What it is? How is it determined? Is it possible to get it theoretically?
Probably, everyone, even unconsciously, has some idea of the question posed. And the answer to it too. Whats up, at all, discuss? Three dimensions, and point. Well, if you want to, add the time, then four. Length, width, height + time.
And how do we know about it? Even if you didn't go to school? And just – after birth we begin to wave our arms-legs, then crawl (already mastered two dimensions, got an idea of them). Then walk and fall – mastered the third, bumps and bruises promote good absorption of the material… Everything! There's nothing more to master. Lesson over. AND, time. Well, we mastered this even earlier., still in the cradle, regularly soiling diapers.
Here is such, plain. any person will give an uncomplicated answer. And will be on 100% right. So what do you want, scientists lack?! I still want to cast a shadow on a white day?
And this is what we lack:
Trying to understand, how this world works (in vain we are doing this stupidity? Tell this to yourself, next time you watch a match of your favorite teams on TV, or will you buy a new mobile phone, because yours is not so cool, like a friend) we created math, and, with her help, idea of spaces of various. Including those having a different number of measurements. So I want to know, what is so special about these four (3+1) measurements?
And now a little more serious.
What is the number of dimensions of a certain space should be intuitively clear already from the very phrase – this is the number of units, scale, which are required for an unambiguous and unique description of the position of each point belonging to this space. Other definitions can be found in mathematics, especially when trying to build geometry of spaces, without using coordinate description. We are not interested in this here, because all the same definitions should speak about the same, if we are talking about the same space. That definition, what we gave, no worse than the rest. It is usually called parametric. Moreover, the above definition suits us more than others, as it appeals to the most physical of all procedures – measurement procedure. And I want to discuss this issue from the point of view of physics..
Means, we need to understand, how many independent scales are required to describe the world – so we will have the number of dimensions of the world. Let's start counting.
- 3 scale for length, height and width.
- 1 to measure time.
Everything? This is the obvious answer.. It wasn’t there. After all, we are measuring a lot of other things – mass, electric charge, force, speed, etc.. and so on. And for very many of these quantities, they introduced their own units.. What to do with them? Add to the list? If these were truly independent units, then – Yes. That's just, thank God, physics today already firmly knows, that all these units, one way or another can be expressed with the help of those four, listed above. Ie. the world still has exactly 4 base units, as our happy childhood proved to us. And these are the units for measuring spatial distance and time..
Okay. The number was set like. But why is it like that? Why 4? Why 3+1? Three of the same variety, but one – another?
There are many attempts to answer these questions.. For the most part, they appeal to some kind of physical principles., who are in our world, and in a world with a different number of dimensions would be different. Or, even, use the anthropomorphic principle – in worlds with different numbers of dimensions, there simply would be no one to discuss this issue. Those interested in such approaches can start, eg, with books GE Gorelika, “Dimension of Space” (historical and methodological analysis), Moscow, Ed. MSU, 1983.
Only do such explanations explain something? Then you need to explain why those principles, to which they appeal, exactly like that and not others. AND, naturally, a vicious circle.
I will also contribute to this little rewarding business. I will say right away. Explain, why one of the dimensions, time, fundamentally different from others, I find, i succeeded. (cm. also Pseudo-Euclidean) But then, what the rest, spatial dimensions need three – there are only faint notes, no more. But in excuse, I can stun you right away – by and large, you can even talk, what is the number of dimensions of the world, in which we live the simplest of all numbers – 0!
Let's start with things that are familiar to everyone.. What Existence? Is the creature alive, whether an inanimate object? Will it surprise you, if i say, that existence – nothing else, as sequence of events? Isn't it? Were born, went to school, finished it, started to work, got married, children have, Well, by itself, at one not-so-wonderful moment, to eternal rest. If you walk through life at a gallop. You can and in more detail. Only the essence will not change from this. Or take a pebble. Broke off a rock, fell, lies, lies, a bird sat on it, lies again, rain, the sun, wind, rain, the sun, wind, crumbled into sand… There is no fundamental difference. By and large, all, what is existence – these are events. They are different? so what? This is already a classification of events.
So, is there not in existence, seen as a sequence of events, something else we know well? AND time you didn't know? After all, time – this is also a sequence of events. Like this. How do we measure time? Right, counting the intervals between recurring events. “… Day Night, day Night, we are walking across Africa…” And in between what? Yes, too events, events, events… What happens, if we want to portray the existence of something (and nothing more) on a sheet of paper? What will we draw? Right, we will draw a line, timeline. One-dimensional space — the unit of measurement is one.
Have events, if desired, many different properties can be defined. One of them is very important for us and is common to any event.. This is the property of separability of events from each other.. One side, you can always give examples of events, overlapping. And this is where our idea of the possible continuity of the sequence of events is born. On the other hand, you can also always select two parts in these overlapping events (two other events), contained one in the first event, and the other in the second, and no longer overlapping. If we are very meticulous, then any history of something we can painstakingly break down into events. Between every two we will celebrate new and new events (in terms of, newly tagged) as separate. Continuity of existence (time) how the sequence of events implies, that this procedure will be endless. Actually the world (parts of it) arranged like this? Well, how meticulous and stubborn we would not be, would have stopped at some point, and said – enough is enough, enough for our purposes. And scientists, physics and mathematics? Mathematicians turned out to be the most meticulous of all and came up with methods, how to achieve what you want without overworking. But their field of activity – this is a field of ideas, conceivable. We are interested in this particular world.. For physicists, of course, failed to implement such an infinite procedure. Moreover, it turned out, that when trying to explore the simplest parts of the world, elementary particles (and not so basic, such as atoms) it is possible to record only individual events. it, probably, you know as a statement, that the trajectory of an elementary particle is not determined between measurements. This is one of the reasons, who demanded the creation of quantum mechanics instead of classical. The most elementary events available to us turned out to be discrete! And where does this lead? But why.
When limiting the description of the world to only a set of events, the number of dimensions of space-time turns out to be equal zero. The world in this description is discrete, actually, no measurements are taken at all, no scale, there is only a statement of the facts of events. Such a description has a right to exist., but it does not fully take into account the information we have about the world – the presence of links between events is ignored. Then, what some sets of events are combined into groups and within these groups they are lined up in sequence, is the basis of our understanding of objects, parts of the world and allows you to enter the first scale: On each sequence of events, the scale is some subsequence (at least three events), to which any part of the given sequence is compared.
In this way, space-time takes on features one-dimensional space. It can still remain in the strictly mathematical sense of dimension zero., ie. discrete set of events. However, this discrete set (locally, each given sequence of events) can be considered without any loss of generality immersed in a continuous one-dimensional space as a set of singular points on this one-dimensional continuum. (Continuum – this is a continuous space, unlike discreteabout). It is enough only to consider not one single specific one-dimensional continuum, and all possible such continua, containing this sequence without changing the order of events in it. It is the need to preserve the order of events in each given group that makes the continuum the most suitable containing space for events..
When we include in the description of the world the relationship between individual objects (event groups) the same thing happens. Already two objects allow (and make) introduce a second scale, thus making the enclosing space-time two-dimensional. Again you can, of course, speak, that the true image of the world remains discrete. But everything said above regarding the immersion of this discrete image in the continuum remains fully true.. Four objects in general position, and even three, connected by elementary chains of two events (virtual particles), increase the required dimension of the enclosing space by one more unit. but, two-dimensional subspaces remain selected and with a further increase in the dimension. They are highlighted by the binary nature of our way of describing the world using the relative motion of two bodies. (or body relative to the frame of reference). This is where it first appears curvature as a fundamental characteristic of the description of the world.
A further increase in the dimensionality of space-time is not so obvious and requires the use of more sophisticated mathematical reasoning, which we will not go into here. Clear, that more complex connections between events, than simple (linear) sequences lead to an increase in the dimensionality of the containing space-time. Question, when do you need to stop, seems to have a highly experimental answer. Until the situation met, does not fit into the space-time of the given (minimum) number of measurements, this number should not be increased. Taking into account all the uncertainties of the description of the world, we are not dealing with one mathematical space as an image of the world, and with the entire admissible set of such spaces, having the same number of dimensions. It is this set, in the end, and should be called space-time. But mind you, in a sense, the dimension of space-time, as a set of events, remains at the same time always the same – zero!
And what about the promised explanation of the allocation of one coordinate – time? It's simple. How did we start our conversation about events?, remember? Respectively, each sequence of events implements a timeline. The more elementary events in this sequence, the more events fill this line. In the classical approximation – but only it is available to our everyday experience – there are already so many of them, that for us they have long merged into one continuous sequence. But this continuous line always realizes only one thing dimension – time. There is simply no other scale on this line. Yes, we know, that one-dimensional space is not enough for us – but from where? From the existence of other similar lines, with whom we sometimes cross. So how to realize in such a situation, at least one more scale on this particular timeline? But no way. Can't be implemented. But you can invent it, put into use an imaginary scale and use it, how real. but, this scale is not the same, as a realizable time scale and this, of necessity, must somehow be reflected in the resulting space. This is how it turns out 1+3 space-time, in which all known (and unknown) us events. And the difference in the status of units for measuring time and space is depicted by its local pseudo-Euclidean.
© Gavryusev V.G.
The materials published on the site can be used subject to the citation rules.
add a thought about Dimensions. Everything is sevenfold. 7 not; 7 feelings; 7 human functions from motor to intuitive; 7 human bodies from physical to spiritual; 7 colors of the rainbow; and correspondingly 7 Measurements – three spatial, 4-oh in time, 5-th probabilistic parallel realities, 6-th Consciousness of Bodies(objects): and the 7th, all of the above construction is endlessly multiplied and distributed like a nesting doll, according to the principle AS INSIDE, SO OUTSIDE.
Mix everything up to a heap, and God's gift, and scrambled eggs… Yes, you can think of so many dimensions, as much as you want. But the goal is what? My goal — describe the world with the necessary and sufficient minimum of concepts, moreover, concepts that are clear and do not admit incompatible interpretations and have a common nature. And all concepts must be implemented by objects or processes of the real world. What about ideas “at all”, read the article Material and Ideal.
Author
“And all concepts must be implemented by objects or processes of the real world.”
By the real world you mean, only physical reality. But you got to the bottom of the truth a little: your words “…The most elementary events available to us turned out to be discrete! … “, especially these “… moreover, concepts that are clear and do not admit incompatible interpretations and have a common nature…”. scientists would be specifically ironic about the discreteness of continuous events occurring in time. Yes dear, if you think deeply about the concept of CONTINUITY, you will understand, that there is nothing continuous in the universe. And there are no infinities in our limited universe. But the design is limited, discrete universes spreads endlessly. Therefore, Time, is just a sequence of discrete states of matter(tel). Another question, as, and most importantly for whom such a design was created. And this is no longer a material question., and accordingly not for you. Although it seems like I made a link to the site, where is it all described. http://vedinar.blogspot.com/
Read, you are welcome, more attentively. And preferably all articles, affecting a topic of interest to you. There are several of them here. Some issues are better covered in some, than in others. Just because, that you have to focus on one thing, then on the other, although everything is interconnected. There is an article about time, there are articles devoted to the discussion of mathematical concepts. There is also about the ratio of material and ideal. Continuity and Discontinuity as Ideas — concepts of mathematics, a purely ideal design. And how ideas are not identical to any of their ways of implementation by the phenomena of the real world. Besides, ideas, realized in our thoughts and reasoning, “existing” they do not have to be realizable in this world by something else, besides our imagination (processes in our brain). But all our concepts, different from simple fantasies, must have this support in the real world.
So here, continuity, as a concept has a very serious implementation, very good reason for its introduction, even this way, as a recognition of actual infinity. This causal relationship between events gives rise to this idea.. Yes, our description of the world is based on discrete facts of events. But! There is another component in the information available to us about the world.. These are the connections between events. It is these connections that make us see the world as continuity.. Continuity as an idea is that tool, which allows us to guarantee in our description of the world the presence of these connections between events.
And in that, what are your ideas, described on your site are not material and not for me You are absolutely right. Science fiction in any of its manifestations has a right to exist. In people's minds, in books, in dreams. May even give pleasure or displeasure, ie. have material consequences. But such a description of the world IS NOT ADEQUATE to him and has nothing to do with science. You like it all — but why are you here? After all, you yourself see, something, what I am talking about does not correspond to your ideas in any way.
Author
You wrote “Yes, our description of the world is based on discrete facts of events. But! There is another component in the information available to us about the world.. These are the connections between events. It is these connections that make us view the world as a continuity.” When we watch old movies, we perceive it continuous on the screen. But it consists of discrete frames of film., deprived of, so called by you, links between events. Our physical world is also a set of discrete states of matter. And there is one, who perceives them with a certain frequency, getting additional parameters through the soundtrack and the feeling track. A question for you, -who Perceives?
“Our physical world is also a set of discrete states of matter. And there is one, who perceives them with a certain frequency, getting additional parameters through the soundtrack and the feeling track.” — this is your idea of the world. And for many, the world is flat and created in seven(! Your favorite number) days.
The right word, there is nothing to add at this level… Who perceives?
In many places I have said, that for me the world is a set of interrelated events. Both words, events and their connections, equally important. What “I” in this world, then “I”, who perceives it? This is a sequence of events (very difficult, not elementary), orderly (for me as a perceiving person, which itself is some form, manifestation of these very complexly organized, with the richest structure of events) cause-effect relationship, earlier-later. This sequence implements, is the basis of my personal time. The whole sequence, from my appearance as a community to disappearance (as a community, dedicated part of the world) this is my story, “life from birth to death”. Events, my components are separable from the rest of the world only conditionally enough, at a very rough macro level. “I” as part of the world. All intersections “my” events with the rest of the world, yes and yourself “my inner” events (they are also connected with the rest of the world, exist insofar as there is “the rest” peace) give me information about him, allow it to be perceived, are the, what is processed by my personality (feelings and consciousness, which are themselves interrelated events within those complex) and as a result form in this “I” some local, my own image of the world, idea of him. it “I” (if you think about it, even the presence of self-awareness is not important for him) and perceives the world FROM INSIDE, as part of the world. No outside observer required.
Author
Sorry. I wanted to ask a couple of questions.
How many theories of time are there at the moment and what, in your opinion, would happen, purely visual, have our universe a different number of dimensions?
I apologize for the long delay in answering.
The reason is, what, Unfortunately, such a stream of spam pours in the comments, that I just did not notice your question in this murk.
About the theories of time.
How many are there, difficult to answer because, that there are many views on the topic of time, not theories (about that, what I believe worthy of being called a theory is written in the introductory article,”About the name”).
These views may differ fundamentally from each other., but they may be close in some way and, at the same time sharply different. Perhaps this is because, that most often it is a set of ideas about the properties of time that is little related to each other. Including incompatible with each other.
By and large, all these belief systems can be divided into three main areas (often these directions are mixed).
1. Time as something, containing everything else and completely independent of this rest. This rest can include space., in turn, containing everything in the world, the whole universe, and also not dependent on it. This view is most clearly formulated by Newton. Currently, obviously, and more often implicitly, it remains dominant in the worldview of almost all scientists, physicists and not only. Now it is only slightly modified in two points. (very important and correct).
it
and) Minkowski modification: space and time are combined into one, 4x-dimensional pseudo-euclidean continuous space-time. At the stage of SRT and quantum theory, it is still a repository of physical (well and all the others, if someone wants to separate something from the physical) phenomena. Absolutely indifferent to that, what's going on in it.
b) modification of general relativity: space-time structure (already united), which is described by the metric tensor, associated with each point, influenced by, what does it hold. This content, alien to space-time itself, is described by the energy-momentum tensor, again associated with each point in space-time. The opposite effect is also there. It is postulated by, that some of the content, which in the energy-momentum tensor are represented as masses, existing in limited areas (up to the point, without spatial dimension) have domains of existence, coinciding with geodesic lines of space-time. Obviously, the last postulate is applicable without exaggeration only for point localization of a massive object.
I will emphasize — the energy-momentum tensor itself in this concept remains purely alien to the enclosing space-time.
It is also important to note, that the space-time of general relativity has a seemingly physical representation. Such an impression may arise then, when it is called space events. After all, the event — the concept given to us by experience is that, which can unconditionally be called a part (physical) the world. However, here in GRT there is a clear slyness. In general all points of space-time are assumed to be events, for the sole reason, that they are assigned the coordinates of time and place. I'll leave aside that, that in the orthodox formulation of general relativity, the coordinates actually have nothing to do with time and place, and are unknown as determined parameters. Time and place are tied to them using a special procedure involving a metric and the postulate of the existence of a local Minkowski space everywhere. Besides, natural events for us are something completely separable and distinguishable from other events and from many other things, what is in the world. Namely, from emptiness, where not for us (or very little) events.
An unsolvable problem of such a system of views was and remains the impossibility of combining with it our basic ideas about time., and about space as manifestations relations between material objects and physical phenomena.
We fix (find out, describe) we have this relationship for ourselves through measurements and time, and distances, which we combine into the concept of 3-dimensional space. After all, this is purely external for space-time (in such a frame of reference) things. These are the properties of the content, but not a container. Then what does this container have to do with our serious time and space?? Feel the problem?
It was immediately pointed out to Newton by Leibniz, and Newton himself, As I know, realized the need to combine the ideas of the container and the contained. Well I couldn't, he do it, I could not… That's just, what he could do, we had enough for hundreds of years. Yes and now, in most practical cases, enough for the eyes. but, even then, attempts appeared and continue to arise again and again to formulate
2. relational view of time and space. In such belief systems, they try (This does not mean, that someone succeeded) completely banish space-time as a receptacle, leaving only the relationship between physical objects. All such systems of views remain practically much less suitable for describing the world., than the Newton-Einstein system. I even find it difficult to bring anything, worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the reason for this is, that no matter how hard we try, but the world needs to be described as a whole, continuum, even if our funds are limited to only parts of the world, objects isolated from the rest of the world.
This is how I try to do it. And the continuum as continuity (as an idea), requires ideal means for its full description. Which we do not have and cannot be. However, we can fully comprehend the idea of such ideal means on the basis of what is actually available to us.. Sorry for some tautology.
3. Well, for the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning the presence of attempts to attribute time (exactly time, unlike space) certain substantial (in a sense as physical as such concepts, as energy, force, etc.) properties. And in everyday life, we are often not alien to such representations.. For example, here's an expression — time passes… Ie. time liquid, once flows?
What are they based on? Sermyazhny, basic understanding of time as a sequence of events, linked in a chain by a cause-effect relationship. After all, events are very substantial for us..
I tried to describe my point of view on the essence of time as clearly as possible., and in books, and on this site in many articles (yes, in almost everyone, at least something touches this question). Therefore, in this answer to your question I will no longer dwell on it..
Of course, if additional clarification of my point of view is required, ask.
About extra dimensions.
Since for me the idea of time is based on the combination of a certain number of events into a chain of cause-and-effect relationships, and events I associate with the point of the continuum (or, if you want vice versa — points of the continuum, used to describe the world, associated with parts of the world such as events, ultimately indivisible, elementary events), while part of the continuum, part of the total space-time, must be associated with the line, on which these points are located (in the limit, when events are elementary, with the entire set of possible such lines). Therefore, time cannot have any additional dimensions.. Locally it is one-dimensional.
Additional spatial dimensions theoretically, as ideas, you can think of. And even easy.
Imagine the sequence:
A closed line is nested
into a closed surface, nested
in 3-dimensional area, nested
in a 4-dimensional world, nested
in, etc.
But this, etc.. visually, I myself can not imagine. As an idea — Yes.
But visually — not.
In theory, this issue should be studied from the point of view of the number of connections of one event with others. 1measured — 2 connections: the reason for this event, the event itself and its consequence.
2measured — also some “sideways”, ie. in the event converge 3 connections. The trouble is, that already at this stage, taking into account the connections of not this single event, and several connected with each other, it is easy to see the need to increase the dimension up to 3x, and even up to 4x. Ie. dimensionality is determined not only by the connections of the selected point, but, quicker, the number of different points, united “elementary” connections. Let me explain this idea with an example. — section, triangle, pyramid, etc.. One point less dimension, than the number of vertices in the shape. By the way, this is just one of the ways to describe the dimensionality of spaces in mathematics, ostensibly unrelated to the concept of measurement. These examples are analytically described in qualifier languages, forms, densities, completely antisymmetric tensors (maybe there are other mathematical dialects, talking about the same thing, I don't know all math). Such objects, starting from a certain number of components, vanish identically. Here is the last number of components, which still allows such an object not to be identically zero and is the dimension of space.
Visualization of this scheme for us means creating a visual image in that space., which our brain builds by processing the events available to it, at its base supplied by the eyes, in the absence of vision, tactile, motor, etc.. And this is a 3-dimensional slice, which is stretched with memory in the fourth dimension. Everything.
From the point of view of modern physics, in the world, the number of local connections of one event is limited by only two possibilities —
and) 2 connections on the trajectory of a massive particle, does not interact with anything on a given segment of its existence.
b) 3 connections when interacting with another similar particle, or when turning into a set of others.
Is it possible to construct four SPATIAL dimensions from such basic local connections?? I do not know, but I think, what no. 3 possible and therefore necessary.
Dear Dr.Vladimir,
Could you please evaluate my thoughts on the concept of time?
Quantum mechanics is a concrete result of the General Theory of
Relativity. According to the General Theory of Relativity, a clock on
Jupiter lags behind a clock on Earth. A clock on earth lags behind a
clock on the moon. they ended the theory here. However, I continue the
theory with the result I deduced from the Time Flow Formula. One hour
on the moon lags behind a clock on the alpha ray. A clock in the Alpha
beam lags behind a clock in the Beta beam. a clock in beta ray lags
behind a clock in x ray. Concrete results of the General Theory of
Relativity begin to be seen as masses and energies get smaller. These
are the same theory. Large masses have a very long life. Small masses
have very short lifetimes. As the lifetimes get shorter,
transformations from mass to energy and from energy to mass begin. In
summary Quantum mechanics is a concrete result of the General Theory
of Relativity.
This is a result from the Timeflow Formula. (Timeflow=Time/Energy).
Every simple physics formula explains a law of nature. In the Timeflow
Formula; It tells that a time equal to the amount of energy will be
released in a physical process. You can find more information on my
website. (timeflow.org).
In addition,The flow of the thought energy intensity in our brain is
body pain, unhappiness and boredom, joy, happiness and love,
sleep, and finally death, respectively, from high energy to low
energy. At the moment
to sleep, if we had a good sleep, our thought energy is very close to
zero or zero. When the energy flow intensity increases in our brain,
according to the ‘Timeflow Formula (Timeflow=Time/Energy). The
timeflow will slow down. As the energy density (power) decreases, the
timeflow will accelerate. In the case of sleep and death, the timeflow
will be infinite. The timeflow formula explains very clearly and
simply that this situation, which is perceived as psychological time
is actually a purely physical event. I think it would be very useful
for psychology experts to evaluate the ‘Timeflow’ Formula and the
philosophical interpretation of the formula.
Note: You can find my original articles at
https://www.galilean-electrodynamics.com
Best Regards
Salih Kırcalar
Dear Dr. Salih Kircalar.
I’m sorry, but as one can see from the content of this site,
my view on the time, energy, General Relativity etc., is
completely different of yours. It should be obvious, that
Your point of view for me is unaceptable…
Best regards, Vladimir Gavryusev