Could the curvature of space in general relativity represent a 4th dimension?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of curvature in general relativity and whether it could be viewed as a fourth spatial dimension, referred to as "hyperspace." Participants explore theoretical implications, coordinate systems, and the nature of curvature in the context of spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the curvature of space in general relativity could be interpreted as a fourth spatial dimension, suggesting a rethinking of the role of time in this context.
  • Others argue that curvature is an intrinsic property of a 3D universe and does not necessitate the existence of a higher-dimensional space for its description.
  • One participant asserts that curvature is the result of multiple dimensions rather than a dimension itself, emphasizing that it does not help determine the position of an object.
  • A participant mentions that at the event horizon, space is infinitely contracted, suggesting that a fourth spatial dimension could be relevant in that scenario.
  • Another participant counters that nothing pathological occurs at the horizon, and that different coordinate systems can resolve issues without introducing a new dimension.
  • There is a discussion about the Riemannian tensor as a characteristic of spacetime, with some asserting it is an absolute property independent of observers, while others question the existence of observer-dependent curvature.
  • Some participants clarify that while scalar measures of curvature are invariant, the components of the Riemann tensor can vary depending on the observer's frame of reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of curvature and its implications for dimensions in general relativity. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the necessity or utility of a fourth spatial dimension.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of their interpretations, including the dependence on coordinate systems and the varying definitions of curvature. The discussion also reflects differing understandings of the implications of the Riemannian tensor.

scope
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
hi,

what do you think that in general relativity, since space is curved, the curvature could be interpreted as a 4th space dimension "hyperspace"?
in other words, the 4th space dimension would take the place of time, for a coordinate observer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. When thinking of curved surfaces, we as humans often picture them embedded in a higher dimensional space. That is, we draw a curvy line (1D) in a plane (2D). We see a wavy blanket (2D) in real life (3D). So we assume that our 3D universe must be in a 4D (spatial!) similar situation. This is only our limitations as humans, however. These objects, the line, the curvy blanket, and our own universe, have intrinsic curvature which exists completely independent of their embedding in a higher dimensional space. Mathematically, that is, it is perfectly fine to talk about a 3D curvy object on its own with no reference to a fourth dimension -- only if we tried to visualize such a situation would we need one! Therefore, it is not necessary to posit the existence of such extra dimensions in order to have a curved universe.
 
Last edited:
Curvature is the effect of 2+ dimensions, not a dimension in itself. Think of a dimension as a measurement, and the count of dimensions as the minimum measurements you need to describe the position of an object, length, width, height, and time. Curvature can be thought of as the effect of the independent variance of 2+ measurements, like how there can be many heights for the same width of an object, thus making the object curved on that slice.

Also, given the above definite of a dimension, you could eliminate curvature as a possible dimension because it doesn't help determine position.
 
Last edited:
at the horizon, space is infinitely contracted in the reference frame and then a fourth space dimension(and no time dimension, since the horizon exists only for t=infinite), would be welcome
 
Nothing pathological happens to the manifold at the horizon. Only the Schwarzschild coordinates become pathological there. This is easily remedied by introducint a different set of coordinates. A new dimension is certainly not needed and I don't see how it would be helpful in any way for that.
 
its not pathological but the curvature.
 
The curvature at the horizon is always finite and can be made arbitrarily small by using a sufficiently large mass.
 
i did not mean the scalar curvature but the curvature that is observer-dependent
 
What is that? I have never heard of such a thing.
 
  • #10
DaleSpam said:
What is that? I have never heard of such a thing.

It is the full Riemannian tensor (of order 4) which is a physical characteristic of space-time in Einstein Theory ..it is an absolute property and has nothing to do with any observer's world-line.
 
  • #11
scope said:
hi,

what do you think that in general relativity, since space is curved, the curvature could be interpreted as a 4th space dimension "hyperspace"?
in other words, the 4th space dimension would take the place of time, for a coordinate observer?

It is a sign to deep understaning of GR to try to think of another formulation to the theory but this new formulation would be a true progress in two cases;
first:It is more simple than the classical formulation.
second:It makes possiple to solve the problem of unifying GR and QP or other problems of GR
Otherwise the classical formulation of GR in four-dimension space characterized by the curvature is a good final theory for gravitation and need not be interpreted.
 
  • #12
Mueiz said:
It is the full Riemannian tensor (of order 4) which is a physical characteristic of space-time in Einstein Theory ..it is an absolute property and has nothing to do with any observer's world-line.
Exactly, so it is not observer-dependent. I have never heard of an observer-dependent curvature like scope was talking about.
 
  • #13
Mueiz said:
It is the full Riemannian tensor (of order 4) which is a physical characteristic of space-time in Einstein Theory ..it is an absolute property and has nothing to do with any observer's world-line.
It is true that scalar measures of curvature Raa and RabcdRabcd are absoluely invariant ( being scalars) but the components of the Riemann tensor will change if calculated wrt a frame field representing some observer.

See for instance equations (1.4.16a),(1.4.16b) and (1.4.16c) in arXiv:0904.4184v3 [gr-qc] 4 Nov 2010 in the section "1.4.2 Tetrad transformations".
 
  • #14
Right, but tensors are geometric objects that do not depend on the coordinates. Of course, their representation in a given coordinate system or basis will depend on the coordinates, but the geometrical object itself does not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K