Is Time Really the Fourth Dimension?

  • Thread starter Thread starter superbk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension Time
Physics news on Phys.org
How about summarizing the video and relating how you understand what it is saying.
The term "the fourth dimension" has a variety of meaning depending on who you are talking to.

In relativity, time can be treated as a special case of a dimension of space.
There are models which include many more dimensions. Michio Kaku is relating the kinds of ideas that lead to these in this video. Time would certainly be included in any multi-dimensional model ... though, off Kaku's description, time would have to be the 12th dimension since he describes 3D universe-bubbles on the surface of an 11D multiverse which are expanding in time (implying that the 11D mess is evolving in time).

I'm not sure that's the impression he intends - we have to be careful not to read too much into these kinds of lay-descriptions: they are all hopelessly lacking.
In this case Kaku is trying to answer a question - and the questoner appears to have left time off the number of dimensions that our universe has.
 
Last edited:
Let's put it this way. It takes 3 separate numbers to describe the spatial position of an object relative to a point in space or another object. Since it takes 3 numbers, we refer to each of these as being a "dimension" of space. If we want to describe the position of something in space AND time it takes 4 numbers, with time being the 4th. (It's a little more complicated, but I trust you get the general idea)
 
Yeah - number of dimensions could just be seen as the number of degrees of freedom.
eg. A bicycle can be described by numbers:

x,y,z location (3)
orientation (lean, yaw and pitch) at the location (3)
the relative rotation-angle of each wheel (2)
the relative turn-angle of the handle-bars (1)
the angle of the pedals (1)
time it got there (1)
height and rotation of the seat (2)
... that's 13 dimensions, and I have not gone into it's gears yet.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top