Time unexplainable

[wilgory]

This is not a new theory but just a thought.

 

Years ago a read a book entitled FLATLAND. The book explains the problems of percieving higher dimensions.

 

Something like this, a two dimensional being exsist in a plane. If a three dimensional being, say a sphere, passes through the plane .

 

The two dimensional being would not be able to observe the entire sphere. First the sphere would appear as a point, then an increasing circle, after reaching the full diameter, a decreasing circle and finally a point again.

 

My thought is this, if we 3D beings can't fully observe 4D time, we can never fully understand it.

 

Sense our universe is considered a space-time continuim, how can we hope to ever fully understand it.

 

It may be my simple mind but, all of the analogies used to represent our universe are 3D.We must be missing something.

 

We measure the expanion in "lightyears", a linear measurment. How does this accurately explain the expansion.

 

Time is the dimension I believe needs better intrepretation. I speculate that blackholes, dark matter, and dark energy may all be different and varying aspects of time, since these are also difficult to observe/comprehend.

 

Consider the breakdown of euclidean geometry that occurs in blackholes.Is this not do to the fact that euclidean geometry is limited to 3D.

 

Not trying to prove anything here. Just wondering if there could be anything to this. All comments are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

Wilgory

[timo]

I am always surprised by people claiming that our/their perception of the world was 3D. I am certainly aware of the time dimension; how would you plan a meeting with someone, otherwise?

A somewhat nonsensical yet possibly funny question in this context is: What if we really couldn´t percieve time? Since we couldn´t distinguish between things we´re currently doing, things we did in the past and things we´re going to do, would we be fortune tellers (which admittedly wouldn´t help us, because we wouldn´t know what future is)?

[wilgory]

I am always surprised by people claiming that our/their perception of the world was 3D. I am certainly aware of the time dimension; how would you plan a meeting with someone, otherwise?

A somewhat nonsensical yet possibly funny question in this context is: What if we really couldn´t percieve time? Since we couldn´t distinguish between things we´re currently doing, things we did in the past and things we´re going to do, would we be fortune tellers (which admittedly wouldn´t help us, because we wouldn´t know what future is)?

 

I never stated that we can't percieve time.The idea is that we can't fully percieve time. I see the hands of a clock move, that's the most common.

 

The time shift due to acceleration is another aspect of time that is observable.

 

Are there more? I'm sure the well educated, on this forum, know of more. Do they know all of them? I think we can learn/percieve more through math.

 

Can we truly expect to percieve all of time since it is a higher dimension?

 

What about the theorizied dimensions beyound that?

 

All I can say is "good luck". Don't get me wrong. I want to understand our universe. I am not educated enough to comprehend the math, but I follow the research and I hope we can eventually understand "all" . It's just I am begining to doubt that we, as 3D beings, can.

 

Thanks for the reply,

 

Wilgory

[YT2095]

Time is only the duration between 2 events, nothing Complicated

[wilgory]

Hi, YT.

 

I'm glad you have it all figured out. Please help me out. Elaborate.

 

In other words, how do you "know".

 

Thanks for the reply,

 

Wilgory

[YT2095]

in a 1D world there would be no time, travel a straight line only and forever.

in a 2D world (or greater) then Time comes into play as a default unless the path is circular, where an Angle comes in then time has to be, travel the perimeter of a square (in your 2D world) there will be a duration from 1 90 degree angle to the next one encountered. this will take TIME.

you have 2 events, so any situ where 2 events are involved we can call one Start and the other Stop.

time is punctuated with Change or Events, the min required is 2 events.

 

as for how I "Know" it`s purely Logical

[wilgory]

in a 1D world there would be no time, travel a straight line only and forever.

in a 2D world (or greater) then Time comes into play as a default unless the path is circular, where an Angle comes in then time has to be, travel the perimeter of a square (in your 2D world) there will be a duration from 1 90 degree angle to the next one encountered. this will take TIME.

you have 2 events, so any situ where 2 events are involved we can call one Start and the other Stop.

time is punctuated with Change or Events, the min required is 2 events.

 

as for how I "Know" it`s purely Logical

 

In a 1D world, would "forever" be considered a concept of, or an aspect of, time?

 

In a 2D world, I agree.

 

In a 3D world, Clocks, time shift, ?.

 

In a 4D world, ???.

[YT2095]

1D would be indeterminate, there would be no "Markers" (2 events).

 

why should 3D be any different from 2 in that respect?

 

a 4D "World" well you`re in it if you class the 4`th D to be time.

 

1D= 1D

2D= 2D + Time

3D= 3D + Time

4D... some say 4D is time itself, Me... I don`t know.

 

so Length, lenght+ width, Length + Width + Height, Length + Width + Height + When.

[wilgory]

YT,

Thanks for indulging me, I do appreciate your TIME and thoughts.

 

As for 1D, let me try this, if time is connected so closely to space, can we still have Space for any dimension without time. I understood space and time to be inseperable. Can we take lenght, width, or height out of space?

 

Other than that, it sounds like we agree, we don't know enough about the higher dimensions.

 

I am not trying to argue or debate, not enough smarts for that, just trying to expand my understanding.

[YT2095]

Time isn`t connected to Space directly, time is connected to Change.

Space is only where these changes take place

[woelen]

Time and space are really different things, but there is a relation between them (general relativity, but even special relativity).

 

We perceive 3 spatial dimensions and a single time dimension. Now imagine a 1D spatial world. It would be quite dull, because we could only move along a line, but we could move forward and backward. We still could perceive time in such a world. So, actually, such a world is a 2D world, with one spatial dimension and one time-dimension.

 

A truly 1D world would either be a single point with time, or a line/curve, without time.

 

I myself look at it as follows:

 

We are moving at a constant speed through space-time, where temporal motion is at 1 second per second when we are not moving in spatial direction.

 

When we are moving in spatial direction, then the motion in temporal direction becomes slower, but the total 'speed' remains the same.

 

The quantity [math]c^2t^2 + v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2[/math] (which is my 'speed trough space-time' remains constant at [math]c^2[/math]. So, if one of the v's is going to c, then t must go to zero.

 

I must admit, that this is quite a sloppy explanation (in reality, one cannot speak of an absolute velocity, it is relative to something) and the math behind this is MUCH more involved, I post this to give just an idea of how you can look at it. If you move faster, then less remains for the speed at which time elapses for you.

[fredrik]

Can we truly expect to percieve all of time since it is a higher dimension?

 

What about the theorizied dimensions beyound that?

 

I'm not sure if I caught your motive but one natural way of viewing any dimensionality is by means of variation(change).

 

Here is some of my personal thinking, to which others are free to disagree.

 

There seems to be a the little logical problem that we need to start somewhere. We may for example start by postulating that we have a 3 dimensional sample space, and then experience reveals that the sample to sample variations are not random. This gives birth to a new dimension that we can parametrize by variations/deviations in the previous model.

 

Suppose we started by assuming a 1 dimensional sample real valued space. And all our data would be single values. Supposed we have limited storage capacity, then we need to learn howto compress this data. We might find that this stread of single values, can be interpreted as natural consequences of projections of a higher dimensional object. And this may help us comprehend the large amount of data better.

 

Suppose that we have a real {(x,y,z,t)} data from a real experiment. And suppose that a monkey have scramble all the data... and all we now have is a set of single numbers {q}, which is composed of the individual x, y, z, t randomnly scrambled.

 

What is the chance that someone can guess the original unscramble data at a probability that is higher than the a priori probability by plain scrambling?

 

/Fredrik

[wilgory]

HI Everyone,

 

Looks like this "time" problem is a big can of worms.

I'm trying to gather my thoughts, but I don't have alot of time currently.

 

After a short TIME browsing wikipedia, one thought came to mind.

Can it be stated that, a priori = the limit at which we can no longer observe/investigate the time-space that we exsist in.

 

I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, like i said' i'm trying to gather my thoughts.

 

It may be a while before I post, "I WILL BE BACK".

I like to think that I'm stirring that can of worms.

 

Thanks to all,

 

P.S. This is a "call for help"!

[YT2095]

huh?

[Farsight]

Time unexplainable? Somebody give him a link to TIME EXPLAINED:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050

[wilgory]

huh?

 

YT,

Sorry, I should not have included, in my post, a greeting, an honest statement about my cofusion, and the awful attempts at humor.

 

When I questioned your statement that 1D without time can go on forever. I pointed to my confusion about forerver.

 

Farsight, you assume that I did not read your thread. False. furthermore I read the previous thread. In the second one you start off calling the two that said they had read your post liars.

 

I fail to see how this is condusive to effective dicussion.

 

Back to Time.

 

In relativity, space and time are considered dementional, and undefined. It is a priori.I found 3 definitions for "a priori", all boil down to, no facts, no experience, no examination, and no factual study.

 

In quantum physics, space and time are separate.Time is considered not to be a demension, it represents change. Futher investigation leads me into philosophy.

 

To me there seems to be a problem with understanding time. I can not see much hope for a theory of everything, without some reconciliation of these two differing views of time.

 

Once again, I have no theories, just this concern about the possibility of ever understanding space-time, or space and time.

[YT2095]

In quantum physics, space and time are separate.Time is considered not to be a demension, it represents change.

 

That is the View that I advocate (personaly).

 

 

this:" P.S. This is a "call for help"!" part is what prompted my, "Huh?"

[Farsight]

Farsight, you assume that I did not read your thread. False. furthermore I read the previous thread. In the second one you start off calling the two that said they had read your post liars.

 

Huh? Tycho didn't read it because I don't say time does not exist. Look:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=315981&postcount=2

 

And Edtharan obviously didn't read it because his reply to a post was apposite to the essay.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=316058&postcount=4

 

But whatever. OK you don't want any help, fine.

[Edtharan]

Imagine a ruler. This is 1 dimension.

 

Now mark off two points.

 

What we have are two points. One point is a displacement of the other (note: I did not say movement - I'll get to that later). Displacement takes no time, so this ruler is truly 1 dimensional.

 

An important aspect of this Ruler is that you have nothing to compare this displacement too except other displacements.

 

Imagine a sheet of Graph Paper. This is two dimensions.

 

Now mark off two points anywhere.

 

What we have are two points. They can be considered a displacement, but now we can consider the displacement along one axis as compared to the displacement along the other.

 

This is an extremely important difference between the ruler and the graph paper.

 

Comparing the displacement along one axis as to another axis is the basis for understanding Time.

 

Now we get to movement.

 

All motion is a displacement in Space as compared to the displacement in Time. On the Graph paper, this can be represented as a displacement along the X axis as compared to the Y axis.

 

Now, imagine that you can only directly perceive the X axis. You can not directly perceive the Y axis. However, what you do perceive is that you have movement. The Y axis has become Time.

 

You can only perceive your change in position along the X axis as you change your position along the Y axis, and as you can't perceive the extent of the Y axis, you see the world as changing, you can see movement.

 

If there was no displacement along the Y axis, you would not see any change along the X axis, you would not "experience" Time. You could not see motion.

 

This can also be extended to 3 dimensions. The best way is that of a movie.

 

Each frame of a movie is 2 dimensions. However, each from of the move can be stacked, one on top of the other. This stack is the 3rd dimension.

 

Now, viewing each from individually, although 2 dimensions, does not show any movement. You can have displacement (that is you can have 2 points on the same frame). But, when we look at displacement in the 3rd dimension, we again get movement (that is why we call them movies, not stillies ).

 

Now the space we perceive is 3 dimensional, so time then, must be a dimension that we can compare displacement in the 3 dimensions to. This would be the 4th dimension.

 

Now, what would this look like to a creature that can directly experience the 4th dimension. Well they would not experience time (if there are more than 4 dimensions they would, but we are only considering a 4 dimensional universe at the moment).

 

The could only see the displacement in those 4 dimension, much like we can see the displacement in the 2 dimensions that exist on the graph paper (but the hypothetical creature that only directly perceives the X dimension on the graph paper would experience the Y dimension as Time).

 

To us, it would appear that there was no Time for the Graph paper creature, but to the Graph paper creature, it would experience time.

 

So, what is Time?

 

Time is just a dimension that we can not directly observe, but that exists, and so we can make comparisons about displacement along our Spatial dimensions. It is nothing more than a set of reference coordinates that we can't directly observer, but nonetheless must be as real as our spatial dimensions (or we couldn't measure displacement along it in comparison to our spatial dimensions).

[wilgory]

That is the View that I advocate (personaly).

 

 

this:" P.S. This is a "call for help"!" part is what prompted my, "Huh?"

 

Again, I appologize for that. It was both, a poor attempt at humor, and a plea for more involvement by others in this thread.

 

Have you read anything on Lee Smolin's new book,The Trouble With Physics.

I've ckecked out his website and it seems to me that his is willing to try and step back to get a better look at both theories, relativity and quantum physics.

 

I intend to purchase the book a.s.a.p. I'll post my thoughts when I have read it.

[YT2095]

I`ve not read it, my opinion is based purely upon logic derived from the word "Time" itself with the simple question "What is it?".

[wilgory]

Edtharan,

 

I followed this as well as my 3D mind would allow.I understand this to be the view of time expressed in relativity.

 

The problem I have is the different view of time expressed by quantum physics seems equally plausable.

 

Are both right? Are both wrong? Are both right and wrong? If both are right, then the very large and the very small can not be reconciled. Any other combination of right and wrong leaves room for modification or reconciliation.

 

I see alot of this polarization of thought in our civilization, I suspect human pride is the root. My hope is we can find ways of reconciling more than this "time" delimma. But I don't have much hope.

[Edtharan]

I followed this as well as my 3D mind would allow.

Yes, we evolved to live in a directly perceived 3D world, so imagining other ones is hard.

 

I understand this to be the view of time expressed in relativity.

It's not quite the same as the one in Relativity, but it is very similar.

 

The most important difference is that if you don't have dimension that is not directly perceivable, then you don't have a perception of motion (just displacement), Time as we know it would not exist for you.

 

Importantly, this means that the Dimension we call Time is not special (other than we can not directly perceive it), it could have been any dimension at all. All dimensions are treated equally.

 

The problem I have is the different view of time expressed by quantum physics seems equally plausable.

Now this explanation of time also allows for the QM use of time, that is Change.

 

Under QM, time is change, in my presented model, this change is just comparing the displacement on one axis as compared to another axis.

 

If we can not perceive along one of these axis, then any displacement along it will appear as a time like "motion" in the perceived dimensions.

 

In relativity, under my model, it is necessary for the Axis to be allow to be rotated and distorted. The direction that a dimension is, is dependant on the local environment (frame of reference).

 

So in QM, all you are considering is the displacement in one of the dimensions, and relativity all you are doing is considering the distortions to the axis. They are not mutually exclusive under this model. It is the difference between Displacement and Rotation.

[Farsight]

The most important difference is that if you don't have dimension that is not directly perceivable, then you don't have a perception of motion (just displacement), Time as we know it would not exist for you. Importantly, this means that the Dimension we call Time is not special (other than we can not directly perceive it), it could have been any dimension at all. All dimensions are treated equally.

So we can't see it, we can't perceive it, it offers no freedom of motion, but we should treat all dimensions equally. And:

 

Under QM, time is change...

 

Thud, thud, thud. That's my head banging on my desk at how people talk themselves into misunderstanding and mystery.

[wilgory]

Greetings to all,

 

Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

Edtharan,

Can your position be stated: We know all there is to know about Time and the higher dimensions.?

 

Farsight,

Is this also your position?

 

I wonder, do both the actions of a clock, and the timeshift while traveling near lightspeed, display both the dimensionaity aspect and the change aspect of time?

 

Are there other aspects of the dimesionality of time, or other aspects besides change, that we do not percieve or wrongly percieve? Such as blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.?

 

Yesterday I watched a presentation, given by James E. Peebles of U.C., on the large scale structure of the universe. He would not state that blackholes exist.

 

Are what we thougt of as blackholes really brownholes radiating electromagnetic feilds. This is beyond me. I thought it had been concluded that blackholes do exist.

 

I'm not looking for a disscusion on blackholes. I'll go to the BH threads for that. I would appreciate any comments on wether we are or aren't fully percieving the higher dimension(s).

 

The less complicated the better for me, even a simple yea or nay, but all are very welcome.