Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Time as a First and Fundamental Dimension...


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#18 Vox

Vox

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 08:43 PM

Simmer down, guys. Ordinal labeling of the 'dims' is just an arbitrary tradition-thingie. First, third, zeroth, fourth, it's just a bunch of labels. Time and space come as a 'package' -- you cannot get one without the other. I think that's the point Boerseun was making. And if he wasn't, then he should.


Are you sure?

Primordial Weirdness: Did the Early Universe Have One Dimension? Scientists Outline Test for Theory


That's the mind-boggling concept at the heart of a theory that University at Buffalo physicist Dejan Stojkovic and colleagues proposed in 2010.
They suggested that the early universe -- which exploded from a single point and was very, very small at first -- was one-dimensional (like a straight line) before expanding to include two dimensions (like a plane) and then three (like the world in which we live today).


Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos -- about how our universe came to be.
The core idea is that the dimensionality of space depends on the size of the space we're observing, with smaller spaces associated with fewer dimensions. That means that a fourth dimension will open up -- if it hasn't already -- as the universe continues to expand.


http://www.scienceda...10420152059.htm

#19 Ken Hughes

Ken Hughes

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 11:02 AM

If I may add my three pennyworth?

If we think about space first, and only space, then we always think of the three dimensions of space. This is not a fundamental thought process. Sure, space is three dimensional because we choose to break it down that way for our own convenience, but what we have in reality is just "VOID". The very notion of void, involves directionality or dimensions and we do not have to envision three dimensions to define the void until we have to define events within it.

Clearly, the void cannot "exist" without the passage of time and space has no meaning without time. Similarily, time has no meaning without the void. So, all we can conclude is that both space and time are the prerequisits for existance. They are both required for a space-time continuum. Neither one nor the other are in any way more important. Within space-time, both space and time are the pre requisits for the existance of everything.

Having said that, they are cleary very different. I hesitate to use the term "entities" as I am not sure the void is an entity, or even that time is an entity in the normal context. Although time is more of an entity than the void which is essentially nothingness.

- Space (and therefore physical dimensions) is SYMETRICAL, in that you can move through it to plus infinity, or in the opposite direction, to minus infinity. Time on the other hand, is ASSYMETRICAL, since you can only move towards the future and never into the past (At least as far as the current laws of physics provide).

- Space is PASSIVE in that it does nothing to anyone or anything, it simply allows entities to exist so long as time passes. Time, on the other hand is ACTIVE and we are forced into the future at a rate appropriate to our particular frame of referenece.

- The limits of the void are between plus infinity and minus infinity. Time has its limits between zero (on a black hole or at the speed of light), and the "Universal Time Rate" which is a hypothetical number applying at infinite distance from any gravitational source.

- The existance of any entity does not require movement through any physical dimension(s), but it does require movement through the time dimension. Conversely, existance requires time to "flow".

- When we look into any physical dimension we can see, theoretically to infinity, limited only by the speed of light and the sensitivity of our instruments. We cannot however, look into the time dimension, either forward or backwards and we are "flatlanders" in time.

The above clearly shows that time and space, although "as one" within space-time, are completely different by their nature.

I prefer to think of time as being "The entity that allows events within the nothing of the void".

(Virtual extract form my book "TIME DILATION The Reality")

#20 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 12:55 PM

The very fact that an event or events occur is the definition of time. The orderly occurrence of events is what we use to measure all events. To say that time is a dimension seems to me to be a Non sequitur. Time is a function of space not an entity of it's own.

#21 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 01:41 PM

The very fact that events can be arranged in order of occurrence means that time is a dimension. It seems like some of you are trying to imbue qualities to the meaning of dimension that do not exist. If we want to precisely refer to the location of an event in space-time, we must use four coordinates, three spatial and one time. Thus, there are four dimensions. If we want to talk about other things, say for instance we are calling in an artillery strike, we could use three dimensions: azimuth, elevation, range. If we wanted to track the motion of an object in space, we'd need six dimensions - x,y,z spatial dimensions, and yaw, pitch, and roll. If we wanted to plot a point on Earth, we'd need three dimensions: latitude, longitude, and elevation. A dimension is nothing more exotic than a number line representing a measurement. It is meaningless to suggest that time has "priority" over x,y,z spatial dimensions, and therefore should be "the first dimension". It is inaccurate to say that time is not a dimension. The idea that multiple spatial dimensions unfold from one dimension does not provide justification for which spatial dimension to label "1" as the whole thing is arbitrary.

Thus, for convenience sake, we refer to the "four dimensions of space-time", or if we want to specify, we could say 3+1 (spatial, plus time) to distinguish between observed space-time and concepts involving more than 3 spatial dimensions. I could also say I exist in seven dimensions - (x,y,z,pitch,roll,yaw,and time) If my skin could change color, then I could add in another three dimensions for red,green, and blue, giving me ten dimensions. I could choose to label the colors as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dimensions, or I could choose x,y,z. It doesn't matter. It helps that everyone use the same convention, so that communicating is easier, but ultimately, the labeling is arbitrary.

#22 Ken Hughes

Ken Hughes

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 04:47 PM

..............for convenience sake, we refer to the "four dimensions of space-time", or if we want to specify, we could say 3+1 (spatial, plus time) to distinguish between observed space-time and concepts involving more than 3 spatial dimensions. I could also say I exist in seven dimensions - (x,y,z,pitch,roll,yaw,and time) If my skin could change color, then I could add in another three dimensions for red,green, and blue, giving me ten dimensions. I could choose to label the colors as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dimensions, or I could choose x,y,z. It doesn't matter. It helps that everyone use the same convention, so that communicating is easier, but ultimately, the labeling is arbitrary.



Of course you are correct in the traditional sense of relativity theory, but science today does not seem to recognise that x,y,z are very different from t. Relativity treats all four "dimensions" the same, but I suggest this is innapropriate since they are so different by their nature. Special relativity makes this error with the proposition that clocks viewed between moving frames are always seen as slow to both observers. This is rarely the case since we can take the situation of two rockets, both having been launched from Earth. One stays in Earth orbit while the other speeds off to a great distance, does a u-turn and then takes a run-up towards the orbiting one and passes it at great speed. It is a known and proven fact that the fast rocket has a slower clock due to its much greater speed. This effect was proven in 1971 and subsequently on numerous occasions.
It should be noted that time dilation due to relative motion is not only dependant upon the relative speed involved but also on the initial conditions of each observer, ie. they both started off in the same frame' with the same time rate and the fast one therefore has a slower clock than the orbiting one.
We cannot simply decide that observations of clocks between the moving frames are reciprocal, simply because the physical geometry is symetrical. This naive view overlooks the fact that time is NOT symmetrical, it is uni-directional and so is different than x,y,z in this respect. I therefore predict an observation of red shift from the orbiting ship, but an observation of a blue shifted, faster clock from the fast ship and this is contrary to special relativity.
I base this approach on the fact that the only "entity" in space-time is time itself and the passage of time is the only reality. When we observe gravitational red or blue shift, we directly observe the reality of the different time rates. There is no reason to suppose that we will observe anything different than this just because our time dilation has been produced by motion instead of by the presence of mass. The time rate is still the only reality and we will always observe the temporal reality from whichever frame we look out from.
Remember, this observation has never been tested and when it is, I believe I shall be proven correct, despite my being at variance with accepted science.

#23 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 20 May 2011 - 04:48 PM

Two rockets and no other visible objects near enough for either observer in the rockets to see. The distance between them is increasing at a high rate of speed. When either observer looks at the other observer's clock it will appear to be running slower than his. This condition will always hold true. Neither observer can tell which rocket is moving. On the matter of time. A gravity well basically extends to infinity and a clock runs slower the deeper it is in that well, so we could say that time like a gravity well gets smaller as you go farther away from the central mass, a sort of bubble that gets thinner the bigger it gets. Using that analogy the Universe is full of these time/gravity bubbles, a kind of spaces within spaces. It seems possible that there might be a bigger bubble that our Universe is contained inside and that some event inside that bubble created our Universe.

#24 scalaechelon

scalaechelon

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 03:39 AM

THEORY OF UNIQUENESS

1. IN ALL POINTS OF EXISTENCE, NO TWO EVENTS ARE IDENTICAL.

2. ALL MATTER CONTAINED AT ALL POINTS OF EXISTENCE ARE EQUAL.

3. MATTER AND ENERGY ARE FREELY INTER CHANGABLE AT ALL POINTS OF EXISTENCE . THERE IS NO LOSS DURING THE PROCESS

4. TIME IS A SUBSET OF EXISTENCE. IT IS DEFINED AS THE REPRESENTATION OF AN EVENT IN A POINT IN EXISTENCE. IT IS FLUID IN NATURE ; LINEAR BUT HAS NO NEGATIVE DIRECTION.

#25 scalaechelon

scalaechelon

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 03:49 AM

i think time shoud be viewed as a subset of a much greater entity which is existence. unlike time which seems to have a direction , existence is non
directional. think of it when a person is on a vessel travelling on the speed of light. though it is proven that time slows down his existence remains
constant.

#26 36grit

36grit

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 06:10 PM

Light exists outside of time. It's my understanding that massless particles do not need space or time to exist. The "0" intersection of the x,y, and z axis is only "0" on average within a continually expanding plane. The constant fluctuations continually redefine the "0" intersection, within it's relative plane. This is the geometric position of time in that field. The universe is a complex field made up of the four known forces. The atom is the complex particle of this field.
A wave is particleized due the velocity of varying expansion rates between the ininte fields that hold the speed of light as constant. The double slit experiment is a good example of what I'm talking about and evidence of the same. For this same reason light appears to bend around large gravitaional enetities. It is an illusion like putting a straight stick in a clear stream. It's elementry B)
The difference between a positron, electron, gravitron, and the atom is merely it's velocity association whithin the hierachy of expansion planes. The lower a particle is within the spectrum of infinite planes the more complex it's structure.

#27 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 11:17 PM

As I already stated, this is Brilliant!

Why has no one proposed this before? :)


I am pretty sure I did propose this a couple years ago in another thread, evidently oh great cow great minds think alike :D

#28 Southtown

Southtown

    differentiating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1922 posts

Posted 02 August 2011 - 01:49 AM

As stated in post #3... which means we're still back at square one! :hyper:

Square one seems to only get more complicated. :blink: Is it reality growing, or our perception of it?

#29 granpa

granpa

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:52 AM

in a universe consisting entirely of point like particles that interact solely through entanglement the very idea of space would be meaningless.

#30 winstonchang777

winstonchang777

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:22 PM

Thought does not take up dimension ( not necessarily human thought whcih takes up neurons)and to think
a thought takes time...One Mississipi....two Mississipi...takes time if thought in a pure vaccum.
Or maybe thought is the first dimension, before time.

#31 rodin

rodin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:28 AM

Thought does not take up dimension ( not necessarily human thought whcih takes up neurons)and to think
a thought takes time...One Mississipi....two Mississipi...takes time if thought in a pure vaccum.
Or maybe thought is the first dimension, before time.


The only physical 'dimension' set that can exist is 3D + time. All other possible combinations <4 are merely abstract ideas. 2D can be represented as a square, but in order to make that representation a monolayer of 'something' is required.

Modern Physics has degraded into mind-games

#32 Senseiern

Senseiern

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 December 2016 - 03:17 PM

before responding, I warn and beg your indulgence that I am considering this from the position of theology/science, as I consider the two to be inseparable. I believe theology can be reasoned and that the answer, "You just gotta believe" is a loser's copout, whether he is discussing theology or science.

There's been a few threads discussing the nature of Time and Space, and having thought about the matter, something occurred to me:

We all know the old analogies of explaining n-space, where you start off with a single dimension in which only a line can exist, and then one dimension up, in which 2D objects like squares and triangles can exist, and then up one dimension to the 3D universe around us, which we can perceive as objects with height, width and depth. And then we normally add in Time as the fourth dimension, so that our calculations work out, ala Minkowski.

But then it struck me that even in a one-dimensional universe, time would be required for two lines to interact. However you want to experience an n-dimensional world, time is required. Information about anything and everything cannot breach the speed of light, in other words, it takes time. So a one-dimensional universe cannot be perceived by a one-dimensional observer in the absence of time.

So, following from that, it seems that if we consider Minkowski's space-time, a "four-dimensional universe", with the regular x,y and z axes, with time combined, then it should make sense to consider time as the very first dimension, and not the fourth. The common view on the subject is that time is added as the fourth dimension, kinda like an afterthough.

But if Time is indeed the first dimension, being fundamental, it seems as if Time has to exist before any of the other dimensions can unfold. And that the other dimensions (or their existence) is impossible in the absence of Time...

I suppose a lot of interesting conclusions can be drawn from this. For instance, if Time is indeed fundamental, it would imply that Time alone can merrily exist in the absence of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th dimensions - but that none of those dimensions are possible in the absence of time...

Thoughts?

I have thought about this for several years, but thought I was the only one, so I stayed quiet about it until I could convert my thoughts to text. Then, I googled it and found your post.

 

As I understand dimensions, each one represents a subset of the previous dimension.

 

That is, in a 'y' linear dimension, one point on the line encompasses all of the 'x' coordinates of the same linear...that is, 'y'=1, (whatever a value at 'y'=1 represents) covers all 'x' coordinates from -infinity to infinity. All coordinates at x=1, y=1, would represent all 'z' coordinates, whatever dimension 'z' represents.

 

Now, Dimension 0 would represent everything in all subset dimensions. I would see this as the primary dimension that God exists. That is, being Omni-present, no physical dimensions can encompass Him. Except, for a time, He took the form of man (Jesus), compelling Himself to be subject to the physical and time dimensions. His eternal presence means, in dimension 0, He is unaffected by time., which means, time is a subset.

 

The demonstration of time being the first dimension is that there would need to be a creation that is all encompassing. Being created, it has a point in time that it was not, and a point at which it existed. In Christian theology, that creation is the plan of Salvation, which was created before the universe was created.

 

So we have something that encompasses all dimensions except time, so it proves that time is the first dimension.

 

Again, I apologize if my words were an offense to anyone. I tried to put it as inoffensively as possible. My failure is that it is difficult to put some of my thoughts into acceptable words.



#33 Senseiern

Senseiern

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 December 2016 - 03:39 PM

Two rockets and no other visible objects near enough for either observer in the rockets to see. The distance between them is increasing at a high rate of speed. When either observer looks at the other observer's clock it will appear to be running slower than his. This condition will always hold true. Neither observer can tell which rocket is moving. On the matter of time. A gravity well basically extends to infinity and a clock runs slower the deeper it is in that well, so we could say that time like a gravity well gets smaller as you go farther away from the central mass, a sort of bubble that gets thinner the bigger it gets. Using that analogy the Universe is full of these time/gravity bubbles, a kind of spaces within spaces. It seems possible that there might be a bigger bubble that our Universe is contained inside and that some event inside that bubble created our Universe.

Time is external to the observer in the rocket. the truest measure of the rockets is from an external position. From that external position, time is not observed by the image of a clock on the other rocket. It is his own clock marking a start time and stop time.

 

For example, two rockets blast exactly opposite directions at the speed of light, and each rocket has a rear observation device. Because they are travelling at the speed of light, the last image of light they see travels with them, making it appear that time has stopped for as long as they travel at the speed of light.

 

Their onboard clock shows that they have travelled for one year, but they rear-facing observation shows the other rocket following behind them at an equal rate, but that time has stopped on the other rocket...until they cease travelling at the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let's say they immediately stop. It will appear that the other rocket has travelled two light years in the opposite direction, starting from the moment they stopped moving forward.

 

However, an external observer sees both ships moving at the speed of light for one year, and stopping at the very same time...you need to think past observable light images and think in the truth. In truth, both have travelled one light year in one year of time. No one has gone ahead of time. Neither has gone at an alternate rate of time. Time has remained constant.



#34 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:20 AM

There's been a few threads discussing the nature of Time and Space, and having thought about the matter, something occurred to me:We all know the old analogies of explaining n-space, where you start off with a single dimension in which only a line can exist, and then one dimension up, in which 2D objects like squares and triangles can exist, and then up one dimension to the 3D universe around us, which we can perceive as objects with height, width and depth. And then we normally add in Time as the fourth dimension, so that our calculations work out, ala Minkowski.But then it struck me that even in a one-dimensional universe, time would be required for two lines to interact. However you want to experience an n-dimensional world, time is required. Information about anything and everything cannot breach the speed of light, in other words, it takes time. So a one-dimensional universe cannot be perceived by a one-dimensional observer in the absence of time.So, following from that, it seems that if we consider Minkowski's space-time, a "four-dimensional universe", with the regular x,y and z axes, with time combined, then it should make sense to consider time as the very first dimension, and not the fourth. The common view on the subject is that time is added as the fourth dimension, kinda like an afterthough. But if Time is indeed the first dimension, being fundamental, it seems as if Time has to exist before any of the other dimensions can unfold. And that the other dimensions (or their existence) is impossible in the absence of Time...I suppose a lot of interesting conclusions can be drawn from this. For instance, if Time is indeed fundamental, it would imply that Time alone can merrily exist in the absence of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th dimensions - but that none of those dimensions are possible in the absence of time...Thoughts?


The thing is , does time have physical properties in and of its self ?

Inotherwords ;

If anybody changes the value of time in a physics equation , can that change , be changed by time alone ?