Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: A different view of Dimensions

  1. #1 A different view of Dimensions 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    So I was just sitting one day when a sudden idea hit me. I have been wondering about it for some days now.
    We have always been taught that there were 3 dimensions in space. And then time was included as another dimension, creating the concept of SPACETIME.
    So the idea was that time is one dimension and space is another( not X, Y and Z). That gives us two dimensions.
    Now, forget about science for a moment. Consider a situation when you hear about something that has occurred, suppose an event where a mouse killed a lion (I know it's insane, but just think of it.). When you hear about it, what will be your response? I'll tell you. You will ask, "When did it happen? Where did it happen?". Now you probably get the idea of above mentioned two dimensions. These two questions give you a good idea of the event.

    Let's take this discussion ahead. Now suppose that you see a new kind of animal. Here is the question that most people will ask- "What is it?"
    There now, that question gives you the idea of the nature of event (You see, it actually tells you that it is not something that has OCCURRED. It is something that is just there. Confusing, I know it).
    To make it clear, take another situation, when your friend is depressed. You will probably ask, "What happened?", and your friend says, "I just broke up with my girlfriend.". Now that is an event that has occurred. Usual questions that follow are, "When did you break up? Why did you do so?" The second question tells you about the reason for the occurrence of event.
    That will be all I think. Coming back to our topic, we saw that anything that happens can be defined by some basic questions, "what, when, where, why and sometimes How." If we consider the answers of these as the DIMENSIONS of event, we can know about it in detail.
    A basic mechanics question can clear our doubts.
    A ball starts falling from a table top at, say, t=0. As it touches the ground, we can tell about the nature of event in some sentences-

    1- What happened?
    --- A ball touches the ground.

    2- when did it happen?
    -- At time 't'. (we can work that out using Newton's laws.)

    3- where did it happen?
    -- the coordinates of place where the ball fell

    4- why did it happen?
    -- probably due to a slight push on it towards the edge of table.

    5- How did it happen
    -- by the action of gravity, the ball fell down and touched the ground.

    These answers give you a clear understanding of the event,

    This is not a theory, just an idea. I do not know how far this idea can get, if at all, or what will be the outcomes from it.
    But then, best things are the product of random ideas.


    Kindly reply to this and let me know what do you make of it. Thank You for reading.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yash2810 View Post
    Now, forget about science for a moment.
    No.

    Consider a situation when you hear about something that has occurred, suppose an event where a mouse killed a lion (I know it's insane, but just think of it.). When you hear about it, what will be your response? I'll tell you. You will ask, "When did it happen? Where did it happen?". Now you probably get the idea of above mentioned two dimensions. These two questions give you a good idea of the event.
    If you want to know "where" it happened then you need three dimensions. That could be latitude, longitude and altitude, for example.

    How are you going to tell people where you are using just one dimension.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    That's what I was thinking about. But I got another idea for that. Suppose that latitude, longitude and altitude are the representatives of the dimension SPACE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yash2810 View Post
    That's what I was thinking about. But I got another idea for that. Suppose that latitude, longitude and altitude are the representatives of the dimension SPACE.
    They are. That's why there are three of them. Space has three dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. You can't get away from that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by yash2810 View Post
    That's what I was thinking about. But I got another idea for that. Suppose that latitude, longitude and altitude are the representatives of the dimension SPACE.
    Why would we want to throw away our already perfectly fine definition of "dimension" in favor of yours? It offers no advantage that I can see.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    And has the major disadvantage that you wouldn't know where you were.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,420
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    Well... talking about where am I , does anyone know where is origin? No. Everything is relative. And i never said to throw away any established theory. And well i accept that there are no advantages here yet... But then, i still haven't thought the mathematical aspects. And any idea without a proof is considered philosophy and it's righteousness depends on your own personal belief. I do remember studying about time when earth was considered the center of universe. THANKS FOR YOUR VIEWS. I value it a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,866
    Quote Originally Posted by yash2810 View Post
    Well... talking about where am I , does anyone know where is origin? No. Everything is relative.
    Which doesn't eliminate the need for 3 co-ordinates.

    And any idea without a proof is considered philosophy
    Huh?

    and it's righteousness depends on your own personal belief.
    Then it's definitely NOT philosophy.

    I do remember studying about time when earth was considered the center of universe.
    True. But irrelevant.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    But then, i still haven't thought the mathematical aspects.
    The mathematics are very clear - you need a minimum of three independent coordinate axis to uniquely specify a point in space. Whether these are cartesian coordinates, polar angles, spherical coordinates or whatever else is irrelevant - the important point is that you always need exactly three of them at a minimum. It is, by the way, also irrelevant where the you choose the origin of your coordinate system to be, since this does not change the number of axes needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    But then, i still haven't thought the mathematical aspects.
    The mathematics are very clear - you need a minimum of three independent coordinate axis to uniquely specify a point in space. Whether these are cartesian coordinates, polar angles, spherical coordinates or whatever else is irrelevant - the important point is that you always need exactly three of them at a minimum. It is, by the way, also irrelevant where the you choose the origin of your coordinate system to be, since this does not change the number of axes needed.
    There are a number of ways to describe a point in space. The most successful concepts/ inventions have been the right-angled Cartesian coordinate system designated X,Y & Z. Next was to include time as a coordinate via a 4D Minkowski system X,Y,Z, & T. And thirdly the arc angle designation system which is based upon telescopic angles from stars and intersection lines within constellations, and then focus depth and calculations based upon redshifts concerning galaxies. With GR coordinate lines do not have to continue as perpendiculars while parallel lines can converge etc.

    My point is that none of these dimensional systems are reality itself, which I think goes along with your posting in that you also mentioned several systems. All are good man-made inventions to enable us to identify relative positions/ locations within reality. Although these mathematical/ telescopic systems we use may seem simple to us and the best available, an alien intelligence might prefer a location system different from our preferred or known systems.
    Last edited by forrest noble; March 21st, 2013 at 05:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Although these mathematical/ telescopic systems we use seem simple to us and the best available, an alien intelligence might prefer a location system different from our preferred or known systems.
    But it will still have 3 dimensions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Although these mathematical/ telescopic systems we use seem simple to us and the best available, an alien intelligence might prefer a location system different from our preferred or known systems.
    But it will still have 3 dimensions.
    Yes, it would seem that 3 numerical representations is the minimum needed no matter how such a system is contrived
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    There are a number of ways to describe a point in space. The most successful concepts/ inventions have been the right-angled Cartesian coordinate system designated X,Y & Z. Next was to include time as a coordinate via a 4D Minkowski system X,Y,Z, & T. And thirdly the arc angle designation system which is based upon telescopic angles from stars and intersection lines within constellations, and then focus depth and calculations based upon redshifts concerning galaxies. With GR coordinate lines do not have to continue as perpendiculars while parallel lines can converge etc.

    My point is that none of these dimensional systems are reality itself, which I think goes along with your posting in that you also mentioned several systems. All are good man-made inventions to enable us to identify relative positions/ locations within reality. Although these mathematical/ telescopic systems we use may seem simple to us and the best available, an alien intelligence might prefer a location system different from our preferred or known systems.
    The point is simply that whichever of these possibilities you choose, you will always have three coordinate axes to describe a point in space. It is also important to understand that the laws of nature are quite independent on which system of coordinates you choose - the apple will still fall off the tree, no matter whether you describe it with Cartesian coordinates or Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, or anything else. In that sense all coordinate systems are indeed just man-made instruments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    hefeifeicuilu
    Posts
    2
    That's what I was thinking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. different point of view
    By Rita in forum Introductions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: March 7th, 2013, 11:14 AM
  2. the view
    By dolphinbubble in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 01:59 PM
  3. View Income??
    By Hanuka in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 31st, 2008, 07:34 AM
  4. Cryogenics- What's your view?
    By Fatali in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 04:11 PM
  5. A new view for the universe
    By nwaogu in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 7th, 2006, 09:11 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •