Skip to main content
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

What Tyson is describing is known as an embedding. This is a well defined mathematical procedure, though in general it's far more complicated than Tyson suggests. Indeed it isn't always possible to embed a Lorentzian manifold (i.e. spacetime) into a higher dimensional manifold,and when it is you may need a startlingly large number of additional dimensions to do it.

If you're interested this is discussed in Can a non-Euclidean space be descripted through an Euclidean space of higher dimension? So why use non-Euclidean?Can a non-Euclidean space be descripted through an Euclidean space of higher dimension? So why use non-Euclidean? and Can general relativity be explained by equations describing a fabric of space embedded in a flat 5-dimensional Minkowski space?Can general relativity be explained by equations describing a fabric of space embedded in a flat 5-dimensional Minkowski space?.

Anyhow Tyson is being somewhat vague in his statements, which is perhaps excusable in a popular science TV programme. It doesn't mean that time becomes something you can literally see. The higher dimensional manifold would need at least one timelike dimension to embed spacetime within it i.e. you cannot embed a pseudo-Riemannian manifold in a Riemannian manifold.

What Tyson is describing is known as an embedding. This is a well defined mathematical procedure, though in general it's far more complicated than Tyson suggests. Indeed it isn't always possible to embed a Lorentzian manifold (i.e. spacetime) into a higher dimensional manifold,and when it is you may need a startlingly large number of additional dimensions to do it.

If you're interested this is discussed in Can a non-Euclidean space be descripted through an Euclidean space of higher dimension? So why use non-Euclidean? and Can general relativity be explained by equations describing a fabric of space embedded in a flat 5-dimensional Minkowski space?.

Anyhow Tyson is being somewhat vague in his statements, which is perhaps excusable in a popular science TV programme. It doesn't mean that time becomes something you can literally see. The higher dimensional manifold would need at least one timelike dimension to embed spacetime within it i.e. you cannot embed a pseudo-Riemannian manifold in a Riemannian manifold.

What Tyson is describing is known as an embedding. This is a well defined mathematical procedure, though in general it's far more complicated than Tyson suggests. Indeed it isn't always possible to embed a Lorentzian manifold (i.e. spacetime) into a higher dimensional manifold,and when it is you may need a startlingly large number of additional dimensions to do it.

If you're interested this is discussed in Can a non-Euclidean space be descripted through an Euclidean space of higher dimension? So why use non-Euclidean? and Can general relativity be explained by equations describing a fabric of space embedded in a flat 5-dimensional Minkowski space?.

Anyhow Tyson is being somewhat vague in his statements, which is perhaps excusable in a popular science TV programme. It doesn't mean that time becomes something you can literally see. The higher dimensional manifold would need at least one timelike dimension to embed spacetime within it i.e. you cannot embed a pseudo-Riemannian manifold in a Riemannian manifold.

Source Link
John Rennie
  • 362.7k
  • 132
  • 780
  • 1.1k

What Tyson is describing is known as an embedding. This is a well defined mathematical procedure, though in general it's far more complicated than Tyson suggests. Indeed it isn't always possible to embed a Lorentzian manifold (i.e. spacetime) into a higher dimensional manifold,and when it is you may need a startlingly large number of additional dimensions to do it.

If you're interested this is discussed in Can a non-Euclidean space be descripted through an Euclidean space of higher dimension? So why use non-Euclidean? and Can general relativity be explained by equations describing a fabric of space embedded in a flat 5-dimensional Minkowski space?.

Anyhow Tyson is being somewhat vague in his statements, which is perhaps excusable in a popular science TV programme. It doesn't mean that time becomes something you can literally see. The higher dimensional manifold would need at least one timelike dimension to embed spacetime within it i.e. you cannot embed a pseudo-Riemannian manifold in a Riemannian manifold.