Could dimensions be considered as expanding or contracting?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter petm1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aether Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptualization of dimensions, particularly focusing on the nature of dimensionless points and their potential to expand or contract. Participants explore the relationship between time as a dimension and mathematical abstractions, questioning the implications of measuring time and the existence of dimensionless points in the context of physical reality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how many dimensionless points must expand and combine before they can be detected, suggesting that time could be viewed as a dimensionless point.
  • Another participant challenges the idea of dimensionless points expanding or combining, asserting that they are mathematical abstractions that cannot be detected.
  • A different viewpoint posits that dimensionless points could represent potential movement, and discusses the implications of dividing Planck's time into smaller segments as a way to conceptualize dimensionless points.
  • Some participants argue that the definitions of time and dimension are misunderstood, emphasizing that Planck's time, while small, is not merely a mathematical abstraction since it can theoretically be measured.
  • There is a contention regarding whether dimensions can expand, with some asserting that they do not, while others suggest that time as a dimension could be viewed as expanding from negative to positive.
  • Participants express differing opinions on the arbitrary nature of t=0 and whether it can be reached, with some suggesting it merely serves as a directional reference for time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the nature of dimensionless points, the measurement of time, and the concept of dimensions expanding or contracting. No consensus is reached on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of dimensionless points and time, highlighting limitations in understanding the relationship between mathematical abstractions and physical reality. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of measurement and the nature of dimensions.

petm1
Messages
397
Reaction score
1
How many dimensionless points have to expand and combine, before we would be able to detect them? When t=0, are we not naming time as a dimensionless point? If we can write time as "one" dimensionless point then would it stand to reason we can name time as all dimensionless points? In my minds eye, time as the forth dimension, is delta time, or “motion”, and the zero dimension that is always expanding relative to us is “time”. This small question is followed by the larger question "of all the time we know about, the age of the visible universe, could we still think of it as "one" whole dimensionless point? Could the aether be time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How can "dimensionless" points "expand and combine". And, in any case, dimensionless points are mathematical abstractions- you can't "detect" mathematical abstractions! The whole post seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the definitions of "dimension", "time", and "aether".
 
How could the dimensionless points between dimensions not, expand, contract, divide, or combine as long as the dimensional particles are moving? Are you saying “dimensionless points” are a mathematical abstract because they are negative, or because they are so small? Either way that is why I describe them as “potential movement” or a negative number. I’ve read that the smallest unit of time that has been measured is about 10^26 Planck’s times, so even one Planck’s time is a mathematical abstract. What about cutting one Planck’s time into two could this be considered a dimensionless point what about cutting a Planck’s time into 120^26 pieces would these be dimensionless points?. Time is always expanding and if you think of time as a real dimension then expanding from a negative to a positive would be a natural progression. Of course all measurements are relative I don’t really think that t=0 is ever reached; it is just a direction for time if it were contracting.
 
I don't follow your logic petm.

Thousands of years ago you couldn't measure anything smaller then what you could see, therefore those smaller distances at that time were abstracts?
 
petm1 said:
How could the dimensionless points between dimensions not, expand, contract, divide, or combine as long as the dimensional particles are moving? Are you saying “dimensionless points” are a mathematical abstract because they are negative, or because they are so small?
??What kind of question is this? "Dimensionless points" are a mathematical abstraction because they have no physical existence. It makes no sense to talk of dimensionless points as either "negative" or "so small".

Either way that is why I describe them as “potential movement” or a negative number.
I'm afraid you will have to define "potential movement" for me.

I’ve read that the smallest unit of time that has been measured is about 10^26 Planck’s times, so even one Planck’s time is a mathematical abstract.
What? The fact that it has not (yet) been measured doesn't make it a mathematical abstraction. Planck's time is defined as being the smallest interval of time that CAN (theoretically) be measured. If it CAN be measured then it is not a "mathematical abstraction".

What about cutting one Planck’s time into two could this be considered a dimensionless point what about cutting a Planck’s time into 120^26 pieces would these be dimensionless points?.
Since, theoretically, "half a Planck unit" cannot be measured, such a thing would be a mathematical abstraction. I wouldn't think of it as a point, that's a different abstraction.
Time is always expanding and if you think of time as a real dimension then expanding from a negative to a positive would be a natural progression.
No, "dimensions" do not expand. Yes, you can measure very small or very large time intervals but that doesn't mean that the unit of measure is "expanding" in any sense.

Of course all measurements are relative I don’t really think that t=0 is ever reached; it is just a direction for time if it were contracting.
t= 0 is purely arbitrary- it is only intervals of time that are measured. And, again, measuring a very small time interval has nothing at all to do with time itself "contracting".
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Dimension of an Angle: Clarifying the SI Standard
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School What is the physical significance of mass-time-length equivalences in physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Dimensionful vs dimensionless constants
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
15K
Graduate Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
High School Is Einstein's Space-Time Theory Overfitted or Simply a Visualization Tool?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
High School What Is the Fourth Dimension and How Does It Work?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
High School Can We Discover Multiple Time Dimensions Like Space?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad The Derivative Nature of Time and Its Relation to Earth's Rotation and Speed
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Undergrad Are these descriptions about extra dimensions really true?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K