What does it mean there are Four Dimensions?

What does it mean there are Four Dimensions? [+ favourites]

I was going through some college text reworking the presentation to make chemistry relate to a friend's perceptions. Revising orbital theory and atomic structure I realized that in a sense, the electron field and the nucleus formed a reversed relationship from the real world.
Is there a 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time which equals 4-dimensions or is there 1-dimensional time, 2-dimensional eletro-magnetic field, 3-dimensional space?
Does Energy change form into mass or does the relationship itself change form. The nucleus of the atom contains the portion of inertial mass while the electon has relatively small inertial mass. Photon does not have inertial mass and has 2-dimensional eletro-magnetic field?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

I'm not sure what you mean, cturtle. Typically 4 dimensions refers to spacial dimensions: 3 of space and 1 of time. Since space and time are interchangable depending on the observer, the whole thing makes up a 4-dimensional space-time. If you choose to include electro-magnetic fields, you are no longer talking about the dimensions of the universe, but rather of the configuration space for the system (if I'm not mistaken). In such a case, you could have a system with degrees of freedom for position, time, translational velocity, rotational velocity, electric field, magnetic field, ... . Then number of dimensions is then just the number of free variables, but this does not correspond to the physical dimensions of the universe.

I guess I see what you mean as I was sought to explain the concept of the atom, it doesn't correspond to the physical dimensions?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

No sir, I believe you are talking about a 2-particle system which has the basic 4-dimensional position in space-time, and some extra free variables due to the orbiting electron.

There is an interesting idea connected to this, however. If you look at a long cylinder with a small radius from far enough away, its 2-dimensional surface looks like a 1-dimensional line, thus hiding the extra dimension from a large observer. Since extra degrees of freedom really could fold themselves compactly in this way, it may turn out that there are more than 3 dimensions of space, but they are practically invisible beyond tiny sub-atomic distances. Physicists are looking for such short range dimensions, but have yet to find them.

I think I am understanding what you are saying then I have to ask what makes the E=MC square applicable to the space-time dimension of our physical space?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

E=mc^2 is not really about space. The theory of relativity has several more or less disjoint consequences on space, time, and matter. It all stems from the seemingly rediculous fact that the speed of light appears the same to all observers, regardless of their motion towards or away from the light source. It's difficult to explain relativity over a message board (no diagrams), so I would encourage you to pick up a book on the subject and then ask specific questions. Roughly speaking, the journey goes like this:

1. The speed of light in empty space is measured as 299,792,458 m/s by EVERYONE, regardless of their motion towards or away from the light source

2. #1 leads to strange paradoxes that are resolved when you realize that simultaneity is relative. In other words, 2 events that happened simultaneously according to you did not necessarily happen simultaneously according to me. More generally, the amount of time that passes between 2 events depends on who you ask, and there is no absolute truth in this matter.

3. More paradoxes stemming from (1) suggest that distances and time intervals (rate of aging) are also relative. (length contraction, time dialation)

4. #3 screws with common views of space and time enough that you need to re-examine classical dynamics. 2 balls collide the same to all observers, but different observers see the collision happening at different speeds and energies. In order to maintain some sort of conservation of energy and momentum, an equation arises: E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4 (E = energy, p = momentum, m = mass, c = speed of light). Keep in mind that up until this point, energy is nothing more than a mathematical concept used to simplify calculations in physics. It is not actually a physical thing in itself, only the "ability to do work", as is commonly said in high school textbooks. However, since the mass of an object appears in the energy equation, what if the mass were to change (via nuclear reaction for example)? Energy would have to be released in accordance with conservation of energy, which is exactly what happens. This suggests that matter and energy are two faces of the same thing, thus energy may be physical afterall.

I hope I didn't confuse you with my rant. For a real lesson on relativity, I hope you will pick up a good book -- it should be much easier to follow. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[  Edited by think4yourself at   ]

No sir, I aplogize for an aburpt response, I believe that you mean that we use the same general form for equations, cartisian co-ordinates giving variables as dimensions? Therefore one could easily form misconceptions regarding variables as dimension, correct?
For example my comments upon fate lead to a reply using Physical Law: For every action there is an equal reaction. Although I used term's action-reaction within general definition of the terms, does not insure that they are applicable as the mathematical (physics) use of these terms.
Further statements tend to point out the heart of the matter, the equation is based on the perception of a space-time continum. As you point out the speed of light may be constant in a vacumn but varies according to the medium in which it is transmitted just as sound, Another factor ignorded is that the perceptions are based upon actions at STP. As the olde standard of length was a bar of metal at STP. shows why this concept is at best a special case of Relativity, not a general form?
An Essay on General Relativity (www.underground.com/tree.php3/catid=4124 )
This site contains a comprehensive introduction to the basic ideas and tests of general relativity although I dis agree with statements made by the author in general.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Therefore one could easily form misconceptions regarding variables as dimension, correct?

Correct.

For example my comments upon fate lead to a reply using Physical Law: For every action there is an equal reaction. Although I used term's action-reaction within general definition of the terms, does not insure that they are applicable as the mathematical (physics) use of these terms.

I agree. It can have meaning outside of physics (especially action-reaction), but not always. I had a discussion with someone who based a theory on conservation of energy -- in the sense of conservation of emotional energy. I have no reason to believe such 'energy' is conserved, since I don't believe what she was actually referring to was a type of physical energy.

Further statements tend to point out the heart of the matter, the equation is based on the perception of a space-time continum. As you point out the speed of light may be constant in a vacumn but varies according to the medium in which it is transmitted just as sound

This is true, however relativity isn't based on light, it's actually the other way around. In vacuum the speed of light is bound only by the rules of space and time, which is why it reaches that ultimate speed there. In other media, electric and magnetic fields come into play which slow it down further, but the rules of space-time are still based on light's speed in vacuum, not in its present location.

Another factor ignorded is that the perceptions are based upon actions at STP. As the olde standard of length was a bar of metal at STP. shows why this concept is at best a special case of Relativity, not a general form?

To my knowledge, tests of relativity have been done in many different environments, most far from STP.

Btw, what I said in my previous post was strictly about special relativity (non-accelerating observer), not general relativity. They explain most of the basic features of relativity (except bending of space), including E=mc^2, which is what we were discussing. To my knowledge, the tests of general relativity are not quite complete, but the tests of special relativity are quite conclusive (nuclear weapons, tests with clocks, ...).

Btw, what I said in my previous post was strictly about special relativity (non-accelerating observer), not general relativity. They explain most of the basic features of relativity (except bending of space), including E=mc^2, which is what we were discussing. To my knowledge, the tests of general relativity are not quite complete, but the tests of special relativity are quite conclusive (nuclear weapons, tests with clocks, ...).
I need some clarification as the laws of the space-time continum are applied to a co-ordinate system with uniform (constant) acceleration, what is the first sentence statement?
Mute point but Native traditions hold that a sacred language derived from secular language or visversa; words carried meaning(s) implied by context or the use.
As to the consideration of light, the photon has no inertial mass, therefore I question that it is effected by gravity? As most gravitating bodies are in motion they pocess electro-magnetic fields which do effect photon emission being the medium by which it is transmitted.
As velocity is the first derivative of space/time and acceleration is the second thiss may be a point of separation between them?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

I need some clarification as the laws of the space-time continum are applied to a co-ordinate system with uniform (constant) acceleration, what is the first sentence statement?

The statement is that special relativity only applies when observers have zero acceleration. However most of its features (E=mc^2 being one of them) hold even when the observer is allowed to accelerate.

I was looking for some info & ran across these related pages
The first paragraph relates to the original question.
The second relates the Classical Test of Relativity.

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
© Department of Physics, University of Guelph
Most physical quantities can be expressed in terms of combinations of five basic dimensions. These are mass (M), length (L), time (T), electrical current (I), and temperature, represented by the Greek letter theta (&#61553.

Copyright © 1995, The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
The notion of the aether as a fixed reference frame through which light must propagate was beginning to unravel. No experiments had demonstrated its existence. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was to dispense with the aether altogether.
While we disagree, are we in agreement about this statement?
http://astro.physics.sc.edu/SelfPacedUnits/Unit57.html .
Before we consider the experimental evidence that is consistent with the General Theory and some of the surprising predictions of the theory, let us briefly consider what has happened to our view of the nature of physical reality as we have taken the cosmic voyage. We developed the Newtonian world view, generalized it to the static space-time of the Special Theory of Relativity and have now described the dynamic space-time of the General Theory. These developments may seem very revolutionary, but they are evolutionary. The General Theory contains as a subset of its solutions the Special Theory. The General and Special theories contain as a subset of their solutions the solutions of the Newtonian theory. We have not given up concepts; we have only generalized them.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

One of the classical test examined the Newtonian Theoritical Values relating to precession in the orbit of Mercury

http://astro.physics.sc.edu/SelfPacedUnits/Unit57.html .
The three classical tests of the general theory are:
ľ The precession of the perihelion of Mercury - Ideally, the orbit of a single planet about a star is an ellipse fixed in space. The presence of other planet changes (perturbs) this orbit as was discussed in Unit 17. For all natural orbits in the solar system. These changes are small. In the case of Mercury, we can consider the perturbed orbit as an ellipse which slowly precesses (rotates in its own plane) as is shown in Fig. 57-5 or in the text in Fig. H 19-31a. The orbit of Mercury is observed to precess about 5,600 seconds of arc per century. Since Mercury orbits the Sun about 700 times in a century, this is a small change in the orbit per orbital period. Newtonian physics could predict all this precession except 43 seconds of arc per century. The 43 seconds of arc was what the General Theory of Relativity predicts.

One would have to consider that evidence within the limits of accurate measurements? Then one might wonder if these discrepancies might form, looking at the Known structure of the solar system relative to the galaxy to which it belongs? As physics theorizes that all matter (inertial mass) acts with the force of gravitational acceleration toward each other, one would certainly have to reason that these variations arise from the Milky Ways gravitational center acting upon the sun, the center of rotation of the solar system? As well the electromagnetic field would also extend itself as gravitational field.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

The 3-D Space & Time
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=12-u-thrdid=14769-u-page=
0#15397
Yes, time exist and it's existence is one dimensional. Not to confuse the measure of time with the passage of time, the time line we relate to may be gauged by motion of heavenly bodies or the motion of electrons or even cyclic events, represent distinct segments of time.
Everything exists relative to the first order of existence, time.
LoL: The Laws of Science are based upon simplifying assumptions which lead to may lead to better understanding of specific principles but have little resemblance to the real world which they define.
As an example, the Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT
The Ideal Gas Law is a combination of several laws (conceptions) about gaseous state of matter, which developed as certain aspects were held constant then the resulting relationship formed into a mathematical form.
It is called ‘Ideal Gas’ because it applies to a fictional medium loosely associated to gases at low concentration.
This may seem to be a strange way to define a perception of existence form but I just wasn’t able to give an example that would make a clear and distinct definition. I tried to different aspects of common events mentally but they seemed to lead descriptions of other aspects that could produce confusion.
Considerations of the mouse sitting on the pad, the weight (Force = Mass X Acceleration) should be more properly defined as the weight of the mouse plus the column of air (gas) resting upon its surface?
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=12746-u-frmid=12
Hmm, interesting to consider ‘for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’. The mouse on the pad acts upon the pad by the force of gravity acting upon it; the pad reacts with an equal and opposite force upon the mouse?
They are in equilibrium because the mouse remains on the pad.
The action - reaction is mutually co-existing, not separate events.
Thinking about this statement, I redefine my position, because I am at sea level here, I mentally consider that I am at the train station in Montana; altitude 5,280 ft. Does the equation still hold valid? Well, it does if I factor in that the acceleration of gravity has changed by the distance of one mile as well as the height of the column of gas? (Neglecting at sea level in Florida the air has some differences in composition, esp. moisture content and the surrounding mountains induce a local variance in the value of gravitational acceleration)
We are taught that this is true. Of course, I might have just thought that I was in an aircraft one mile above the earth, right? Well that would depend on whether it was an airplane with a sealed cabin or not?
If instead of being a mile above sea level, what if I was a mile below sea level? Let us say that I am in a submarine working at my computer. Now at this depth I would be in real trouble if the cabin weren’t a sealed vessel. In fact if I could survive the pressure (Weight = Mass of the water X Acceleration + Mass of the air x Acceleration). But inside the cabin, the weight of the mouse (Force = Mass x acceleration) plus the column of air (gas) resting upon its surface or the cabin pressure as used in the principle of the decompression chamber.
In today’s world we are aware of the factor of pressure has on deep-sea diver’s responsible for the bends. Pressure causes the molecules to contract or that Density of the molecules increases. As pressure increases while the mass remains (constant) the same, the volume of the molecules decreases.
Volcanic eruptions is more than the sudden release of pressure like opening the valve of a fire hose there is in a sense the very molecules of molten rock swell to greater portions as it comes to the surface & flowing down the side of the volcano. The density & form it assumes is like the foam used by boat-builders for floatation purposes.
I found this to be an interesting as related to my perception of Inyan. I had heard that some like to use lava rock in the sweat lodge ceremony but I had always preferred to use sandstone. This is a personal preference that is associated to my perception of the Maka Ina – Inyan relationship. (Native Tradition holds that each level of hierarchy is divided into two aspects: positive/negative, material/spiritual, black /white, yin/yang, matter/energy, etc.) In the creation scheme the earth (Maka Ina) – stone (Inyan) form such a relationship. To me the form I give to Inyan is molten stone, the life blood which flows in the heart of Maka Ina. In the sweat lodge ceremony, stones are heated in the peta hocoka (Wi) fire pit until the sandstone become red hot, almost translucent in appearance before being brought into the lodge (Maka Ina).
I maintain a very fire in order to preserve this concept of Inyan in the ceremony.
So in this respect I perceived that in it’s own environment (Inyan) lava is a fluid more like the sand of the beach.
The intense pressure of its habitat cause the molecules to form a much denser fluid than the lava we see at the surface.

Well, what do you think, although the value weighted may differ, is the action – reaction principle constant?
Perhaps further analysis will give a better example? Set’s see, on the surface, above the surface (crust), below the surface, I know, how about in outer space, above the atmosphere?
O.K. so now I am in a spaceshuttle a mile into space with a mouse and a pad buteven though I am in a pressurized cabin (atmosphere) but the mouse isn’t on the pad. In fact both mouse and pad are kind of floating around in the cabin.
This is the shuttle to the moon so when it lands will the mouse act upon the pad which will react withan equal and opposite force? Or does it have to be within the range of the atmospere of the moon?
I mean just the other day I heard it stated that the moon has approximately ¼ the size of the earth & 1/6 the atmospere.I wonder jusst how far beyond the earth’s atmospere to experience weightlessness?
If the moon spun around like the earth would it support more atmosphere?
Hmm, the application of natural laws certainly seem to be (defined by) relative to their environment. I wonder at what point is gravitational acceleration (non-existant) to zero? (In free-fall?) When a gravitating bodiy acceleration toward another gravitating body is equal to gravitational acceleration?
http://home.earthlink.net/~clayturtle/maza_1.html

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

I read all the info here and i can only just understand some of it, how did you gain such an intelligence on this topic?

I don't think that it is a matter of intelligence but rather comprehension. My chemistry teacher spoke of understanding coming later when I was prepared to accept it. I think that timing was an important factor.
My studies happened while various concepts were forming which was important, as a general technique had not formed as what related theories to teach.
Rather I am questioning Relativity Theory itself?
Even in rereading previous post, I sense the prevailing attitude of dimension being limited to our perception of a 3-dimensional space & time continium but if the theory of the atomos is valid then it should extend to the existence at the atomic (nuclear) level as well as the galaxitic? If these are the basic building blocks of matter then they are also basic building blocks of our dimensions?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]