Suppose that I am looking in my telescope to a distant star

[Strange]

Let's take your model.

Nothing changes.

Thus I understand that Time acts like a scanner upon a sheet of paper. In the sheet of paper nothing changes. The past, the present, the future are static.

Is that it?

Then the scanner scans.

It moves, it translates. No?

 

There is no scanner. It is just a static representation of all space and all time. One problem with your attempt to impose some sort of external progress of time (or a scanner) is that it implies there is some sort of "real" time that is universal.

 

You don't need a scanner to understand that a piece of paper is two-dimensional; you don't need to move along one or both of the (spatial) dimensions. They are just there. When you add the temporal dimension, it is just there as well. The sheet of paper extends along that dimension in the same way it extends in x and y.

[Delta1212]

Imagine a cylinder on a slant. Each cross section is a circle, and because the cylinder is slanted, as you move up the cylinder each cross section is a little further to the side.

 

If you look at each cross section sequentially, it looks like there is a circle moving to the side. But the cylinder isn't moving, and each circle isn't a copy of a previous circle, nor is it just a circle that is moving up as well as to the side.

 

It is a single object extended through space that has circular cross sections when viewed two dimensions at a time. You could even make it a cone and it would look like the circle was growing as you move up the cross sections.

 

Similarly, you could be represented as a 4D object with you-shaped cross sections. The difference is that the cross sections are three dimensional. The 4D object that is you wouldn't look like you. It would look like an extended you where each cross-section is you at any given moment. The 4D you isn't a single you that is moving through time, nor is it a million copies of you that exist throughout time.

 

It's one single 4D object that exists within a block of 4D spacetime that can only observe itself as 3D cross sections of itself. And it exists in a pattern that encodes information about the shape of the portion of the object "behind" it but not "in front" of it so that each cross section provides itself with the appearance of being the current end of the 4D object when you look at it one cross section at a time.

 

But there's no forward movement of time. The whole object exists as a unit without having to change in 4D spacetime.

[michel123456]

If you want a sheet of paper analogy then it is best to think on these lines - individual sheets in a block of paper; each spatial coordinate (only x,y) is a point on your sheet of A4 squared paper - you mark off your object at 12 cm left and 9 cm up from bottom left-hand corner on the first sheet, each sheet of paper in a ream of paper is a new time coordinate say one tenth of a second - these are marked from t=0 to t=499. On each sheet you mark the position in 2d-space of your object at the time corresponding to that sheet.

 

So your ream of paper contains the information of a block of 2d-space/1d-time - 21 cm in x-axis 29cm in the y-axis and 50 seconds in the t-axis; it is blocky ie. you might want more squares on the squared paper or more sheets of paper per second - but it is a representation.

 

That representation does not move - it contains the path of your test object for 50 seconds. You can observe the particle's position at a time by finding the sheet of that time coordinate and looking at the x,y coords. You can observe the particle's movement by looking at a progression of sheets . But nothing "moves" in the representation.

 

 

There is no scanner. It is just a static representation of all space and all time. One problem with your attempt to impose some sort of external progress of time (or a scanner) is that it implies there is some sort of "real" time that is universal.

 

You don't need a scanner to understand that a piece of paper is two-dimensional; you don't need to move along one or both of the (spatial) dimensions. They are just there. When you add the temporal dimension, it is just there as well. The sheet of paper extends along that dimension in the same way it extends in x and y.

 

Imagine a cylinder on a slant. Each cross section is a circle, and because the cylinder is slanted, as you move up the cylinder each cross section is a little further to the side.

 

If you look at each cross section sequentially, it looks like there is a circle moving to the side. But the cylinder isn't moving, and each circle isn't a copy of a previous circle, nor is it just a circle that is moving up as well as to the side.

 

It is a single object extended through space that has circular cross sections when viewed two dimensions at a time. You could even make it a cone and it would look like the circle was growing as you move up the cross sections.

 

Similarly, you could be represented as a 4D object with you-shaped cross sections. The difference is that the cross sections are three dimensional. The 4D object that is you wouldn't look like you. It would look like an extended you where each cross-section is you at any given moment. The 4D you isn't a single you that is moving through time, nor is it a million copies of you that exist throughout time.

 

It's one single 4D object that exists within a block of 4D spacetime that can only observe itself as 3D cross sections of itself. And it exists in a pattern that encodes information about the shape of the portion of the object "behind" it but not "in front" of it so that each cross section provides itself with the appearance of being the current end of the 4D object when you look at it one cross section at a time.

 

But there's no forward movement of time. The whole object exists as a unit without having to change in 4D spacetime.

 

Where is the mechanism of time in all these representations? There must be some sort of mechanism, time exists, we feel time.

Is there an explanation why we cannot observe ourselves as 4D objects? What is the reason why we can observe only our 3D section?

 

 

IMHO these are all a wrong representations.

I am not a 4D object from which I can feel only the 3D section.

I argue that I am a 3D object that travels into a 4D continuum.

In this view, the "mechanism" of time is similar to motion.

In all your representations, it is so static that there is no explanation of what we observe as the phenomenon of time.

[Strange]

 

Where is the mechanism of time in all these representations? There must be some sort of mechanism, time exists, we feel time.

Is there an explanation why we cannot observe ourselves as 4D objects? What is the reason why we can observe only our 3D section?

 

These are philosophical questions, not sceintific. Perhaps you need to join one of the hundreds of "what is time" threads. (Personally, I see no need, or even meaning, for there being a "mechanism" for time.)

 

IMHO these are all a wrong representations.

 

But they work. That is all that matters.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Strange

[Mordred]

That's the gist of the problem with time. Everyone wants some form of measurable substance involved or process such as entropy etc. Truth is time is simply a measurable property of duration or rate of change. Those measurements being influenced by observer measurement factors of GR. There is no specific mechanism that determines or controls time. The 4th dimension term is merely a mathematical vector tool. It is not a spacial dimension. In actuality it is simply mathematically convenient to use the term dimension. In this case it is a dimension of a property not a spacial dimension. You can also have dimensions of specific influences. This is what string theory and ADS/CFT uses. They describe relations of influences that have mathematical and geometric properties. Time is no different. No mechanism is needed.

Unfortunately most people want to add mysterious and oft magical properties and dependacies to time oft based on philosophy more that actuality. Entropy and the arrow if time is a classic example.

[michel123456]

That's the gist of the problem with time. Everyone wants some form of measurable substance involved or process such as entropy etc. Truth is time is simply a measurable property of duration or rate of change. Those measurements being influenced by observer measurement factors of GR. There is no specific mechanism that determines or controls time. The 4th dimension term is merely a mathematical vector tool. It is not a spacial dimension. In actuality it is simply mathematically convenient to use the term dimension. In this case it is a dimension of a property not a spacial dimension. You can also have dimensions of specific influences. This is what string theory and ADS/CFT uses. They describe relations of influences that have mathematical and geometric properties. Time is no different. No mechanism is needed.

Unfortunately most people want to add mysterious and oft magical properties and dependacies to time oft based on philosophy more that actuality. Entropy and the arrow if time is a classic example.

Excuse me, I am tired, I think all you say is BS.

 

Time is not philosophical.

Time is everywhere in physics.

Edited December 19, 2014 by michel123456

[Mordred]

You misunderstood. The arguments used are based mostly on philosophy. Entropy and time being interconnected or dependant on one another is an example. However time can and does change without change in entropy. Reverse entropy reversing time arguments being the other.

Google the history behind the arrow of time in Cosmology for further details. I for one have listened to arguments on time for 30 years in literature and on numerous forums. It is the rate of change of events or duration of a state. A property of a state or system is another way of looking at it. Yes the rates of change is influenced by GR factors. But that does not mean time depends on GR. However you can believe in whatever fairies you want. I'll stick to concordance science. Of over 30 years of study.

I've read your posts and have lost track of how many people have tried explaining your analysis of time and it's mathematical implications being in error. If you won't listen to them I know I would be wasting my time adding to their comments.

Check my link and read Lecture notes of General relativity by Mathius Blau . He does an excellent job of covering GR in regards to time and some of the numerous mathematical misinterpretations that result

 

 

Lol after all these years on numerous forums I've heard just about every argument about time there is.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Mordred

[michel123456]

You misunderstood. The arguments used are based mostly on philosophy. Entropy and time being interconnected or dependant on one another is an example. However time can and does change without change in entropy. Reverse entropy reversing time arguments being the other.

Google the history behind the arrow of time in Cosmology for further details. I for one have listened to arguments on time for 30 years in literature and on numerous forums. It is the rate of change of events or duration of a state. A property of a state or system is another way of looking at it. Yes the rates of change is influenced by GR factors. But that does not mean time depends on GR. However you can believe in whatever fairies you want. I'll stick to concordance science. Of over 30 years of study.

I've read your posts and have lost track of how many people have tried explaining your analysis of time and it's mathematical implications being in error. If you won't listen to them I know I would be wasting my time adding to their comments.

Check my link and read Lecture notes of General relativity by Mathius Blau . He does an excellent job of covering GR in regards to time and some of the numerous mathematical misinterpretations that result

 

 

Lol after all these years on numerous forums I've heard just about every argument about time there is.

Fair enough.

I am glad to know that you believe that you are a 4D being.

You are superior.

On my side I believe that I am a 3D being.

[Endy0816]

Your atoms are not constant... It makes no sense to think of yourself in purely 3D terms. You have to factor in the change across time, that you are undergoing.

[Mordred]

Fair enough.

I am glad to know that you believe that you are a 4D being.

You are superior.

On my side I believe that I am a 3D being.

 

As Endy stated we are no different than any other collection of particles. Ever stop to wonder why you age differently in a higher gravity or relativistic velocity. It's due to the time differential of GR affecting every particle equally in your body. Your just as much 4d as any region of spacetime

[Strange]

Fair enough.

I am glad to know that you believe that you are a 4D being.

You are superior.

On my side I believe that I am a 3D being.

 

I'm not sure why you bring metaphysical beliefs into this.

 

You seem to confusing scientific theories vs beliefs vs reality. There isn't necessarily any connection between these things.

[michel123456]

As Endy stated we are no different than any other collection of particles. Ever stop to wonder why you age differently in a higher gravity or relativistic velocity. It's due to the time differential of GR affecting every particle equally in your body. Your just as much 4d as any region of spacetime

Then explain me why I observe the world around me made up of 3D objects, and not made up of 4D objects.

[Ophiolite]

I'm sitting at my desk. Wait a moment. It's still there, even though this is many seconds later. It looks as if my desk exists in a time dimension as well as its three spatial dimensions. Who would have thought it?

[Mordred]

Then explain me why I observe the world around me made up of 3D objects, and not made up of 4D objects.

What part of the time aka 4th dimension not being a spacial dimension do you not understand???.

 

The three spacial dimensions are length width and depth. The 4th dimension is a mathematical dimension describing the time component or rate of change only. I can just as easily and in the same manner describe rotational force or torque as the 5th dimension. The 13 dimensions of string theory uses the same mathematical relations of mathematical dimensions to describe different influences and interactions.

 

 

Well here is a more classic example. Here we have 6 dimensions. Length width depth time temperature and electric charge.

 

https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/

Confused yet Google the term dimensional analysis.

Now on top of electric charge add up 3 color charges now I can say your a 9d object.

[michel123456]

I'm sitting at my desk. Wait a moment. It's still there, even though this is many seconds later. It looks as if my desk exists in a time dimension as well as its three spatial dimensions. Who would have thought it?

To me, there is only one desk, a 3D object, that travels into time. When your desk is "here now", it is not "here in the past". It has changed spatio-temporal coordinates.

 

I don't know where the idea that the desk extents into time comes from.

 

In any case, the signals you get from your desk in the past also traveled into time.

You cannot interfere with your desk 10 sec. ago.

Even if you put a mirror 5 light-seconds away, you will not interfere with yourself 10 sec. ago. If you could do that (interfere with yourself) your image in the mirror (yourself 10 sec. ago) would be smiling at itself 10 sec. in the future, and that is not allowed by the laws of physics.

The only thing you could manage to do is to see yourself as you were 10 sec. ago. Yes.

 

But that means that you are 10 seconds before.

 

Only one side of the mirror will be the observer.

The thing in the mirror is not "you", it is a signal that you emitted 10 sec. ago. Not much different from a picture or a video tape. The "thing" on the videotape, yourself in the past, cannot observe the future observer of the tape. The same with the mirror.

 

The observer will always observe the other "him" in the past. That does not mean that the "other him" still occupies these set of coordinates. it means the "other him" was there, emitted a signal from there, then went to some other coordinates.

IOW it changed coordinates.

We have nothing at hand that can prove that the "other him" occupies the entire set of past (and future) coordinates.

 

i hope I made my point clear.

Edited December 20, 2014 by michel123456

[Ophiolite]

Go read Life-line by Robert Heinlein. If the science won't convince you perhaps the fiction will.