[opportunity (OP)]

HI, I'm a new member. Good to be here; "Opportunity" in honour of the MER-B......still going.....

I have a question about how we have used the idea of "time" in history....one dimensional.

The question is, "if time could have more dimensions, for instance if it represented a type of mathematical algorithm that always had a split choice of possibility in 3-d space (giving "effective" attitude to the uncertainty principle), would that change the Planck scale equations?"

The idea of time being a mathematical algorithm proposing two opportunities in space with each frame of overall time-reference is unheard of. It's not linear time. But has anyone proposed the idea in theoretical physics?

If we looked at how time moves in nature, as growth patterns, we would know that with the uncertainty principal, tied in with quantum entanglement, any reference in space from a set position of time only holds a certain one result, yet the opposite result can exist. Is that a feature of space or time?

Think of it this way...as opposed to thinking time has to obey the idea of space-relativity, linearly so, a space that decides that its own position is based on observational references (?), why not let "time" be an observational reference more in line with Brownian motion equations, and not space?....that the observational reference of time is tuned to the chance played with Brownian motion, as an algorithm....

I'm not sure mathematics can resolve space using the ideas of relativity. Using two different references of space as 3-d in the one time.......(?) wouldn't it be better to consider time itself, the process of spatial change, is an operator itself that has choices? Nothing completely "linear"? And here of course the choice may or may not be intelligent. It may be as simple as a "golden ratio" algoirithm, a Fibonacci sequence.

Yet still the question beckons, what is the case for "one dimensional" time?

[evan_au]

We only experience one time dimension, just like we only experience 3 dimensions of space.

However, string theorists have speculated that there may be additional "hidden" dimensions of space. They are using this idea to develop a concept of quantum gravity.

And serious theoreticians have speculated about the possibility of multiple dimensions of time.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

[Bill S]

One stumbling block to multidimensional time is the negative sign associated, usually, with time in scientific equations. This is a problem because, with the introduction of a second dimension of time, it can give rise to the embarrassingly meaningless concept of events that happen with a negative probability. 
   
 Marcus Chown (New Scientist 16.10.2007.  Pp. 36-39) cites the work of Itzhak Bars.  Bars believes that there are two dimensions of time, and has evolved a theory in support of this.  Of course, Bars is aware of the difficulties involving negative probability and the paradoxes surrounding past-directed time travel, but he thinks there may be constraining symmetries that could overcome these potential problems.

[opportunity (OP)]

Thank you for the link Evan. Thank you Bill also for the information about Bars.

In doing some research, I’ve found that an interesting feature to reality is how “nature” develops “growth patterns” through time, especially on the quantum scale in regard to the uncertainty principle (link available) as a process of the development of spatial constructs in time, “time” seeming to weave spatially-related phenomena according to a thing termed the “golden ratio”. This alone could suggest one of two things, namely that the “arrow of time” surely has more granularity to it, granularity that features a “golden-ratio” algorithm, or space is a particular matrix that encodes the golden ratio by its own constitution.

I’m thinking there’s more credence to the idea of “time” being the entity with the golden-ratio feature, not space, as all evidence suggests that the golden ratio is a process of “growth” in time and not an immediate manifestation of space itself all of a sudden (as “all of a sudden” is not possible in considering the golden ratio as a function of the “uncertainty principal”) as observations for the “uncertainty principle” conclude that both features of the golden ratio can’t co-exist at the one time on the quantum scale in the one frame of reference).

Has anyone in physics literature considered using the idea of the “golden ratio” as a concept for time, not of course disrupting its overall positive value? I can’t seem to find any links on the web on the subject

[Bill S]

This alone could suggest one of two things, namely that the “arrow of time” surely has more granularity to it, granularity that features a “golden-ratio” algorithm, or space is a particular matrix that encodes the golden ratio by its own constitution.

There’s that granularity, again!  In what way would it link to the “golden-ratio”?

What significance would that have in terms of our use of time as a measure of change?

[jeffreyH]

Time is not strictly a dimension. It doesn't persist. We can revisit a point in space but not in time. Time is intrinsically tied to change. It is like considering time to be the layers of an infinite onion. Once a layer is peeled away it is gone and unrecoverable.

[Bill S]

Time is intrinsically tied to change.

Exactly.  Perhaps, what we should be asking is something like: Can we revisit a change, once it has been made? 

An even more pertinent question might be: Can we revisit an immutable spacetime event?

I suspect the answer to both of these would be “no”.

[Colin2B]

all evidence suggests that the golden ratio is a process of “growth” in time and not an immediate manifestation of space itself

What evidence?
This would be a new theory as im not aware of anything that suggests there is a golden mean geometry to time.

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm not sure how to add a link here, but if you google "golden ratio discovered in a quantum world" then the article introduces how that works, could work.

I'll post an example equation in about 11hrs when I am able to properly use a computer.

[Colin2B]

if you google "golden ratio discovered in a quantum world" then the article introduces how that works, could work.

That article is very different from your statement:

all evidence suggests that the golden ratio is a process of “growth” in time and not an immediate manifestation of space itself

The article does not support your statement.
Resonances occur in all sorts of systems and some will follow a golden ratio, but this is not the only ratio to appear in quantum systems.

[opportunity (OP)]

Yes, I see your point. Give me a few hrs as I mentioned and I'll have a properly worded response when I have access to a computer.

[opportunity (OP)]

I think what I'm suggesting with the golden ratio as the article also highlighted is that for each frame of reference of time only one result of the golden ratio is expressed, not two result, not a full golden ratio footprint.

[Colin2B]

I'm suggesting with the golden ratio as the article also highlighted is that for each frame of reference of time only one result of the golden ratio is expressed, not two result, not a full golden ratio footprint.

Which article? I looked at a few and none mentioned this. The original paper suggests E8 symmetry.
They noticed two sharp modes at low energies, in a ratio that approached the golden mean as predicted for the first two meson particles of the E8 spectrum.
No mention of any “frame of reference of time”, whatever that might be.

[opportunity (OP)]

First, thank you again Colin for moving the post, and apologies once again.

The article is in the following: Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world, Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter, Helmholtz Association (still can't add link).

The first two resonate notes described there I'm thinking, and correct me if I am wrong, similar to the foot-print analogy I offered. Once again, apologies if I've made an oversight there with that article. Yet the point I was making was that with those frequencies in two different notes there exists that golden ratio resonance.

[Colin2B]

Yet the point I was making was that with those frequencies in two different notes there exists that golden ratio resonance.

This is no great news. The golden mean is one of the most common ratios found, more so than eg pi. The reason is because it is a very simple ratio with many different ways of generating it. It occurs in many resonances eg minor 6th, circle of 5ths, and is generated with nested root 1, and also pi/5. That last one is why it is seen by mystics as magic because of the link with the pentagram.
The frequencies the researchers were hoping to see were the first 2 meson energies predicted for the E8 symmetry, but no mesons were generated.
Nowhere in the paper is there an indication that this has any significance for time.
This is the only paper quoting this ratio which is surprising considering how common the ratio should be. There hasnt been any follow up or further examples so it doesnt justify the statement that this is a major factor in QM.

[opportunity (OP)]

I agree with all you've said, the idea of a golden ratio is not a new one, it does "not" predominate in physics let alone nature. Nor does the paper state its direct significance with time. My argument has been though changing the idea of time "could" bring significance to the golden ratio, especially if an algorithm for time represented the golden ratio. My writing work has found that most of the phenomena related to an algorithm for time has the algorithm embedded in it, and hardly shows up in all the physical manifestations, and that only by analysing the phenomena of space and time closely will there be evidence of the golden ratio (even in considering a golden ratio algorithm for time). Once again, I know exactly what you're saying and I agree. I think two of my key questions have been answered well, the first is that singular-dimensional time is used because it works well enough, and there is no contemporary research work going on with the idea of time and the golden ratio. That's great.

[puppypower]

HI, I'm a new member. Good to be here; "Opportunity" in honour of the MER-B......still going.....

I have a question about how we have used the idea of "time" in history....one dimensional.

The question is, "if time could have more dimensions, for instance if it represented a type of mathematical algorithm that always had a split choice of possibility in 3-d space (giving "effective" attitude to the uncertainty principle), would that change the Planck scale equations?"

The idea of time being a mathematical algorithm proposing two opportunities in space with each frame of overall time-reference is unheard of. It's not linear time. But has anyone proposed the idea in theoretical physics?

If we looked at how time moves in nature, as growth patterns, we would know that with the uncertainty principal, tied in with quantum entanglement, any reference in space from a set position of time only holds a certain one result, yet the opposite result can exist. Is that a feature of space or time?

Think of it this way...as opposed to thinking time has to obey the idea of space-relativity, linearly so, a space that decides that its own position is based on observational references (?), why not let "time" be an observational reference more in line with Brownian motion equations, and not space?....that the observational reference of time is tuned to the chance played with Brownian motion, as an algorithm....

I'm not sure mathematics can resolve space using the ideas of relativity. Using two different references of space as 3-d in the one time.......(?) wouldn't it be better to consider time itself, the process of spatial change, is an operator itself that has choices? Nothing completely "linear"? And here of course the choice may or may not be intelligent. It may be as simple as a "golden ratio" algoirithm, a Fibonacci sequence.

Yet still the question beckons, what is the case for "one dimensional" time?

One dimensional time is a convention, not a statement of universal fact. For example, a linear acceleration has the dimensions of d/t/t. Mathematically this is two parts time and one part space. This is an example of 2-D time. In this case, one clock or one time axis is not sufficient to measure both aspects of time, within acceleration, simultaneously. It is easier with two time axis.

It comes back to convention. Acceleration is now defined as its own separate variable, thereby burying the need for 2-D time. If you look at the universe, it is undergoing an accelerated expansion of matter dominated by gravity which is an acceleration. This is an example of 3-D time or d/t/t/t. It is an acceleration of an acceleration, albeit negative. This could be expressed easier using three time axis.

As an example of the impact of chosen convention, consider if we decided to use polar coordinates to define positions in 3-D space. Polar coordinates has only one distance dimension and two angular dimensions. If this was the convention, the two angles would be given special conceptual significance, that is really not there, other then as a convention. 

In my opinion, using 3-D space and 3-D time allows one to plot all the known phenomena associated with an object, on one graph. It tells position, space-time reference, motion, acceleration and impact of universal expansion acceleration, which can cause secondary affects such as randomness, due to extra time considerations. The modern preference is for piecemeal into smaller bitesize pieces.  I prefer it more integrated plot, since you can visualize more complexity, easier.

For example, current theory begins the universe at time=0. In terms of the 3-D time model, this premise is only true for the first dimension of time. Before the expansion, the primordial atom can still have contained unified force/acceleration or 2-D time in affect. This will allow conditions to build for the needed acceleration of an acceleration; big boom where, 1-D and 3-D also appear.

[opportunity (OP)]

1-d time does seem to be convention. Plotting time on each spatial axis is a good idea, and it requires a type of axiomatic standard that doesn't corrupt our known arrow of time though for the sake of how using one dimensional time "has" offered good results. One dimensional time does seem to be a process of time, the overall shape, but the inner workings like the inner workings of an atom in terms of the elementary particles for instance is something that has yet to be fully considered for the idea and application of "time" by contemporary science.

The issue with physics research I think is that it's not playing the "time-card" to solve problems hard enough, with more gusto. The reason for that is clear; Einstein developed a form of relativity pivotal to space and not time. That's hard to let go of, because it was the first to show up, despite it being the first cousin to the real family of ideas potentially available, and because of that a forest of mathematical congress has evolved along that family tree of ideas......which is very hard to maintain.

[Bill S]

My argument has been though changing the idea of time "could" bring significance to the golden best tool we have, as yet, discovered with which we can gain understanding of the Universe. If the “golden ratio” helps with our understanding, so well and good, but let’s not try to read anything causative into that.   ratio, especially if an algorithm for time represented the golden ratio.

Ever since philosophers, and later scientists, realised that the best tool they had for describing the Universe, was mathematics there has, in my opinion, been a tendency to interpret this as saying that the Universe was based on mathematics.  This must flirt with the ideas of intelligent design. 

Perhaps it would be better just to think of mathematics as the

[jeffreyH]

Surely a supreme being designing a system such as the universe would want to make it perfect like itself. Define perfect.