# Is Time Really The Fourth Dimension???

## Recommended Posts

Good job! You've got it right!

In the book, The Elegant Universe, on page 6, the author says there are 3 spacial demensions. I don't understand this; there are 3 non-spacial, 1 spacial demension. What am I missing here?

• Replies 111
• Created

#### Popular Days

A mobius strip has a mere two sides.

2D object agogo!

Before anyone says anything, I know mobius strips are 3 dimensional, and that the two 'sides' are two planar faces, rather than the 1 dimensional sides of a 2D object.

[edit the second]

There are 3 spacial dimensions and 1 non-spacial dimension, not t'other way around.

The three spacials being length, height and bredth and the non-spacial being time.

##### Share on other sites

What does 'spacial' mean then?

##### Share on other sites

What it refers to is that those are the dimensions that make up 'conventional' space.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dudde

not exactly the increasing of entropy, rather the change in entropy

I thought the thermodynamic arrow of time was the direction in which entropy increased?

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

I thought the thermodynamic arrow of time was the direction in which entropy increased?

Dudde was incorrect. You're right, Mr.L_JaKiri.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

What it refers to is that those are the dimensions that make up 'conventional' space.

What do you mean by 'conventional'?

##### Share on other sites

are you sure?O_o

what about the formation of more stable forms of matter, in which entropy would decrease?

##### Share on other sites

Then entropy will only decrease in that system, but it will increase (and increase by a larger amount than it decreases) elsewhere. No perpetual motion machines, remember?

Remember, the law states that entropy always increases in a closed system. You're putting energy in to make that more stable form, so it's hardly a closed system.

ps.

'Conventional' as in the ones we experience in every day life, and not the spacial dimensions of M-theory, curled up in a Calibi-Yau space.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Then entropy will only decrease in that system, but it will increase (and increase by a larger amount than it decreases) elsewhere. No perpetual motion machines, remember?

Remember, the law states that entropy always increases in a closed system. You're putting energy in to make that more stable form, so it's hardly a closed system.

ps.

'Conventional' as in the ones we experience in every day life, and not the spacial dimensions of M-theory, curled up in a Calibi-Yau space.

Where exists a closed system? Entropy is a necessary element of evolution.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

Where exists a closed system?

the universe appears pretty closed.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

Good job! You've got it right!

In the book, The Elegant Universe, on page 6, the author says there are 3 spacial demensions. I don't understand this; there are 3 non-spacial, 1 spacial demension. What am I missing here?

Thats a good book, Majin. But yea, as someone else mentioned, we sense three spatial (space) and one temporal (time).

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Radical Edward

the universe appears pretty closed.

In the absence of the parallel one.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

Where exists a closed system? Entropy is a necessary element of evolution.

Is there some sort of connection between these two comments that I don't 'get'?

##### Share on other sites

Confusion about the number of dimensions is due to lack of correspondence between the universe and language, lack of correspondence between the universe and mathematical models, and inability to observe most of the universe.

Language is an attempt to classify an unclassified universe, a universe of unique entities. For convenience in dealing with entities in the universe, arbitrary distinctions are accepted to set off arbitrary classes. The distinctions are the defining attributes of a class. Words are created to represent the arbitrary classes. The lexical meaning of a word is the set of attributes it represents. The extent of the attribute set will vary with the level of specificity sought, but will generally fall short of universal discrimination. Dimension is a word whose attribute set does not permit adequate distinction between different types of entity. Spatial displacement is one type of entity, temporal duration is another.

The search for observation-based knowledge has generated systems for interpreting perception of the universe. Because observations are carried out in space and time, one system has arbitrarily conjoined the two, leading to the convention of dealing with time as a dimension and space-time as an entity. The inadequacy of the attribute set for the word dimension makes it easy to forget this conventional usage.

Another convention that is frequently overlooked is the use of mathematical formulations as approximate models of observable phenomena. As an example, the formulation, force = mass x acceleration, can be demonstrated to give very good short term approximate predictions, despite the fact that most of the myriad forces contributing to the net force are usually ignored, and the mass and acceleration are only inexact measurements. Because some phenomena can be approximated by mathematical formulations, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that all mathemetical formulations will have an existential counterpart. Because mathematical systems of more than three dimensions are easily constructed, their counterparts are assumed to exist.

Finally, the inaccessibility of most of the universe makes observation difficult and subject to error. It is impossible to observe time or space. Time is arbitrarily associated with movement but no connection can be shown. There may be no motion without time but the reverse is not demonstrably true. Space is not associated with anything. The main problem with most multidimensional systems is lack of correlation with the universe. The statement that the universe appears to be closed is a good example of nonobservation based beliefs. Can there be a limit to space?

There are many efforts to generate metasystems, metalanguages and metamaths to explain a limited but growing and improving arsenal of observations. Explanations are improving and confusion is diminishing but it is difficult to recognize valid explanations. All should be examined carefully and none should go unquestioned.

Spatial displacement is a formal parameter that requires three variables for specification. No existential entity can be specified with less or more than three spatial displacement variables.

##### Share on other sites

I see a reason of this bewilderment - a people had taken the illusion as reality. More exactly, all phenomenas perceives in the inverse importance. This is a complicated way to give the explanation of this phenomenon. It is possible to start from type of infinity realized in our universe. This is not the infinity of expansion of space, indeed (such infinity has not a sense). This is infinity of moving toward the absolute (evolution). It reveals itself as a cause of any forces and phenomena for the object's time (energy) conservation purposes.

##### Share on other sites

hm...

yeah^_^

no wait....so did we decide that time is the change in entropy or the increasing of entropy?

##### Share on other sites

Time goes in the direction that entropy increases.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

In the absence of the parallel one.

Incorrect. Parallel universes are of roughly a spherical shape. Note that its roughly a spherical shape.

THANK YOU blike for clearing that up for me.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Time goes in the direction that entropy increases.

That definition is self-referential, hence it is equivelant. Can one describe time without creating a self-referential (to time) perdicament?

##### Share on other sites

hmm...

I'll have to look that up..it doesn't sound right....of course I'm about ready to pass out in my chair so the only that sounds right about now is bed;)

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

Incorrect. Parallel universes are of roughly a spherical shape. Note that its roughly a spherical shape.

where did you ge that? we don't even know what shape this universe is yet, even assuming there are others.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Time goes in the direction that entropy increases.

Time goes in the direction that universe is improves for absolute importance. This process is endless at time.

##### Share on other sites

I would assume he's seen SciAm's recent article on it. They treat the 'universe' as the observable space around us, ie: the space near enough for red shifting not to cause objects to disappear.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

Time goes in the direction that universe is improves for absolute importance. This process is endless at time.

Whut?

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account