’t contain any explanations – by what physical ways these “relativistic effects” can happen/proceed; such explanations simply don’t exist.

In the reality Gravity is nothing more then 4-th fundamental Nature force, which is similar in some traits to the fundamental Nature EM force [and the fundamental gravitational constant “G” is well defined in Planck units]; and so gravitational systems and interactions are quantized for sure, as that is true for every of the 3 other fundamental Nature forces.

QM effects in gravitational interactions aren’t observed till now because of the force is extremely weak, however with a rather non-zero probability that is possible in experiment with photons see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”. The experiment was proposed yet in 2007.

“…But one such invention may still turn out to be an accurate description of reality. Mendel explained his mathematical formulation of observed inheritable traits in terms of a conception of "discrete inherited units" (i.e. genes, although he himself didn't use that term), which were not observable at the time.…..”

Besides some cases like the quoted correct Mendel’s prediction of non-observable in Mendel’s times "discrete inherited units" that were observed later, really there exist a huge number of predictions of other non-observable things in usual tales, “science fiction” tales, etc., including there are many “scientific” tales…

Cheers