Is Gravity Considered a Dimension in Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter daytripper
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension Gravity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether gravity can be considered a dimension in physics. A comment from a YouTube video suggests that gravity is essential for concepts like time, proposing a model that includes gravity as a dimension. However, responses highlight that traditional physics, particularly quantum mechanics, does not incorporate gravity in its fundamental equations, such as the Hamiltonian for electromagnetic interactions. The conversation emphasizes the need for credible sources when discussing complex topics like gravity and dimensions. Ultimately, the idea of gravity as a dimension remains contentious and requires further validation from established scientific literature.
daytripper
Messages
108
Reaction score
1
Hey everyone. I was recently on youtube, looking at 4-d objects, when I came across a comment which caught my eye:

"You're forgetting Gravity. Without gravity there is no xyz and without two large bodies there is no concept of time. Therefore, gravity must be included as a dimension. They are known as XYZTG, and basic physics explains. However, quantum physics predicts that there my be more than that, probably even 11. I won't go into all of them but given enough time I guess I could do a few if you really want me to."

Ignoring any technical mistakes that he might have in his understanding, I'm curious if the underlying idea is correct. Is gravity a dimension?

Thank you.
-Tim

edit: This post possibly belongs in the string theory forum. If that's the case, sorry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This makes no sense.

Look in QM. Write down the Hamiltonian for, say, an EM interaction. Where's gravity there? There isn't. Yet, I have no only space, but time incorporated in the Hamiltonian. Isn't this rather obvious and falsify what you read?

Now, whether gravity can "leak" into other higher dimension is a different matter, but that has nothing to do with gravity being a "dimension".

BTW, it is already difficult enough for us to tackle question based on valid sources. It is going to be ridiculous to entertain stuff you heard off YouTube and without giving us the exact source. We have no way to verify that you heard this right, or if the source is crackpottery. If you haven't been told already or haven't read my many comments on this, please provide the exact reference to the source that you wish to ask on. Without it, this whole thing can easily be a waste of time.

Zz.
 
Yea, that does seem kind of obvious now. I realize it's not a valid source, but it's something I read which got me thinking and after some thought, it seemed... plausible(?).
I copy and pasted what was said in full. I didn't know where to look to validate his thought, so I turned to you guys.
Thanks for the reply.
-Tim
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
88
Views
19K
Replies
15
Views
5K
Back
Top