Do we exist in a fourth dimensional space?

Recommended Posts

An interesting thought, since one dimensional motion and two dimensional motion can be represented in three dimensions, can three dimensional motion not be represented in four since a fourth dimensional object is always going to be composed of three dimensional components? An interesting thought is that if we  exist in four dimensions is that once we exceed the speed of light time will move backwards, (Because citation counts: according to wikipedia: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. But the geometry of spacetime, being non-Euclidean, is profoundly different from that popularised by Hinton.) but we would never observe time moving backwards because objects with mass cannot exceed C. An interesting notion on this thought would be the strange nature of black holes, and how nothing can escape them, this could be an example of fourth dimensional objects existing in three dimensional space, as time itself seems to stop at the event horizon (Though we do not know what the hell happens past that). Finally time dilation could be an example of fourth dimensional motion in a supposed three dimensional space, as speed has an inverse effect on time, with the speed of light most likely being the tipping point where things move backwards. All in all since time itself seems relative to speed I'd say that it is a possibility that we may exist in four dimensions though we characterize ourselves in three dimensions. Much further research is needed to provide any conclusive evidence and I think that would be an excellent thing for myself to work out whenever I have time off from work.

That's enough crackpottery for me! See you all around.

Edited by DanTrentfield
Typho
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

An interesting thought, since one dimensional motion and two dimensional motion can be represented in three dimensions

But they can each be represented in one and two dimensions respectively. So,although they can be represented in 3 dimensions, they don't need to be.

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

can three dimensional motion not be represented in four since a fourth dimensional object is always going to be composed of three dimensional components?

Doesn't that imply, by induction, that three dimensional motion can be represented by 1,000,000 dimensions?

Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But they can each be represented in one and two dimensions respectively. So,although they can be represented in 3 dimensions, they don't need to be.

Doesn't that imply, by induction, that three dimensional motion can be represented by 1,000,000 dimensions?

Yes, but I was establishing the base dimensional thought which supports the idea that we may exist in four dimensions. Which is the second dimension is composed of the first, and so first dimensional motion can be represented in two dimensions though, like you said it does not need to be.

Share on other sites

Hmmmm Not sure I see your point. On the other hand, we do live in the four-dimensions of space-time.

Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

Yes, but I was establishing the base dimensional thought which supports the idea that we may exist in four dimensions.

There are good reasons to thinks we don't

The lack of observable shadows is one such.

Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hmmmm Not sure I see your point. On the other hand, we do live in the four-dimensions of space-time.

My point is this: If time is relative and the rate of the passage of time can be changed via a change in velocity then would we not exist in a fourth dimensional space as it is traditionally described? I may just be confusing how GR works with things with my own understanding of time, but I am trying to discern the nature of how time passage is affected by speed. It is an interesting thought to me.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

There are good reasons to thinks we don't

The lack of observable shadows is one such.

Yes indeed the lack of observable shadows is an excellent counter argument. But I guess I should have explained my thought a bit better. Say we exist in a giant three dimensional sphere that is expanding in accordance with Hubble's Law, and say that this entire sphere was contained within a four dimensional sphere that is different from an n-sphere in the fact that it is non-Euclidian, would this not be the fourth dimension which we exist in by consequence of existing in the third dimension which exists in the fourth? And I do not imply that dimensions are like universes, more like empty boxes which have dimensions by which everything exists (E.g. two dimensions has x and y, three dimensions has x, y, z). Where we are represented as a three dimensional object in four dimensions because we exist by X, Y, and Z, and cannot change our place in T (Time I guess?) because we have mass, we can change the rate at which T progresses around us, but we cannot change T itself because T is a property of the fourth dimensional space which our three dimensional universe exists in, and our universe is described in X, Y, Z, and T, but it remains three dimensional in the physical sense.

Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DanTrentfield said:

My point is this: If time is relative and the rate of the passage of time can be changed via a change in velocity then would we not exist in a fourth dimensional space as it is traditionally described? I may just be confusing how GR works with things with my own understanding of time, but I am trying to discern the nature of how time passage is affected by speed. It is an interesting thought to me.

So the effects of (special) relativity can be described as a rotation between one of the spatial dimensions and the time dimension. So you "swap" some length for time. Don't know if that helps...

Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So the effects of (special) relativity can be described as a rotation between one of the spatial dimensions and the time dimension. So you "swap" some length for time. Don't know if that helps...

Hm. Interesting. Any good links to describe this?

Share on other sites

It's a good question, ... and yes, we live in all four dimensions. Always.

We go through the time dimension at different rates, depending on how fast you are moving through space. For this reason, we call them relative.

We realize the relative nature is not trivial, or some magic mathematical set up, it seems to be a clear description of reality since, through time we come to notions of spacetime curvature. In the general treatment, time is manifested observable through the curvature of space. Without time, we could not describe the gravitational interactions properly.

Also, we always move through time. We are always time travelling.

It's just that curvature will deal you different circumstances in which the rate at which you move through that dimension, changes.

Then there is Kaluza Klein and then String Theory. I have heard convincing elements of the Kaluza Klein in respects to a ''physical need'' for a fifth dimension, whilst for string theory, I find it more like a needle in a haystack since it probably represents all of reality, melded into a crazy dimensional manifold. This is why string theory predicts all possible things, it has more degree's of freedom, more chance of getting it right somewhere down its long sad murky path.

On 03/11/2017 at 5:13 PM, studiot said:

There are good reasons to thinks we don't

The lack of observable shadows is one such.

A time observable?

I challenge this with my most recent investigations, all of which conclude that time is an observable manifest of three dimensional space in the form of curvature. You cannot understand curvature in Einstein's theory properly without the definition of time.

Time strictly is not an observable from first principles of QM, but equally, nothing from first principles forbids it. Only a naive attempt of quantization called the WDW equation drives this crazy notion time does not exist.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

A time observable?

I challenge this with my most recent investigations, all of which conclude that time is an observable manifest of three dimensional space in the form of curvature. You cannot understand curvature in Einstein's theory properly without the definition of time.

Time strictly is not an observable from first principles of QM, but equally, nothing from first principles forbids it. Only a naive attempt of quantization called the WDW equation drives this crazy notion time does not exist.

We are working towards an answer to this in geordief's thread here

Feel free to contribute.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

Yes it was aimed at your post, I wondered if you were hinting that time is not an obervable, and I WOULD like to challenge this contention, especially the poster boy Julian Barbour, who is convinced time does not exist and holds that time is not an observable in physics. What he actually fails to tell you it has to be under the treatment of relativity and actually, his timeless universe makes no sense in relativity.

In fact, time in relativity is* relative, not absent, from first principles. These laws cannot fundamentally change unless you have a Lorentz symmetry breakdown.

is* fixed

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

A long time back (ha ha   ) I posted a method of marking time that does not involve a clock, in a thread about the existence/nonexistence of time.

So no I have not said (I hope) that time is not observable.

Share on other sites

I never said you did, my question was remarked, remarkably, with a question mark

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

I never said you did, my question was remarked, remarkably, with a question mark

Perhaps I should make it clear I have merely addressed the headline question in the thread title.

Quote

Do we exist in a fourth dimensional space?

That is 4 spatial dimensions.

Strange has already done an admirable job of addressing Dan's subsequent ramblings about Time and pointing out that the term he should use is space-time.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

So have I, I rarely engage in the actual conversations unless it makes scientifiic sense.

I just hope... physics stays... with us. Forever, in the fright of the modern world

Create an account

Register a new account