3
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

The spatial dimensions are related to each other via the Euclidean metric (AKA the Pythagorean formula): d^2^ = x^2^+y^2^+z^2^.

The time dimension is related to the spatial dimensions via the Minkowski metric, which differs only by one sign: d^2^ = x^2^+y^2^+z^2^-t^2^. So it’s kind of the same thing as a spatial dimension, but with a difference.

Among other things, the change in sign means that, where spatial rotations result in circular transformations, spacetime rotations with a time component (AKA acceleration) result in hyperbolic transformations. And the asymptotes of the underlying hyperbola are the light cone of the center of the transformation—which is why no amount of acceleration can cause an object’s future path to leave its current light cone, and why faster-than-light travel is impossible.

[-] HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au 3 points 2 weeks ago

That…actually made sense

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Get 3 sticks, try and arrange them all perpendicular to each other. You can do it. Now try with 4, you can't. We live in 3D space.

Time is a line, at least as we experience it. Just one, it's hard to even figure out what 2D time would mean, although physicists have thought about it.

So, 3+1=4. It turns out they're kind of interchangeable, though, in that swapping time for a kind of angle made up of some space and some time, if done in a certain way, leaves the predictions of physics the same. That's special relativity, and it is itself connected to the way everything is a wave.

[-] toad31@lemmy.cif.su 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If I had to guess, what you're referring to is how higher dimensions are "orthogonal" (at right angles) to the dimensions below it.

How can you arrange 3 sticks orthogonally using 2 dimensions of space?

The same idea can be applied to arranging 4 sticks orthogonally using 3 dimensions of space.

Maybe to a flatlander, a theoretical being that only experiences 2D space, they'd have a different word for the third dimension like we have a different word for the fourth. That wouldn't mean the third dimension isn't spacial.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Soo what are you wondering? I'd expect it's obvious in our everyday experience that time is a bit different from space.

If you want a something more mathematical, pick an equation from physics. It probably treats time separately from space. The only kind-of exception I can think of is general relativity, and even it ends up producing metrics that give time the opposite sign, like the flat space example the other poster mentioned.

The directionality of time is a bit more subtle and emergent, but you don't need it to look at a double light cone and observe that while a slice of it is a sphere, the whole thing is not a hypersphere. That just follows from Maxwell's equations or the other wave equations in nature.

If somebody here knows their way around QFT they might have something to add, but for all the rest it's just kind of built in.

[-] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 weeks ago

Huh?

I can align as many sticks parallel to each other as I want.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That'd be spacetime, from Einstein's general relativity. I suppose different names for the dimensions are warranted, since we can move freely forwards and backwards in the space dimensions, but the same does not apply for time. I can't go backwards with that, or stop. It's all part of the universe. Or at least solving gravity made Einstein realize space and time are connected.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Special relativity came first, and it was actually to solve paradoxes relating to fast-moving magnets. Maxwell's equations always produced a fixed speed of light, which breaks Galilean relativity, and has Lorentz symmetry baked in. Just gluing that on to Newtonian mechanics causes problems.

His solution was to work out a weird, different but observationally equivalent mechanics that would work. Decades later, it was realised matter is waves which internally move at the speed of light as well, so it's not that weird after all.

[-] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Weirdly, the math at the quanta level works in both directions (time-wise).

I guess something happens when you get a few atoms together that changes this.

Maybe AbouBenAdam has some insight.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It still can't be rigorously proven that thermodynamics works - if you look at the statistical mechanics papers on it they basically assume something is random that is not to do it. TBF, the empirical evidence is convincing, and the assumptions they do make are small, even infinitely small.

The second law probably relates to pseudorandomness and P=NP, in the end, but that's a big unsolved problem.

this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

12824 readers
4 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS