Time and physicality of dimensions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Octavianus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dimensions, particularly the physicality of space and time dimensions compared to the material reality of mass. Participants explore whether space dimensions are as materially real as the time dimension and how this relates to the measurement of tangible versus intangible quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the three spatial dimensions are no more materially real than the time dimension, suggesting that only mass within these dimensions holds material reality.
  • Others argue that the existence of mass and energy, regardless of their dimensional context, provides a valid understanding of reality.
  • A participant questions the definitions of "real" and "material," indicating that the discussion hinges on these definitions for meaningful engagement.
  • One participant suggests that the measurement of tangible objects, like an ice cube, contrasts with the measurement of time, which they describe as measuring a process rather than a physical entity.
  • Another participant clarifies that mass is a property of matter, not matter itself, emphasizing the distinction between the two concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of reality concerning dimensions and mass, with no consensus reached on the definitions of "real" and "material." The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the lack of agreed-upon definitions for key terms, which affects the clarity and direction of the arguments presented.

Octavianus
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Is it correct to say that the three space dimensions are no more physically (as in materially) real than the time dimension, but that only the mass that exists in the dimensions are real in a material sense?
I have a suspicion that why som people insist that time (and spacetime) does not exist, not even as a dimension, is that a ruler can measure something tangible (mass), like the length, width and height of an ice cube, while a clock measures something not directly tangible (a process), like how long it takes for the ice cube to melt.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Three dimensions of space, one dimension of time, along with matter having mass and energy without mass are valid ways of understanding the world around us, and us, too, for that matter.

Next time you go to buy a big screen TV and borrow money to pay for it and lug it home and get your electric bill to watch it, you'll find out just how real they all are.
 
Octavianus said:
Is it correct to say that the three space dimensions are no more physically (as in materially) real than the time dimension, but that only the mass that exists in the dimensions are real in a material sense?
I have a suspicion that why som people insist that time (and spacetime) does not exist, not even as a dimension, is that a ruler can measure something tangible (mass), like the length, width and height of an ice cube, while a clock measures something not directly tangible (a process), like how long it takes for the ice cube to melt.

If you always drove at 60 mph along an interstate going from Cininnati to Cleveland, you could put time marks along the side of the road and keep track of your progress with time measurements. That's basically what you are doing when you move along the 4th spatial dimension at speed c and make time readings. A mechanical clock just marks off time points along the world line (extended along the 4th dimension). That doesn't make the world line "time" any more than the time marks along the interstate makes the interstate "time." A typical world line might extend for 10^13 miles along the 4th dimension.
 
Octavianus said:
Is it correct to say that the three space dimensions are no more physically (as in materially) real than the time dimension, but that only the mass that exists in the dimensions are real in a material sense?

This would depend completely on the definition of the words "real" and "material." If you don't provide your definition of those words, then we can't have a meaningful discussion.
 
Octavianus said:
only the mass that exists in the dimensions are real in a material sense?
Generally only matter will be anything "in a material sense." After all, "matter" is the root word of "material."

Mass is not matter, mass is a property of matter, like charge.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Small and large extra dimension(s) of the physical space
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
High School The Fourth Dimension: A Measurement of Aging
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
High School Was H.G. Wells' Concept of Time as a Fourth Dimension Accurate?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Need to Check GR Beliefs? Integrity Filter Here!
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Graduate How do you convert the Pound–Rebka redshift into time variation?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
982
Undergrad What causes an accelerated clock to record less events
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Why Does the Standard Model Use Six Dimensions for Probability Calculations?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
High School Relativistic simultaneity and effects on time
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
936
Undergrad How Do Physical Quantities Relate to Spacetime in Einstein's Field Equations?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K