Shyam Bharath Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 This is one big doubt i have got from a long time. :) The four dimensions i can see and visualize are ( x, y, z) and ofcourse time (t) forming the space-time Is there a fifth dimension too? If so, what is it? Can we experience it in our day to day life?:evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Do a quick search on this site to do with dimensions, it should come up with heaps :) I know we discussed this not to long ago :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 There are conceptually many dimensions. 9, 11, 26 etc.String theory says this. The basic fact is tha you can't see it in your day to day life, but some say gravity is another dimension.And some say, quoting wormholes and things like that, other dimensions can be experienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 As one can only travel in one direction at a time, why isn't space considered to be just one dimension? Alternatively, instead of dividing space with right angles, why not divide it with minutes of angles and get an abundance of dimensions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 That can be done. It's called polar system of coordinates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 So, space, time and gravity, three dimensions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 interesting information guys thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 So, space, time and gravity, three dimensions?ummmm... I think that you are misunderstanding the concept of dimension... There have been some good discussions on soe recent threads. I suggest you check them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 As one can only travel in one direction at a time, why isn't space considered to be just one dimension?I betcha you and I ain't travelling in the same direction at the moment!!! :D Alternatively, instead of dividing space with right angles, why not divide it with minutes of angles and get an abundance of dimensions?You have as many directions as you please but these aren't all distinct dimensions. The number of dimensions tells how many linear independent vectors one can choose; add another vector to those and the set isn't linear independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Qfwfq: Okay, thanks. But in the second case, couldn't one redefine the nature of space to maintain linear independence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 I betcha you and I ain't travelling in the same direction at the moment!!! Right but relative to your observation frame you are in 1 direction, and light is always constant in that direction. I suppose direction is somewhat irrelavent to a dimension type. Without a force you can only go in a strait line, and the light will remain constant to you and any other thing you can see traveling in a strait line. Not going to get into this one much futher today, its too early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Something occured to me recently while contemplating the problem of two times two. If one has a line divided at it's midpoint, it has been measured as having a length of "two", doubling the length of this line gives a length measured as four. However, we can also multiply our original line by using a perpendicular line assigned it's own measure of two, but in this case our resultant four is in units of area, not of length. This area exists, in a potential state, in our original line, as a line of length two it has potential area of two ('dark area', physicists might like to say). As we can also make three dimensional forms by operations on our original line, it also has an associated potential volume, if fact, it has potential whatever-the-term-is for all spaces of up to an infinite number of dimensions. Without in any way changing the nature of this line, we can define it's length as measuring one, this doubles it's associated area, quadruples it's associated volume, etc, and our line is also infinitely divisible, giving it an associated area of zero. We can also define our line as measuring less than one, we can even define it as a fraction of infinity, we can define it as negative then apply any of the above definitions. So, this line, cheekily defined by Euclid as "breadthless length", turns out to be an infinitely variable continuum of undefined potential space in infinite dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Hah, wow that is pretty cool Uga-boo. In fact In the postulates I posted today ( http://hypography.com/forums/107896-post62.html ) I stated something similar. The electromagnetic spectrum is a value cut out of infinity. At 0 frequency, Electromagnetic radiation is drawn in a flat line, preferable 1D, like your line, comeing from infinity. At 0 wavelength the Electromagnetic radiation is drawn in another 1D flat line, either in the same paralell or maybe perpendicular. not so sure how one would draw it but each way past the scale of the quantum changing electromagnetic scale ends up in frequencyless (timeless) and wave lengthless (space-less) dimensional quality... Yet, it breaks the realm of space-time to have this 0 wavelength or frequency, wouldnt you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyam Bharath Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 As a perception, it is very difficult to put into paper something > 3 dimensions ( i am assuming x,y,z and t) We do not yet know what the 5th dimension could be.... Is it a rule that all dimensions must be perpendicular to each other?:ebluehair In that case, time is a vector perpendicular to space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/6395-understanding-3-spatial-dmensions.html?highlight=gardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyam Bharath Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Thanks for the link...Right.... we can have analytic representation. But that is only possible if all the dimensions are identical. For instance, x,y,z are of the same dimension, the length. But as we move to time, the dimension type is changing. It is a wonder to note that L,M and t are not fundmental dimensions. I wonder, what is the most fundamental dimension then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 Why isn't gravity associated with the Euclidean vertical axis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.