Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fourth dimension=time?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#52 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:27 PM

So, what do you propose Laurie? It's all well and good to suggest a paradigm change, but without something to change into, it's a pretty hollow statement.

If we discard our ideas of time as a dimension, which is what Relativity Theory is based upon (or, maybe more properly, a consequence of), then how do we explain events? What metric would we use?

#53 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 30 May 2009 - 11:43 AM

No problems, I didn't introduce the metaphor and I certainly didn't use it for personal attacks or racial stereotyping. But I do reserve the right to respond in kind if others use metaphors in a bullying, demeaning and derogatory manner.

Before we were side tracked I was trying to explain that paradoxes aren't the best models for a real world representation of our universe.

Which paradox? The brick wall? You are the first I've heard it from, you can hardly say it is a model used by cosmologists.

More than a metophor, I would say I suggested an analogy to point out the plain fact that the Hubble horizon is not a brick wall at all, nothing material and neither having a definite location. Just like the rainbow when you try to reach it, do you see? This is quite obviously what the old folklore infers, in an amusing way. But instead of catching the simple analogy, you sidetracked the matter in a trollish manner in this post and you have no grounds on which to "reserve the right" for doing this. That post quotes the whole of what you were responding to, nothing bullying, demeaning nor derogatory.

So, it was your own humour that I briefly went along with, albeit to the aim of further explicating your fallacy, but my last response ended with:

Don't you think that's enough now, Laurie? :hihi:

...and this time I seriously repeat it: That's enough now.

As Modest has explained (and I hilighted earlier), if you wiki it, the size of the universe is not the purported distance to the theorised BB. In this case using time as the forth dimension will cause problems due to this absolute barrier.

That's why I stated that scientists need a new paradigm, because it's the BB theory that causes the barrier not the time dimension.

This does not make any sense. If you want to participate in the discussion, you need to reason logically and have an actual understanding of what you attempt to discuss (or criticize). It's so easy to google up a lot of stuff about it and hash some of it together with a few non sequitur arguments of your own.

#54 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 30 May 2009 - 04:52 PM

Hi Q, Freeztar,

I actually support the concept of time as the Fourth Dimension, not Space-Time.

What I have been trying to explain is that paradoxes such as 'Achilles and the Tortise' and what lies at the end of the rainbow are really fallacies that are a result of the structure of the question and the methodology used. The fallacy is in the structure of the question and the answer obtained is a paradox as a direct result of the wrong method (mimicing the question) being used to determine that answer.

That's why we need a better paradigm than space-time and a BB.

The calculations of the composition of the elements created in a BB or near BB as time goes on from the BB back to our observation point, as highlighted by our cosmological observations i.e. they happened in the past, are in the same form that gives us the paradoxes described above.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

#55 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 03:56 AM

I actually support the concept of time as the Fourth Dimension, not Space-Time.

Let me see if I interpret this the way you intended.

You say that time as the fourth dimension is acceptable. However, say that the space-time paradigm is not acceptable?

example: they happened in the past, are in the same form that gives us the paradoxes described above.(pot of gold, achilles/tortoise)

Do you understand what I'm saying?


I understand what you are saying. To elaborate, I find that you are stating the questions cosmology ask are based on incomplete logic, such that, the questions is missing a valuable piece of information, the answer follows that same pattern. The consequences of which, in those two particular cases are a paradox.

Therefore, if what I interpret is accurate to your suggestion, you claim cosmology is missing a valuable piece of information (whether it produces a paradoxical answer or not, at this point in my post is ignored, mainly because I don't know what paradox you suggest exists in cosmology as it is).

Now, I am going to respond based on my interpretations and assuming they are correct.

In the tortoise and achilles race, the important peice of information that was missing in the context of how story is told is the "t" factor. Because the tortoise and achilles (the characters expressing the logic) ignores the fact that time is being devided smaller and smaller, as each measurement is taken, they arrive at the odd conclusion that achilles can't pass the tortoise. If they were to take account the time factor, they would realize that, each consecutive distance they refer to is also covered by a shorter amount of time compared to the previous distance, and should realize their mistake when they have eventually hit pause on both of their actual motion, and should recognize that if each unit of time remained equal, then so would each unit of distance, given they continued at a constant velocity.

You suggest that the investigation into the cosmology is forgetting a valuable piece of information. Although I may have stated this above, I ask, what is that piece of information?

(back to me lecturing my thoughts)
It has been acknowledged that there is a unique logic in how observations can be made. They take into account that if we do not follow this specific (known) logic we will trek down the path of logic in those paradoxes you provided, and as a result, acquire results that do not apply to what actually occurs in experiments.

The logic that is acknowledged when making observations is that, the location of the observer is = to the center of their field of view.

If for example, I get up and walk outside in a clear night, everywhere I look, information is traveling towards me, and can be represented as a sphere of incoming information. Furthermore, a location of an object in this sphere, has a distance factor and also a time factor. That is, the object can be measured to be "x" distance from my point of observation as well as it takes a given amount of "t" for information(light etc) to travel that distance.

This implies that for every point of observation, there is a center, and a surrounding sphere that has both a space and time factor attributed to it.

With that said, and hopefully understood, we can now remove the sphere concept, knowing we have the impression of data coming at us from all directions, which can create the imagery of a sphere, when we encapsulate that incoming information by an equal distance in all directions.

What we have now in place of this sphere concept is a space and time concept. With this space-time concept, the logic that follows is that the only center that can exist is the one which we determine is the observer, making an observation of which to determine the logic of reality.

This implies that there is no true center to the universe, there is as follows, as many centers of the universe as there is points to express.

This logic further explains that regardless of where you position an observer in the universe; on the furthest imagined edge, or somewhere half way between earth and that edge, they will never be located anywhere other than the center of the universe, more accurately, the relative center of the universe. Furthermore, the distance that expands outwards from this particular observer, will always be considered as also, events of the universe with a specific "t" factor attributed to it. Said more simply, that what an observer observes, regardless of the position they are located, and regardless of the object being referred to (in observation) is always going to be acknowledged as an observation of a event in a previous time.

To continue what this logic also implies, is that the present moment, in all of the universe exists in all locations, and unfolds equally for all locations(that is considered to have an observer).

For example: If you were to plot a graph on the entire observed universe, and on this graph position 1,000,000 points of observation, every single one of those points of observation would be experiencing a present "time" of the universe, as in we imagine jumping to those points instantaneously, as to subject ourselves to their view, and thus finding that the present moment exists in each one of those points (we would not appear at some ancient point of time in the earlier stages of the universe). When we observe from any of these points, we will always observe the universe as we do now here on earth. That is, looking out and observing the past state of the universe, where the furthest observable point would be the beginning, and we seem to be located right at around the center, in the present moment.

One way to look at this is that, all observations declare that the future, in respect to what we are going to observe, is coming from distance "x" from us, inwardly from all directions. That is, our future is unknown in the sense, it has not reached us yet, and it will take time to reach us as it travels distance to get here. (this is strictly to the future of observation).


When we reflect on this, and apply the inquiry of the universe having an edge, as you brought forward, we can consider that, if we were to be located on that edge, we would find ourselves in the exact same circumstance (excluding variables like relativistic velocities).

And therefore, the universe can have no edge that is more special than any other observed edge, or no center that is more special than any other observed center.



Does this make sense to you? Are you familiar with these thoughts?

We can't put a boundary on the universe using this logic. If we tried, we would be saying that the boundary existed billions of years ago(the furthest things we can see). The boundary we imagine doesn't exist anymore, and what we think we see as a boundary is energy that contains information that is billions of years old, and yet, our future is formed by this information that is billions of years old. And this occurs the same way anywhere you imagine yourself to be.

#56 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:47 AM

I'll try to make it as simple as possible.

In reality Achilles and the Tortiose would both cross the finish line together and, if they continued racing at their relative speeds, Achilles would streak away.

If you regard this same situation in the paradox form Achilles would get to where the Tortiose was and the Tortiose would always be 1/10th away, ad infinitum until the finish line. Achilles would never be able to streak away and the finish line would become the brick wall created by the paradox form.

Two structures for the same problem, one real, one a paradox.

#57 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:29 AM

Surely you have some response to my response above?

I'll try to make it as simple as possible.

In reality Achilles and the Tortiose would both cross the finish line together and, if they continued racing at their relative speeds, Achilles would streak away.

If you regard this same situation in the paradox form Achilles would get to where the Tortiose was and the Tortiose would always be 1/10th away, ad infinitum until the finish line. Achilles would never be able to streak away and the finish line would become the brick wall created by the paradox form.

Two structures for the same problem, one real, one a paradox.


Right, it would, in the paradox form, lacking information. But if you apply this to the universe and cosmology, the are aware of this paradox form, and are careful to not fall into its trap (so to speak).

Where is the brick wall in what I have posted?

#58 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:48 AM

Do you understand what I'm saying?

In order to understand what you're on about, one would need to know what paradox in cosmology you are concerned with. Are you sure you aren't trying to dispel a paradox of your own fabrication?

#59 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 01:39 AM

Hi Q, Arkain101,

In order to understand what you're on about, one would need to know what paradox in cosmology you are concerned with.


It seems that we all agree that there are 2 forms, real and paradox.

Any universal model that works back from a BB or near BB 'point' is in the paradox form with the 'brick wall' being part and parcel of this form.

Are you sure you aren't trying to dispel a paradox of your own fabrication


Why thank you Q, but I didn't create or fabricate the BB or near BB models of the universe all I am doing is reasoning that these types of models follow the paradox form and therefore a model based on this 'Alternate theories' thread 'Fourth dimension=time?' would be closer to reality than anything based on a BB or near BB.

Atomic theory based on probablility makes the paradox form work in the micro scale because there are real limits that can be applied. We know the locations of the planets and can predict their passage without resorting to probablility or the paradox form in the medium scale, why change in the macro scale, why not just eliminate the spin and see things as they really are?

BTW, I have stated that I do not agree with the BB or near BB models of the universe and have given reasons why. Please state whether you agree or disagree with the BB or near BB models of the universe before we continue this discussion.

#60 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:13 AM

Hi Arkain101,

When we reflect on this, and apply the inquiry of the universe having an edge, as you brought forward, we can consider that, if we were to be located on that edge, we would find ourselves in the exact same circumstance (excluding variables like relativistic velocities).


If you look at universal boundaries and consider these boundaries as the point at which the proximity to the, universal total if you like, mass is as remote as the inverse of the densest part of the universe (i.e. it's exact opposite).

If the meta universe was comprised of relatively finite big and little bangs spread over a GBF area over an even greater time span (but not infinite, time hasn't finished yet) then any point on the edge of this 'universe' (and in this context there can be many 'universes' but all of them behave in the same way), if it had mass, would be expected to increase the actual boundary of that particular 'proximity to mass' universe.

If there was an object with mass beyond this boundary then an object with mass at the boundary could possibly expand the 'universal' boundary to include the new object or in return could be removed from the proximity of mass and become part of a different proximity to mass universe itself. Outside of this boundary, and between 'proximity to mass' universes, would be as close to as an absolute vacuum as possible, the ideal medium for light waves travelling at c.

If you have any difficulty with understanding this concept just consider this as the macro view of the star/galaxy formation process we have now. Heaps of galaxies/'proximity to mass universes' floating around growing and dying and merging and dancing with each other, over time.

A 'proximity to mass universes' model would allow our physical laws to reflect their respective maximum and minimum limits with the speed of light c providing a consistent time dimension when the proximity to mass is at its minimum limit. Time exists outside the 'proximity to mass universes' because c based time is a structural part of the meta universe (or more correctly the big void, a huge vacuum).

In this universe we have 3d space and time exists undistorted as the Fourth dimension, at the boundary, beyond the boundary and at the local 'universal' center of mass.

The Big Bang (BB) model has a fixed time and space horizon in one direction, the Big Void (BV proximity to mass) model doesn't have any time or space boundaries, or spin.

#61 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:08 AM

If you take a telescope and look towards the edge of the visible universe, you find pulsars, quasars and the like. These things exist in the early parts of the universe, and as such we see them at distances in excess of 10 billion light-years, i.e. ten billion light years ago.

The funny thing is, is if you were to instantly transport yourself towards the location of a quasar, you would find a quasar-free regular run-of-the-mill section of the universe, with regular galaxies and stellar systems, much like you would find here. And if you then look towards Earth, ten billion light years away, you would see quasars and such - which clearly don't exist.

From our perspective, the edge of the visible universe is roughly, say, fifteen billion light-years in all directions. This is very important. Because from the point of view of where a quasar is located, the visible edge is also fifteen billion light years, also in all directions.

The point is that time and space is intertwined, and every single point in the universe is the exact centre of the universe.

Now - seeing as nothing can travel faster than light, this also applies to information. "Space", the "Universe", everything that can be pinpointed in any sort of relationship to anything else, unfolds its qualities and dimensions as time flows forward from a central point, and that point is every conceivable point in the universe, simultaneously.

So, I suppose time can be better described as the process through which dimensions interact, than as a dimension itself. But it is primary, fundamental, and essential - without it, no dimensions can be perceived or described.

[/pointless digression...:QuestionM]

#62 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:15 AM

If you take a telescope and look towards the edge of the visible universe, you find pulsars, quasars and the like. These things exist in the early parts of the universe, and as such we see them at distances in excess of 10 billion light-years, i.e. ten billion light years ago.

The funny thing is, is if you were to instantly transport yourself towards the location of a quasar, you would find a quasar-free regular run-of-the-mill section of the universe, with regular galaxies and stellar systems, much like you would find here. And if you then look towards Earth, ten billion light years away, you would see quasars and such - which clearly don't exist.

From our perspective, the edge of the visible universe is roughly, say, fifteen billion light-years in all directions. This is very important. Because from the point of view of where a quasar is located, the visible edge is also fifteen billion light years, also in all directions.

The point is that time and space is intertwined, and every single point in the universe is the exact centre of the universe.

Now - seeing as nothing can travel faster than light, this also applies to information. "Space", the "Universe", everything that can be pinpointed in any sort of relationship to anything else, unfolds its qualities and dimensions as time flows forward from a central point, and that point is every conceivable point in the universe, simultaneously.

So, I suppose time can be better described as the process through which dimensions interact, than as a dimension itself. But it is primary, fundamental, and essential - without it, no dimensions can be perceived or described.

[/pointless digression...:hihi:]


This is precisely what I posted earlier. It is good to see that I am on track when free styling an explanation of space-time! ;)

(You always seem to know your stuff Boerseun. Do you study physics at a school?)

#63 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 04:42 PM

Hi Boerseun, all,

While what you say may be true from a philosophical perspective, from a scientific perspective it is consistent with saying that the universe is so large that, if we could measure it (which we can't), there would be so much more empty space than matter that the average density of the universe would be zero (at least compared to our current attempts to get an absolute vacuum and experimental error).

This doesn't win any prizes in anything that can be measured and all it does is introduce the new paradox that everything is at the center of the universe but everything is also zero density.

Lets separate science and philosophy to get something that will work in the real world, as I have been attempting, not something that is in itself, just another paradox.

#64 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:43 PM

This doesn't win any prizes in anything that can be measured and all it does is introduce the new paradox that everything is at the center of the universe but everything is also zero density.

Lets separate science and philosophy to get something that will work in the real world, as I have been attempting, not something that is in itself, just another paradox.


I don't follow this point very clearly: "everything is at the center of the universe but everything is also zero density"


Maybe you would like to start a topic of you own where your thoughts would likely be met with better understanding.

#65 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:19 AM

Hi Laurie, and thanks for the reply.

I don't think you completely understood what I was trying to say.

I wasn't philosophizing about the universe when I said that each and every point is the exact centre of the universe, I was merely trying to convey the image of the universe being a hypersphere, somehow.

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings, but also from your point of view saying that after measuring the universe the density would come out as being zero, this is clearly not the case. "Very close to zero" is very different than "zero". And with the expansion of the universe taking place as we speak, we may be asymptotically approaching zero - but as long as there's a single atom in the universe, the density won't be "zero". I don't think I'm completely following your argument here.

#66 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:35 AM

Hi Boerseun, Arkain101,

This is probably the best description for how paradoxes arise (i.e. mixing the finite and the infinite, the temporal with the eternal), especially those that are a mix of physical and philosophical.

Category mistake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tem⋅po⋅ral1  –adjective
1. of or pertaining to time.
2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.
3. enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal ).

there would be so much more empty space than matter that the average density of the universe would be zero (at least compared to our current attempts to get an absolute vacuum and experimental error)



#67 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1566 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:04 AM

Hi Boerseun,

I read this today, it is pertinent to the general discussion on this thread. Thanks for your interest.

The category mistake was referred to in a book review by Kevin Hart of 'Reason, Faith and Revolution' by Terry Eagleton (Yale University Press), as printed in 'The Australian Literary Review', June 3, 2009.

Eagleton certainly has no difficulty in pitching his lectures to a broad audience and he has chosen a topic of sharp contemporary interest. He takes as his subject the agressive atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, while also attacking the lazy spirituality and anti-intellectualismof so many christians. Many on both sides, he rightly says, rely on superstition. There are Christians, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals, who hold ideas of god and creation that are incredible; and there are Dawkins and Hitchens -- whoom Eagleton amusingly conflates into one fanatical atheist, Ditchkins -- who spend rather a lot of time attacking superstitions (easy targets) or clasping the wrong end of the stick with impressive firmness.
...
So Eagleton convicts Dawkins and Hitchins of making what philosophers call a 'category mistake'. In a cricket match there are people who bat, bowl and field; there is no one whose task is to supply team spirit and to look for someone who does would be to misunderstand the game. In the same way, to place god in the frame of experimental science and analyse the Apostle's Creed in terms of hypothesis and hard evidence is a misunderstanding of what christianity is. Science is wonderful at examining nature, it is of no help in discussing doctrine.


We shouldn't put infinity in the same frame of experimental science for similar reasons.

Time goes on both ways forever,
despite all mortal human endeavour,
infinity will be reached, never ever.

#68 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:10 AM

Now you've lost me altogether.

The universe being a hypersphere, is not philosophy. Every single point in the universe being able to lay perfect claim to being the exact centre of an expanding Cosmos (being a hypersphere and all) is perfectly valid scientifically and mathematically, especially where we discuss the nature of dimensions, and how time might interact with it.

It's perfectly applicable to this thread.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm getting at, though.