Why many physicists assume the universe is composed four-dimensional space-time is puzzling because, as was shown in the earlier article "Defining time" Sept 20, 2007 there is no observational evidence supporting time having physical properties.

But even more damaging to this assumption is that assuming it is composed of four *spatial* dimensions, would give a broader more logical and consistent interpretation time dilation, length foreshortening, gravitational and kinetic energy that can be provided by both the Special and General theories of relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity postulates gravity is the result of a curvature in four-dimensional space-time manifold. 

However, as will be shown in the article “Gravity” assuming its causality is a curvature in four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time could not only explain and predict its observed properties but also the asymmetrical properties of kinetic energy.

For example, there is observed asymmetry in the kinetic energy of an orbiting satellite with respect to the gravitational energy of the mass it is orbiting in that it opposes the energy of that mass.

If one assumes that gravity was caused by curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension then one could define the kinetic energy of an orbiting satellite as an oppositely directed curvature in that "surface". 

This cannot be done if one defines space in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time is only observed to move in one direction forward while one can move in two directions up or down in spatial dimension.  Therefore, it could not support the bidirectional movement required to define the asymmetry between gravitational and kinetic energy in terms of an oppositely directed curvature.

Defining the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions can not only define the reason an asymmetry exists between gravitational and kinetic energy but it also provides an explanation for the casualty of time dilation and the length foreshortening observed in gravitational and moving reference frames that is consistent with observations of our environment.

This is because three-dimensional beings can only perceive distances in terms of three-spatial dimensions. Therefore, they will only be able to observed the cord of the arc generated by a curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore, one can define a common mechanism responsible for the foreshortening of the length of an object in relative motion or in a gravitational field in terms of a curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This is because the cord of an arc is always shorter than the arc itself and since three-dimensional beings can only observe the three-dimensional cord of an arc in four-dimensional space, they would view the length of the objects to be shorter when viewed in relative motion or in a gravitational field.

Time would also be dilated with respect to an external reference frame that was in motion or in a gravitational field because as mentioned earlier the length of the arc generated in three-dimensional space by a gravitational field or the kinetic energy of relative motion will be longer than the cord of that arc.  Therefore, the distance between events would be greater for an observer in those reference frames than for one who is outside of it.  However, this means an observer outside of those reference frames would measure the time between those events as being dilated with respect to an observer who is inside of it because the time required for objects to move between events in that reference will be longer.

This shows one can theoretically define a common mechanism responsible for both the time dilation and foreshortening of the length associated with objects in relative motion or in a gravitation field in terms of a curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that is fully consistent with the predictions of relativity.

However there are many advantages as will be shown in future articles of The Imagineer’s Chronicles to defining the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time including deriving a common mechanism responsible for both wave and the quantum or particle properties of EM radiation and linking them to the realistic properties of the universe.

So please remember to revisit us to learn more about how a universe made up of only four *spatial* dimensions is more logical and consistent with observations that one made up of four-dimensional space-time.

Later Jeff

The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions

Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

(In a PDF format)

Write a comment