Do We Need New Definitions for Dimensions in Physics, Math, and Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pelastration
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of "dimensions" as it pertains to physics, mathematics, and religion, emphasizing the need for new definitions due to the varied interpretations and applications of the term. Participants reference Michio Kaku's work, particularly his assertion that higher dimensions can unify physical laws, such as gravity and light. The conversation also explores the ambiguity surrounding the classification of time as a dimension and the implications of isolation versus interaction among dimensions. Ultimately, the forum suggests that a broader, contextual understanding of dimensions is essential for clarity across disciplines.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly in relation to dimensions.
  • Familiarity with mathematical definitions and properties of dimensions.
  • Knowledge of fractal geometry and its implications for dimensional analysis.
  • Awareness of philosophical perspectives on dimensions in relation to consciousness and existence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Fractal Geometry" and its implications for redefining dimensions.
  • Explore "Quantum Mechanics" and its relationship to the concept of dimensions.
  • Study "Field Theory" as discussed by Michio Kaku in "HyperSpace: A Scientific Odyssey."
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of dimensions in "The Mystery of Life" as presented in various contexts.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, and anyone interested in the conceptual frameworks of dimensions across various fields, including those exploring the intersections of science and spirituality.

  • #31
This obviously has reference to the physical type of dimension.

So, what is non-physical about magnitude?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by (Q)
This obviously has reference to the physical type of dimension.

So, what is non-physical about magnitude?

Magnitude is not one of the physical dimensions, because it is not used to describe position or movement. That is what the physical dimensions (which compose spacetime) do.
 
  • #33
Magnitude is not one of the physical dimensions, because it is not used to describe position or movement.

Ah, the youth – forever ignorant in their defiance.

Velocity and acceleration are vectors; therefore they both have magnitude and direction.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by (Q)
Magnitude is not one of the physical dimensions, because it is not used to describe position or movement.

Ah, the youth – forever ignorant in their defiance.

Velocity and acceleration are vectors; therefore they both have magnitude and direction.

Ah the aged - forever patronizing.

What does that have to do with anything. Velocity and acceleration are not dimensions. The have magnitude and direction, but they don't describe the position of an object. And they don't warp due to the presence of matter (as Relativity dictates about spatial and temporal dimensions).
 
  • #35
What does that have to do with anything. Velocity and acceleration are not dimensions.

Don’t try and squirm out of this by putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say velocity and acceleration are dimensions, did I?

The have magnitude and direction, but they don't describe the position of an object.

Again, I didn’t say that either. You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper.

And they don't warp due to the presence of matter (as Relativity dictates about spatial and temporal dimensions).

Bravo! You managed to have completely twisted my response out of proportion to suit your needs, yet have failed miserably because you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by (Q)
What does that have to do with anything. Velocity and acceleration are not dimensions.

Don’t try and squirm out of this by putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say velocity and acceleration are dimensions, did I?

The have magnitude and direction, but they don't describe the position of an object.

Again, I didn’t say that either. You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper.

And they don't warp due to the presence of matter (as Relativity dictates about spatial and temporal dimensions).

Bravo! You managed to have completely twisted my response out of proportion to suit your needs, yet have failed miserably because you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you weren't trying to reconcile velocity and acceleration, with my definition of "dimension", then what were you doing by saying:

Magnitude is not one of the physical dimensions, because it is not used to describe position or movement.

Ah, the youth – forever ignorant in their defiance.

Velocity and acceleration are vectors; therefore they both have magnitude and direction.

?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Graduate Do we have "Newtonian space-time" in classical physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
High School What is the physical significance of mass-time-length equivalences in physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School I can't understand more than 3 spatial dimensions
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
High School Why Do We Draw Dimensionless Unit Vectors in Diagrams?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Undergrad Testing string/m-theory extra dimensions prediction
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K