Frame of reference: grade 2n vs. grade 2n-1

[eaglechief]

Hello all,

was it ever a point of discussion in cosmology, quantum-theory, mechanics, etc. that there is a fundamental difference in describing a physical process in a 2n-grade (4th, 6th, 8th-grade) frame of reference in comparison to a 2n-1-grade (3rd, 5th, 7th-grade) frame ?

Thanks in advance
eaglechief

 

[ogg]

Do you mean DIMENSIONAL frames of reference? I'm unfamiliar with the term "n-grade frame of reference", a quick google search seems to confirm it isn't a term used in physics. If you do, then you'll also have to define/explain what you mean by "fundamental". Generally, the number of spatial (or spatiotemporal) dimensions of a system is considered a "fundamental" property. Since relativistic dynamics is intimately concerned about vectors in pseudo-Riemannian vector spaces, and a basic property of a vector space is the number of independent components of each vector, I'm pretty much at a loss at guessing at a meaning of the term "fundamental" which would exclude this.

 

[eaglechief]

Hello ogg and thanks for your answer.

Sorry not to be very precise but i am native german and my english is less than perfect. Yes, i do think you're right and "dimensional frame of reference" fits better.
I am trying to understand if there is a difference in describing processes in an (for instance) 3D, 5D, 7-dimensional manifold in comparison to a f.i. 4D, 6D, 10D-manifold.
Forget the word "fundamental". Is there a hint in any respect, that "nature" makes a difference between (2n-1) and (2n)-grade manifolds ?

thx !
eaglechief