Was H.G. Wells' Concept of Time as a Fourth Dimension Accurate?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shawn Robinson
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

H.G. Wells' concept of time as a fourth dimension, as presented in "The Time Machine," posits that physical objects exist in a four-dimensional space-time framework, comprising height, width, depth, and time. While the notion that time is a dimension is accurate, the discussion highlights that Wells' understanding lacked clarity regarding the distinction between spatial and temporal dimensions. The conversation emphasizes that Euclidean 4-dimensional geometry does not accurately model spacetime, indicating that while Wells was on the right track, his theory remains incomplete. The existence of newly discovered sub-atomic particles further supports the necessity of time in describing physical phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly dimensions and space-time.
  • Familiarity with H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine."
  • Knowledge of Euclidean geometry and its limitations in modeling spacetime.
  • Awareness of recent developments in particle physics and their implications for time as a dimension.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity on time as a dimension.
  • Explore the differences between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries in the context of spacetime.
  • Study the latest findings in particle physics related to time intervals and sub-atomic particles.
  • Examine philosophical discussions surrounding the nature of existence and dimensions in physics.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, science fiction enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of time and dimensions in the physical world.

Shawn Robinson
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
In the book by H. G. Wells "The Time Machine"

In the first chapter of the book, the "time traveller" character asked the question "Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?" and then goes on to explain that everything physical has at least 4 dimensions, height, width, depth, and time.

So my question is was he correct in this description?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
:welcome:

I translate your question as "Does something that never existed ever exist?" The self-contradictory language gives you the answer, "No."

Riddles based on contradictions are not physics. I suspect that the mentor might close this thread because of that.
 
How many dimensions does a physical tangible object have, ie. a desk, a phone, etc. Is that part correct, that you have to have at 4 dimension to be able to describe an object accurately?

I do apologize if my question seems simple, most of what little i know of physical sciences is self taught.
 
A physical object exists in 4D space-time. That does not describe it.
 
Thanks, guess i need to go back to reading the primers again.
 
Yes, that is a correct description. The newly discovered sub-atomic particles have been confirmed to exist by being observed in a time interval, albeit a very short interval of time. Time is the fourth dimension of the physical world.
 
Euclidian 4-dimensional geometry is not an accurate model of spacetime. Wells was on the right track but he made no distinction between the space and time dimensions, so his theory was incomplete.
 
David and Pete, thank you, granted the time machine is pure fiction. But I did find it interesting that quite a few books from that time period have been "prophetic" for a lack of a better term. in regard to real world science and engineering.

Wells did describe the time dimension at being at right angles to the other 3, my brain is not quite agile enough to be able to easily grasp the geometry of that.

Thanks again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
155
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K