The Fourth Dimension

[DarkStar8]

As we all know from the genius if Albert Einstein that space and time are two parts of the same phenomena called Spacetime.

Couldn't there be a 4th Spatial dimension of scale which is some kind of opposition to the temporal one.

It seems that scale is ignored as a dimension as it is deemed irrelevant because of the other 3. If we imagine an object that we can zoom in towards the infinitely small or zoom out to the infinitely large we have a direction. Yes is difficult to imagine because we can not use a typical yard stick like a metre. This may help, imagine a black void with an object that appears to be moving towards you.. But is it or are you seeing under zoom. Imagine the star field screen saver... Like an optical illusion can you both imagine you are watching the stars under zoom and then also as though you are in a space ship moving forward amongst them? right ,can imagine scale as a direction? Now here's the odd bit this direction is Not relative! Why is size Not relative? Electrons the size of footballs and planets the size of stars? Why doesnt the universe work that way. I think scale is a direction where we should be able to apply a kind of special relativity but oddly scale is Non relative.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-find-fourth-di

Edited December 1, 2012 by DarkStar8

[Arjun Artro]

We have made certain scales to help ourselves with measurements. If we make that relative, then what's the point in having one?

 

Or have i misunderstood your question?

[michel123456]

Why do you say that scale is not relative?

[DarkStar8]

Scale is non relative because mass changes the effects on objects at different scales. Classical physic and quantum physics are unreconsilable.

Who can imagine zooming towards small scales or panning out as a direction. If you can then there should be a limit to the rate of collapse, analogist to the speed of light.

 

Please convince me that scale is not a direction and hence a forth dimension because obviously my train of thought must be wrong..but I don't know why.

[elfmotat]

Scale isn't a dimension. The dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates you need to specify a point in that space. Spacetime is four-dimensional because you need four numbers (three spacial and one temporal) to describe points in it.

[DarkStar8]

Hypothetically Imagine a cube containing 27 sub cubes and in each one I placed a similar object such as a ball. Then if one ball collapses in on itself so it is half it's size, couldn't we view it as though it was twice the 'distance' in another direction. It hasn't moved up down or sideways but it has moved in.

Not only time is effected by relativity size is too using Lorenz transforms.. The 4th dimension of space-time must relate to size too right, for if we have a meter rule travelling at half the speed of light is it still a meter rule?

Edited December 1, 2012 by DarkStar8

[derek w]

It does not matter if you zoom in or zoom out,the speed of light will be the same.

[michel123456]

Scale is non relative because mass changes the effects on objects at different scales. Classical physic and quantum physics are unreconsilable.

Who can imagine zooming towards small scales or panning out as a direction. If you can then there should be a limit to the rate of collapse, analogist to the speed of light.

 

Please convince me that scale is not a direction and hence a forth dimension because obviously my train of thought must be wrong..but I don't know why.

 

I am extremely interested in scaling too.

 

_ fractals are very interesting too because they show that scaling can happen indefinitely, IOW scaling is relative. The fractal shapes are the same when zooming in or zooming out.

 

_Some other interesting geometric feature of scaling occurs if you use a CAD program: make a simple diagram with 2 intersecting lines (say axis X and Y orthogonal), then zoom at the intersection point. What happens? exactly nothing. Now, instead of zooming, make a scaling of the axis: it happens exactly nothing. The image you get is exactly the same independently of the scale factor. So from this POV you can't tell if scaling occurs in one or another direction (scaling in or out, zoom in or zoom out).

Once you introduce a metric (a distance upon one of the axis) then only you can tell what is happening. A scale in corresponds to a zoom out, and a scale out corresponds to a zoom in. And indeed then scaling has a "direction".

 

_Another interesting feature of scaling is that scaling is linked to acceleration: with the same scaling factor the closer objects are scaled less than the farther objects. For example with Sc.factor 2, an object at 1 metre of distance is scaled at 2 metres, while an object at 100 metres is scaled at 200 metres. The increase is proportional to the distance (the Hubble Law comes immediately to mind). see also this outstanding post from highly valuable member Iggy on this Forum.

 

_Julian Barbour and his collaborators have made a wonderful research in this domain. See here for more info. Have a look at the whole site, especially under Shape Dynamics. Outstanding job IMHO.

 

_I also have my pet theory you can evaluate from this thread. Not much different from your idea I suppose.

 

-------------

(edit)

note on my pet theory: I am convinced that the scale factor is that feature which introduces the arrow of time, the direction you are talking about. No matter whether the scaling is in or out, it cannot be in and out, the 2 states are mutually exclusive.

Edited December 2, 2012 by michel123456

[DarkStar8]

I would like to add that since space and time are two parts of the same phenomena, called Spacetime,then concentrating this spacetime, by squashing it all into one location would naturally allow time to slow.

Take that cube of 27 sub cubes, squeezing the Spacetime from the other 26 cubes into the 27th and compacting it into the 4th spatial dimension would slow time down.

The point of this post is why do we need a temporal dimension of time when a 4th spatial one would suffice.

 

We have no proper yard stick for scale and we can't easily move within it because of the force of electromagnetism. I agree I must be wrong with my thinking simply because no one seems to see scaling as a direction.

 

Michael123456

If we hypothesise the Mandelbrot fractal and imagine zooming in... How fast can we go.. is there a limiting rate as there is for speed?

Edited December 2, 2012 by DarkStar8

[michel123456]

@darkstar8: I lost you somewhere between '"i would like" and "direction'.

I understand nothing.

[DarkStar8]

Yes it's the grammar. Just read it back makes no sense. I should read it back before pressing post lol.

 

The concept of a scale dimension is a very difficult one for most people to imagine. Probably because we are all stuck viewing the universe from a fixed position.

 

The concept of a scale dimension is very difficult for many people to imagine because in order to travel through it we would have to shrink continuously inwards and electromagnetic forces prevent us from doing this. The only object that I can imagine is capable of doing this is a large mass dying star.

Edited December 2, 2012 by DarkStar8

[michel123456]

Yes it's the grammar. Just read it back makes no sense. I should read it back before pressing post lol.

 

The concept of a scale dimension is a very difficult one for most people to imagine. Probably because we are all stuck viewing the universe from a fixed position.

 

The concept of a scale dimension is very difficult for many people to imagine because in order to travel through it we would have to shrink continuously inwards and electromagnetic forces prevent us from doing this. The only object that I can imagine is capable of doing this is a large mass dying star.

(bolded mine) I know that's the common POV.

But if the scaling operates on a very fundamental level, EM forces would be scaled as well.

The only objection is that if scaling is sooo fundamental, how can we be aware of it ?

[DarkStar8]

I'm sorry but a didnt quite follow you, I have not added a new dimension. The scale dimension I speak of is simply a direction that is already there. Only when a volume of spacetime is contracted in a smaller size does time slow down.Correct me if I am wrong, Einstein Never said Time was a 4th dimension. Spacetime is 4D but it I don't think Einstein ever said it is 3D space plus t.

[michel123456]

I'm sorry but a didnt quite follow you, I have not added a new dimension. The scale dimension I speak of is simply a direction that is already there. Only when a volume of spacetime is contracted in a smaller size does time slow down.Correct me if I am wrong, Einstein Never said Time was a 4th dimension. Spacetime is 4D but it I don't think Einstein ever said it is 3D space plus t.

Oh sorry, I thought your idea was to add a new dimension.

And i must have been influenced by my own pet theory.

So

If I understand clearly, you are suggesting replacing the temporal dimension by a spatial dimension.

Getting a 4D continuum.

Is that it?

Edited December 7, 2012 by michel123456

[DarkStar8]

Yes, that's it.

When you next look at a starfield screensaver, try and imagine first that you are zooming in towards the centre of the screen( scale direction)then next imagine that you are zooming forward(forward direction).Now imagine moving very fast and think of the consequences of moving forward at relativistic speeds and then zooming in at relativistic speeds? Shouldn't the same effects occur, ie speed of light limit, time dilation,Lorenz contraction?

Edited December 11, 2012 by DarkStar8