Time as a dimension

[Lord Hugh]

I'm assuming that this is still the view science take? Was thinking a lot about it last night, and have a question for the scientists on how this is interpretted: is space a "subset" of time, ie does time contain all of space? Or is time simply another dimension of space (I hear the phrase space-time bandied about but don't know exactly what's meant by it) like length or depth? Or is there another explanation again?

I made some "conclusions" if it's one of the two above, I'll write them down when I'm less busy (was about to say when I have more time ) though this may need to be moved to philosophy then ( )

 

[dra1002000]

time is not a subset of space and it is not a dimension of space ... rather, it is another dimension altogether.

i.e. there are four dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 temporal.

Most scientists take a linear view of time ... that is to say that they percieve time in a similar way to space (except that you can't move in it!).

You can bet that they're wrong on this ... but it works pretty well for now ...

 

[jcsd]

The concept of spacetime is not really a comment on the nature of space or time (though if your of a philophical bent you could draw conclusions from the effectiveness of spacetime or when you find in certain situtaions that a spatial dimension may become timelike or the temporal dimension may become spacelike) it's a very powerful tool.

A dimension is really any physical prop[erty of a system, forexample mass is a dimension, what spacetime does is construct a 4-dimensional continuum out of the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, but even within spacetime you can still make the distinction between the two.

Here's my brief introduction to spacetime so you can see what I mean:

If you want to find the distance (denoted as ds) between two points on a (two dimensional) graph (for ease take one of the points as the origin) you can use phytagoras's theorum:

or

If you use phytagoras's theorum to find the distance (i.e. the lenght of the line between the two points) between two points in three dimensions you find that:

or

The above equation is what as known as a 'metric' and we can find the distance between two points from it.

 

[jcsd]

In special relativity there are a group of equations which make up something called a Lorentz transformation (it's from these equations we can derive length contraction and time dialtion and if we introduce more advanced concepts we can also derive mass increase and hence mass-energy equivalency from them), they basically show you how an observer (A') travelling along the x-axis with velocity u relative to you (A) will view space and time compared to your 'staionary' postion. They are as follows (with the primed dimensions being how the person travelling along the x-axis at velocity u views space and time):

where:

 

[jcsd]

So we can find the metric for the observer A':

Now you should be able to see (or at leats trust me on this) ds = ds' if and only if u = 0, that is to say two observers travelling at different speeds will not agree on the distance between two points in space.

So how can we devise a universal system which is not dependent on which rest frame the observer is in? As it turns out if we introduce the time dimension into our metric we can construct such a system (introducing a new dimension ct where c is the speed of light):

If we now apply a Lorentz transformation onto our new metric we find:

We can expand this out, rembering our idenity for gamma:

I won't go through the maths but if we factorize and divide we get the neat result:

So you can see that observers no matter what their speed will always agree on the 'distance' (it's actually called an interval when talking about spacetime) between objects in spacetime

In many ways performing a Lorentz transformation on one co-ordinate system is analogous to performing a rotaion on a co-ordinate system (i.e. the axes change but the distances between objects don't) in this way we can think of velocity as a rotaion in spacetime.

You can see that even in spacetime space and time are essientally different as the time component in the metric is negative whereas the space components are postive.

 

[J77]

And that is about all you need to remember to pass an undergrad course on Special Relativity (that and tensors )

Very nicely presented jcsd.

 

[Lord Hugh]

Ooook I think I just about got that.

However what is a temporal dimension then? Is there any specific way of defining it, does it have a shape, size, colour, smell, what? (Yes I know colour & smell are properties of matter )

 

[jcsd]

When I say 'the temporal dimension' I just mean the time axis(though in the stringy theories I think you can actually have more than 1 temporal dimension).

Also i've been guilty of some oversimplifacrtion as an interval is usally claculated from:

But the differnce is trivial as it just menas that a space-like interval is a real number and a time-like interval is an imaginary number.

J77 - cheers , I think you'd need 4-vectors as well tensor notation for a undergrad course though.

If your interested I used LaTeX (which you can download for free, but you need the TeX typesetting system but I think you can also download that for free) to generate the equations.

 

[Lord Hugh]

Originally posted by jcsd
When I say 'the temporal dimension' I just mean the time axis(though in the stringy theories I think you can actually have more than 1 temporal dimension).

Yes ok, I see. So is it simply a "straight line" originating from wherever all the other axes originate?

Does all matter move across the time axis if it's not a "physical" dimension then? Or does matter leave a "trail" on the time axis, sort of like a 4-dimensional sausage (god that's not much of an explanation is it, I hope you know what I mean...)?

 

[jcsd]

Yes, the 4-dimensonal sausage is called a worldline, interestingly the velocity four-vector (which is velocity generalized ino a four-dimensional vector) is always equal to c for any object in spacetime. It's as if objects always travel at c, but they also distribute some of their velocity over the time axis, which means if they travel faster through the spatial dimension hey must travel slower through the temporal dimension.

 

[Lord Hugh]

Which is presumably why we still have light & electrons in our "moment" of the universe & they haven't raced off into the future. Hmm anyway thanks I need to go think about this.

 

[windsor]

The Architecture of Matter

Here's the way I've heard it. [My son was a Physics major in college, and he sort of ... agrees, altho this explanation goes beyond his studies.] But, just for you guys to chew on.

>>HERE<< at Frequency Level One, we experience 1,2,3 & 4, Point, Line of Thought or Light, Location and Duration of Time.

This is the Objective Dimension, where Cause-and-Effect operates--the ONLY place where cause-and-effect is a reliable mechanism, suitable for study.

At the next higher frequency where particle size conveys less mass, the dimensions that Minds experience are 5,6,7,8:

5, the continuum between chaos and order;
6, the sidetrack of history
7, the Touch of God, which is Thought;
8, particularities of cosmic relationships.

This is the Kingdom of God, where there are miracles, healings, etc., that bear on cause-and-effect in the case of prayer. Wishing is a form of prayer.

At the next higher frequency where particle size conveys EVEN LESS mass, the dimensions that Minds experience are 9,10,11,12:

9, claire voyance;
10, claire audience;
11, telepathy
12, incarnation at will.

This is Heaven, wherein resident Minds instantly manifest their thoughts; so there is no literacy, no real data, only living by wishing.

This would imply that our planet is actually like an onion, with layered surfaces and atmosphere in between the layered surfaces, such that every surface is a complete ecosphere, and every inhabitant looks out at the same sky--only--from different physical characteristics and different mental abilities.

************
I hope you scientists don't find this cosmology too absurd to give thought to. It has taken many decades to realize and understand it, on my part. ... If I'm wrong, I'll find that out when I leave here.

 

[fen_boy]

The Architecture of Matter

This would imply that our planet is actually like an onion

Suddenly it all becomes clear.

 

[Loki]

Fucking hell jcsd! <bows in jcsd's direction>. Think I got some of that but as usual my maths knowedge lets me down.

Originally posted by windsor
This is the Kingdom of God, where there are miracles, healings, etc., that bear on cause-and-effect in the case of prayer. Wishing is a form of prayer.

At the next higher frequency where particle size conveys EVEN LESS mass, the dimensions that Minds experience are 9,10,11,12:

9, claire voyance;
10, claire audience;
11, telepathy
12, incarnation at will.

This is Heaven, wherein resident Minds instantly manifest their thoughts; so there is no literacy, no real data, only living by wishing.

Can you tell me which drugs you're using? I could do with some of them.

 

[Loki]

I read somewhere that if the universe started to contract (which seems unlikely to happen given current speculation) - time would start to flow backwards

Is that right?

 

[windsor]

Contraction reverses time.

What I hear is, Yes, it would.

 

[Skin]

Very interesting Windsor.

I've always thought we are all the same thing looking out of slightly different windows.
Just bits of a consciousness that exists at all times and in all places (within the boundaries of itself)
I cannot pretend to even begin to understand the maths or even most of the concepts posted on this thread.
But hey !
Who says it all has to be really complicated ? Those mathamatical diagrams look very exclucing to minds that dont work that way. May be the mathematics of time and reality are actually comprehensible by even averagely intelligent folk like myself.

Im sure I read somewhere that quantum scientists are looking on consciousness as maybe something we receive through our brains rather than emanating from us.
Are all radios playing radio 4 the same ? Are all concious beings the same. Different rooms in the same house with different views
I have an almost religious sense of connection with a sense of the eternal.
I have always known even a sa child I have been extant far longer than this smelly aging being called skin.
I refuse to be defined by this life time and this planet. There are greater disco's to dance to and greater poems to write. And more cans to drink. IM only on can one honest

 

[windsor]

The real kicker in this ....

Because we have access to cause-and-effect, we can know what is True--which "dimensions lighter than we are" have little access to. They just WISH, where we can actually BUILD something that works and LASTS In Time.

So, the real kicker here--although this dimension is fraught with danger and suffering--if you figure it out, that you're really even here, a part of the whole and you begin to connect with the other parts--mentally allowing the thoughts from all the other dimensions to play upon your conscious mind without judging them and without expectations--then you get to feel as if you are participating IN THE WHOLE THING.

THE WHOLE THING becomes accessible. You can listen to all the other "layers" and they do not affect your life; but they are an unending source of amusement and delight.

Those other vibratory layers are much "safer" physically than we are. We are aging; we are deteriorating at a rapid clip. But at the same time, we're participating in Truth--cause-and-effect is where Truth is "the rubber hits the road."

Fascinating place, this, from a subjective perspective.

 

[Loki]

Where are you getting this from Windsor? I certainly haven't read anything remotely like it in any scientific journal. I doubt many scientists would ascribe a notion such as "Wish" to any kind of scientific scrutiny.

 

[windsor]

Getting IT ???

It's been coming to me since about 1991.

I've been waiting for some physicists to maybe deal with this.

My son the physics major says, yes, indeed, we're dealing with particle physics at the level of "different pieces of different puzzles."

But, that's as far as I've been able to have these thougts scrutinized.

I mean, who cares?

 

[spiralx]

Warning! Warning!

Use of term "vibratory layers" indicates a potential kook.

 

[Lord Hugh]

The Architecture of Matter

Originally posted by windsor
This would imply that our planet is actually like an onion, with layered surfaces and atmosphere in between the layered surfaces, such that every surface is a complete ecosphere, and every inhabitant looks out at the same sky--only--from different physical characteristics and different mental abilities.

Ok firstly that wouldn't say anything about our planet, it would say something about our universe, as once you're up a few levels the planet's just like a spot of mud on the ground, if I've read you theory right, as the matter seems smaller or of less significance, or whatever.

And anyway, as true or not as that *might* be, this thread was really about time not matter. So unless you can expand that to include time as another "shell" or layer of looking at things, keep it to another thread (which I will be more than happy to post on as I concur in a general sense with some of the ideas in the theory).

 

[windsor]

Time

Certainly, we can only view time if there are some causes and effects to witness, along dimensions point, line and location over time T.

Time only exists in proximity to growth or decay; movement or cessation; transformation or reversion.

How would you create time in an environment in which everyone could simply manifest their thoughts, as on a holodeck?

In that case, since people would be manifesting out of their memories, they would probably be in reverse time, not in forward time, anyway.

Wouldn't that follow?

Now, your objection to this planet's being an onion is that, there's a big universe out there? Well, particle physicists have found there are more kinds of particles than just one. For all we know, every heavenly body may be multi-layered. Our physical eyes vibrating at whatever frequency the particles vibrate at, out of which our eyes are MADE, can't see the OTHER ones.

In fact, since all particles are mostly space, there's no reason to believe the old law anymore that said, "Two masses can't occupy the same space at the same time." That just doesn't need to be true. There's plenty of space for co-exisence!

If people only KNEW that!

 

[Lord Hugh]

RE: Time

Originally posted by windsor
Certainly, we can only view time if there are some causes and effects to witness, along dimensions point, line and location over time T.

So at absolute zero, time wouldn't exist? I'm not sure about this, we can only view it, ie see the effects of it, if there's obvious change, but that doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. I mean you talk later on about particles that we can't see, by your own logic you're denying their existence too.

Time only exists in proximity to growth or decay; movement or cessation; transformation or reversion.

Well I don't really think so, because if something stops moving for a while, it's still part of the rest of the universe so the other parts that keep moving will have to be observing it not moving, therefore it must move on a time axis to "keep up" with the rest of the universe.

How would you create time in an environment in which everyone could simply manifest their thoughts, as on a holodeck?

In that case, since people would be manifesting out of their memories, they would probably be in reverse time, not in forward time, anyway.

Wouldn't that follow?

Unless all events that happened in the holodeck happened at once (you could argue that since the mind is creating it we wouldn't know how much "real time" it takes, but you could argue this in any case, ie how do we know that there's a real world at all - indeed this may be what you are saying, I'm not sure) there has to be a time dimension to sequence events. You wouldn't "create" it, it would just naturally occurs from the way the brain perceives things.

Now, your objection to this planet's being an onion is that, there's a big universe out there?

No, not at all. My objection was that you said that matter played a smaller part, ie looks smaller, so that when you move up a few levels the planet's gonna look a lot smaller. Indeed you'd be looking down at the planet from a much higher perspective than that that your body does at the moment.

In fact, since all particles are mostly space, there's no reason to believe the old law anymore that said, "Two masses can't occupy the same space at the same time." That just doesn't need to be true. There's plenty of space for co-exisence!

Perhaps indeed.

 

[General Ludd]

How would you create time in an environment in which everyone could simply manifest their thoughts, as on a holodeck?

How can you create time anyway? Time isn't a creation of mankind...

If your interested I used LaTeX (which you can download for free, but you need the TeX typesetting system but I think you can also download that for free) to generate the equations.

I've been having to learn TeX over the last few days to write some computing stuff up. It makes nice pretty maths.

 

[windsor]

Doing the Higher Math

I used to type doctoral dissertations that comprised huge mathematical treatises, on a manual typewriter with seven carbon copies--this was before the days of word processors even.

No, I don't know the kind of math that you do, past trig.

I have been working on converting English into prime number functions--words-to-numbers as a meta-language because I think numbers can articulate more functions simultaneously and more simply than utilizing Esperanto, which is the language primarily now in use for translations.

Using prime numbers, we can get past the whole "syntax processor" paradigm and translate on an old 286, instead of having to use a Cray.

That's just a hobby of mine.

 

[J77]

jscd and mom - yep, latex is by far the best typesetter for science.

i use it to produce/write everything, and if windoze users want to read whatever - a quick...

dvips -Ppdf -G0 foo.dvi -o
ps2pdf foo.ps

usually does the trick

 

[Loki]

Doing the Higher Math

Originally posted by windsor
Esperanto, which is the language primarily now in use for translations.

Is it? That's news to many of the translator people I've had cause to work with...

 

[windsor]

Esperanto no longer?

Actually, you may be correct. Esperanto may be old hat by now.

The language translation companies I approached a few years ago with my numerical meta-language WERE using Esperanto at the time.

But--What is in use for syntax processors now?

If I stand corrected, that's okay too. : )

 

[Stig]

sorry, bit late to this thread, takes me a while to catch up...

Originally posted by windsor
Time only exists in proximity to growth or decay; movement or cessation; transformation or reversion.

Originally posted by meanoldman
Well I don't really think so, because if something stops moving for a while, it's still part of the rest of the universe so the other parts that keep moving will have to be observing it not moving, therefore it must move on a time axis to "keep up" with the rest of the universe.

This is kind of answered by what jcsd posted above:

Originally posted by jcsd
interestingly the velocity four-vector (which is velocity generalized ino a four-dimensional vector) is always equal to c for any object in spacetime. It's as if objects always travel at c, but they also distribute some of their velocity over the time axis, which means if they travel faster through the spatial dimension hey must travel slower through the temporal dimension.

So this means that if something is not moving at all in space, it is therefore travelling thorough time at the speed of light?

In the same way that light, since it travels at the speed of light, does not move with any velocity through time?