You’ve heard “the 4th dimension” and it’s difficult even in scientiffic communities to not hear it without some sort of esoteric sense to it. In other words: To make you question whether it’s absolute baloney or if it’s supposed to mean anything at all.
Well here’s the problem. The phrase doesn’t actually make that much sense in a real-world point of view. It’s a strictly mathematical phrase. When you apply it to “reality” it means nothing. A good correlation is the “number 4” applied to reality. Number 4 what? There is no real-world number 4.
In the strictest sense, “the 4th dimension” means nothing other than adding an additional axis to the 3-dimensional cartesian field. The 3-axis field. It gives geometric forms a new type of wiggle room. If you call this 4th axis “time” well you certainly can do that, but now you’re also assigning a specific property to this axis (an entropic axis. Curves can’t go “backward” that way). The 2nd axis can be time if you want it to be. It doesn’t mean much of anything special.
This concept would perhaps be disambiguated if discussion on the “real world 4th dimension” would rely on more detail . . . like a sort of “multi-phasic theory” or an “alternate wave collapse theory.” Whatever the case, I’m not qualified to tell you exactly what to call it. What I can tell you is that if you hear the word “4th dimension” and you don’t know what it means- chances are, the person telling you about it is also not sure of what they’re talking about. If you thought of the world in a strictly cartesian sense (which it isn’t, unfortunately for our poor brains of its understood hemispheres)- then the “4th dimension” would mean that stuff that’s sort of there once in a while in front of you, but parts of it whether gigantic or small would all be completely somewhere else that you don’t know about, while still connected to it.
Alas- we still struggle with time-space, much less any “4th-dimension” hypothesis. If you feel yourself somehow missing out on a vast intelligent scheme when the phrase boggles you, I would then incite that it’s because your brain is trying to not allow itself to be tossed into garble confusion. There are certainly vast principal experiments that reveal only a clue to the depth of intricacies beyond our current understanding. But you’ll do well to disambiguate every concept, gaining solid ground, before you try to reach out for the cookie jar of knowledge on top of the fridge using a wobbly bench.
Summary: The phrase “4th dimension” is a useful conceptual tool. But as a real-world “thing” by itself- it’s baloney.
All corresponding “dimensions” are metaphorically scientific “tools” that aid the human mind in explaining, predicting, and knowing “objective” reality through measurement, comparisons, and analysis of empirical facts. What is the confusion?
All dimensions are given a direction of measurement that expands and collapses to a strictly infinite degree. To add or subtract “dimensions”, one must logically validate a system to which a new dimension would be practically useful to science. This also applies to taking a dimension away, renaming it, or explaining it in an entirely new subset (a paradigm shift).
The 5th dimension exists right now, as do others, the problem is the evolution of the human specie (especially correlating to brain development between generations). My personal philosophical theories state that evolution speeds up exponentially as a proportion of population growth, so the human race is going to evolve rather quickly relative to the past two millenniums. Once this happens, the human brain will allow for seemingly “new senses” and new dimensions will be added to the scientific paradigms as well.
The 5th dimension correlates directly to the capability of the human mind to reason and build / destroy entire “worlds” or “universes” through “mind-states”. I have developed a theory surrounding this, but it has gone unnoticed on ILP, so I don’t believe people here are entitled to my deeper thoughts surrounding this topic. Cognitive sciences, linguistic theory, metaphorical language, and conceptual knowledge all are going to contribute respective parts to building the “5th dimension” of human thought. A new paradigm shift in the sciences is quickly approaching humanity and definitely occur within the 21st century.
P.S. Every “dimension” is “intangible”. There’s no such thing as “masses”, because science cannot prove them through finite limitations, by the necessity of their definitions. Once the definitions change, then everything changes … and falls right back into place.
what are you on about, really? The 4th dimension corresponds to time. Yes its just a mathematical tool. But there is really nothing to be confused about here.
Time is considered the forth dimension for a very simple reason. Lets take the 3 spacial dimensions in a cartesian axes set up. If I have a stick facing along the the x-axis and then I rotate it around so its now along the y-axis; length becomes height. What was its length in the x dirction is now its length in the y direction. We could also consider rotations around any of the three axes. Simple. Time is the forth dimension for the very simple reason that in physical space we may rotate things in the space-time plane. To do this we just increase the speed of the stick its length will contract and its time will dilate(increase).
That is all is ment by the fourth dimension now stop getting your knickers in a twist. This stuff is 100 years old now lets move on.
There’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere, and I think it’s the “argument from ignorance.”
If you think the 4th dimension is a hard concept to grasp… just look at your watch or a clock for a hint at what it means. Its not hard. Its time.
The real gnarly stuff is when you realize that there are more than just 4. We are accustomed to our 3-space lives and take for granted that the 4th 5th and 6th time dimensions are also there (not to mention the 7th 8th 9th and 10th). Since we have no way to “point at” the higher dimensions, it gets tricky. Thus we have theories in physics that help explain it all. Also there’s also this video: tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
No actually. I understand the kind of opposition I’m receiving. I think it’s perfectly rational to speak of the 4th dimension.
There is nothing “false” about referring to time as the 4th dimension in reality. There IS fallacy (no I haven’t named one, I’m assuming)- in saying that 4th dimension = time. You can have an entirely spatial 4th dimension without ever introducing time. You can do this for all the natural numbers infinitely.
What I am trying to accomplish in the argument is that I believe there’s a folley in the esoteric talk of the 4th dimension like it’s something far above the lamen head. And the lamen would just need to research to understand “the 4th dimension is time.” Not really. You could call that a theory. “4th dimension” is just referring to an axis. That’s all it is. I can give you a grid of 2 axes. One can be chickens and one can be the amount of their feathers (whatever). Or one can be the number of chickens in the barn and the other can be the time of day (time again). There, I made it the “2nd dimension.”
I’m saying that applicability of “4th dimension” is no different than “number 4.” These are not descriptions of the real world, these are mathematical principals that are useful to describe real world principals. There are theories that can describe reality using 4 or less or more axes. There isn’t “the 4th dimension” and it isn’t time by default. It’s a method of describing reality, using 4 axes.
I think your over simplifying here. The 4th dimension isn’t the same as the four spatial dimensions. Its not just another axes if it were then there would be no time just a staic 4d space. To understand this you must understand the difference between Minkowski space(flat space time) and Euclidean space. In dimensional Euclidean space an invariant distance(one that doesn’t change no matter what angle you look at it) is defined
dl^2= du^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2
du dx etc. are just the lengths along the 4 axes.
this just like a 4d Pythagoras’ theorem a^2+b^2=c^2
Any object you take in 4d Eulidean space will remain the same length no matter how you rotate it.
But an invariant length in Minkowski space is defined as
ds^2 = -dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2
Note the minus. This is an invariant distance not between points on an object but between events in spacetime.
So you see its not true that adding an extra dimension is just thae same as adding the “number 4” because the nature of the fourth dimension is different from the other three.
But I agree when one says the forth dimension that isn’t really very descriptive.
Actually I think your making the assumption that physicists use the term the “fourth dimension”. Really we don’t for the very reasons your pointing out; its not at all specific. dimension is used alot more generally. In physics we speak of Spacetime or more specifically Minkoski space. Actually spacetime is curved due to gravity so the minkoski metric is only a good approximation when gravity is weak.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
“Well”, said another mathematicians, - “maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
“OK”, they say, “we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces”.
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
“Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
“with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
===============.
The SRT is a real theory.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn’t any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
And if we don’t know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don’t know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Minkowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
====== =========
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
“To the winner over common sense”.
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============…
I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
“ Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but negative parameter : T= - 273.
And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang “.
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space”
……………or to " the God “…
Then …
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now.”
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the “Big Bang”.
I don’t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . "
======= ======…
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
…………………………
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
=============…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus. socratus.com wbabin.net/
If I understand correctly, Socratus is also telling us that some theories are inadequate not because their complexity lacks all logic, but because they lose some “lamen” common sense.
I wouldn’t dare try to make opposition to theories about the nature of the universe using dimensions, when I’m not nearly as educated. But it makes sense to me that you can easily make a mathematical model of some kind of space using more than 3 dimensions, but not include time at all. In other words: Give me four parameters, and I could choose instead to not give the elephant the ability to wiggle its trunk. But the fourth could indeed make the elephant new appendages which occupy a new kind of space.
I shouldn’t overcomplicate the matter I present. I wouldn’t assume to know the nature of the universe. But hypothetical universes can do all sorts of things with 4 dimensions. Including only a freeze-frame of 4 spatial dimensions. 4 peramaters can mean a great deal of different things.
When scientists tell us that time is the “4th dimension”, they really mean to say that the 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions are really 4 “spacetime” dimensions - in other words, there is no “space” as such and there is no “time” as such, but only “spacetime”. What that means is that the one we experience as time is only experienced that way because of our psychological/biological makeup and how this makeup relates to the 4 spacetime dimensions (probably has something to do with the fact that we seem to be on an irreversable one-way course forward in time, whereas we have complete freedom of motion in the spatial dimensions). In other words, if our psychological/biological makeup were different, we very well might have experienced one of the other spatial dimensions as time and the temporal one as space (or maybe even two - or three - of the spatial dimensions as time).
Our psychological/biological makeup has nothing to do with this idea of spacetime. Spacetime is an objective concept. its defined simply by the motion of the observer and nothing else. Spacetime is a physical comcept it is not defined by perception. The reason time is different to space is beacuse it has the opposite sign metric. Changing the metric from 1 time like to 2 time like dimensions would change the structure of spacetime and the laws of physics. Now the form of the metric can be altered by gravitational forces but these are objective changes.
Then why do they call all 4 dimensions “spacetime” dimensions?
There has to be some psychological/biological influence on the way we experience time and space. The way we experience memory is temporally. We never confuse a passed memory as something going on now but in a different place. Likewise, when we look at different objects in different places, we never confuse their different spatial positions as differences in time. But none of these perceptual tendencies would be like this unless our nervous system and brain weren’t built to perceive it this way.
I don’t doubt there are differences between time and space, even in the objective sense, but those differences aren’t intrinsic. They are differences in the way we and all other objects we know of travel through them. For some reason, we’re all on a one-way course through time, and this is beyond our control. Space, on the other hand, is free for us to move around in. These are the conditions that define our existence in space and time, and our psychology/biology has adapted to these conditions.
My advice to you is to lean special relativity. Its not that hard. Then you’ll probably undestand.
But in the mean time I’ll explain. The only reason that we do not observe space as time or time as space is because we are moving too slowly relative to the speed of light. Once you reach ‘relativistic’ speeds time and space cease being absolute(the same for every observer) and become dependent on exactly how fast you’re going.
Spacetime is a physical concept. It is absolute.
As for our percetion. That is a seperate matter. Our perception is governed by our biology but our biology does not effect the spacetime. Biology only effects how we experience spacetime. your pointing out that we experience space and time differently and that we don’t confuse them. But any single observer always observers space as space and time as time. the thing is that obeserver won’t nessarily agree with any other obsever on exactly how much space or time there is between two events.
Huh? This goes against everything I’ve ever known about special relativity.
Aren’t space and time always relative? I mean, just because the differences in measurement are miniscule at our slow speeds doesn’t mean they don’t exist, right?
The speed of light is constant, and all matter “moves” at the speed of light, so if I begin traveling forward through space at 60 MPH, my motion through time must slow down at the same rate. Otherwise I would be moving faster than the speed of light. I would be traveling at 186,282.397 m/s + whatever 60 MPH translates to in s/h. Am I wrong here?
I realize our biology doesn’t effect spacetime, but I don’t understand why any single observer should experience “space as space and time as time.” What does that even mean? How can it be seperated from our organs of perception? I mean, I experience space the way I do because of the way my eyes are constructed. I experience time the way I do because of the way my brain processes memory.
I’ll accept that there’s a mathematical difference, (how could I not if there is one?). But if there’s a mathematical difference, why call time a dimension? Why associate it with the spacial dimensions if it’s fundamentally, mathematically different?
Yes what u said about special relativity is mostly correct. Maybe my post was misleading. What i should of said is that at non-relativistic speeds relativistic effects are so small that we don’t notice them.
But…
The difference between space and time is physical. It is not that our brains just make them seem different. Time is a dimension because it is not absolute.
This is a good explaination. But here is where it is wrong. Actually what happens when you speed up in space is that you speed up in time! This is becuae time is different from space. Your right that is spacetime all matter travels at the speed of light. But the relationship between space and time has a minus sign not a plus sign. It reads
(speed of light)^2 = (speed through time)^2 - (speed through space)^2
this comes from the proper time defintion s (the time measured in the reference frame of matter):
c^2 ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 -dz^2
for simplicty u can set c= 1 and just imagine its moving in the x direction(dy = dz =0).
so then you just divide throung by ds^2
gives
1 = (dt/ds)^2 - (dx/ds)^2
dt/ds is the “speed through time” and dx/ds is the “speed through space”
