100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Time is not the fourth dimension of space. | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/08/11 01:23 PM
|
|
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change. In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means. No time dimension They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence. This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.” “Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.” As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself. “Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.” In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained. “The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.” Numerical order in space The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically. As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known. “Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.” How it makes sense In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed. Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time. The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space. Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.” More information: Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar. “Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion.” Physics Essays, 24, 1 (2011). DOI: 10.4006/1.3525416 Amrit Sorli, Dusan Klinar, and Davide Fiscaletti. “New Insights into the Special Theory of Relativity.” Physics Essays 24, 2 (2011). To be published. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/08/11 08:49 PM
|
|
Can you imagine a universe that has four dimensions of space... and no time?
I'm trying... but I can't. I'll have to sleep on it. Some say that "time" as we know it, may end. ..As we know it.... How do we know it? ...while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible that space is the fourth dimension of time?
As gravity bends space. so also space bends time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmmmm. i think it moreso that gravity bends SPACETIME. spacetime resembling a membrane with space and time interwoven if i'm not mistaken. i've not heard the concept that gavity bends space or that space bends time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Thu 11/10/11 05:03 PM
|
|
I believed that the theory is true, or could be true, or is supported, and it certainly supports my weltanschauung, which is the denial of cause-effect relationships, at its ultimate. I even have a theory that proves it, but the theory needs two assumptions that are assailable.
However. The explanation is lame. It might be that the researchers watered down the explanation too much, and got into theory which proves that if they are serious about everything they say, then they are stupid. For instance, Zeno's paradox can be solved by a better high-school student. Half the class in my school did that. It's not even a work of genius to do that, so why is the researcher who is the author of the paper, citing this example? Is the author stupid, or is that the author thinks everyone who reads his paper is stupid? He ought not to have put this Zeno part in. The journalist, not the researcher, is a complete klutz, a dunderhead fit to be tied. I can't see why they can't hire some journalist at least with a high school physics and math course in his or her credence and who remembers what was said in his classes, to write science articles. It's fine to not be a genius, but it's not fine to destroy the thinking modes of people who would otherwise understand the article, but now they are confused, because the journalist can't express scientific facts. One such thing is the unit dimensions that he horribly mixes up. He calls speed as a unit of time, and then he says it is now a unit of space. In classical physics, velocity is total displacement divided by total time it took to cover it (like miles per hour) and speed is the same thing, but speed has a direction to it too, not just a displacement and the time it took to cover it. It is clarity that is missing from the article. The clarity is lost because the journalist is foggy in the head, and the researchers are babying the readers or the journalist, with baby stories that have been used in the literature to popularize physics, but are completely false, falsifiable and not true in any way. So... what to say. Good thought, and would have been a good article. ---------------- Jenniebean, there is a way of imagining four dimensions, and I or anyone with some good math background could tell you how to do it, but I know you don't like to speak with me, so I won't push it on you. After you imagine four dimensions, the fifth, sixth and nth will be a child's play after that. The problem is with this exercise I could show you, is that humans can only do the dimension increase imagination over three of those with finite, not infinite parts of space. If you consider the entire infinite three dimensional space, the fourth dimension HAS GOT TO BE time, as per human capacity of understanding. But humans have tops to their thinking abilities, and this is a glass ceiling that no human imagination can break. We can ACCEPT infinite space being more dimensional than three, but not see it or conceptualize it. But we can see and conceptualize finite space as four-, five- or more dimensional, and that's actually easy to demonstrate. "demonstrate" -- unmask, make known the unknown, take the fear out of the dark unknown, literally, unmonster the monster, tame it, make it act or appear docile and non-threatening and therefore acceptable by showing someone how to understand it. Demonstrate is a showing, a way to make someone else understand it, while leaving the thing in question in a state of a matter of dispute. Proof is a way of showing that something is in a way, and that way is the only possible way for it to act, given a set of circumstances. Proofs in the physical world don't exist for a scientist. A scientific fact must and can only be proven in a way that shows how to disprove it. For instance, our Earth's gravitational field is proved by takin an object: a ball, a saucer, a hat, and dropping it. The proof is that it falls towards the centre of Earth. The way of disproving this is to drop a hat or iron hammer, and it falls up. Special care must be given to have no alternative explanations, such as a sudden upwhiff of air that makes the hat fly up. So it would be required to prove that gravitational force on Earth is a false theory, to drop an object in vacuum and see it drop freely away from earth. This never happened yet, yet it's conceptually possible, and it is required of a scientist to think, that a free fall away from the earth can happen, and if it does, and no other explanation is extant, then we must accept that the theory of gravitational pull has been nullified, falsified. The guy talks about the falsifying of the theory of time. He is in error in my opinion, inasmuch as he can't show a single theory of "time". If something is not a theory, and a non-theory is not supportable by evidence, and evidential proof is required for falsification, then the researcher again is on soft terrain, the soft terrain of his watered down explanation. Because what happens if you pour water on ground? It becomes soft. Same with the journalist's skull which is soft already without any watering. It might appear to you guys that I'm just picking nits, very vocally and very vigorously, but this is an error that a scientist can't make in a statement, because he demonstrates, if he does, that he is foggy on the fundamentals of the principles of scientific research. So maybe he is watering down, or maybe in Bosnia the scientific thought is still in the level of that of the fourteenth century A.D. ... in Australia. I don't know. He can't say things like that if he is a scientist. Time was not falsified, as he put it. Time was eliminated from the necessity of its existence to explain the physical world. This is a bit similar to when Bonaparte Napoleon asked the president of the French Academy of Sciences to explain to him the world. The scientist drew all kinds of pictures and arrows on the blackboard, and labeled the illustrations, and then when he finished and clapped his hands to rid it of chalk powder, Napoleon said, "doctor professor, I can't see something... something is amiss. Where is God in this explanation?" And the eminent scientist replied, "I do not need that hypothesis to explain the world." In a way the guys in the article, the research scientists, say, they no longer need time to explain how the world operates, but boy they keep saying it the very wrong way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 11/10/11 07:54 PM
|
|
Time is now.
Eternity is forever. Some try to imagine eternity as just being a very long loooonnnnnng time.... but time does not exist in eternity....time is limited to our earth existence only. Afterwards,when we go into eternity (and we ALLLLL will spend eternity somewhere), time will be no more. Even dimensions cease to exist in eternity.....eternity is measureless. God is eternal...all that was created and exists, goes on eternally also....may change form,but still will not ever cease to be. That is why it is so important to be sure , Where we will spend eternity. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Thu 11/10/11 09:54 PM
|
|
Time is now. Eternity is forever. Some try to imagine eternity as just being a very long loooonnnnnng time.... but time does not exist in eternity....time is limited to our earth existence only. Afterwards,when we go into eternity (and we ALLLLL will spend eternity somewhere), time will be no more. Even dimensions cease to exist in eternity.....eternity is measureless. God is eternal...all that was created and exists, goes on eternally also....may change form,but still will not ever cease to be. That is why it is so important to be sure , Where we will spend eternity.
Whow, where the heck did this ^ come from? I would like to get the ball rolling, if you don't mind, Morning Song. ...all that was created and exists, goes on eternally also....may change form, but still will not ever cease to be. This is curious. A kid is created. A lion will eat the kid. The kid will metabolize into the lion's flesh and bones and blood. The lion will die, and ants and other insects will eat his meat. The insects will be eaten by birds. The birds will fly south, and end up in a trap, all together. They are caught, defeathered, cooked, and eaten by the village chief. But only the tongues and the hearts of these birds. The rest of the bird bodies will be eaten by the warriors and the women and children. The bones go to the dogs and cats. ---------- This started with a thing, a kid. You say it will never cease to exist, because it was created. But it changes form. Now a lion eats it. Then the ants eat the lion. Where is the kid now? Is it still existing? A part of each ant, which used to be a lion, and before that, a kid, is now part of the ant. It changes, but what changes? The kid changes? How does it change form? By becoming the ant? But then the ant is not an ant, because part of it is a kid, and the lion is not lion, because it comprises the kid which is still the kid but it changed form only. You cannot say things like that, Morning Song. If you insist, then yes, you can, but do you seriously expect to be taken seriously? I mean, this is a thread about serious thought. The entire fabric of the universe depends on us, humans, for getting understood by us for what we think it is right now, at this present state of our knowledge of it. Right now we are at a phase of trying to shove thermonuclear Patagonian quantum mechanics down the hungry and gaping throat of Newtonian Physics, stopping only briefly at Relativity Station, to send a few postcards home. If you come out with revelative statements... then the extra syllable completely removes it form relative theories. In fact, you are saying things that have two qualities: You can say them, and are almost completely irrelevant to the topic. I am sorry, please don't misconstrue that I am trying to force you to stay out of this thread. Not at all. God forbid you feel I try to restrict you in what you can say and in which threads. Not the least bit. All I am trying to achieve is to peel your eyelids a slit open, so you can have a sense of reality around yourself. But I am not doing this to control you. Just to help you gain a little glimpse into what reality is. If you don't feel like doing that, fine, please disregard my message here. "Time is now". Whoa. yesterday at five past seven is not a time? Or is now always time, or only at arund 78.8888 percent of the time? "Eternity is forever." I challenge you to prove it. By empirical methods. "but time does not exist in eternity....time is limited to our earth existence only." "God is eternal...all that was created and exists, goes on eternally" This here sez that time is only for a while, and yet it is created by God, and all things created by god are eternally going on forever, like clock work. So time... if it goes on forever, as one of god's creations... how can it possibly not exist in eternity??? Does it exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect? How can time not exist at the SAME TIME as eternity, when time does not exist any more? Holy mother of god. "That is why it is so important to be sure , Where we will spend eternity." This actually makes sense. A lot of sense, and I agree with it wholehearted...-ly. This is the first reason why I reject religion and why I do blasphemy and why I do sin by religious standards. I displease god not because I enjoy doing these things. God knows, I hate being blasphemous and rude and arrogant. But I agree with your statement, Morning star, I agree it has wisdom and truth in its essence, in its form and in its content. You see, I find it a good deal to suffer in this life by doing things I don't like to do (such as blasphemy, arrogance, sinning, etc.) because this way I hope to avoid spending an eternity in the company of God's beloved children, who never stop spewing irrelevant and totally nonsensical, illogical and self-contradictory pontifications. Yes, sinning and its punishment is way too little a price to pay to avoid going to heaven and to avoid being surrounded by people who speak like you, Morning Star. For a whole eternity at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 11/11/11 12:42 AM
|
|
Wux..If it is ok with you , I will bring this
subject back up at a later time, in the religion forum. I am very Pressed for time right now.....but if you don't mind my posting both of our posts( above) in a new thread then, we will take it from there...ok? 
Until later.... Be Blessed, Wux. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 11/11/11 02:32 AM
|
|
The science of physics tells us that time is a property resulting from the existence of matter. As such, time exists when matter exists. But God is not matter; God, in fact, created matter. The bottom line is this: time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing. Since there was no matter, and because God does not change, time had no existence and therefore no meaning, no relation to Him. And this brings us to the meaning of the word “eternity.” “Eternity” is a term used to express the concept of something that has no end and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end. He is outside the realm of time. Eternity is not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity. Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it (Isaiah 57:15). Our destiny was planned “before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and “before the creation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive. “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12).(the old shall pass away one day... there will be a new heaven and a new earth). Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time. As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because He’s in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.
exerts from gotquestions.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 11/11/11 04:32 AM
|
|
...................................T I M E AND E T E R N I T Y...........................................
http://www.reasons.org/temporality-beyond-time-what-creation-reveals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 11/11/11 05:41 AM
|
|
If you consider the entire infinite three dimensional space, the fourth dimension HAS GOT TO BE time, as per human capacity of understanding.
I disagree that "time" is a dimension as are the three dimensions of space. I don't believe that time has anything to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is a result on how forces act and react on each other. It is about change and movement and the measurement of that in local systems. Different systems have different time measurements relative to each other. Time has to do with the perceptions of the conscious observer and change. Change involves cause and effect which is how forces interact with each other. Cause and effect do not require something called time, but change and movement is how the conscious observers perceive that which they call time. Time, as an entity does not exist, but then neither does space in that respect. What exists is energy, and energy also takes the form of matter. When Einstein said that everything is relative, he really meant everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 11/11/11 05:54 AM
|
|
Since everything is relative, then we will call earth the observer located in this particular local area of the universe.
From here we measure time in the universe relative to the speed of light. Without the speed of light and space, we could not measure Planct time. In the absence of light, of course we cannot measure what we observe. But even in the dark, we have an internal clock that ticks away giving us the sense of some sort of "time." There time is measured by the process of our thinking, so time, or the sense of it, would depend on our mental activity or our thoughts. Each person would probably have their own personal sense of time or their own personal internal clock which would depend on their own internal process of change. That means that each observer has and creates their own space-time system and these systems are relative to each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 11/11/11 07:35 AM
|
|
"Time is now". Whoa. yesterday at five past seven is not a time? Or is now always time, or only at arund 78.8888 percent of the time?
Wux.......I re-read this, and see now that I did not make that statement above very clear...my apologies. ...instead of my saying Time is Now, I should have said, Time is Now For Earth Time Only. Eternity is Forever. Speaking of Now , God is a NOW God.
( another fascinating subject for a different time )
We will get more into this later ...in the religion forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sigh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time is a relative measurement.
Light is the constant. Now is Now and Now is infinite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless light itself is but the 'signature' of the event of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/12/11 10:15 AM
|
|
Unless light itself is but the 'signature' of the event of time. I'm not sure what you mean by that but it does not ring true.(for me) Events are the key ingredient. In this, our universe, the speed of light is constant. I'm not so sure if that is true in other universes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light changes at the moment of 'collision' with the event horizion...
therfore it is no longer 'constant' at that moment in time. Time keeps right on going. else the singularity would not exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light changes at the moment of 'collision' with the event horizion... therfore it is no longer 'constant' at that moment in time. Time keeps right on going. else the singularity would not exist. What makes you think the "singularity" is real and not illusion? And... how would you describe or define the meaning of "the singularity?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light changes at the moment of 'collision' with the event horizion... therfore it is no longer 'constant' at that moment in time. Time keeps right on going. else the singularity would not exist. What makes you think the "singularity" is real and not illusion? And... how would you describe or define the meaning of "the singularity?" Which one? the one that is below us (we can see it in reality by its 'signature'). Or The one that is above us (if the 'bang' is constant it has an event horizion). Which side of the Event Horizion do we exist upon? |
|
|
|
|
