[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 98 KB, 640x368, 1422048827465[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7071406 No.7071406 [Reply] [Original]

>the fourth dimension is time

>> No.7071408

>>7071406
>the dimensions have an order

>> No.7071409
File: 12 KB, 304x149, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7071409

>>7071406
Okey Dokes

>> No.7071412

>>7071406
Go ask your friend with the nice legs about it, kid.

>> No.7071415

>time is different than space
HOH

>> No.7071420

>>7071406
>we needed a third thread

>> No.7071437

>>7071406
it is though

>> No.7071449

>>7071437
It's the first dimension, but it's purely conventionnal

>> No.7071453

>>7071406
>4 dimension
>Not just a single Quaternion dimension

Pleb detected

>> No.7072981

Time/Space is the fourth dimension. It's the fifth, sixth, and seventh dimensions that you plebs can't comprehend.

>> No.7072988

>>7071449
>It's the first dimension
It's actually the second.

Everyone knows the order of reality goes (y, t, z, x).

>> No.7072990

>>7072981
and the other 4 that you forgot?

>> No.7072994

>>7072990
You think there are 11 dimensions?

>> No.7073315

>>7072994
There are -1/12 dimensions.

>> No.7073328

Quantum Physics: Can't explain it?
Make up another particle.

String Theory: Can't explain it?
Make up another dimension

Main difference between the two.

>> No.7073440

0 didnt exist until mathematicians invented it.
∞ didnt exist until mathematicians invented it
4d didnt exist until mathematicians invented it

They make shit up so they can keep getting paid, time is part of a 3d universe dont believe the hype

>> No.7073442

>>7073440
> until mathematicians invented it

You mean "discovered". These concepts existed before people were aware of them.

>> No.7073458

I like how you watched Madoka Magica and now think you understand the universe. Top tier kek.

>> No.7073533

>>7073442
>concepts existed before people were aware of them
wat

>> No.7073563

>>7073533
We're getting into consciousness theories and shit, and /sci/ is too retarded to understand that kind of thing right now. Maybe in a century or two. But for now, stick to /lit/ for those kinds of ideas.

>> No.7073569

>>7073328
>Quantum Physics
No, it's particle physics.

>> No.7073742

>>7073328
thats actually more or less how science works

>> No.7073747

>>7073458
nice

>> No.7073748
File: 1.16 MB, 956x1080, 1424071927954.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7073748

>not realizing that "dimensions" are an arbitrary concept humans made up, so the 4th dimension can be anything we want

>> No.7073758

>>7073748
>the 4th dimension is tomatoes

>> No.7073764

3D is all that matters

>> No.7073786

>>7073748
NOPE. I disagree.

Basically dimensions work like this: 1-D: a line (doesn't bucking matter to where it points)

Now where would I be able to put a line infinite times?
In a plane, meaning 2-D. (not the frigging transport)

Then where can I put infinite planes?
In the universe, meaning 3-D

So, where do I put infinite universes?
In time, meaning 4-D.

Why?
Every single second of time is a second where the whole universe exists. Given that time is endless as any dimension, (or that we can divide a second into infinite fractions of time) the third one enters infinite times in it. Then time is the forth dimension.

PD: It doesn't matter if we can't SEE it, it doesn't "behave" different than the other dimensions. Is just the dimension that directly contains infinite third dimensions!

>> No.7073857

>implying time is 1 dimensional

>> No.7073858

>>7073786
Your concepts of dimensions are convolute at best man. You would never be able to make powerful deductions with such little rigour.

A space is of dimension n if it takes at most n coordinates to uniquely describe any given point in the space. That's all there is to it. So for a line, we can fix an origin (usually having to invoke AC, but that's not really of importance here), and use some metric d.

Two dimensional spaces, like R^2, or a 2-torus, now require that we make a choice of two axes of some kind, and a metric that is invariant when we move along the other axis.

This process can be extended to any arbitrary dimension.

The reason we use a fourth dimension to model (!!!) Euclidean 3-space plus time, is because time _appears_ continuous, and may as well be for the purpose of this model, and thus we let time be a fourth dimension and next thing you know we are working in MInkowski spacetime.

>> No.7073866

>>7073786
I'm now 100% sure you are watching cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLh1sSFs8Y

>> No.7073867

>>7073442
plato, pls go

>> No.7073881

>>7073786
>it doesn't "behave" different than the other dimensions
Yeah it does. The Minkowski metric, for example, is <span class="math">ds^2= dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2<span class="math">. This is used for determining distances in special relativity, and every metric in general relativity is locally Minkowskian. You can clearly see that time is being treated differently. Adding an additional spacial dimension would not have this distinction.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.7073890

>>7073881
Nice one retard

>> No.7073892

>>7073315
Lol

>> No.7073900

>>7073890
To be fair to him to him I've never figured out how to properly close a math tag on these boards either.

>> No.7073901

>>7071453
>Thinking that a quaternion exists in 1 dimensional space

If it needs 4 co-ordinates to specify it, it's 4 dimensional.

>> No.7073903

>>7073563
no we are not getting into consciousness theories and shit, you are just retarded. Concepts doesn't exist outside the human mind, that's what the concept fucking is you fucking retard.

>> No.7073924
File: 185 KB, 352x353, 4th.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7073924

A: The fate of every 4Chan user;

She parted with convention
Now she's living in the 4th dimension
Without me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUnD6BTU-X8

>> No.7073968

>>7073903
Have you not heard of Platonism.

>> No.7073986

>>7071406
We literally define spatial dimensions as such that time is a dependance.

I hate fucktards who confuse it as another "dimension" so fucking much.

>> No.7074049

>>7072994

Isn't that the premise of string theory?

>> No.7074062

>>7074049
Why not 12?

>> No.7074069

>>7074062

Because once you've gone that far you might as well go for the baker's dozen, and most theoretical physicists skipped Home Ec.

>> No.7074072

>>7073786
See, you have it backwards because you forgot a point. The only thing that matters in a point is time. Hence, time is the 1st dimension.

>> No.7074077

>>7073881
Thats dtau squared, proper time. Proper distance is ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2

>> No.7075079

>>7074072
*sigh* no, no, NO!

Time matters EVERYWHERE.
Obviously it does matter in a point (which is 0D by the way), as well as in a line or a plane (and 3D duh).

Why?
Because time contains them all.
It contains infinite universes therefore it is the 4th dimension.
The other chracteristics which troubled>>7073881 or >>7073858, are just simple accidents that happened to occur in each dimension.

But THE RULE is: Dimensions are numbered according to the dimension they are able to hold infinetely directly before them.
0D>1D>2D>3D>4D>5D etc...
Point>Line>Plane>Universe>Time>(Parallel universes?) etc...

>> No.7075087

>>7073881
There's no need to categorize "spatial" and "time" dimensions if the RULE is followed.

>> No.7075167

>>7071415

>HOH

Get your water out of here

>> No.7075357

>>7075167
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that

>> No.7076318
File: 66 KB, 501x721, lobotomy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7076318

Thyme izz a die men shon.. yeaaaaah.

>> No.7076329

>>7076318 here.
Just to clarify.
Time is a functional construct of you.
Future = your imagination / projection of existence.
Past = your memory.
Time is constructed as an entity to explain movement, and is therefore a derivative of movement which of course is interaction of energy and matter.

It is NOT a dimension, however without it dimensionality wouldnt exist.

>> No.7076351

>>7076329
Spacetime is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. The dimension whose sign in the metric tensor is opposite to the other three is time. You are a retarded piece of shit and should remove your pathetic existence from our gene pool.

>> No.7076363

>>7074077
I'm surprised that you know about "proper time" and seem to have heard about the <span class="math">c=1[/spoiler] convention, but never heard that there are different conventions for the signature of the metric. I mean, this is basically how you reveal to everybody that you are just some undergrad retard.

>> No.7076373

>>7071449
It's the zeroth
:^)

>> No.7076376

>>7076351
Its a model you shrunken penis, a special case designed to define, ie a mathematical construct

>> No.7076381

>>7076376
What do you think a dimension is? It's a mathematical construct.

>> No.7076415

>>7076381
Is a dot on a piece of paper a mathematical construct? A line? A picture. Your environment? No, they are named for what they are, dimensions.
Time is named for a measurement of change.

>> No.7076421

>>7076415
Your ignorance of physics does not invalidate physics. Go back to /lit/.

>> No.7076475

>>7075079
You've never taken high school math, have you?

>> No.7076478

>>7076421
Hey, now, I'm /lit/, and I at least know when I don't know enough to draw conclusions. That guy's everything wrong with /lit/ in the last year or so.

>> No.7076647
File: 271 KB, 1100x536, 32-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7076647

Light travels at the same rate in all inertial frames in a vacuum. To light you always travel one light second of distance in one second of time.

So by measuring light which is the most accurate way to measure anything space and time are the same thing and we get this weird spacetime that lets us define tensors and manifolds and gravity by treating space and time as different ways of talking about the same thing.

>> No.7076657

>>7073901
>complex numbers form a two dimensional complex vector space
>real numbers form a one dimensional rational vector space

>> No.7076682

>>7073901
you need 2 natural numbers to specify an integer
2 integers to describe a rational number
and 4 real numbers to describe a quaternion
so it's actually at least 8 dimensional depending on how you define the reals.

>> No.7076690

>>7076682
But that's not how dimensions work

>> No.7076704 [DELETED] 

>>7076690
> you can't create vector spaces over natural numbers

>> No.7076752

>>7076475
I'm listening to the meaning you give the word dimension...

>> No.7076854

I was just talking to my friend about the difference between the second and third dimension when

wait I have no friends, I don't even know what linear algebra or clifford algebra is, what is a christoffel symbol help

>> No.7076862

>>7076690
You can define it that way. Usually dimension in physics refers to "number of real degrees of freedom".

>> No.7076865

>>7076862
A rigid body has 6 dimensions?

>> No.7076867

>>7076415
A dot on a piece of paper is not a mathematical construct, but the mathematical notion of a point is a mathematical construct, obviously. Same with a line. If you draw a line on a piece of paper whatever you call "line" is real, but the abstraction of equating the pieces of graphite on a piece of paper to a mathematical line in the two-dimensional plane is not real. That's just convenience.

>> No.7076875

>>7076865
A rigid body has no dimensions per se, as it's not a mathematical object. What has dimensions is the positioning of a rigid body in space. In that case it has an x, y, z-position and roll, yaw, pitch, so six dimensions, yes. You could of course describe that body with x, y, z coordinates and one quaternion. But you wouldn't usually say that this reduces the degrees of freedom to four.

>> No.7076878

>>7073742
this is a very powerful quote

>> No.7076887

>>7073328
You gotta mention though, that we try to make up as few particles/dimensions as possible.

>> No.7076909

>>7072994
It's not 11 dimensions, it's 10+1 dimensions.

>> No.7077229

>>7075079
Parallel universes would still be 3D by your definition, just in a different area of 'time'
Since 'Time' can contain infinite universes, supposedly.

>> No.7077448

According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.
“With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in 3D space,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.”


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html#jCp

>> No.7077465

>>7077448
>Look, if we make things a little more complicated and unintuitive and ignore all the beautiful symmetries in space time, we get a view on it that's much more calming!

Also who the hell thinks that time is the fourth dimension of space? There's a reason we call it space time.

>> No.7077477
File: 36 KB, 450x300, increasingly popular, especially for women.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7077477

>>7071408
>the dimensions have an oder
They smell like popcorn.

>> No.7077506

>>7075079
Someone's been reading to much H. G. Wells

>> No.7077531

Spacial Dimensions != Time Dimensions
I remember seeing a nice table that listed whether universes with varying space-time dimension combinations were stable or not as dynamic systems.

Some suggest our universe is actually expanding into a fourth spacial dimension.

>> No.7077550

>>7077531
Our time dimension is degrading as our universe is expanding and turning into a spacial dimension

>> No.7078304

To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock. The clocks are arranged perpendicular to each other on a platform, with clock A oriented horizontally and clock B vertically. When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B.

>> No.7078305

But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity, which postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. They say that, keeping the photon speed the same for both clocks, both clocks should tick at the same rate with no length contraction for clock A. They mathematically demonstrate how to resolve the problem in this way by replacing Minkowski 4D spacetime with a 3D space involving Galilean transformations for three spatial coordinates X, Y, and Z, and a mathematical equation (Selleri's formalism) for the transformation of the velocity of material change, which is completely independent of the spatial coordinates.

>> No.7078308

“The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems,” he said. “The rate of atom clocks will slow down because the 'relativity' of physical phenomena starts at the scale of pi mesons.”

>> No.7078337

prove me wrong /sci/ence

time is the the imaginary 4th dimension.

<span class="math">
invariant = \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^{n} (x^{i})^2}
[/spoiler]

But in special relativity, we had to include the metric tensor that gives a negative sign to time, or to the spatial coordinates.

This negative sign will go away if we say x^0 = ict, such that (x^0)^2 = -(ct)^2, no metric tensor would be needed.

>> No.7078358

>>7071406
isn't time a variable?

>> No.7079848

>>7071406
>Free will exists please respond

>> No.7080204

>>7073315
OH-YOU.jpg

>> No.7080208

>>7078337
Wick rotation.