How do Dimensions make up Space and Time?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

If space is defined as the first three dimension would you then define time as the next three dimensions also running perpendicular to each other in the same way as space does? If so would it create a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space)

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three (an area in space),

dimension four (a point in time),

dimension five (a line in time),

dimension six (a plane in time),

dimension seven (an area in time),

or a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space)

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three(an area in space)

dimension four (a line in time),

dimension five (a plane in time),

dimension six (an area in time),

dimension seven (a point in time),

or a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space)

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three(an area in space),

dimension four (an area in time),

dimension five (a plane in time),

dimension six (a line in time),

dimension seven (a point in time)?

Edited by Frostedwinds

Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Frostedwinds said:

If space is defined as the first three dimension would you then define time as the next three dimensions also running perpendicular to each other in the same way as space does?

Times a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant,  on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs.

A point in space becomes a line in spacetime. A line in space becomes a plane in spacetime. And so on.

Share on other sites

Multiple time dimensions would lead to a universe with very unstable properties. Much of physics wouldn't work the way we know it does.

Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strange said:

Times a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant,  on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs.

A point in space becomes a line in spacetime. A line in space becomes a plane in spacetime. And so on.

That’s only in applied physics because we only perceive one dimension of time. We are three dimension beings in space traveling through time in a direction. Time itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible. You still didn’t answer the actual question I asked. I asked which system seems most likely to be the system functioning in our universe.

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

I﻿ asked which system seems most likely to be the system functioning in our universe.

Well, none of them, obviously.

Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

Time itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible.

Please explain why this is true even though it isn't what we observe.

Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

Time itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible.

The dimensionality of time runs deeper than what we observe on our macroscopic level. I did some reading for another thread. Here is a slightly modified version that explains some aspects how one time dimension seems to be the only possibility.

The following picture shows possible and not possible number of dimensions:

It can be found in https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, a paper discussing both temporal and spatial dimensions. From there we can look into some details in one of the references;  https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1976386. That article focuses on some evidence against the possibility of multiple time dimensions. A conclusion is that particles would be unstable if more than one time dimension exists:

There are several arguments, one is from particle decay. Particle decay is the spontaneous process of one unstable subatomic particle transforming into multiple other particles. The particles created in this process (the final state) must each be less massive than the original, although the total invariant mass of the system must be conserved*. If multiple time dimensions exists the article states that particles would not be restricted to decay into less massive particles; particles could decay in ways not possible in our universe:

So the most likely, given what mainstream science has evidence for, is that there is exactly one time dimension and that more than one (or zero) time dimensions is not possible.

Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

Time﻿﻿ itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible

In the 4D space time model, there is no motion through time.

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, none of them, obviously.

This is a forum on modern and theoretical physics. Not just applied physics. The question was pertaining to a system of relevance that the theory in question if functioning within a system where time is explained by three separate dimensions in the same way that space is. Also you have no evidence to prove to me that time is a stationary factor with only one singular dimension making it a line in a system where factors of motion through time are only forward and backwards. If your going to refute someone you should at least reference some form of material information or cite some reputable source of information. Like Ghideon did.

Edited by Frostedwinds

Quote

How do Dimensions make up Space and Time?

This question and the subsequent discussion depends crucially on what the participants consider a dimension to be and also what properties it posses and its relationships to any other dimensions included in the discussion.

Is a dimension more than just a succession of numbers?

Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Please explain why this is true even though it isn't what we observe.

In the system at question it isn’t possible for time to be singular because motion through time wouldn’t function because a point in time is being referenced as a dimension so for motion to function you would need at least a line, and a point creating at least two dimensions of time.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

This question and the subsequent discussion depends crucially on what the participants consider a dimension to be and also what properties it posses and its relationships to any other dimensions included in the discussion.

Is a dimension more than just a succession of numbers?

That is the topic statement not the discussion question. Still a good question as to what people are considering a dimension.

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

In the system at question it isn’t possible for time to be singular because motion through time wouldn’t function because a point in time is being referenced as a dimension so for motion to function you would need at least a line, and a point creating at least two dimensions of time.

The four dimensions we experience are spatial (3 of them) and temporal (1 of them). Spatial dimensions are bidirectional, but temporal dimensions are unidirectional. Why does motion need more than one temporal dimension?

Edited by Phi for All
Ghideon already posted the anthropic principle graph

Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

This is a forum on modern and theoretical physics. Not just applied physics. The question was pertaining to a system of relevance that the theory in question if functioning within a system where time is explained by three separate dimensions in the same way that space is.   Also you have no evidence to prove to me that time is a stationary factor with only one singular dimension making it a line in a system where factors of motion through time are only forward and backwards. If your going to refute someone you should at least reference some form of material information or cite some reputable source of information.

So, general and special relativity are the main physics theories that are based on spacetime having four dimensions. Thee have both been extensively tested and so have a lot of evidence for them:

If you are proposing an alternative theory, then it is up to you to provide some evidence for it.

Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The four dimensions we experience are spatial (3 of them) and temporal (1 of them). Spatial dimensions are bidirectional, but temporal dimensions are unidirectional. Why does motion need more than one temporal dimension?

I'll meet you at the pub at 7,8,9,10 oclock

Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

That is the topic statement not the discussion question. Still a good question as to what people are considering a dimension.

Time is a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant,  on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs.

Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I'll meet you at the pub at 7,8,9,10 oclock

At least that's unidirectional, and could imply a duration. How about we meet at 7, 5, 3, 11 o'clock?

Unfortunately, I have to meet Frostedwinds at the pub at 7,8,9,10 o'clock simultaneously, since he insists on multiple time dimensions. Very unpredictable.

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, general and special relativity are the main physics theories that are based on spacetime having four dimensions. Thee have both been extensively tested and so have a lot of evidence for them:

If you are proposing an alternative theory, then it is up to you to provide some evidence for it.

Thank you for the references. What I am proposing is a different theory than those at work but the discussion was to be focused around the question that if time has three dimensions that work the same as spaces three dimensions what order would they be seated in to form a balanced system.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

At least that's unidirectional, and could imply a duration. How about we meet at 7, 5, 3, 11 o'clock?

Unfortunately, I have to meet Frostedwinds at the pub at 7,8,9,10 o'clock simultaneously, since he insists on multiple time dimensions. Very unpredictable.

Lol that’s a good one man.

Edited by Frostedwinds

Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

That is the topic statement not the discussion question. Still a good question as to what people are considering a dimension.

When I last went to school they taught that a question was signified by placing a question mark at the end.

Is this no longer the case?

I don't wish to argue with you over definitions, just to understand the context in which you are employing the term in order to reply in that context

Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

Thank you for the references. What I am proposing is a different theory

What evidence do you have for your theory?

What quantitatively testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be compared to current theories?

Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, studiot said:

When I last went to school they taught that a question was signified by placing a question mark at the end.

Is this no longer the case?

I don't wish to argue with you over definitions, just to understand the context in which you are employing the term in order to reply in that context

You are right that the topic statement was a question. I was trying to discuss how dimension make up time and space in the confines of the system I first stated. As for how I define a dimension. It would be a vector of sorts that explains the function inside a system.

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

At least that's unidirectional, and could imply a duration. How about we meet at 7, 5, 3, 11 o'clock?

Unfortunately, I have to meet Frostedwinds at the pub at 7,8,9,10 o'clock simultaneously, since he insists on multiple time dimensions. Very unpredictable.

As comical as our comments are, these are the repercussions, I think.

Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have for your theory?

What quantitatively﻿ testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be compared to current theories?

Regardless of that information. The question pertained to a system where the statement of three dimensional time was already true.

Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

Regardless of that information. The question pertained to a system where the statement of three dimensional time was already true.

OK. Do what﻿ quantitatively test﻿able predictions does your mo﻿del make that would allow it to be tested and compared to current theories?﻿﻿

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

As comical as our comments are, these are the repercussions, I think.

It’s good to break tension with humor. An elevated mood makes for a better conversation. Discussions that are stiff can create a stress that impacts the quality of the exchange of information. Such as if time is bidirectional and not multidimensional then I could say “I’m gonna go meet you at the bar yesterday” if we had already done that, and I could say “I’m gonna have to meet you at the bar tomorrow” where we have a predetermined meet up because time doesn’t have a multitude of depth making it an absolute construct with a predetermined direction.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. Do what﻿ quantitatively test﻿able predictions does your mo﻿del make that would allow it to be tested and compared to current theories?﻿﻿

What current theories are you referring to. Those theories that I quoted and functioning current theories. They can’t be tested in applied physics because we only observe one dimension of time in applied physics so we can quantitate mathematical expressions in the direction we are currently traveling through time. If I was only to move in one direction of space I wouldn’t be able to express a field of applied physics in two dimensional space but it doesn’t stop two dimensional space from existing or playing a role in a controlled system of effects. Also I have to mention again that question pertains to a system in which relevance to other theories is excluded because we are only working within that system that has already been defined by three dimensions of space and three dimensions of time.

Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frostedwinds said:

They﻿ can’t be tested in applied physics because we only observe one dimension of time in applied physic

If we can only observe / measure  one dimension of time, how is that different from there being only one dimension of time?

if these other time dimensions are not detectable then they may as well not exist.

You seem to agree that your idea is not testable and therefore it is not science.