- HubPages
*»* - Education and Science

# Extra Dimensions are Impossible

## Three Dimensions of Reality

A dimension is a measure of spatial extent. Matter and space have three dimensions: length, width and height. All objects possess a three-dimensional shape. There are no objects in reality which can be said to be 0D, 1D, 2D, 4D, 5D, etc. All real objects, without exception, are ‘3D’. It is impossible to show a picture of anything with more or less dimensions than three. Lower and higher dimensions are impossible to imagine. But wait a minute, some might say, what about a piece of paper? That looks pretty flat and ‘2D’, doesn’t it? But no, that’s wrong. A piece of paper (like everything else) is three-dimensional. The paper is made of 3D atoms and those atoms are made of even smaller 3D particles and so on and so forth, ad-infinitum.

## 3D Atoms

## Eleven Dimensions of Fantasy

It is very clear that the world we live in is three-dimensional. But unfortunately modern physics has now abandoned this common sense, three-dimensional (Euclidian) space in favor of Minkowski’s ‘4D spacetime’. This was a highly irrational move to make which was not based on any logic or evidence, but strictly on abstract mathematics.

For example, ‘String Theory’ claims that there are 11 dimensions and that everything is comprised of 1D strings. Is this rational? Does this make any sense? No, obviously not. An eleven-dimensional or one-dimensional shape cannot even be imagined. It is nothing but gibberish. And the same goes for ‘zero-dimensional point particles’. How can a 3D atom be comprised of 0D particles? If something had ‘zero dimensions’, then it would be nothing. Obviously that is impossible and hence the particles that comprise the atom must necessarily be three-dimensional. A ‘singularity’ is also impossible because these ‘entities’ are likewise claimed to be ‘zero-dimensional’. So-called ‘black holes’ do not contain singularities in reality. A ‘black hole’ is actually just a ‘super dense object’ and is therefore the exact opposite of a hole.

## The Fantasy of 4D Spacetime

But now lets get back to the subject of ‘Minkowski spacetime’. It is claimed that the concept of time is somehow a ‘fourth dimension of space’. The word ‘dimension’ is often used very sloppily. But if defined more rigorously, then the concept of dimension can only refer to the ‘length, width and height’ of matter and space. Dimension is a spatial and morphological concept, whereas ‘time’ is a measurement of motion. ‘Motion’ is the changing locations matter. Time and dimension have nothing to do with one another and hence it is highly illogical to claim that time is a dimension.

Besides this, it’s also claimed by some that we could potentially create ‘short-cuts’ through space by ripping an extra-dimensional ‘wormhole’ through it. Many sci-fi movies have made use of this idea that ‘wormholes’ can be made through space. Very entertaining of course, but its pure fantasy and nothing else. First of all, does space have the same kind of qualities as the matter that occupies it? Obviously not, you can’t manipulate ‘space’ in the same way that you can manipulate a physical object. If you can’t truly interact with space then you certainly cannot ‘rip a hole through it’, extra dimensional or otherwise. It makes no sense.

## Conclusion

Extra dimensions and lower dimensions are unimaginable and there is no evidence to support them (nor can there ever be).

Occam’s razor clearly supports the three-dimensional Euclidean view of the universe. What you see is what you get. The universe consists of three-dimensional objects that occupy an infinite three-dimensional space. There is no reason to think otherwise.

**© 2013 Kevin Porter**

## Comments

"On the contrary, it is finite space which is unimaginable..."

So, what you're saying is that you can't imagine boxes, balls, balloons, or essentially any space that is bounded in some fashion? That's all I got from that...

"If 'space' was finite then what would be on the other side of it?..."

Well, since we are making baseless philosophical arguments founded on nothing more than what makes sense to you, lets start with something you can make sense of. What's on the other side of the sidewalls of a box? Or the skin of a balloon? Answer: More space. Moving on...

"Space never comes to an end. It goes on and on and on forever...."

You can't prove that, and your own inability to comprehend the idea of a finite universe doesn't constitute proof that it is infinite. It constitutes proof that you cannot understand how a finite universe could be possible. That's it...

"It simply makes no sense to try to claim otherwise. All material objects (rocks, stars, people, atoms, etc.) are finite in shape, but there is an infinite/unlimited amount of material objects...."

So. Everything that you can comprehend is finite. Except space. And the reason why that is, is because finite space makes no sense to you. To you. Got it.

"There is nothing unimaginable or inconceivable about unlimited matter or boundless space. Whereas the idea that there are more then three dimensions truly is unimaginable and is therefore irrational..."

Here you are making the assumption that your ability to comprehend something is the upper limit of comprehension, and anything that does not fall under that limit must be irrational. Faulty premise, with zero base in logic or reason. Your argument is invalid. Once again, just because you can't comprehend something does not make it impossible or irrational. It makes you incapable of comprehending the thing. End of story...

"...we humans have the ability to use our sense of reason to understand the world we live in. If an idea being proposed (such as more than three dimensions) does not make any sense, then it should not be pursued anymore..."

Said the same guys that believed that the earth was the center of everything, or that man could not fly, let alone build a thing capable of it. Let's not even get started on the ones that claim the earth is flat because of their zetetic astronomy. You are trying to assert that a thing does not make sense to you, and therefore it cannot be. That isn't reason. That isn't logic. That isn't common sense. And it certainly does not constitute scientific thought. It's jabberwocky. Wholesale, and unabridged poppycock.

"Magic and gibberish have no place in science."

It's funny that you bring this up.

The fact that something can be infinite (space, matter) to me makes no sense because its unimaginable, in reality there is always start and end - its human logic, and i know its faulty and should not be trusted. So why should we deem something to be true based on our human logic or whether we can imagine it or not?

4