Question about spacetime and physics?

Question

I'm currently a graduate student in philosophy, and have maintained a non-physicist's interest in questions concerning the "nature" of spacetime.

My question is:
Using the analogue of a three-dimensional spacetime, would is be possible, from a conceptual and physical standpoint, to represent objects on a two-dimensional spatial manifold, and represent time as a third spatial dimension, albeit one not spatially accessible to entities living on a two-dimensional manifold? What I am driving at is whether it is possible to reduce the physical concept of time to description in terms of higher-dimensional spatial coordinates; in our case, time would thus be defined as a fourth spatial dimension. In the example above, it would represent a third spatial dimension for two-dimensional entities.
Is there anything in extant physical theory to support or rule out this possibility? thanks!

Answer 1

The best mathematical answer is that it doesn't work. Here, our intuition and common sense are probably correct. Time really is a different kind of entity than a spatial dimension. Physicists have tried to treat time as a spatial dimension, since that would greatly simplify things conceptually. But they could never get it to work. Even the string and M-brane theories, which seem to need a minimum of 11 dimensions, have exactly one temporal dimension. One of Einstein's major contributions was recognizing that you can't ignore time, even when you're just trying to deal with spatial dimensions.

Answer 2

There is a raging debate going on (and probably will go on forever) about whether the fourth dimension is time, or whether it is a 4th spatial dimension. It is not the point of this site to claim that the fourth dimension is spatial instead of being time. The point of this site is to speculate about what a fourth *spatial* dimension would be like, beyond our three spatial dimensions.

To humans going about their everyday lives, time is fundamentally different than the three spatial dimensions, since only one direction is possible with time. Some have argued that this is only because of our limited perspective. Indeed, time actually behaves like a spatial dimension when you consider it in special relativity. You can get into some quite complex, interesting, and paradoxical discussions about weird things happening with time as a dimension. However, that's not what this page is about.

Some people use the term "fifth dimension" to refer to the fourth spatial dimension. The terms "fourth dimension" and "fifth dimension" are only labels though, and you could just as easily refer to time as "gerbil land" and the fourth spatial dimension as "hamster land". Throughout these pages I refer to the fourth spatial dimension as "tetraspace". That way, there can be no debate about whether the fourth dimension is time or spatial, since the term "tetraspace" has "space" within the name.

We live in a world of three dimensions. Well, we only perceive three dimensions. We can hypothesize many more dimensions. But, they are difficult to imagine.

Because of Einstein, we often call time the fourth dimension. Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases.

Answer 3

Well, in physics books, you'll see many diagrams using *one* of the three spatial dimensions and a time dimension to give a two dimensional "slice" through what is called four-space.

They are schematic. You can handle simple relativity questions using diagrams like this to talk about motion along a line in one dimension of space concurrent with motion through the time dimension. You could make reasonably accurate diagrams with a ruler and use hyperbolic trigonometry to get angles for various linear paths in a two dimensional (one space, one time) system.

The problem is, when you move in two spatial dimensions and try to plot time on the third axis, you run into more complicated situations. If you're moving in a circle in space, you're constantly accelerating, and that makes the relativity effects complicated, and a ruler and protractor aren't going to do the job easily.

You could restrict your movement in the two space dimensions to straight lines, but that is equivalent to graphing motion along a single space dimension, with time perpendicular to it. You're just re-defining the coordinate system.

So if you really want to think about what relativity theory is and what it means, in its *own terms*, yes, you should learn the math.

However, as a philosopher, you can also look at relativity as a popular concept, and reflect on what the people in general, rather than the specialists, think it is.

If it makes you feel better, I knew a physics grad student who wouldn't for the life of him entertain any criticism of logical positivism. Nor could he stand anyone to pose the question of the relativity of morals. He thought good and evil were provable absolutes, and categorically dismissed any other possibility.

So we are all knaves and fools outside of our own disciplines.

He also once said magnetic fields could do work.

And that shows that for some of us, even within them.

Answer 4

No.

The time dimension appears with the opposite sign in the metric with any manifold treatment (it is purely convention as to whether spatial elements are positive or negative, but time will always be opposite).

Hence it can never be seen in any way as equivalent to a spatial dimension.

Answer 5

Time does not equal a dimension.

Time is not the same thing as numbers-math, realized by man.

Time was invented by man to measure our reality. It is no more capable of being a dimension than an inch is.
We call a day a day bec that is how we measure it as we call and certain length an inch. It is the subject being measured that takes up the space.

Answer 6

Holy Macaroni and Cheese! What a loaded question... Unfortunately I'm unable to answer this to the fullest degree right now, but I will re-attempt to answer this tomorrow morning with an .

Answer 7

In technology fiction, those debris are called "chronitons." that's in all probability the celeb Trek belongings you have been looking. yet, there's a PROPOSED quantum particle called a "chronon." that's in basic terms a theoretical particle, although. there's a quick article approximately chronons in Wikipedia. See the link.

Answer 8

einstein explained the relationship between time and space quite thoroughly. Look up. "Theory of Relativity". It should straighten you out on everything you need to know.

Answer 9

yes, holograms.