Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fourth dimension=time?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#103 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:15 AM

The principle of locality I guess.

Or a preferential reference frame. :hihi: :)

#104 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:57 AM

I'm not convinced that we can see the past. The sun's photons which we see originated 8 minutes ago from our perspective, but when we see the photon it exists here and now for us. When a photon hits my pupil I'd prefer to think of it as here and now. The principle of locality I guess.

~modest


but when we see the photon it exists here and now for us..



Right, quite basic, another way of saying that is; everything that 'exists' via what you experience is the here and now. What I experience is here and now / here and now is the experience.


I'm not convinced that we can see the past.


I'm not sure what you mean in depth here. We study it all the time, using teliscopes. Sure, its not the past for an observer, its a future event, on its way to become a here/now action. That is, when we actually consider that the observers frame counts... but we know that it doesnt have to count/matter unless we desire to make a specific rational measurement.

But when the observer doesnt matter, and when it comes to the nature of reality without that observer, its what... quite irrational...

That is what leads me to my two conceptions of time.


In the irrational time, there is no line for time to be placed on, there is 3 dimensions of space for time to transcend through.

That is, time has just as many dimensions of space in this respect. That is "I am not an important observer"

But when it comes to the "I am an important observer", time can be processed as comparisons of rational states, we can "feel" like it moves forward, or backwards, or up or down... but it is only 'rational' to choose one direction for future, and one direction for past, and our ability to project in those directions, predictions has an accuracy based on the range we apply that prediction.


In this sense, space-time would be 6 dimensional in respect to the irrational, and 4dimensional in respect to the rational.

The missing two dimensions act as the rational logical item to identify. Ie, mass in 1 spacial direction, and the time aspect of that mass also of 1 dimension, intwined.

#105 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:04 AM

Or a preferential reference frame. :eek: :)


Uh-oh :hihi:

I'm not sure what you mean in depth here. We study it all the time, using teliscopes. Sure, its not the past for an observer, its a future event, on its way to become a here/now action.


I'm just saying that two things need to touch to interact (QM aside). That being the case then the only thing you can "see" or experience is that which is physically touching you. Since it is touching you then it is in your present.

This is all semantics though. When you see a photon are you seeing the thing hit your eye or seeing the atom from which it came? If one were to say that you're seeing the photon interact with your eye then I'd argue that we can't see (or experience / sense / interact with) the past. We can only see our present. We can only experience that which touches us in our now.

Probably just semantics, and probably a bit off topic.

~modest