The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are there three dimensions of time?  (Read 12035 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #25 on: 30/07/2014 14:00:36 »
Quote from: AM
is not our ability to imagine points in time, a form of dimensions

However many points we imagine, they are all in one dimension.  It takes only one figure to designate a particular point.  1066, 2014 and 2190, for example, are all in the single dimension of time, although they represent past, present and future.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #26 on: 30/07/2014 15:56:18 »
Seriously, what is past or future? Does the universe knows?

Past and future has no mass, no charge, no position, no volume, nothing at all that we can detect but imagination.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #27 on: 31/07/2014 20:07:50 »
Quote
Past and future has no mass, no charge, no position, no volume, nothing at all that we can detect but imagination.

Does time have any of those properties?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #28 on: 31/07/2014 20:24:54 »
Yes, now has all those.

We can breathing, see river flowing, thinking and doing now.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #29 on: 31/07/2014 23:55:59 »
Quote
Yes, now has all those.

We can breathing, see river flowing, thinking and doing now.

I don't see how this gives mass, charge, position or volume to time.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #30 on: 01/08/2014 00:12:52 »
Everything is within now/time. Nothing is left without now. 

When can we measuring anything?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #31 on: 03/08/2014 18:12:42 »
Quote
Everything is within now/time. Nothing is left without now.

When can we measuring anything?

We can't do anything "now"; because doing something requires a passage of (through) time and "now" has no determinable extent.

Unless I'm missing something - which I could well be - you have still not answered my previous query. 
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #32 on: 03/08/2014 20:15:12 »
Quote
Everything is within now/time. Nothing is left without now.

When can we measuring anything?

We can't do anything "now"; because doing something requires a passage of (through) time and "now" has no determinable extent.

Unless I'm missing something - which I could well be - you have still not answered my previous query.

You didn't. Dear Bill.

I just don't want to bluff on Sundays. I love my God.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #33 on: 10/08/2014 22:17:51 »
Can't stay away from this one it seems :)

time is time. It's something that allow us to exist, it gives us a past, a present, and a future. Without it no radioactive decay, no changes and so no universe. In the end we live by measuring, and that measurement presumes a time for it to be done in.

What I see Einstein as doing is to lift up the difference between some global definition of a same unchanging time, and the local definition. In the local definition no one has a problem with defining what time is, neither the conscious observer, nor the lump of uranium 'ticking away' (decaying). Locally defined there can be no illusion. We assume that this local time is shared by a whole universe, and I think it's true, as long as we only define it locally. To see how I think there one can ask oneself what would happen if we superimposed two observers in a 'point like' identical configuration. Would their 'decay' be the same? It's a weird world, and what it has to do with, to me then, is a lot of other questions. As for example what we mean by a 'seamless universe' shared by us all? How is it 'seamless'?
==

This way of defining it is no stranger than the idea of constants. We presume constants to exist and be the same throughout a 'infinite universe'. You can see that two ways, as something permeating the universe, as well as something being locally true in each point of a universe, when locally measured.

And when you measure, it's always locally. As when you measure, you use that 'local clock and ruler', that becomes your golden standard. Locally defined this standard should be considered 'equivalent', as I see it. If it wasn't that way I would expect you to fall into grave difficulties defining how a constant can exist.
===

In fact, I think I easily can stretch this definition to encompass any definition of a homogeneous and isotropic universe, where we find conservation laws and entropy. It must be homogeneous and isotropic, if each point is equivalent when it comes to constants as your clock and ruler, and whatever conservation laws would become from a strict local definition, the same thinking should hold there, that it should be in some motto equivalent, as I then most probably would define them as a result of this.
=

And if we from such a local definition accepting the idea of constants existing, also define the arrow, as what your wristwatch describes for you (your proper time) as a constant, locally equivalent to 'c', we get ourselves an added definition of 'c'. No longer just a measurement of a distance, relative ones proper time, but also a constant describing what that clock really is.

Then your local time, equivalent to 'c', becomes a (local) constant. And it 'ticks' constantly and evenly, locally measured, no matter where you are, or how 'fast' you define it to be. That is one reason I find Planck units so interesting, as it all gets together there. sometimes I wonder if that is where discreteness ends? It depends if it really is a universal constant naturally. You could argue that by changing the numbers to something else we also change the constant, but to my notion that must be wrong. The constant if true should have a same equilibrium, no matter if counted binary or decimally for example. the same should then go for exchanging digits, as long as it is done in a proportional manner.

Although, even if it is a universal constant, to me then meaning 'locally true (equivalent) in each point', I don't think it state that this is where it ends. Just as decoherence doesn't tell you where things become 'real' to you. It's your imagination that will decide what is real, and the logic you use, and experiments naturally.
==

All of this is presuming that the universe like to keep it as simple as possible. Without a locally measurable equivalence in each point (of a universe) you still 'might' be able to define some sort of adjustable constants, giving us a 'universal' equilibrium, but I would think it should be really hard to do, to me involving very convoluted thinking.
===

And no, to me it's not about three dimensions. Time described as change, is to me more like a sheet, or some screen if you like, called the 'present' or 'now'. On which your local pattern change with the arrow ticking. The pattern defining 'you' with, as well as relative, everything else. But that pattern, or sheet, moves also for inanimate objects, as that lump of uranium, and it doesn't really need anyone to 'move'.

and ticking is a discrete way to describe it, ending at Planck scale, although the arrow as some ideal proposition might also be smooth. Think of decoherence.
=

As I'm getting slightly wild here :) there's an alternative in where we might presume that the arrow is a result of interactions, creating that local clock. But as we also define it equivalent your locally measured constant 'c' we then have to presume that the same then must go for our definition of  'c', as well as for all, and any, other constants. Now, wouldn't that become a rather remarkable universe? :) I most certainly wonder how such a universe could come to be?
==

And 'now' exist, but only locally defined. On the other tentacle there is no other way to experimentally define it than from a local perspective. That I theoretically can play 'God', doesn't make it so experimentally.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2014 23:56:18 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #34 on: 11/08/2014 14:18:03 »
A thing that more and more has come to make me wonder is just decoherence. To me it's a description of from where a reality comes to be, from probabilities and statistics, to something I can touch. If you think of it this 'local definition' of a arrow also, in some way, becomes a ideal definition. We find it to be true everywhere, meaning that ideally defined (what I think of as superimposing) two objects must share the same clock. This thought experiment is as valid at a event horizon as on earth.

But it builds up just as decoherence, as there is no 'positional lock' to what we mean by that local time, unless we make that ideal thought experiment. You can't tell me that you know where that (yours) 'local time' is situated, but it holds for you and me both, just the same, made out from particles, that each one of us are defined to its own 'local time keeping'. In that motto even my local time becomes a illusion. The only way I can define it is either from super imposing, ideally identical objects upon each other. Or making a definition of 'ideal points', which then uses some sort of idea of a discrete universe, making it up, all 'points' equivalent to each other when it come to that 'local clock and ruler'. The rest should then be how those 'points' interacts, as possibly what geometry we find, giving a density? There is relative speeds, accelerations, to consider too, but that is not locally defined. To me both are a result of frames of reference interacting.

Actually, accelerations are a local property, I think it should be so even ideally defined? But I'm not sure? Either that or a locally expressed acceleration need a universe to come to be. But when it comes to a density of something, you need frames of reference, the same goes for relative motion.

Constant uniform accelerations and gravity? That's one of the most breathtaking ideas I know of. Even though I personally think it is correct, I'm not sure what it says about this seamlessly 'all inclusive universe' we find ourselves to exist in? 

Or, 'time' is a flow :) In which case we still can use discreteness for defining particles. As for laws, rules and properties coming from time existing I don't know. We define it such as constants exist, we also define it such as properties as spin and polarization exist. Both are ideal definitions to me, as I personally know no classical counterpart that really fits. So maybe you need them too to be a 'cosmic blueprint', with time starting entropy.

Although, to me, it's particles that define time, a cosmos without particles should be very hard to measure a change in. Any measurement needs particles existing to be made, like thermometers measuring temperatures. Theoretically we assume that something alike radiation spontaneously can create particles (rest mass), as that first instant of a Big Bang, where we presume particles to be spontaneously created.
=

If that last proposition is correct, then I think I will call the arrow a 'property' too, preexisting even before particles. There is no way I see myself able to imagine a particle creation without a past, a 'now', and if so, most probably a future too.

Whatever you want to call it, or define it too, time exist.

Lastly, if you consider the idea of several probabilities co-existing 'somewhere', us only able to observe one of their outcomes, you also presume another reality, where the 'clock' is absent. Then the question becomes what it is starting that clock, and keeping it ticking. A property?
=

You could say that we exist inside this 'locally moving' sheet, or 'plane' if you like, it defining a future as well as a past, always defined from local measurements though. The sheet moves to a clock, no way it can change without it. And I think you need this co-existing 'timelessness' for it. It's not as if this timelessness is discrete, just existing in between outcomes. To me it's what is really real :) And now I'm getting mystical again.
=

The point :) with accelerations being existent even inside a 'ideal point', actually making it into a property locally defined. Yeah, properties are one weird idea, in some ways taking us as far away from a clock work universe that I can imagine. Then again, so does thoughts, or do you believe thoughts are discreet entities, 'composites' of some sort, created by your brain that you can measure on? I don't think you can measure on them, as you can on radiation, never the less they exist.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2014 15:49:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline allan marsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #35 on: 12/02/2015 19:30:21 »
After all that lovely talk about Einstein . That would lead to the question, where is he now?
And at what age or should I say time.
At least quantum mechanics will demonstrate superposition in the form known as resurrection   N,est pas ?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #36 on: 12/02/2015 20:22:38 »
good time, old time, mean time. 

 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #37 on: 12/02/2015 21:07:04 »
Quote
good time, old time, mean time. 

Waste of time?

We could go on for ever (figuratively) discussing whether time is a real "thing" or just a concept we use to measure change, and still end up in the graveyard of circuitous threads. 

Such a discussion seems to have this in common with string theory: it may never go anywhere, but it could throw up some interesting points along the way.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #38 on: 12/02/2015 21:31:10 »
Time is illusion of the human mind.

Since we live by now, in now, with now, past and future also illusions.

Time is the passage of force in motion, nothing more.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3904
  • Thanked: 51 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #39 on: 12/02/2015 22:06:16 »
Time is illusion of the human mind.

Since we live by now, in now, with now, past and future also illusions.

Time is the passage of force in motion, nothing more.

Not if things are moving with a constant velocity. That is inertia and is not a force. Time does measure change. That could be zero change over time, although that should never happen in practice because of conservation of momentum. Everything is constantly in flux.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #40 on: 12/02/2015 23:23:36 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
That could be zero change over time, although that should never happen in practice because of conservation of momentum.

Wouldn't HUP prevent that, as well?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3904
  • Thanked: 51 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #41 on: 13/02/2015 00:18:24 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
That could be zero change over time, although that should never happen in practice because of conservation of momentum.

Wouldn't HUP prevent that, as well?

Exactly Bill.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Are there three dimensions of time?
« Reply #41 on: 13/02/2015 00:18:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums