Space and time being so fundamental, shouldn’t four dimensional analogues all be in plain sight?
Where are they? Has physics overlooked or missed them?
This is a follow up to the question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Apart_from_space-time_are_there_any_other_mathematical_models_of_physical_phenomena_using_a_fourth_dimension
And see:
Preprint Is dimensional capacity missing from physics?
Preprint Are some implications of dimension missing in current physics?
Robert Shour : The so-called 4D “spacetime”, as a brain-cooked and abstract geometrical construct, supposedly with tangible material, mechanical, metric etc., attributes; has no relevance to objective reality. This is a mathematical fiction - only a source of prolific Fairy Tales in official theoretical physics and cosmology. Please see:
"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and cosmology". Inspire: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
Also, Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?
No-there's a distinction between spacetime symmetries and other symmetries. Spacetime can have general coordinate invariance, global Lorentz invariance, Galilean invariance (as it does, in fact); the objects that move in it can have other symmetries (e.g. the gauge invariance and global symmetries of the Standard Model).
That spacetime has a certain number of dimensions doesn't say, a priori, what the dimension of the ``internal space'' of the fields is.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence