Expansion of the Universe and the fourth dimension

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of the fourth dimension in relation to the expansion of the universe. Participants clarify that time is not a spatial dimension, and the universe's expansion is described by the scale factor in the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric tensor. The conversation emphasizes that the universe does not expand into a higher-dimensional space, countering misconceptions about cosmological models. The debate also touches on speculative ideas such as branes, which are deemed off-topic in the context of established general relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and spacetime concepts
  • Familiarity with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric tensor
  • Basic knowledge of cosmological expansion and scale factors
  • Awareness of the distinction between spatial and temporal dimensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the FLRW metric tensor in cosmology
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of general relativity
  • Research the concept of spacetime and its geometric properties
  • Investigate speculative theories like brane cosmology in the context of higher dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and students of physics seeking to deepen their understanding of the universe's expansion and the nature of spacetime.

Mingfei Li
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
The perimeter of a circle increases by radius, the surface area of a ball increase by radius(which is height which is the third dimension if the ball is a planet like the Earth), and the universe is expanding by time, can we say that the fourth dimension is time by this ?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Mingfei Li said:
The perimeter of a circle increases by radius, the surface area of a ball increase by radius(which is height which is the third dimension if the ball is a planet like the Earth), and the universe is expanding by time, can we say that the fourth dimension is time by this ?
No. That would not even make sense. First of all, you are separating space and time, but in general that's not valid. It's all space-time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Mingfei Li said:
The perimeter of a circle increases by radius, the surface area of a ball increase by radius(which is height which is the third dimension if the ball is a planet like the Earth), and the universe is expanding by time, can we say that the fourth dimension is time by this ?
I don't think so. Leaving aside how the radius of your circle is increasing without you defining time beforehand, you can imagine a rubber sheet being stretched in its own plane. Its area increases with its radius, which would imply that one of its spatial directions was also time, by your argument.

Time is a fourth dimension in our current best models, yes. But we deduced this from Minkowski's interpretation of Einstein's maths, which in turn followed from detailed mathematical study of electromagnetism. I don't think you can really do science by analogy, which is what you appear to be trying to do.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
The question is if the universe is creating Spacetime as it expands, which is the older more common view. But some cosmologists think that it is expanding into a 4d space. We have two rather confusing point of view. 1. It is expanding into nothing or 2. What is the 4d space doing; expanding into a 5d space? And so on! Don’t expect final answers as long as we do not know what about 95% of our universe actually is (dark matter and dark energy means dark understanding).
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and weirdoguy
Mingfei Li said:
The perimeter of a circle increases by radius, the surface area of a ball increase by radius(which is height which is the third dimension if the ball is a planet like the Earth), and the universe is expanding by time, can we say that the fourth dimension is time by this ?

No. Time is not a spatial dimension. Note that it is not required that there be a 4th spatial dimension into which the universe expands. The idea that the universe is a finite volume of some shape (such as a 2-sphere, or ball) that is somehow embedded into higher dimensions is not believed by cosmologists to be accurate.

supernova1054 said:
But some cosmologists think that it is expanding into a 4d space.

Do you have a reference for this?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
supernova1054 said:
... some cosmologists think that it is expanding into a 4d space.
I suspect that you have misunderstood something you read or more likely you are basing that statement on pop-science, which is not accurate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
supernova1054 said:
We have two rather confusing point of view. 1. It is expanding into nothing or 2. What is the 4d space doing; expanding into a 5d space? And so on!

It's rather weird that you wrote something like this since in your "new member introduction" you said that you are an astrophysicst. Anyway, it's a standard knowledge that there are no "two confusing points of view" but only one and very clear that an "expansion of the Universe" is a wording for the existence of the scale factor in metric tensor of FLRW spacetime. A scale factor which is increasing and makes gravitationally non-bound objects "move apart". Knowing what it really means (that is: knowing the maths) makes it rather clear that there is no need for questions like "what does Universe expand into".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn, russ_watters, phinds and 2 others
weirdoguy said:
It's rather weird that you wrote something like this since in your "new member introduction" you said that you are an astrophysicst. Anyway, it's a standard knowledge that there are no "two confusing points of view" but only one and very clear that an "expansion of the Universe" is a wording for the existence of the scale factor in metric tensor of FLRW spacetime. A scale factor which is increasing and makes gravitationally non-bound objects "move apart". Knowing what it really means (that is: knowing the maths) makes it rather clear that there is no need for questions like "what does Universe expand into".
 
I taught a course in general relativity and cosmology from 1970 until 2014 and have followed its progress closely. That was always my favorite course. My research was primarily on uv spectroscopy of interacting binary stars Using various spacecraft capabilities.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #10
supernova1054 said:
I taught a course in general relativity and cosmology from 1970 until 2014 and have followed its progress closely.

Then you should know that there are no "two rather confusing point of views".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #11
weirdoguy said:
Then you should know that there are no "two rather confusing point of views".
What about branes? Is it really inconceivable that our universe is enveloped by a higher dimensional Spacetime? The problem is that we conceive of many strange ideas. Without observational or experimental data these concepts are almost invariably wrong.
 
  • #12
supernova1054 said:
What about branes?

We are talking about classical, experimentally well established general relativity. Branes are off-topic here and if that is what you had in mind all the time then you should say that in your very first post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds and PeroK
  • #13
Okay, no more metaphysics here. The
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #14
supernova1054 said:
The question is if the universe is creating Spacetime as it expands

Spacetime doesn't get "created". Spacetime is a 4-dimensional geometric object that already contains all of the history of the universe. It just "is".

supernova1054 said:
What about branes? Is it really inconceivable that our universe is enveloped by a higher dimensional Spacetime?

Discussions of speculative hypotheses like branes, if they are based on published literature on them, belong in the Beyond the Standard Model forum, not this one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K