The metaphor that is always used is if we think of a balloon being blown up. The entire fabric of the balloon is always stretching out. In other words, its very dimensional scale is growing.
Thats my belief.
To say that a resident of the two-dimensional surface that is the balloon can possibly devise an experiment to test whether its dimensions are growing seems to be the height of philosophical absurdity.
Obviously, you'd translate the surface of a balloon to a 3D surface. And the whole thing, including the interior is something else.
In our universe, this is the same as saying that we can detect the expansion of a meter stick. In other words, for us, a meter stick will always be a meter stick. If our very standards of measure are changing scale, then it stands to reason that there cannot be such a thing as an "objective measurement" of dimensionality itself.
:a-thought:Maybe dimension is nonexistent in actuality. It is interesting to note that if we perceived the expansion of a meter stick it is still 3D, and yet we are 3D. And so it must be for the universe that if it is expanding there must be an outside to it, otherwise it cannot relatively expand. (Though the expansion of the universe is just of Olber's Bubble, not of the whole of the cosmos)
So dimension is like the force of enclosure. Even though objects do not enclose or are outside of an object, that's a poorer way of looking at it; objects are only either a part of another object, or not a part of it. There is nothing to really say that something can enclose something else, because that would constitute a change in dimension. That's what change in dimension must do. It allows for systems to enclose systems, but without compromising all of the effect they have on each other.
I think dimension is a lot like position, velocity, and acceleration graphs.
If we are to perceive a 3D object, then in a 2D perception, we see an ever changing face. If there is a sphere, then there is motion and therefore we get the end of the sphere appearing as the point, turning into a larger and larger circle, until it shrinks back down again. In a 1D perception and observing a 2D object, there would just be an ever changing line. If a circle, then the line expands and shrinks and oscillates that function. In a 3D perception, observing a 4D object will exhibit motion too. A 4D sphere might appear as a sphere expanding and contracting over and over again. Hypercube as an example.
So it is like the position velocity and acceleration graphs in proportion to time, because if I and fixed in a position-time state lets say, then the area of the position state equals velocity. (And lets say position is 1D and velocity is 2D and acceleration is 3D; area is the appeared motion, and slope is the fixed state.) So velocity doesn't appear as constant unless it is a square area, right?, or exhibiting uniform motion which is like 0D
. And if I am fixed to a velocity-time state then the area equals the acceleration, and the slope equals the fixed position at the tangent.
So the universe is only perceived to be expanding, when we have delved into a realm transcending the mind, constituting the need to expand it to a 4D realm in which the universe is perceived instantaneously at the same time that we are just a part of it (NOT INSIDE OF IT). It is an illusion that we are inside of the universe, that it encloses us, if it truly does expand. (If it were endless, then yes it does enclose us, but perhaps scientists are right):rolleyes:
So no, we cannot measure spatial expansion. Besides, dimensionality is all in the mind anyways as a means to organize the environment, I believe, though I have absolutely no proofs to back any of this stuff up with.