The Fourth Dimension

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Meh, I don't know. I mean, I don't think mass could be represented as the fourth vector using any mathematical model. I mean an object's mass is completely independent of it's position in space, so it doesn't make sense that it can be represented by the other three. If you can explain your mathematical reasoning a bit better then maybe I can be convinced otherwise but as it stands I don't think your mathematical aspect is solid. The thing is however, we live in three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, so we live in four dimensional space-time, but time is only the fourth dimension here because there are three other space ones. It's not really the fourth dimension. The real fourth dimension would be four dimension of space (e.g quaternions) and would consist of four axis, all intersecting at one point, and all perpendicular to each other. I don't think you quite understand what a fourth dimension is, and what fourth dimension means. As I said, time is only called the fourth dimension cause there are three spacial dimension proceeding it.

I don't think mass qualifies as being a dimension because, like, here: Space cannot exist without time, because events can only happen in space, and time cannot exist without space, because space is the only place where events can happen. So if one or the other wasn't there, there would be nothing. As far as I know, mass is a property of matter, so it is neither directly related to space or time, because time has no mass, and space itself doesn't have mass either. So what your essentially saying, is that existence is the fourth dimension, rather then just mass itself. Which I will admit sounds pretty cool, but it seems unlikely.

Here's a better example of why time is a dimension: Things move through time. Like on a line graph for businessmen, the y axis is cash, and the x axis is time. And while the cash can go up and down, the time can only move forward. This is the easiest representation. It's not the best, cause things can move backward, forward, up, down, left, right, and whatnot spacial and still move forward in time, but I hope you get the gist. So yeah, it's kinda hard to explain. Hope you understood.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Light = Time

How does light = time? Doesn't light travel through time like all things? I wasn't aware time had any form to it.

fastest thing in the universe, you can't travel faster than time. That's where I drew this conclusion.

But it isn't.
There are particles that move faster than light, you see them arrive before they leave. The reason being that it moves faster than light, so you see two, but only one is there.

EDIT

Also, blackholes are just massive points of gravity. What has that got to do with time?

Because they alter the space and time around them, gravity is an effect of distorted space-time.

Well gravity isn't an effect of distorted space-time, it is distorted space time. It's just the fabric of space-time pushing back at whatever was pushing it out. So when it comes to a black hole (something of infinite mass), it's infinitely pushing the fabric of space-time, so, due to newton's third law, space-time infinitely pushes back. It's so much in fact, that a completely noticeable time dilation occurs as one gets closer to the black hole.

 

[Zukonub]

Any moment in time to another moment in time is a line in the fourth dimension.

 

[cobra_ky]

So for all you science-y types out there I thought I would like to pose this little theory: mass as the fourth dimension.
I won't go into time being a possibility as a fourth dimension because it appears that some people much smarter than me have come up with the same idea as me that time isn't the fourth dimensional vector (although some of them and you may take issue with my stance that time as it is defined is complete bullshit).
Anyways, back to mass. I theorize mass as the fourth dimensional vector because it is very similar to the other three in that:
1. It can be both positive and negative (if measured relatively)
2. It can theoretically be represented by a function of the other three just as the other three dimensions can (imagine math problem setting where you are given a function and set of three coordinates, the last one is a given based on the other three i.e.- ax + by + cz = dm)
3. Similar to point 1, any point is relative to the other points on the mass vector by itself (although objects can have different densities a given point in space will be measured as more massive if there is more matter around it and given point will be further away if there are more points between you and it in a distance vector)
4. Assuming that space can be curved at large distances, at high masses the other dimensional vectors are significantly effected (a la black holes and to a weaker extent massive stars).

1 is true of basically any possible measurement in physics. temperature, velocity, pressure, etc.

2 seems wrong to me. how do you calculate mass given the location of an object in space?

i have absolutely no idea what you mean by 3.

4 seems to state that there's a relationship between mass and position. again, i'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate. none of the three spatial dimensions seem to interfere with each other.

There are particles that move faster than light, you see them arrive before they leave. The reason being that it moves faster than light, so you see two, but only one is there.

where'd you hear this?

 

[LivingInStereo]

Someone once told me the fourth dimension is called hyperdepth, and time was something like the tenth dimension

 

[The Shade]

Just to get even weirder!!!

Did you know, since 3-D objects cast 2-D shadows, that 4-D objects would cast 3-D shadows?

And that's all I have to contribute to the discussion. I recently gave an impromtu lecture to a friend o' mine about fourth dimensional theory via MSN, and need some time away from the theories for a bit.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Light = Time
Matter is observed through light.
thus Matter = Time
and matter is the same as the fourth dimension.

Of course, this is all supposing string theory exists and then you've opened another can of worms.

That's not right at all. I'm sorry, but time is not light. light is just the only constant thing in the universe, so that's how we measure it, but time and light are completely different things. and just because matter is observed through light does not mean matter is light. The thing is matter would still exist if we couldn't see it. Cause we could smell it and feel it. Several species of the animal kingdom are aware of matter without the use of sight. Your making to many approximation for your own good, and it's only damaging your theory.

But if that's all really derived from string theory, which I don't know much about, then either string theory is bonkers or your just misinterpreting it.

 

[cobra_ky]

Also Just Joe, that is an awesome story you found, which does put a little insight into things.

might want to look into the book it came from then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

The other being that if a massive (matter-based) object were to travel at the speed of light or faster then it's parts and pieces wouldn't all necessarily be moving at the same speed so it would tear itself apart because of the massive energy differences between individual parts of the object itself (as a human example the cells in the back where the propulsion first effected the person would cause those cells to be pushed into the next set and the next and so on. Imagine pulling infinite G's inside of your body rather than from outside forces).

this is basically exactly what happens to anything inside a black hole, only it's not torn apart so much as stretched infinitely along its vector of approach into the black hole.

 

[LewsTherin]

Well, seeing as how the String theory can't be proved or disproved, I wouldn't make any assumptions towards either reasoning.

If time is affected by gravity, does that mean the speed of light is no longer a constant? Or is it just relative?

I'm going to now purchase a large amount of advil and send the bill to a Mr. Hawking with a thank-you note.

 

[thejoeverine]

lol, this sounds like a lunch time discussion with my fellow nerds at lunch

 

[pompom8volt]

No... mass is simply the 3 dimensions.... The better question is if time is real.

 

[LordOmnit]

I'm going to refute as much as I can of what you've said about time being the fourth dimension before my brain starts to hurt:

Meh, I don't know. I mean, I don't think mass could be represented as the fourth vector using any mathematical model. I mean an object's mass is completely independent of it's position in space, so it doesn't make sense that it can be represented by the other three. If you can explain your mathematical reasoning a bit better then maybe I can be convinced otherwise but as it stands I don't think your mathematical aspect is solid.

Okay, this aspect is a bit softer than the others because there is some one-sided dependence, but given any three spatial positions there is a corresponding mass to those three coordinates. Likewise, given a mass and two spatial coordinates you find the last coordinate (or rather in that case a set of possible third coordinates because various places can have the same mass and similar position, but not exactly the same position. The first example doesn't follow the second because a given position can only have one mass at any "time").

The thing is however, we live in three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, so we live in four dimensional space-time, but time is only the fourth dimension here because there are three other space ones. It's not really the fourth dimension. The real fourth dimension would be four dimension of space (e.g quaternions) and would consist of four axis, all intersecting at one point, and all perpendicular to each other. I don't think you quite understand what a fourth dimension is, and what fourth dimension means. As I said, time is only called the fourth dimension cause there are three spacial dimension proceeding it.

Full stop. You don't know if mass is not orthogonal to the usual three spatial components. That being said, you can't prove that time is orthogonal and in many cases you can prove that it is not (Euclidean space, local spaces, etc.). In those instances time either doesn't exist or has no value as being a fourth-dimensional vector. Also quaternions deal with imaginary numbers, not actual spatial vectors (while imaginary numbers themselves represent a vector they can be attached to anything given the right circumstances). And I do understand what a fourth dimension is, I believe you are pointing a finger in exactly the opposite direction because your reasoning here (and following) is so circular it is practically a frisbee (more after the next paragraph).

I don't think mass qualifies as being a dimension because, like, here: Space cannot exist without time, because events can only happen in space, and time cannot exist without space, because space is the only place where events can happen. So if one or the other wasn't there, there would be nothing. As far as I know, mass is a property of matter, so it is neither directly related to space or time, because time has no mass, and space itself doesn't have mass either. So what your essentially saying, is that existence is the fourth dimension, rather then just mass itself. Which I will admit sounds pretty cool, but it seems unlikely.

As I said just prior, this is far too circular. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant because the reasoning is completely improper. A implies B doesn't mean B implies A (this is basic logic). Space and time require no mass and likewise mass requires no time, however, I will admit that human reasoning would surmise that mass requires space, but if you think about how there are different densities of mass this would imply that mass doesn't require space (because mass is existing at different quantities in otherwise identical local spaces). And I neither am or mean to say that existence is the fourth dimension because existence is not a measurable unit.

Here's a better example of why time is a dimension: Things move through time. Like on a line graph for businessmen, the y axis is cash, and the x axis is time. And while the cash can go up and down, the time can only move forward. This is the easiest representation. It's not the best, cause things can move backward, forward, up, down, left, right, and whatnot spacial and still move forward in time, but I hope you get the gist. So yeah, it's kinda hard to explain. Hope you understood.

There is no back in time though. Time is unidirectional. You said this yourself in that time can only move forward where as everything else has two directions. Even relatively you can't think of negative time because it is impossible for this to effect anything at all as that time no longer exists. There is only now and future. Under our assumption that time is unidirectional the present exists because the past doesn't exist and the future exists because the present does.
In other words, time cannot be the fourth dimension because it cannot be looked upon to act as the three spatial dimensions do.

Now that it is nearly two thirty in the morning I'll not bother to look over anymore possible flaws in my reasoning.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

the fourth dimension has no weight as the fourth dimension is time. it's pretty basic physics and mathematics that the fourth is time

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Hmm. Interesting. Nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about. I will admit when I first read your post I thought you were crazy, but reading your reply, I see that your conclusion may not be as illogical as previously thought.

Okay, this aspect is a bit softer than the others because there is some one-sided dependence, but given any three spatial positions there is a corresponding mass to those three coordinates. Likewise, given a mass and two spatial coordinates you find the last coordinate (or rather in that case a set of possible third coordinates because various places can have the same mass and similar position, but not exactly the same position. The first example doesn't follow the second because a given position can only have one mass at any "time").

I can't really think of a response to this, because the reasoning is correct. So, we have three spatial co-ordinates and one mass co-ordinate. Our quaternion as such, looks like this, with mass being the real co-ordinate and being removed from the multiplication equation, because you can't multiply mass by space. That's ridiculous. So we have:

(1, i, j, k) = a + bi + cj + dk = (mass, x, y, z)

I'm too lazy define the multiplication formula for it, because I'm tired. I'll do it later.

Full stop. You don't know if mass is not orthogonal to the usual three spatial components. That being said, you can't prove that time is orthogonal and in many cases you can prove that it is not (Euclidean space, local spaces, etc.). In those instances time either doesn't exist or has no value as being a fourth-dimensional vector. Also quaternions deal with imaginary numbers, not actual spatial vectors (while imaginary numbers themselves represent a vector they can be attached to anything given the right circumstances). And I do understand what a fourth dimension is, I believe you are pointing a finger in exactly the opposite direction because your reasoning here (and following) is so circular it is practically a frisbee (more after the next paragraph).

Why would mass be orthogonal either? As far as I'm concerned, mass doesn't exist in any type of space. And if time isn't orthogonal, then mass definitely isn't, for reasons which you don't highlight here, but you do in later paragraphs. And how is my thinking circular? Call me stupid, but what exactly do you mean by that?

As I said just prior, this is far too circular. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant because the reasoning is completely improper. A implies B doesn't mean B implies A (this is basic logic). Space and time require no mass and likewise mass requires no time, however, I will admit that human reasoning would surmise that mass requires space, but if you think about how there are different densities of mass this would imply that mass doesn't require space (because mass is existing at different quantities in otherwise identical local spaces). And I neither am or mean to say that existence is the fourth dimension because existence is not a measurable unit.

Alright, your response is correct, due to faulty explanation on my part. What I was trying to get across in that paragraph was that Space and Time are inseparable, because it is pointless, for one to exist without the other. I can't really explain it any other way then the way I did, so despite the fact that the reasoning was off the statement is true, and I am not the only person who thinks that. That is why we refer to it as space-time. Like you say in this paragraph, mass does not require space, because it could be existing at infinite density, nor does it require time, because it does not need to change. Thus, I can say with some accuracy that mass is a completely different thing from space and time, in the sense that it has no relation to space or time, because it can still exist without either. It does not have the same dependency that space and time have. Which brings me to your next paragraph.

There is no back in time though. Time is unidirectional. You said this yourself in that time can only move forward where as everything else has two directions. Even relatively you can't think of negative time because it is impossible for this to effect anything at all as that time no longer exists. There is only now and future. Under our assumption that time is unidirectional the present exists because the past doesn't exist and the future exists because the present does.

So there is no backward in time, but there is a backward in mass? Are you saying that something could have a negative mass? How would that work? I far as I know, negative mass is just as absurd as negative time. You cannot think of negative mass, because that is impossible, I mean, just think about it. An object cannot have a mass below nothing. I think the reason for that is fairly obvious. So thus, we have mass as unidirectional as well, which doesn't really make it all that different from time so far. But, there is in fact, a way to allow for the existence of so called "negative time". Take a look at how our time line works: We have event 0, the birth of Jesus, and then on the left we have the B.C side, all the events leading up to the birth of Christ, and then on the right the A.D side, which is all the events after the birth of Jesus. So, given this analogy, we can think of the B.C side as the Negative side and the A.D side as the positive side. So yes, while it's not really negative time, it is about as close to negative time as we can get, and I can't think of any such analogy for mass. In other words, we have:

Cause -> Event -> Effect

With the cause of an event being in negative time, the event being the present, and the effect being the positive time. While it's rather rough, it works, and provides an example of "negative" time.

In other words, time cannot be the fourth dimension because it cannot be looked upon to act as the three spatial dimensions do.

As I have pointed out, mass does not act the same way as the other three dimension either, but this brings me to the point you made about orthogonality. Time is not orthogonal, nor does it behave in the same way as the other three, but it cannot. If you want it to act the same it needs to be a spatial dimension, then it would act the same, but time and space, while essential to each other, behave very differently, and thus, when you say time cannot be the fourth dimension because it doesn't act the same as the other one you are making a lot of assumptions and it hurts your argument. But that aside I did enjoy responding to your comments, and I am still open to the possibility of mass being a dimension, (maybe in addition to time) but space-time as a dimension is set in stone, so, I mean, if you came up with some more reasoning I'd be happy to hear it and respond to it, and I don;t mean to sound rude when I say this, but I think for now this case is closed.