A different view of dimensions.

[Yash]

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.

[SPACE_LEMON]

Well, dimensions are specifically mediums of perspective regarding change. Let's look at the generally excepted 11-dimensional view. The "first" dimension is actually "0-D" and describes a point in space. The next three dimensions are the classical spacial dimension: The first dimension is the line (x), the second is the plane (x and y), the third is three dimensional space (x, y and z). Next are the three temporal dimensions: The fourth is time (the change from one state of three dimensional space to another), the fifth is branches in the timeline (wherein different outcomes of the same event can exist), the sixth is aforementioned branches viewed "three dimentionally" (the multiverse). Next it gets a bit complicated and I honestly don't fully understand how these can be dimensions yet. The seventh, eighth and ninth dimensions regard different possible multiverses (universes with different physical laws, in other words) and how they can possibly interact with one another, or something. Then finally, the tenth dimension describes the entirety of the Omniverse (in other words, every version of everything in every universe that can possibly exist ever). So, the point, the three spacial dimensions, the three temporal dimensions, the three freaky universe-related dimensions and the Omniverse adds up to 11 dimensions (10 plus 0 (think of the numbers as names, not numerical values)).

 

Your interpretation of dimensions is interesting, but does not have much to do with dimensions as we would scientifically describe them. Your dimensions 3 to 5 are arbitrarily defined by the observer. Furthermore, your "dimensions" 1, 4 and 5 can be condensed into a single "dimension" of "What happened?" (A ball took a slight push off a table, allowing gravitational acceleration to be exerted on it, causing it to touch the ground with x velocity.) What you've defined as "dimensions" are merely aspects of an event, which implies that something needs to happen in order for dimensions to exist, which is of course not true. Perhaps you could redefine your factors as "event dimensions" or something.

Edited March 21, 2013 by SPACE_LEMON

[ajb]

Well, dimensions are specifically mediums of perspective regarding change. Let's look at the generally excepted 11-dimensional view. The "first" dimension is actually "0-D" and describes a point in space. The next three dimensions are the classical spacial dimension: The first dimension is the line (x), the second is the plane (x and y), the third is three dimensional space (x, y and z). Next are the three temporal dimensions: The fourth is time (the change from one state of three dimensional space to another), the fifth is branches in the timeline (wherein different outcomes of the same event can exist), the sixth is aforementioned branches viewed "three dimentionally" (the multiverse). Next it gets a bit complicated and I honestly don't fully understand how these can be dimensions yet. The seventh, eighth and ninth dimensions regard different possible multiverses (universes with different physical laws, in other words) and how they can possibly interact with one another, or something. Then finally, the tenth dimension describes the entirety of the Omniverse (in other words, every version of everything in every universe that can possibly exist ever).

What are you talking about?

[Yash]

What are you talking about?

Yeah, this is mostly out of my understanding... but it definitely sounds interesting

[Delta1212]

 

What are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure I read the thing that he got that explanation from, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Needless to say, it wasn't a particularly accurate description of the scientific consensus.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Can we stick to the op please.

 

And Space_Lemon do not introduce speculative science as an answer to a question. Topics, even the slightly odder ones, should be discussed and debated using accepted mainstream ideas (ie. in this special forum the only new physics is that of the OP - everything it is judged against or by should be well-established) . If you wish to discuss the nature of higher dimension open a new thread here in Speculations.

 

[SPACE_LEMON]

Whoops, didn't realise how non-mainstream that interpretation of String Theory's 11 dimensions was. My bad.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that "dimension" isn't just an aspect of something, it's a frame of reference that work together with other frames of references to give you a co-ordinate of something. "The ball experienced a slight push" does not contribute to my understanding of the spacetime location of the ball.

 

Furthermore, an "event" is an abstract concept to isolate a given series of events in a chosen or arbitrarily defined system with the exclusion of all interactions beyond the frame in which the event is observed. Therefor, an event cannot have co-ordinates (altough the objects that partake in the event can) and therefor cannot be defined by dimensions.