It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What 4th dimension did you think I was talking about here?
originally posted by: Vector99
Given the little we know in the grand picture, couldn't there be a 4th dimension (time) that we just don't know, and don't know how it works?
Einstein's 4 dimensional model is 3 dimensions of space and one of time. We sure don't know everything but what we do know is that so far every experiment we use to test Einstein's model matches observation, even the prediction that your head ages faster than your feet when you're standing up. That was proven in a relatively recent experiment which required newer clocks of unprecedented accuracy, so we do understand something about time.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes, there are copious numbers experiments consistent with Einstein's 4 dimensional model, and if there were 5 or more dimensions, as the article I linked in my previous post says, one can demonstrate that experiments would not be consistent with a 4 dimensional model. So in that sense we do have copious amounts of evidence of 4 dimensions and lack of additional dimensions as explained in the link.
Special relativity was published in 1905 and Minkowski developed space-time math in 1906, and in over a century since then we have made many tests of the relativity models and all experiments are consistent with the models of special relativity and general relativity.
space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object.
Sorry, that's not a foundation of relativity. That's Newton's third law and Newton's model worked very well for centuries but we now know that Einstein's relativity model and quantum mechanics are more accurate, and moreover that Newton's model doesn't always hold. If you apply Newton's model, GPS won't work, and the Large Hadron Collider won't work, so in that respect, Newton's laws are obsolete. Even the law you mention is known to be violated in some circumstances like many of the old, classical laws which have been superseded by modern theory. Newton's laws still work for common things on Earth (aside from GPS and the LHC etc type exceptions) but do not form the basis for cosmological theory.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Yes, but one of the simple foundations of relativity that must exist
For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction.
Even though it is one of the fundamental laws of physics, Newton's third law can be violated in certain nonequilibrium (out-of-balance) situations. When two objects or particles violate the third law, they are said to have nonreciprocal interactions. Violations can occur when the environment becomes involved in the interaction between the two particles in some way, such as when an environment moves with respect to the two particles.
Your question is based on a model that's over a century out of date, learn the modern, more accurate models, like relativity and quantum mechanics, and also the Lambda-CDM model, which is a cosmological adaptation of general relativity. Here's a NASA primer on Lambda to get you started:
What is expansion reacting to?
This model is a mathematical parameterization of Big Bang cosmology, as described by General Relativity and the Friedman-Lemaître-Roberson-Walker (FLRW) equations. ΛCDM assumes that the universe is composed of photons, neutrinos, ordinary matter (baryons, electrons) and cold (non-relativistic) dark matter, which only interacts gravitationally, plus "dark energy", which is responsible for the observed acceleration in the Hubble expansion. Dark energy is assumed to take the form of a constant vaccuum energy density, referred to as the cosmological constant (Λ). Standard (6 parameter) ΛCDM further imposes the constraint that space is flat (Euclidean).
originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks believe that a "dimension" is a physical location in which things can exist ?
They have to exist in all 12 dimensions , or they don't exist at all .
Yes , I said 12 .
New thoughts add the 12th to describe an infinite number of infinite multiverses .
The word dimension has an actual meaning. Unfortunately it seems to have been appropriated. It's become all newagey. What's wrong with the term alternative universe? I mean, we live in three spatial dimensions. That is not "a dimension." Right?
If you're really interested in this topic, I suggest reading the entire linked article as I've only quoted selected parts of it, but the entire article is helpful if you have some background in math and science to be able to understand what it's talking about.