B What does 3-dimensional space deform into, in the presence of gravity?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter jaketodd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Gravity Space
Click For Summary
In the discussion about the deformation of 3-dimensional space in the presence of gravity, participants emphasize that space does not deform into a higher dimension but rather exhibits intrinsic curvature. The initial question references Brian Greene's work, which is criticized for promoting misunderstandings about complex concepts in physics. Participants argue that relying on pop science sources leads to misconceptions, advocating instead for learning from textbooks and peer-reviewed literature. Ultimately, the consensus is that space does not deform into anything; its curvature is an intrinsic property. The thread concludes with a call for more rigorous understanding rather than relying on simplified explanations.
jaketodd
Gold Member
Messages
507
Reaction score
21
I have no expertise in this area, other than rudimentary concepts. The following might apply if the visualization of space, as depicted below, represents actual reality, but I don't know for sure. Please help me understand better, you guys!

2-dimensional space
The curvatures deform into the 3rd dimension, as can be seen in the picture below.

So in 3-dimensional space, what does space deform into? 4th!?
We can't even visualize it! Unless it doesn't deform into the 4th, but instead just stretches space, without a deformation into a 4th. See another picture below.

This is mentioned by Brian Greene, notable for his documentary The Elegant Universe. He's mostly about string theory but poses this question as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space

1687711776058.png


1687711851246.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jaketodd said:
2-dimensional space
The curvatures deform into the 3rd dimension
No, they don't. The third dimension in the picture has no relationship to any dimension in reality. A curved space doesn't deform "into" anything. The curvature is intrinsic.

jaketodd said:
So in 3-dimensional space, what does space deform into?
Nothing. See above.

jaketodd said:
This is mentioned by Brian Greene, notable for his documentary The Elegant Universe.
This is a pop science source and is not a valid reference. In fact, Greene's pop science books and videos are particularly bad because of the number of misunderstandings they create among unsuspecting lay people. We have had many past PF threads on this.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
@jaketodd, you apparently have failed to take my advice to learn from textbooks and peer-reviewed papers instead of pop science sources. You really, really, really, really need to take it.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore and malawi_glenn
The OP is based on a misconception obtained from an invalid pop science reference. Thread closed.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...