what makes a 'dimension' to the scientific community?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by JuliaG, Jun 18, 2015.

  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Let's meet for dinner at Applebees at 20C o'clock.

    Simply put, dimensions are coordinates of space/time, whereas properties are measurements of objects/system. 1 meter is 1 meter, whether that 1m is associated with an object/system or not.

    Of course, this was already asked in post 1 and answered in post 2...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Again this may be a semantic nuance between functional dimensions and dimensional functions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#More_dimensions

    What are the coordinates of temperature? It has measurable potentials, but they cannot be described as dimensional qualities. Temperature is a result of change within a dimension. It is a phenomenon, not a dimension in and of itself, except in the most abstract interpretation, IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Pay attention, it was not my question...
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It most certainly does answer, or at least point you to the answer of your question....hopefully once you understand the definition of "dimension", you can figure out why each of the other things you mentioned isn't - it is not a large logical leap. It helps you learn better and makes better use of my time if you are forced to make the logical connection rather than expecting me to provide the same answer over and over and over again for different parameters that are all not dimensions for the same reason.
     
  8. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    You don't seem to follow, I never asked a question. At least not in this thread. Please again pay attention. I will take part of the blame for this because I did not quote but I would have assumed you read the op, why would I re write the same question verbatim?
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Then what are all of those question marks for? And:
    "my question" means you did ask a question: you are referring to the question you asked.

    WTF is this? Just trolling?
     
  10. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Have a good a night Mr Watters.
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Humans are multi-dimensional (with a few exceptions), but that is an abstraction, not a property of the universe.
     
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Is it possible even to measure a length without time? Being an observer of some closely spaced events separated by 1 meter requires an interval of time on the order of the light travel distance you are measuring, doesn't it?
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Timing a light pulse is often the best way, but is not the only way: you could use a meter stick.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The reason wavelengths are the 'best way' to measure lengths down to Angstroms and the reason NIST uses them for that purpose is because the speed of light is invariant.

    It still requires time on the order of light travel time between the two points, events, or ends of something you are measuring in order to make a determination of a length.

    Atoms are comprised of mostly empty space, but spacing between atoms is a function of both temperature and relative motion. A meter stick is therefore a more fallible device with which to calibrate standard lengths.

    Time, on the other hand, appears to be something that is more fundamental than the propagation of energy. Entanglement exists, and is a minimum 10,000 times faster than light. Because of this, there seems to be no equivalent revised scientific standard of time we can yet nail down to anything more absolute. Time runs at different rates everywhere. Simultaneity does not even exist other than for the same event viewed from different angles, or for particles that are entangled. which is tantamount to being the same particle.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I have no idea, that is kind of weird.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Time IS a dimension of spacetime, albeit non-physical. As you said, measurements "require time', which would indicate that before the measurement (change) time does not exist except as a latency.
    Moreover, if you know that the measurement is 1 meter, you have already measured it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    In a universe which is new, and in which nothing has ever been measured, every measurement takes time.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I agree absolutely.
    This is why we have spacetime, the time-line of universal space itself, which we are counting from the BB, and that's also why we have individual "time-lines" of chronological changes within spacetime, each individul timeline starting at its beginning of the chronological change.

    But until change (of any kind) takes places, time is not a measurable dimension. It's metaphysical permissive condition wherein orderly and sequential change can take place. The amount of permissiveness granted for that change we measure in human terms as Time.

    philosophically: Time is a natural metaphysical latent potential (ability) of reality itself, IMO.
    Without time there could be no reality of any kind. However, the chronological progression of reality requires an occupation of "duration" in the potential field of Permissiveness. As Bohm called it, "Insight Intelligence".
    (hierarchies of order), It's a logical argument.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Disagree.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Sure, without time we would have no space, and no spacetime.
    Although as you say time is not a physical aspect, [neither is space] without it we wouldn't be here.
    Time at its simplest definition is simply what separates events. Actually without time there would be no events including the BB.
    Likewise with out space, there would be no time and no universe at all.
    Time and space may not be physical but are both real enough in my books.
    Not sure if you have seen the following Write4U, but it seems to make some sense to me.........
    I have posted it before......
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

    A Universe from Nothing
    by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

    Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

    Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

    In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

    The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

    What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

    Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

    If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
     
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    There are of course uncertainty principle limits imposed on certain measurements, and you are correct in thinking, these limits are not overcome simply by having more time in which to measure them to greater accuracy. Good catch.
     
  23. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    That's not what I was referring to at all. I was referring to the thousands of years of human history when distance was measured without utilizing time as part of the measurement.
     
    danshawen likes this.

Share This Page