What does 3-dimensional space deform into, in the presence of gravity?

In summary, the conversation discusses the visualization of space and how it can be represented in different dimensions. It also mentions the idea of space deforming into higher dimensions, but the validity of this concept is questioned. The conversation also brings up the use and reliability of pop science sources, particularly in regards to the work of Brian Greene.
  • #1
jaketodd
Gold Member
508
21
I have no expertise in this area, other than rudimentary concepts. The following might apply if the visualization of space, as depicted below, represents actual reality, but I don't know for sure. Please help me understand better, you guys!

2-dimensional space
The curvatures deform into the 3rd dimension, as can be seen in the picture below.

So in 3-dimensional space, what does space deform into? 4th!?
We can't even visualize it! Unless it doesn't deform into the 4th, but instead just stretches space, without a deformation into a 4th. See another picture below.

This is mentioned by Brian Greene, notable for his documentary The Elegant Universe. He's mostly about string theory but poses this question as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space

1687711776058.png


1687711851246.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
jaketodd said:
2-dimensional space
The curvatures deform into the 3rd dimension
No, they don't. The third dimension in the picture has no relationship to any dimension in reality. A curved space doesn't deform "into" anything. The curvature is intrinsic.

jaketodd said:
So in 3-dimensional space, what does space deform into?
Nothing. See above.

jaketodd said:
This is mentioned by Brian Greene, notable for his documentary The Elegant Universe.
This is a pop science source and is not a valid reference. In fact, Greene's pop science books and videos are particularly bad because of the number of misunderstandings they create among unsuspecting lay people. We have had many past PF threads on this.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #3
@jaketodd, you apparently have failed to take my advice to learn from textbooks and peer-reviewed papers instead of pop science sources. You really, really, really, really need to take it.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore and malawi_glenn
  • #4
The OP is based on a misconception obtained from an invalid pop science reference. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
828
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top