Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#19922 04/05/07 01:56 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
P
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
I'm not sure if this is appropriate discussion here, but I've often heard time being described as the fouth dimension. I feel this might be inaccurate as it seems like it would exclude the movement of a point in two dimensional space. Shoudn't it be possibly the first dimension? Then a point traveling along a line can be plotted to be a one point at one time, and at another point at another time?

.
pathfinder #19926 04/05/07 03:30 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Pathfinder:
"...but I've often heard time being described as the fouth dimension. I feel this might be inaccurate as it seems like it would exclude the movement of a point in two dimensional space."

Shakespeare to the rescue:
- "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

It makes no difference what name is given to that dimension of the space-time continuum. Try calling it the '1st dimension', and see if anything changes <g>


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #19938 04/05/07 05:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The numbering, 1, 2, 3, 4, is just a matter of convention and has no meaning.

Take any single dimension, time, length, etc. and try to remove it from space-time to stand on its own: It has no meaning.


DA Morgan
DA Morgan #19942 04/05/07 06:38 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
P
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
1,2,3,4....has meaning in the world of mathematics. My pondering was to the effect that; if we are used to seeing (and subsequently thinking) that the sequence is 2,3,4,1...would it affect our clarity when trying to increase our understanding of the issue?

pathfinder #19944 04/05/07 07:19 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The trick is to get a clear understanding of the issue with a complete disregard for the numbers 1-4.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #19947 04/05/07 09:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Redewenur is correct. The ordering has nothing to do with mathematics.

Space-time has four dimensions. Whether you call them in order A, or order B, or order Z doesn't matter.

They are inseparable.


DA Morgan
DA Morgan #19954 04/05/07 10:45 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
P
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Space/time has four dimensions? I thought current theory had it somewhere around 11? Which gets to my point that it is easy to conceptualize the three we live in, but when we are asked to make a jump over the fourth(because it is reserved for time) in order to consider the fifth, it makes it harder (and sort of counter-intuative) if we are thinking 1st-spacial;2nd-spacial;3rd-spacial;4th-temporal;5th-spacial,etc.

DA Morgan #19958 04/05/07 11:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Think of it this way: Are you tall (height) or are you long (depth)? It depends on if you are standing or laying down. Height and length are just customary linguistic conventions. Two ways of describing the same thing.

How about a cube? It has the same height, width, and depth. Let's say you wanted to increase the cube's width without changing it's depth. Which edges would need to lengthen? It's tempting to say, "Those running perpendicular to my line of sight." But then, somebody standing near you and facing a different side of the cube would disagree. They'd say that by lengthening those sides, you were making it deeper, not wider. Somebody above you facing down might say you are increasing the height. They are all equivalent.

If time is a dimension, then it is just as equivalent.

Let's look at it like Flatland does:

Imagine a point. It exists in three dimensional space, though it has zero dimensions of it's own. But, it is still there a moment later, which means it has a temporal component. So, imagine if you will, a hypothetical vantage point from outside of time. From here, you can see the line that the point has made as it sweeps through the fourth dimension we are calling time. And this line has a length. Call it duration. If the point was there for two minutes, then the line is two minutes long. From this special vantage point, that's just another length measurement. From here, duration and length are the same thing when talking about a line.

Let's add a dimension to our point in three dimensions. We grant it width. It looks to us, here in three dimensions, like a line. But we go to our special vantage point and see that it makes a rectangle as the line sweeps across the fourth dimension we call time. It has length and duration. Or is it width and length? They are the same.

Let's add another dimension: We bend the line around into a circle. Now it has height and width (but, being a circle, has no depth). When we see it from our special vantage point from outside time, however, we see that as the circle sweeps through the fourth dimension it forms a cylinder thanks to it's duration. From here, it can be seen to have height, width, and depth. Which one is duration? It's tempting to say that the straight lines that form the cylinder are duration. But what if it was a square instead of a circle? And let's say it existed just long enough that it's duration was equal to it's width? Now, from the special vantage point, we have a cube - and it's duration is indistinguishable from it's height and width.

So far, we've talked only about objects that self-contain 3 or fewer dimensions including time. But what happens when you talk about an object that is three dimensional in our 3d space (let's say, a cube), but then look at it from our super-temporal vantage point? Now you have a mind-bending shape. It's a cube blurred out along the temporal dimension. It is a true four dimensional object.

From our special vantage point, we can see all four of it's dimensions, and they are all equal in priority because duration is just another length to us here.

Now to blow the mind a little more...

Tachyons, if they exist, are said to exist in "imaginary time". That's not to say that this time exists in our imagination, but rather that it is imaginary in the same way as the imaginary part of a complex number. If you are familiar with imaginary numbers, then you know that they are plotted OFF the "real" number line. They have their own number line axis, running perpendicular to real numbers, forming a plane on which complex numbers can be mapped.

In much the same way, tachyons (again, if they exist at all) exist in imaginary time - time that is somehow "sideways" to the timeline we are used to. This implies a plane on which these tachyons could be mapped.

So, imagining time as that plane, we would then have five dimensions. Our special vantage point, then, would allow us to take that four dimensional cube and 'rotate' it through all five dimensions. If that cube existed just long enough that it's width, height, depth, and duration were all the same and we rotated it within five dimensions, then each of those four dimensions would be indistinguishable from one another.

You could take it another step. What if you are "standing" on that plane of time and look "up"? Now you're talking about a sixth dimension. Three dimensions of space and three of time. And you take that four dimensional cube and roll it sideways to time so it moves through the fifth dimension. In six dimensional space, that movement will create another "line" whose paintbrush is the cube.

And this goes on, ad infinitum, for as many dimensions as actually exist. But not a single one of those dimensions has any property that makes it more or less "important". They all coexist and the universe exists within them.

Just because none is more important than the others doesn't mean that one can't be more mysterious than the others, though. Time, even if it is only a single dimension instead of the mind bending three dimensions described above, is still plenty mysterious. Why is it that we are inexorably drawn along it in one direction but are only able to see in the other direction? It's not anything to do with time itself, but rather how we experience the world around us. To go any further in this vein would remove this topic from Physics and put it into Not Quite Science, so I'll stop that line of reasoning there. smile

Another way to answer your question (and a much simpler, but -to me- less satisfactory way) would be to point out that we've never numbered the first three dimensions. They are just the "three dimensions" that we are used to. Nobody ever says that a board needs to be cut in the second dimension - they say it needs to be narrower or shorter. First, second, and third have no meaning. So to call time a fourth dimension is simply to acknowledge that we are used to there being only three and now we see that there are four. So it's the fourth one. Nothing special there.

W

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Pathfinder: "I thought current theory had it somewhere around 11?"

Yes, M-Theory requires 11 dimensions (at least it did when I last looked). As has been pointed out, '4th dimension' is simply a convention that arose following Einstein's work. Three dimensions of space had been recognised for centuries, then after Einstein time was recognised as a dimension of the space-time continuum, and thus dubbed 'the 4th dimension'. If it transpires that there are, in fact, other spatial dimensions, then perhaps that 'convention' will simply die a natural death.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #19961 04/06/07 02:07 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
pathfinder wrote:
"I thought current theory had it somewhere around 11?"

That isn't space-time that is quantum mechanics.

We have ample evidence space-time exists. We have essentially zero evidence that the others do except in math formulas.


DA Morgan
DA Morgan #19982 04/06/07 05:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
DA: "That isn't space-time that is quantum mechanics."

Yes, so long as there remains no evidence; but if those extra dimensions could be proven to exist, it would be because they have a measurable consequence. In that case, they would necessarily be included in the term 'space-time'.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #19983 04/06/07 05:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I partially agree.

If those dimensions do exist ... they may influence space-time. But I am not entire convinced the reverse is equally true.


DA Morgan
DA Morgan #19985 04/06/07 05:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Proof of an extra dimension may not be so hard to find. I think I may originally have found this link on this forum!

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=2D3D296B-E7F2-99DF-3D73118D0D9F5D10

This kind of experiment anticipates that there will be a measurable effect upon gravity, and therefore upon space-time. If such an experiment ever gives positive results, then it would be necessary to incorporate the extra dimension(s) into a new space-time theory, e.g., M-Theory.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #20015 04/07/07 12:18 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8
It has been conjectured that the "missing" dimensions of an 11-dimensional space-time form a Calabi-Yau manifold i.e. a way to compact and explain why we don't observe the extra dimensions required by a unification theory. Some theories go further and suggest that the specific geometry of a Calabi-Yau manifold actually determines the physical constants of nature e.g. fine-structure constant etc.

There have been a few attempts to test strong-gravity theories and extra dimensions, such as TeV gravity, but the experiments often come back null.


Last edited by Durante; 04/07/07 12:22 PM.
Durante #20021 04/07/07 05:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
What I like most about Calabi-Yau manifolds is that identical physics can occur with differing spaces. Very interesting.


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5