Hi everyone, I have a question about space-time that I hope someone can explain properly.In the space-time model, space and time are different dimensions of the same stuff, so they share geometric properties, such as ontology.
Are space and time just two sides of the same coin?
If this is true and we live in a universe made up of different spaces then it must also be true that we live in a universe made up of different timesDon't know what you mean by this, but it appears to not follow. Yes, there are different spaces: here is not the same location as there. Tuesday is a different time than Wednesday, but these are all true even in a model of separate space and time, so it doesn't follow from a spacetime model.
does every point in the universe exist at a different time?Points in spacetime are called events, and events with spacelike separation can be simultaneous relative to some coordinate systems, and not simultaneous relative to others. There is no objective ordering of events with spacelike separation, but there is objective (not frame dependent) ordering of events with light-like or time-like separation.
If this is true and we live in a universe made up of different spaces then it must also be true that we live in a universe made up of different times
Don't know what you mean by this, but it appears to not follow
Are space and time just two sides of the same coin?The common answer is "yes" and Halc has already started to go over that idea.
If this is true and we live in a universe made up of different spaces then it must also be true that we live in a universe made up of different times, does every point in the universe exist at a different time?Well, maybe the idea of saying "no" space and time are not exactly the same will defeat the purpose of this follow-on question anyway.
does every point in the universe exist at a different time?There was an experiment conducted by the US standards laboratory (NIST). They built two extremely accurate clocks, and made sure they were keeping time with each other.
Are space and time just two sides of the same coin?
Space and time are separate dimensions of the same thing in the space-time concept.
resulting in "the problem of time", the distinction between how QM and GR see time, absolute for QM and relative for GR.That wikipedia article has the following warning on the top:
wiki/Problem of time
If it seems unimaginable any two object can exists at a different time then you must reject GR,...I can imagine it. A green door remains green until it is painted yellow then it's a yellow door. The two objects existed at two different non-overlapping intervals of time.
...for in GR the speed of light or event horizon can stop your introduced flow of time idea for one object on Tuesday but then stop another object on Wednesday.....This is going to need some explanation. Are you saying that time doesn't flow at the same rates for every object in every part of space? That would be OK. If you're trying to say something else then it wasn't clear to me.
If it seems unimaginable any two object can exists at a different time then you must reject GRNonsense. All enduring objects (anything lasting for more than an instant) exists at different times, else time/velocity/force etc. all would have no meaning. This is not unique to GR
for in GR the speed of light or event horizon can stop your introduced flow of time idea for one object on Tuesday but then stop another object on Wednesday.Time isn't something that flows in GR. Time doesn't stop at an event horizon. An object falling into say a black hole has a very specific time (a reading on its clock, Tuesday say) when it crosses the event horizon. A second object is quite free to do the same on Wednesday. Neither object notices anything locally funny like physics working differently, clocks stopping, or anything like that.
These two objects are therefore frozen at two different points along the imaginary flowing timeline that you introducedIt seems you are the one trying to introduce said imaginary flowing something into a theory that doesn't posit it. The words 'flow' and 'timeline' do not appear in this topic until you introduce them.
Nonsense. All enduring objects (anything lasting for more than an instant) exists at different times, else time/velocity/force etc. all would have no meaning. This is not unique to GR
Hi and welcome, I'm not sure I've seen you before.
(anything lasting for more than an instant) exists at different times, else time/velocity/force etc. all would have no meaning.
It seems you are the one trying to introduce said imaginary flowing something into a theory that doesn't posit it.Sir please leave your baggage here before proceeding to the question.
(anything lasting for more than an instant) exists at different timesNup, not mine you must have planted it on me.
I think you can only see time as the procession of existence, not just a label assigned to a measurement of movement but something much much more,That will be "you" as in "human beings .... can only see time as the procession of existence....".
Your working backwards from your own conclusion about the nature of time and space to prove your idea is worthy of being introduced automatically....I'm guessing that will be "you" as in "Scientists.... work backwards from that conclusion to prove stuff about time....".
If Y, space and time are just two sides of the same coin,(without prior modelling), different spaces must also mean different times.There are some bits of physics that imply some interesting relationships between space and time. Special Relativity is usually where people encounter these results and ideas first.
Firsty, I don't think anyone was or is challenging the idea that time is complicated and not well understood.
I would like to explore with you nothing more than the available evidence, that being the three observable dimensions of space and the three dimensional objects that move in it. Time therefore is just another way of expressing the three spatial dimensions. eg. I am 3 miles from home or I am 3 minute from home.Ignoring relativity for the moment, 3 miles is a fixed dimension - assuming say shortest distance, but 3 minutes is a variable depending on your speed. How does your model handle that?
Ignoring relativity for the moment, 3 miles is a fixed dimension - assuming say shortest distance, but 3 minutes is a variable depending on your speed. How does your model handle that?
[it's liberating to admit mistakes, you should try it.I often do. Why do you assume I don’t?
I remember where objects were before they moved (past), and I can predict where objects will be after they move (future) but memory and prediction of movement is far from being evidence of a time dimension.That's kind of ironic, since that statement seems to be strong evidence that time is a dimension.
I remember where objects were before they moved (past), and I can predict where objects will be after they move (future) but memory and prediction of movement is far from being evidence of a time dimension.
That's kind of ironic, since that statement seems to be strong evidence that time is a dimension.
Remembering and predicting movement is strong evidence of a time dimension how exactly?The only way to predict the objects position would be to use all 4 dimensions. If you only used the 3 spacial dimensions you obviously couldn't predict the location.
Remembering and predicting movement is strong evidence of a time dimension how exactly?
The only way to predict the objects position would be to use all 4 dimensions. If you only used the 3 spacial dimensions you obviously couldn't predict the location.
Objects already know their location in the universe, if you are the object in question don't you know where and when you are? I think you are confusing math with reality again.No, I'm not confusing anything. To locate an event you need a coordinate system, that coordinate system must contain 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 temporal. It is rather cut and dried.
There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.That's rather absurd. Facilitate is a rather odd word to use. Isn't it obvious to you that without time there would be no movement?
Ignoring this lack of evidence and powering on with your personal speculation at least explains how you continue making the same mistake.It isn't a mistake and I'm not speculating. I simply agree that the mainstream physics position makes perfect sense. Your disagreement with science amounts to little more than arm waving speculation that flies in the face of the evidence.
An event (location in space-time) already assumes there is a time dimension.It also assumes there are spatial dimensions.
The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.Just like the speed of your car is 'just math', do you confuse that with reality?
There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.
That's rather absurd. Facilitate is a rather odd word to use. Isn't it obvious to you that without time there would be no movement?
It isn't a mistake and I'm not speculating. I simply agree that the mainstream physics position makes perfect sense. Your disagreement with science amounts to little more than arm waving speculation that flies in the face of the evidence.
The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.
Just like the speed of your car is 'just math', do you confuse that with reality?
Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.No more than it is obvious you can't observe the length dimension.
If there is an object in space then you can see there are spatial dimensions, if there is movement you can see the time dimension.
The only way to see the time dimension is through physical objects moving.
Nonsense, not observation.I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension, but what you like or want is irrelevant. As far as I know if I set up a meeting with someone the meeting point would require 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. As far as I know an event requires 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions to locate. If you can do describe those exact points without time please demonstrate it, if not you will just have to accept that the universe doesn't care what you like.
I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension,
As far as I know if I set up a meeting with someone the meeting point would require 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension.
I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun,OK we are making progress you agree that time is needed.
however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.This is just plain wrong. Please tell me how you would describe a distance of 100 miles with out a 'convention for the spatial dimensions'.
Perhaps you're still convinced that movement needs a time dimension to facilitate it but are unwilling to stand up for your conviction. ;)That depends what you mean by dimension and what you mean by facilitate.
The idea that there is a past, present and future is speculation when all we know is the present. I remember where objects were before they moved (past), and I can predict where objects will be after they move (future) but memory and prediction of movement is far from being evidence of a time dimension. This is a mistake and one that is rearly admitted.I’m not sure who you think rarely admits it. I would agree if you are talking about the general population, but physicists (and philosophers) frequently debate this area. Your view is a form of temporal presentism, but there are many other options including block universe. So, you have nailed your colours to a particular wall, some would agree with you, but there are others who would say you are wrong to do so.
…….as long as you remember they are just imaginary.Imaginary has a different meaning in physics to common usage. It does not equate to not real, as in unicorns are not real.
If you can devise an experiment that will provide unequivocal empirical evidence of your idea, then you will be in line for a Nobel prize. The reason there is so much debate and varying views in this area is because there is no empirical evidence.I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension,Pesky empirical evidence. :o
I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun, however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.As Origin points out, you are confusing units with dimensions.
Might be time to take a pause and look at some basics here
I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun,
OK we are making progress you agree that time is needed.
however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.
This is just plain wrong. Please tell me how you would describe a distance of 100 miles with out a 'convention for the spatial dimensions'.
All in all this is quite a complex subject, but I’m glad you are taking the time to think about it.
I tend to think in terms of a dynamic view of time. Do I believe that somewhere in spacetime Anne Boleyn is still being executed, or WWII is still being acted out, no. However, I would never be as arrogant as to say that my view is correct and all other views wrong.
@Halc has probably looked at all the different philosophies, but I suspect your accusatory tone might have put him off further discussion.
I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed.The tiles were your convention.
I agree. There is a lot here that would be worth discussing, but the constant snide remarks are getting wearing, so I’m out.I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed.The tiles were your convention.
I wish I could say the same :'(Whatever
There is a lot here that would be worth discussing, but the constant snide remarks are getting wearing, so I’m out.I agree, the OP is clearly not the slightest bit interested in learning anything, he apparently knows all. I've about had enough myself, it is becoming a 'feeding the troll' exercise at this point.
[ the OP is clearly not the slightest bit interested in learning anything, he apparently knows all.I really don’t mind if someone just wants to discuss their own ideas, but to constantly accuse others of not thinking is just plain rude.