Time and dimensions

[Incendia]

There are currently 4 known dimensions.

The three spatial dimensions and time.

 

I was wondering about the possibility of more than one dimension of time, just as there are more than one dimension of space.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what the members of this forum have to say about this thought.

 

You can speculate about extra dimensions of time yourself if you want.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Incendia

[Realitycheck]

Does time need another dimension? Does a line need to be shaped like a box?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Realitycheck

[michel123456]

Well I speculated about that.

When we use meters, we know we are talking about distance. when we use square meters, we know we are talking about surface. And when we use cube meters, we are talking about volume. That's a way of figuring the 3 dimensions of space.

 

When we use seconds, we know we are that talking about time.

When we use squared seconds, we know we are talking about ??? Or what?

 

We actually use squared seconds when talking about acceleration: these are meters by squared seconds. It is not imagination, in physics, we use squared seconds. So one could speculate the existence of a second dimension of time. At the condition, I presume, to be always exactly of the same value of the first.

 

But this is wild speculation.

Edited October 22, 2011 by michel123456

[2167timetraveler]

When I left we had 4 dimensions of space and 3 of time. There are others, but that is irrelevant here.

[mooeypoo]

When I left we had 4 dimensions of space and 3 of time. There are others, but that is irrelevant here.

 

!

Moderator Note

Do not hijack threads.

Stick to your own thread, timetraveler, or you won't stick around in this forum.

 

Read our rules. Quickly.

 

 

[michel123456]

Well I speculated about that.

When we use meters, we know we are talking about distance. when we use square meters, we know we are talking about surface. And when we use cube meters, we are talking about volume. That's a way of figuring the 3 dimensions of space.

 

When we use seconds, we know we are that talking about time.

When we use squared seconds, we know we are talking about ??? Or what?

 

We actually use squared seconds when talking about acceleration: these are meters by squared seconds. It is not imagination, in physics, we use squared seconds. So one could speculate the existence of a second dimension of time. At the condition, I presume, to be always exactly of the same value of the first.

 

But this is wild speculation.

 

Note that acceleration is only the second derivative of motion.

Less known is jerk, the third derivative, and jounce the fourth. I guess there is no end to this.

 

This a fun article FYI.

[euouae]

The M-Theory is the closest theory that can attempt to explain the correlation between the 4 known laws of nature (general relativity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force) that affect our universe. According to the theory, there is no less and no more than 11 dimensions. I believe the general consensus among proponents is 8/9 spatial and 3/2 time, but that's off the top of my head and I'd have to research it again to be certain.

[michel123456]

IIRC there is only one dimension of time in M-Theory, all the others are spatial ones.

[Incendia]

IIRC there is only one dimension of time in M-Theory, all the others are spatial ones.

 

That was my understanding, too.

 

Does time need another dimension? Does a line need to be shaped like a box?

 

Does the universe need 3 spatial dimensions?

(No, but it has them anyway.)