One of the problems I have with explanations of the fourth dimensional concepts is that they use Euclidean geometry. Like in explaining 4D, there is often the proposal of imagining a two dimensional being trying to conceive of a third dimension and the 2D being lives on a plane that exists in a 3D universe (like that movie Flatland). My understanding of the universe is that it exists in a non-Euclidean space, and it seems it would be better to think of the Flatland as existing on the surface of a sphere, rather than a plane. And to think of time as being the radius or distance from the center of that sphere. This would make it easier to explain why there was no before the big bang since that was the beginning of time, just as there is nothing closer to the center of a sphere than a point with a radius of zero. This is why there isnt really a center of the universe or a place you can point to that was the origin of the big bang. Just as every point on the surface of a sphere (that grows over time) was once the center or origin This is also why, as with travelling in one direction on a planet you end up back where you started, the same is true of the universe. The only difference being that the universe is more like a 4-dimensional sphere rather than a 3-dimensional one. (Also, it doesnt have to be a sphere, it could be a torus or any manifold shape) It also means that the directions in 3D space break down, just as north/south/east/west break down (like there is no north of the north pole). But thats another story.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 02:38:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015