1N=kg*m/s² vs. resistivity, electic power (s³), capacitance, permitivity (s^4)...
dimensions are nothing but abstract information needed for orientation. dimensions haven`t real, natural correspondence in time and space. there is only an aleatory number of locating parameters, called dimensions. the more specifications (alias dimensions) the more covered phenomena (velocity, acceleration- variations of other degrees than 1and 2, discontinuities, inflations, implosions, ...).
dear Aparna, I agree with you. One can enumerate redundant variables too. the Point is to enumerate exactly those variables which are needed (not more and not less.). for example I would Need 2 variables to determine time! Variation of space, and Variation of Variation of space, so that, for me, time is 2-dimensional.
in my opinion it depends on how something is defined. well, my Definition for time is: Motion. we only have got: space (with matter) and Motion. to locate in space one Needs 3 variables (the so called dimensions), and to locate in time one Needs 2 variables (Variation of space and Variation of Variation of space (in other words: velocity and acceleration)). case to locate something more than 5 variables are needed, than one can use more than 5-dimensional spaces. ergo: 5D, or 6D, aso.
It dose not mean anything (Squared Second), also it does not represent a principal unit in measuring process! In addition almost events are measured with respect to time as velocity acceleration ...etc. I always told my student to define acceleration as the meter per sec per sec (velocity per time) and not meter per squared second to be more logically understandable, so that means no meaning to squared second as I simply thought!
Regards, Emad
Wait, when we say that m2 is a measure of a two-dimensional space, it is because we are describing two orthogonal length measures. But when we use sec2, as in acceleration m/sec2, are those two orthogonal measures of time? I don't think so, right? They refer to the same time line.
Not to imply that there are no dimensions orthogonal to the time axis, aside from just the first three dimensions. No doubt, there are. Math can easily describe these. Physics, alas, not yet (as far as I know).
dear Emad, when You have to solve a d²t equation by using integrals, then a surface is generated. when one wants to locate, then x,y,z,t should be mentioned. but t(v,a): when 2 persons want to meet one another, then both should mention their Speed and their accelerations (if using a clock, v and a are implicitly included).
dear Albert, to determine time the Variation in space, and the Variation of Variation in space must be specified. (with respect to 2 orthogonal length- space is considered static, whereas time isn`t static, due to its Variation of space)
Although I withdrew my previous submission because I took the argument too far, the basis of the first part still holds.
If we accept Einstein's relativity concepts then it is clear that there is no single, universal timeline.
If you and I are walking together at similar speeds then our measure of time are identical and it is reasonable to assume a single, common timeline.
If however, you are walking significantly faster, say close to the speed of light, and I walk at a normal human speed, then our timelines are demonstrably completely different.. Under this logic it is clear that every object in the universe has its own timeline which is dependant on its relative speed to other objects in that frame of relativity (IE frame of measurement) .
So, if you and I are a two person universe then it is acceptable to define a mathematics that relates our timelines and frames of relativity to each other. This allows us to measure each others time with respect to our own. We can then use this to relate to objects in our wider universe.
Concepts such as multiples of time, time vectors and powers of time become meaningful and the multi-dimensional character of time is separated from the more obvious multi-dimensionality of space
Ian
dear Ian, you are right, when you say . But, I`m thinking at something else: as time depends on 2 variables T(v,a) it is to represent 2-dimensional (for instance like complex numbers- 2-dim plane). that`s why I see time at least 2-dimensional
I even have demonstrated that ALL natural constant are NOT constant indeed.
in my opinion is time AT LEAST 2-dimensional.
dear Aparna, I don`t understand: I asked the same question as you do...
dear Aparna, You are right! As it came to aberrations in physics, my motto is NOT: read your… manuals; remake them! That is the name of the game! But it will take time until they do recognize it. much time! 2-dimensional time :))
I don't see why it is so important to relate 2-D with a unit just because it has a 2 in the exponent. Whenever s^2 occurs in a unit, it just means that we are calculating rate of change of something which already has s^-1 in it. Period. Even in a non-uniform motion in a straight line (1-D), I can have a variable acceleration so that I can take a time derivative of it and arrive at something which has a s^-3 in its units. But I don't think that makes it something 3-D. So, I don't really see the point of the question.
dear Satadal, it is an big difference between real sets and complex ones! for instance: the relation of order is not strictly any more
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling