What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of dimensions, specifically focusing on the relationship between space and time, and the possibility of categorizing them into subdimensions. Participants examine the implications of viewing time as having multiple dimensions and the nature of the uncertainty principle in relation to these dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that space consists of three subdimensions (length, width, height) and time has three (past, present, future), suggesting that each can be graphed to determine a particle's position.
  • One participant questions the practicality of dividing time into three dimensions, arguing that the "present" is merely a point on the time-axis, which raises concerns about the validity of such a construction.
  • Another participant suggests that while there are four known dimensions, human perception is limited to three, and speculates that the basic forces of the universe could represent additional dimensions, leading to a total of seven dimensions.
  • There is a viewpoint that dimensions must be independent of one another, with space and time working together to create reality, although some participants express skepticism about the existence of the uncertainty principle.
  • One participant argues that time and space are so closely related that viewing them as separate dimensions may be counterproductive, while another emphasizes the necessity of both dimensions for meaningful existence.
  • A later reply suggests that dimensions without relational attributes may become meaningless, highlighting the interdependence of space and time.
  • One participant presents a theory about the relationship between speed, mass, and the perception of being "everywhere at once," proposing that mass gain with speed is an illusion rather than a physical change.
  • Another participant disagrees with the notion that space and time are fundamentally the same, asserting their distinctness while acknowledging their collaborative role in reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of dimensions, with some agreeing on the interdependence of space and time, while others maintain that they are distinct entities. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the structure and implications of dimensions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of dimensions and the uncertainty principle, as well as the definitions of space and time that are not fully explored or agreed upon.

Eepl
What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time. And those two dimensions each have three subdimesions. Space has length, width and height. Time has past, present and future. Each dimesion can be sepratly graphed to find a particles exact position.

As I recall the uncertainty principle is because you cannot determine a particles exact position and velocity at the same time. Isn't velocity really unrealivant. The velocity of an object can fluxuate, so you would be measuring an avarage, not a set. But the position from one time to another is. If you could expand or contract the distance in the time and space dimensions together then you would have a change in velocity. So time and space are real, and it's velocity that's imaginary.

hey, why not.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Originally posted by Eepl
What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time. And those two dimensions each have three subdimesions. Space has length, width and height. Time has past, present and future. Each dimesion can be sepratly graphed to find a particles exact position.

How does this devision of time into 3 dimensions work? After all, "present" is simply a point on the time-axis. Would this be a dimension with only 1 (always moving forward) point? Seems a bit strange to have such a construction...
 
I actually believe you are somewhat correct eepl. I believe however that you are not thinking of it right. There are actually 4 known dimensions right now. Human minds can currently have the ability only realize 3 dimensions. Think about the world we are living in as being 2 dimensional. It would be one minute slice of an infinite 3d space. As well if you think about the change in complexity of a 1d space to a 2d space, and a 2d space to a 3d space you can see just how complex a 4d space would be to visualize. I was curious if all the basic forces in the universe represented a different dimension. If you add in the 4 basic forces we know of that makes space 7d and would certainly acount for the complexity of the Universe.
 
The way I would define dimensions is each would have to be completely independent of each other. This is why space is one dimension, with three sub dimesions. And time is another. OK suyver, maybe you're right and time is just one dimension. But they are independent of each other. They just work together to create reality.

And what you said at the end Piecemaster is kind of what I was getting to. There could be many independent dimesions, each with subdimensions.

But I still believe that there is no such thing as the uncertainty principle. We just don't know enough yet.
 
I believe your somewhat write... I however think that time ans space are really so closely related that it might be counterproductive to see them as two separate things. Though it is useful to look at it as diffrent dimensions for the sake of scientific research, they really all exist together in one over all dimensional shape. just my thoughts...
 
Interesting. As an added thought, I wonder if specific dimensions withought relational attributes don't become essentially meaningless and non-functional. For example, time without space would be useless.
 
Pallidin, you are correct when you say that time and space are usless without each other. If you had only time one would be everywhere at once, and if one had only space you would be no where at once.

The dimensions are seprate, but without each other there is no inbetween. A photon only exists in time, to itself. So if there was no space it would be everywhere, but it has a speed and direction. This is from space slowing it down, creating distance inbetween point 'a' and 'b'. I don't know the scientific reason for matter gaining mass when it accelerates, but here's my thought.
-The faster you go, the more places you are at once. Once 'c' is obtained you exist in only time, therefore realitive to you, you are everywhere at once. And if you are everywhere at once then you'd have to have enough mass to be everywhere at once. So you don't acctually gain mass with speed, it's just an illusion.

Poy, I am going to have to dissagree with you. I believe that space and time are completely different. They work together to create reality.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Why Does the Standard Model Use Six Dimensions for Probability Calculations?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Graduate Are small extra space-time dimensions represented correctly?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Undergrad Spacetime expansion - time dimension expansion
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
High School Can We Discover Multiple Time Dimensions Like Space?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
4+1D Flight
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate Alternative topology of our 3D space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Why the universe appears to have one time and three space dimensions
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School What is the relationship between time and 1D space?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
20K