Mass as a Dimension?

[Lot]

I was talking to my uncle yesterday and he was telling me how mass was a dimension. I've never heard this before. I'm not really all that studied in physics so I was wonder what yall thought or if you could help me understand?

I was taught the classic length, width, height, time model. I think the problem may lie in my understanding of what mass is. I'm having trouble seeing how mass isn't captured in the classic model.

 

[negativemotivation]

If you were to track the mass and position of your entire life you would need five dimensions. the classic three, one for time, and one for mass. Most mathematical problems can be solved without mass, thus the original 4 are most applicable.

 

[Architect]

People get too hung up on the word dimension. It's just a word, think of it as 'a quantity which can be measured'. So is mass a dimension? Sure, it can be measured.

Normally physicists think of four dimensions - three plus one, three spatial and one time. All measurable quantities, and in euclidian space orthogonal ones too. When thinking about gravity it gets a little hairy, so we use tensors. No biggie, just allows us to measure the warp and woof of 'space time'.

If you want to create a 'mass-space-time', sure, go ahead. Just remember these are conveniences we use to describe the physical world, so the question "IS mass a dimension?" is nonsensical. It is if you want it to be.

 

[Amagi82]

Personally, I define "dimension" as "everything in the previous dimensions, in another direction, to infinity".

 

[BigApplePi]

People get too hung up on the word dimension. It's just a word, think of it as 'a quantity which can be measured'. So is mass a dimension? Sure, it can be measured.

Normally physicists think of four dimensions - three plus one, three spatial and one time. All measurable quantities, and in euclidian space orthogonal ones too. When thinking about gravity it gets a little hairy, so we use tensors. No biggie, just allows us to measure the warp and woof of 'space time'.

If you want to create a 'mass-space-time', sure, go ahead. Just remember these are conveniences we use to describe the physical world, so the question "IS mass a dimension?" is nonsensical. It is if you want it to be.

Agreed about dimension. What about the word, "variable"? Or two or more of them, each independent of the others? Mass troubles me because what are we talking about? I thought e=mc². If so, we don't have to distinguish mass from energy ... at least at the quantum level. I conjecture we are talking some central location defined by other stuff for which location there is radiation influence outward. Need a nuclear physicist here.

 

[Words]

Says 'here'(wiki) that mass is the objects' resistance to the scalar version of acceleration(which is speed/time). Not entirely sure what that means or how one would measure resistance, but it seems like it's dependent on the 3 spatial measures as well as that one temporal measure. perhaps it CaN be captured. would be easier if used velocity or acceleration dimension(s) though.

and, yes, most things that are seemingly unquantifiable can actually be quantified, hence most things can have their own "number lines" or "dimensions." the issue is just the practicality of having the measurement or the representation.

 

[Vrecknidj]

If I decide to think of things in terms of their color, their shininess and their taste, then those are the three dimensions of those things.

I agree with the other posts that suggest that "dimension" as a word is rather burdened with too much meaning.

 

[NSINTP]

To me mass is merely the density of the aetheric wave of a "particle," or the collection of particles. I realize that the "aether" in the realm of physics is now a defunct notion, however it explains alot of basic concepts in basic string theory. Let us not forget that Michelson and Morely tested only one concept of the aether model (aether as a static medium) and neglected the others such as aether vortex theory (kinetic model of the aetheric medium).

 

[Reluctantly]

I was taught the classic length, width, height, time model. I think the problem may lie in my understanding of what mass is. I'm having trouble seeing how mass isn't captured in the classic model.

It's because they all relate to each other. Separating them is for our convenience in whatever purpose we think can be extracted by doing so. In essence, we are creating them (dimensions) from what is otherwise undefined.

 

[Trebuchet]

Maybe there was confusion from the term "dimensional analysis" which means checking your units, so you aren't using kg*m/s as a unit of force, or that you don't have kg on one side of the equation and ounces on the other.

The basic physical "dimensions" referred to here are length, mass, charge, time, etc., so in that way it could be considered a dimension.

But that isn't like the dimensions of time and space, and there are other mathematical uses of the word. It means something different in chaos theory, for instance. So I would say your uncle is correct for a limited context, and there is just some ambiguity in the term.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

if you're integrating to take the weight of something, you need for each point: its 3 spatial co-ordinates and density at that point

 

[scorpiomover]

A dimension, is just another variable, that one can measure against, for a particular attribute.

 

[kora]

Personally, I define "dimension" as "everything in the previous dimensions, in another direction, to infinity".

that's gorgeous, I'm going to use that.

 

[Lot]

Thank you guys. I see where I wasn't getting it.

 

[physchem]

Maybe we can look at a dimension as a measure of description of a certain object or movement, for example if I wanted to know the properties of some object I could define its shape through the xyz coordinate system, and its position through time, I guess I could then equally describe it by the means of its mass.

 

[walfin]

Mayhap this will be of greater significance if the Higgs boson is proven to exist.

 

[hitode-kun]

Mayhap this will be of greater significance if the Higgs boson is proven to exist.

I thought that the Higgs boson only accounted for the mass of elementary particles and that the strong force was responsible for the mass of everything else or something.

 

[walfin]

Sounds like there might be a use for multidimensional mass then. Higgs mass and Nuclear mass.