- #1

- 84

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter kira506
- Start date

In summary, dimension is a number that tells you how many numbers you need to pinpoint the location of any point on a shape or in the universe. In our universe, there are three space dimensions and a time dimension. The volume of a ball increases with the radius of the ball proportional to the radius^dimension. A 1D object acts as a boundary in a 2D shape, and a 2D object acts as a boundary in a 3D space. A 3D space acts as a boundary in a 4D hyperspace or manifold. There is no "the 4th dimension" and dimensions are an arbitrary mathematical concept used to define abstract variable spaces. The concept of time as the fourth dimension is simply

- #1

- 84

- 0

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Science Advisor

- 2,813

- 491

There are more sophisticated definitions of dimension if you are interested. The volume of a ball increases with the radius of the ball proportional to the radius^dimension. A 1D object acts as a boundary in a 2D shape. A 2D object acts as a boundary in a 3D space. A 3D space acts as a boundary in a 4D hyperspace, or manifold.

- #3

Gold Member

- 4,387

- 305

- #4

- 84

- 0

Khashishi said:

There are more sophisticated definitions of dimension if you are interested. The volume of a ball increases with the radius of the ball proportional to the radius^dimension. A 1D object acts as a boundary in a 2D shape. A 2D object acts as a boundary in a 3D space. A 3D space acts as a boundary in a 4D hyperspace, or manifold.

Thank you so much ! Now I understand , the boundaries example helped me a lot along with the radius part , now I'm kinda able to visualize it c: thanks a lot !

- #5

- 84

- 0

hehe , may be , but me and my brother keep obssessing over them don't know why ! We're so fascinated by the thought of the presence of multi-dimensional planes ! Thank you though , the definition really helped me in forming the image in my brain c:Pythagorean said:the4th dimension". We have three spatial dimensions. They are neat because they are independent of each other (orthogonal... at 90 degree angles from each other). There's nothing inherently special about dimensions.

- #6

Gold Member

- 2,325

- 406

Considering spatial dimensions you should think in terms of right angles (actually othogonality). 1 dimension is a line. 2 dimensions is a right angle to the 1st line (creating a plane). 3 dimensions is a right angle to both lines, creating the corner of a cube (3 orthogonol dimensions). 4 dimensions is a right angle to all three lines (impossible in the 3 dimensional world), creating the corner of a tresseract (google "tesseract" and "klein bottle"). There is no limit to how far you can go with spatial dimensions.

Based on this, try to think about a 4 dimensional chess board and see if your brain explodes.

Obviously we can only see a tesseract it terms of its 3 dimensional or 2 dimensional projection. This is in much the same way we view the projection of a cube on a 2 dimensional piece of paper.

- #7

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

To label points on the floor of the room you are sitting on uniquely, we could measure the distance from one wall and the distance from another wall at right angle to the first. Two numbers, so that is two dimensional. To label points any where in the room, we could drop a line from the point perpendicular to the floor. The two numbers identifying the point on the floor, together with the height from the floor, uniquely identify that point. Three numbers, so three dimensions.

Physicists study "events"; things that happen at a specific location at a specific time. It takes, of course, three numbers to identify the location and a single number to specify the time. A total of four numbers so the "world of physics" is "four dimensional".

(I remember watching the very first "Dr. Who" episode, "An Unearthly Child". (No, not its first airing!)

The Dr's Granddaughter, who is a student in an Earth secondary school objects to her teacher talking about "four dimensions" saying "what about the fifth dimension?". When asked what the "fifth dimension" is, she responds "space"! That's the problem having dialog for "advanced beings" written by not-so-advanced beings!)

- #8

- 84

- 0

meBigGuy said:

Considering spatial dimensions you should think in terms of right angles (actually othogonality). 1 dimension is a line. 2 dimensions is a right angle to the 1st line (creating a plane). 3 dimensions is a right angle to both lines, creating the corner of a cube (3 orthogonol dimensions). 4 dimensions is a right angle to all three lines (impossible in the 3 dimensional world), creating the corner of a tresseract (google "tesseract" and "klein bottle"). There is no limit to how far you can go with spatial dimensions.

Based on this, try to think about a 4 dimensional chess board and see if your brain explodes.

Obviously we can only see a tesseract it terms of its 3 dimensional or 2 dimensional projection. This is in much the same way we view the projection of a cube on a 2 dimensional piece of paper.

It explodes everytime I try to think about it , taht's why I imagine it as a cube enveloppping the other 3 dimensions and perpendicualr to each , that's why time is the first candidate , it kinda envelops them in my opinion , I'll google them , and I'm sure my mind will explode even more than before xD and I'll have to reassemble my concept once again

- #9

- 84

- 0

HallsofIvy said:

To label points on the floor of the room you are sitting on uniquely, we could measure the distance from one wall and the distance from another wall at right angle to the first. Two numbers, so that is two dimensional. To label points any where in the room, we could drop a line from the point perpendicular to the floor. The two numbers identifying the point on the floor, together with the height from the floor, uniquely identify that point. Three numbers, so three dimensions.

Physicists study "events"; things that happen at a specific location at a specific time. It takes, of course, three numbers to identify the location and a single number to specify the time. A total of four numbers so the "world of physics" is "four dimensional".

(I remember watching the very first "Dr. Who" episode, "An Unearthly Child". (No, not its first airing!)

The Dr's Granddaughter, who is a student in an Earth secondary school objects to her teacher talking about "four dimensions" saying "what about the fifth dimension?". When asked what the "fifth dimension" is, she responds "space"! That's the problem having dialog for "advanced beings" written by not-so-advanced beings!)

Rofl XD yeah , because the other 3 dimensions are not enough for space , si ,I kinda agree with them too , time is the non-spatial dimension accompanying the 3 dimensions or any nth dimension which appears and it will be no.s indentifying location of dimensions * time , thank you so much for the explanation c:

- #10

Gold Member

- 2,325

- 406

kira506 said:It explodes everytime I try to think about it , taht's why I imagine it as a cube enveloppping the other 3 dimensions and perpendicualr to each , that's why time is the first candidate , it kinda envelops them in my opinion , I'll google them , and I'm sure my mind will explode even more than before xD and I'll have to reassemble my concept once again

The spatial dimensions are orthogonal and fundamentally independent. I don't see time as being analogous. If you had 5 spatial dimensions, they could all independently vary in time.

Regarding "enveloping", I have similar philosophical musings, that moving in time is somehow perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions. But, I don't think they are sound.

I see a conflict in that I can play 2,3,or 4 dimensional chess and the game requires time. In the physical world, spatial dimensions are just plain different than time.

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~reinige1/Chess/chess-basicmath.pdf is interesting.

- #11

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 11,440

- 747

- #12

Gold Member

- 4,387

- 305

But to visualize a state trajectory through 4 dimensions isn't terribly easy with the book analogy.

- #13

- 84

- 0

I guess you're right , time varies with all dimensions and doesn't define their shape , thanks for correcting me :DmeBigGuy said:The spatial dimensions are orthogonal and fundamentally independent. I don't see time as being analogous. If you had 5 spatial dimensions, they could all independently vary in time.

Regarding "enveloping", I have similar philosophical musings, that moving in time is somehow perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions. But, I don't think they are sound.

I see a conflict in that I can play 2,3,or 4 dimensional chess and the game requires time. In the physical world, spatial dimensions are just plain different than time.

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~reinige1/Chess/chess-basicmath.pdf is interesting.

- #14

- 84

- 0

Chronos said:

Thaaanks , it facilitates visualizing how we can add up dimensions but as simple is it might sound , still visualizing them together is difficult but thanks c:

Last edited:

- #15

- 84

- 0

Pythagorean said:But to visualize a state trajectory through 4 dimensions isn't terribly easy with the book analogy.

I agree with you on this one

- #16

Gold Member

- 2,325

- 406

Spatial dimensions are but one example. For spatial dimensions, each variable represent an orthogonal physical space. Dimensions 1,2 and 3 are pretty easy to visualize (look at the vertex of a cube). Dimension 4 is orthogonal to the vertices of a cube, so is somewhat imaginary in our world and difficult to visualize.

Share:

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 7K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 14K

- Replies
- 34

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 3K