Many Dimensions

[Lloyd]

* Thornhill seems to be satisfied with 3 dimensions. Einstein seemed to think there are 4 dimensions, counting time as one. Others have been saying there are 10 or 11 or more dimensions. They could all be fairly correct, because conventional science seems to be a bit sloppy in defining dimensions. For example, Wikipedia says:

In physics and science, dimensional analysis is a tool to find or check relations among physical quantities by using their dimensions. The dimension of a physical quantity is the combination of the basic physical dimensions (usually mass, length, time, electric charge, and temperature) which describe it; for example, speed has the dimension length / time, and may be measured in meters per second, miles per hour, or other units. Dimensional analysis is based on the fact that a physical law must be independent of the units used to measure the physical variables. A straightforward practical consequence is that any meaningful equation (and any inequality and inequation) must have the same dimensions in the left and right sides. Checking this is the basic way of performing dimensional analysis.

* So it appears that there are 3 kinds of dimensions: Basic, Derived and Spatial Dimensions.
1st, There are 5 basic dimensions: Mass, Length, Time, Charge, Temperature.
2nd, There are many derived dimensions: Speed, Acceleration, Force, Pressure, Momentum, Energy, etc.
- Any product or ratio of two or more basic dimensions is called a derived dimension. Speed = Length/Time. Acceleration = Speed/Time. Force = Mass x Acceleration. Etc. I think Einstein said Speed x Time = Length, but as a fourth dimension. But it seems better to call it a derived dimension, instead of a basic one.
3rd, There are 3 basic spatial dimensions, each perpendicular to the other two: Length, Width, Height.
- There are 2 derived spatial dimensions: Length x Length = Two-dimensional Area; Length x Length x Length = Three-dimensional Volume.
* Beware!
- Some say that temperature, charge and even mass may be derived, rather than basic, dimensions. They may be derived from length and time, as Dewey Larsen claimed. In that case, there are just 2 basic dimensions: Length and Time.
* Any Questions?

[Shrike]

From the 1st: Isn't temperature already derived ?

In my understand at least as i have learned that temperature is how fast atoms are moving.
ie: if they don't move it is 0 kelvin (no temperature) and if they move fast the temperature is warmer/hotter.
So length/time = movement = temperature.

My second question is where do thought's / idea's / concepts reside.
Aren't those a dimension by it self ?

[flyingcloud]

all dimensions are derived
there are no dimensions

[Lloyd]

* But, if you want to understand normal scientific discussions of dimensions, you need to know about the above kinds of dimensions that I mentioned.
* I believe many scientists think that temperature is a derived dimension, but I'm pretty sure they haven't yet agreed on what combination of basic dimensions it's derived from. It requires finding an exact formula that checks out. So, until that is found, it makes sense to keep it in the category of basic dimensions.
* As for consciousness, it's not something that can be measured sensibly so far, so it's not quite like the basic physical dimensions. I think physical dimensions likely consist of consciousness, but it's not a theory that seems to have enough practical use so far.

[D_Archer]

Xavier Borg explaining dimensions, excerpt:

Unfortunately, the term 'dimension', has two completely different meanings, both of which are going to be used in this paper, so the reader should be aware of both meanings in order to apply the correct meaning of the word according to the context in which it is being used. In mathematics the 'dimension' of a space is roughly defined as the mimimum number of coordinates needed to specify every point within it. For example the square has two dimensions since two coordinates, say x and y, can be used to specify any point within it. A cube has three dimensions since three coordinates, say x,y, and z, are enough to specify any point in space within it. In engineering and physics terminology, the term 'dimension' relates to the nature of a measurable quantity. In general, physical measurements that must be expressed in units of measurement, and quantities obtained by such measurements are dimensionful. Quantities like ratios and multiplying factors, with no physical units assigned to them are dimensionless. An example of a dimension is length, expressed in units of length, the meters, and an example of a dimensionless unit is Pi. An engineering dimension can thus be a measure of a corresponding mathematical dimension, for example, the dimension of length is a measure of a collection of small linked lines of unit length, which have a single dimension, and the dimension of area is a measure of a collection or grid of squares, which have two dimensions. Similarly the mathematical dimension of volume is three. The prefix 'hyper-' is usually used to refer to the four (and higher) dimensional analogs of three-dimensional objects, e.g. hypercube, hypersphere...

from: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

Regards,
Daniel

[reka]

If the measurement of dimensions are coordinates of a physical point and measurable quantity how can time possibly be a dimension. If time were a dimension then it would be a constant throughout the universe. And as we all know time on earth is measured by the rotation of the planet on it's axis and also by the revolution around the sun. So someone please then explain in simple terms WHY time is the 4th dimension????

[Lloyd]

* As I said before, Time is considered to be the 4th dimension incorrectly by grouping it with the three spatial dimensions of Length.
* Anything measurable is a dimension. Also, basic dimensions can be multiplied and divided by each other, producing derived dimensions.
* So Time is not a 4th dimension. It's one of five basic physical dimensions. Length and Time are probably the only basic dimensions, but it's not yet known how Mass, Charge and Temperature may be derived from them. Length is basic, but Area and Volume are derived from Length by multiplying it by itself, Length x Length, or Length squared or cubed.

[kalensar]

My own thought on the matter is that length and time are pretty much the same dimension with two different names. Light, being the one quantized dimension from which we derive all other dimensions, can be spaced between two objects which can be measured in length which also carries the time information. In essence I would postulate that time would be the length between two other points of light. Then from the analysis of the length between the two points one can come to the approximate dimensions of not just one object, but of both said objects based on the length of the distance between the two points. Therefore, I conclude that time is just the length between two other objects which is each measured by there own sets of points which form the one object each.

1 object + 1 object = time which is length between the two objects.

[Goldminer]

I would postulate that time would be the length between two other points of light. Then from the analysis of the length between the two points one can come to the approximate dimensions of not just one object, but of both said objects based on the length of the distance between the two points.

Kalensar, you have gotten it right about length and duration of time, but please allow me to make this important distinction: Thinking about objects as sources of light is not going to be productive with regard to time. It is the detection of the light that allows the determination of the finite speed of it. For every distance between source and detection, there is a finite delay of time. The assumption is that for every foot of distance there is about one nanosecond of delay. This seems to be good within the solar system, anyway. Most would extrapolate it to the Universe.

Einstein et al have cobbled the simplicity of understanding relativity by insisting that motion somehow changes this relationship. It doesn't. Time is not perpendicular to space. (however he tries to justify that idea! His ilk make this claim and then invent "math" to twist the time axis around to the space vector they are considering.)

Our perception of the position and order of distant events depends upon the actual change of state and position of observed objects and their actual distance from us when the light was emitted.

Radar ranging of the planets has been done without the "benefit" of Einsteinian factors. Extra solar-system measurements are a bit more problematic.

[Lloyd]

1 object + 1 object = time which is length between the two objects.

* This kind of idea certainly seems possible, but, until it might become understood in enough detail, it's surely necessary for practical calculation to consider time as a separate basic dimension.

[kalensar]

@ goldminer- Yes, the stellar distance measurements will remain problematic until someone thinks up a good way to accurately measure any object beyond the orbits of either Sedna or Eris. This in no way negates Light EMR) carrying the Time information. It just means that we are still clueless on the actual distances.

To Lloyd, Variable stars demonstrate the Time information in EMR. Once again, it doesn't give us the actual distances but it sure does give us some incredible information once we do figure out the distances.

Here are a couple of distance guesses for me based off of Katirai's information : Alpha Centauri 87 light days, Sirius @ 174 light days and Andromeda M31 @ 38 light years.

I can't wait till someone else can corroborate some of these numbers in the future for me.

[JaJa]

We define dimensions of an object because we are able to 'see' that the object has length, width and depth etc. It is composed of matter that has 'mass'. Yet apparently when you get down to it... there is nothing there that can be seen.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-spa ... board.html

Electrons are thought to spin, even though they are pure point particles with no surfacethat can possibly rotate

Or maybe I have read that wrong?

[D_Archer]

We define dimensions of an object because we are able to 'see' that the object has length, width and depth etc. It is composed of matter that has 'mass'. Yet apparently when you get down to it... there is nothing there that can be seen.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-spa ... board.html

Electrons are thought to spin, even though they are pure point particles with no surfacethat can possibly rotate

Or maybe I have read that wrong?

There is no such thing as point particles.

Regards,
Daniel

[JaJa]

Hi Daniel. The point I was trying to highlight was there is no surface which enables dimension to be defined. Is that what I have read wrong? Have we got images of the surfaces of electrons, or any other particle for that matter?

[reka]

If I am standing and I stretch out my arms (left arm stretched left right arm stretched right) that is called width. So how is heighth and depth determined?