What are the Four Dimensions in Our Space-Time Continuum?

flamingyawn
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Is the 4th dimension time?

0D = dot
1D = line
2D = plane
3D = sphere
4D = time

Am I correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. And welcome to PF, flamingyawn.
 
thanks.. :wink:
 
flamingyawn said:
Is the 4th dimension time?

0D = dot
1D = line
2D = plane
3D = sphere
4D = time

Am I correct?
Yes, one of the four dimensions in our "four dimensional space time continuum" is time but whether it is "the fourth dimension" depends on where you start counting!

Yes, "0 dimensions" would be a dot, but "1 dimension" is not necessarily a line. It could be any curve. For example, the set {(x,y)| y= x^2} is one-dimensional. Similarly, a plane is an example of a two dimensional set but a two dimensional set can be any surface.

A sphere is in 3 dimensions but it is not "3 dimensions" in the same sense that a point, line, and plane "are" 0, 1, and 2 dimensions- it does not encompass all of 3 dimensional space. And, in keeping with the previous examples, you should have "3D = all of space".

And "4D = time" is completely different from the others. "Time" does not have 4 dimensions in the same sense that the others have 1, 2, or 2 dimensions. "4D= time-space" would be better.

The number of dimensions something has expresses how many numbers you need to designate a single "point" in that thing. A "point" has 0 dimensions because you only have the one point to begin with so you don't need to "designate" it at all. To designate a point on a line (or curve) I could arbitrarily assign "0" to one point and measure from that to the point I want to designate and assign it the distance (positive in one direction and negative in the other). To designate a point on a plane, i could set up a coordinate system and use the two number, x and y. To designate a point in space, I need three numbers.

Physicists work with "events"- thing that happen at a specific point, at a specific time. We need three numbers to designate the point and one number to designate the time. That is what we mean when we say that space-time is "four dimensional" and that time is the "fourth dimension".
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, one of the four dimensions in our "four dimensional space time continuum" is time but whether it is "the fourth dimension" depends on where you start counting!

Yes, "0 dimensions" would be a dot, but "1 dimension" is not necessarily a line. It could be any curve. For example, the set {(x,y)| y= x^2} is one-dimensional. Similarly, a plane is an example of a two dimensional set but a two dimensional set can be any surface.

A sphere is in 3 dimensions but it is not "3 dimensions" in the same sense that a point, line, and plane "are" 0, 1, and 2 dimensions- it does not encompass all of 3 dimensional space. And, in keeping with the previous examples, you should have "3D = all of space".

And "4D = time" is completely different from the others. "Time" does not have 4 dimensions in the same sense that the others have 1, 2, or 2 dimensions. "4D= time-space" would be better.

The number of dimensions something has expresses how many numbers you need to designate a single "point" in that thing. A "point" has 0 dimensions because you only have the one point to begin with so you don't need to "designate" it at all. To designate a point on a line (or curve) I could arbitrarily assign "0" to one point and measure from that to the point I want to designate and assign it the distance (positive in one direction and negative in the other). To designate a point on a plane, i could set up a coordinate system and use the two number, x and y. To designate a point in space, I need three numbers.

Physicists work with "events"- thing that happen at a specific point, at a specific time. We need three numbers to designate the point and one number to designate the time. That is what we mean when we say that space-time is "four dimensional" and that time is the "fourth dimension".

thanks
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top