It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Link to original article


The fourth dimension is time, it goes inside the mind
Run the channels energized up through the back of your spine


To actually claim that time is the 4th dimension of space is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Now, it may be a good exercise in trying to get somebody to visualize 4 dimensions of space, but even that is flawed, because we experience the passage of time in a linear manner, while the 4th dimension of 4d space would not be equivalent to a bunch of 3d universes strung together in a row.




Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.



I also have some issues with time being only a product of our internal functions that doesn't actually "exist." I understand the concept: that our brains and nervous systems have grown and evolved to experience events in such a manner, and that is why we experience time linearly in one direction. It may be a good as a thought exercise, but beyond that it just seems to me like a bunch of mathematicians going "1 + 1 = 2... and 2 - 1 = 1... so, mathematically, time can travel in both directions! Eureka!" If anybody has any more relevant information on that subject, or any other related, I would love to hear about it.
edit on 28-4-2011 by polit because: spelling




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


Thank you! Exactly! I have always experienced time as being a concept that we've constructed to give us a way to wrap our minds around the linear quality of our existence. It is not a real "thing". It is an idea. Dimensions are spatial.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by polit
 





To actually claim that time is the 4th dimension of space is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.


Maybe that's because you don't understand the actual concept?

According to Einstein space and time are facets of the same thing, which creates the term spacetime.

This isn't to say there is some 4th dimension that is merely time.

we live in 3 dimensions.

Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth

Time as a 4th dimension merely changes that to this:

Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth
When = time

To find where an object is you need it's coordinates. Time is the "when" coordinate when talking about time as the 4th dimension.

I'm thinking you might have dimensions and universes/realities confused.

So you are half right, if not a little confused. Time, in essence and when talking about time as a 4th dimension, is merely a creation for us to understand.

In our reality things happen in a linear fashion. I threw a ball, it landed at x.y.z coordinates. but when did this happen? that's where the T for time comes in.

The easiest way to show that space and time are linked, and you can think of time as a 4th dimension is the fact that the faster you travel towards the speed of light, the slower time passes for you.

And no, this is not just "in your head" time actually passes slower for you than people not moving towards the speed of light. This has been tested and proven with atomic clocks on earth and in orbit.

you can honestly say any astronaut that ever went to space was technically a time traveller, but since the speed is a mere fraction of the speed of light, the difference is almost immeasurable.



edit on 28-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 




Maybe that's because you don't understand the actual concept?


Maybe you think this because you didn't read the actual link?




This isn't to say there is some 4th dimension that is merely time.

we live in 3 dimensions.

Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth

Time as a 4th dimension merely changes that to this:

Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth
When = time

I'm thinking you might have dimensions and universes/realities confused.


I'm thinking you might have dimensions and changes over time confused.
But thanks for trying to explain it to me.
edit on 28-4-2011 by polit because: added the thanks!



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


well... in order to "view" reality you need a frame of reference. we have 3 physical dimensions to describe our position within the universe but that is instantaneous. in order to move in space and see it happen you need to keep track of it with another facet of reality. that is really what time is. time is another part of the list of coordinates that describes our position inside our universe. (x,y,z,t) you are here ---> .



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
H.G. Wells wrote, "There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it."

Seems to mirror what this new theory is saying.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by polit
the 4th dimension of 4d space would not be equivalent to a bunch of 3d universes strung together in a row.

I agree! I've always had a problem with time being lumped in there with space and am a fan of this new theory. And I really like the idea that time is something that has been created for us to make sense of Space... or at least for us to be able to navigate through it. But not so much as in the brain invented it... more so that our.. uhm.. universal energy created it. (I know... what an awful term for it... whatever it is)

I remember reading (probably in Michio Kaku's Hyperspace) about the universe being split into 2 universes... a 4 dimensional one (3 spatial and 1 temporal) and a 6 dimensional one (4 spatial and 2 temporal). I wonder how this affects that theory (but that theory has probably been revised many times since I read that book many moons ago).


Originally posted by polit
a good exercise in trying to get somebody to visualize 4 dimensions of space

That Hyperspace book did a really good job at illustrating this! Or at least it did for me... (would compare how a 2-D being would perceive a 3-D universe)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


Everything is within one's personal perception of numbers,times,dimensions,so the variance from being to being is different just as the infinite stars and galaxies so are the variety probabilities.All this being taken into perspective science suggests anything is in fact possible.The key point in question here is.....what is proven?what is fact.....?from ideas....nothing more than ideas......so again.....dimensions,time-flow,our understanding of what we call physical,mental,spirtual ,planes of existence....all concepts made by others like us to give us a better understanding of our existence and purpose....in short everything in perception has numerous dimensions just cause we can not see then does not mean they do not exist....,gamma rays from the sun,radioactive particles,pollen from flowers, oxygen,nano technology,germs,various poison gasses,none of which we can see with the naked eye....all exist in the same dimension...you see..its really that simple.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Eyezontheprize78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


ok i see the problem for you. dimension is a mathematical term. a dimension is simply a set of numbers.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
"What is Time, for instance, but the panoramic succession of our states of consciousness?"
H.P. Blavatsky



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thegiftbearer
 


I have a question.........if an atom is a three dimensional construct but cannot be seen by the naked eye does it cease being a three dimensional construct or does is have its own classification for dimensional existence?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by polit
To actually claim that time is the 4th dimension of space is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Now, it may be a good exercise in trying to get somebody to visualize 4 dimensions of space, but even that is flawed...



Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
You're supposed to use external tags or EX tags, not quote tags, for external sources.

There are two issues:
1. The papers that claim:

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper.

2. The last paragraph of the article you quoted about time being psychological.

Regarding #2, while there is no doubt that there are psychological aspects to human perception of time ("a watched pot never boils" is an expression that reflects one such psychological aspect), we have plenty of measuring instruments that are free of any such psychological bias. So it seems like a non-sequitur to make any conclusions about the real nature of time in relation to human perception of it.

Regarding #1, the article explains what the authors think the 4th dimension isn't. They say it's not time. But they don't do a very good job of explaining what it is. If it's just another dimension like height, length, and width, the 3 spatial dimensions we normally think of, then what do we call the 4th dimension?

It's easy to add a 4th spatial dimension mathematically. It's much harder to visualize it. How do you visualize it?

I haven't read the papers yet but when I do it will be with the George Box quote in mind that "All models are wrong, some are useful". If the new model is useful I will find it interesting, but I can't comment on how useful it is yet. And I don't really understand how they deal with time after they've replaced 3D+T with 4D. Where does the T go? Does it still exist?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I can certainly see where these researchers are coming from.

according to the author of "quantum theoretic machines" (see link below), time occurs as a topological crossing of dimensional planes lower than the third dimension.

to speak of time and consciousness are to speak of the same thing.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The tesseract is the "image" of the fourth dimension. I have been saying it for years: time is not a dimension. It is an artifact of changes of state. Of course, time can be traversed (as we have seen in experiments), but it has little to do with space with the exception of relating the changes of state that the universe has.

The 4th dimension is "in" and "out". Look at this tesseract to understand:




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur




2. The last paragraph of the article you quoted about time being psychological.

Regarding #2, while there is no doubt that there are psychological aspects to human perception of time ("a watched pot never boils" is an expression that reflects one such psychological aspect), we have plenty of measuring instruments that are free of any such psychological bias. So it seems like a non-sequitur to make any conclusions about the real nature of time in relation to human perception of it.



I agree with you, but I was actually referring to our perception of the forwardly moving linear nature of time, and not our perception of how fast it flows forward, in which I have heard it said that physics works just as well backwards as forwards and that our perceived forward linearity of time may simply be a result of our perceptions/ psyche and not how time "actually flows." In that sense, I can not see how it matters what measuring instruments we use as they have all been chosen based upon their accuracy when measuring time moving forward. But that is not what you were referring to, of course.



Regarding #1, the article explains what the authors think the 4th dimension isn't. They say it's not time. But they don't do a very good job of explaining what it is. If it's just another dimension like height, length, and width, the 3 spatial dimensions we normally think of, then what do we call the 4th dimension?

It's easy to add a 4th spatial dimension mathematically. It's much harder to visualize it. How do you visualize it?

I haven't read the papers yet but when I do it will be with the George Box quote in mind that "All models are wrong, some are useful". If the new model is useful I will find it interesting, but I can't comment on how useful it is yet. And I don't really understand how they deal with time after they've replaced 3D+T with 4D. Where does the T go? Does it still exist?


I had some of the same questions and after a little searching found a parent article:
from Phyorg.com

I couldn't find anything related on physicsessays.org though.


And I can not visualize 4 dimensions. The closest I've come was reading Flatland and imagining how a 2-d being would react to a 3-d being/ world. Seeing those rotating 4-d animations don't help much: Four Dimensional Space from Wikipedia
edit on 28-4-2011 by polit because: formatting

edit on 28-4-2011 by polit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
There are many brands of mathematical space (and space-time), but only one physical universe that we are part of. Each brand is like a kind of 3- or 4-dimensional graph paper. If you trace a 2D physical curve on log-log paper and then stretch the paper to make its grid square, you get the original curve in log-log space. Trace it again on anti-log paper and stretch the paper to make the grid square, and you get the original curve in lin-lin space.

Each brand is intended to be a mathematical analogy of the physical universe, intended to facilitate prediction and analysis of physical events. It is pointless to argue over which, if any, brand of mathematical space is the true analogy; we should concentrate on which brands yield accurate predictions. Einstein's general relativity, GR, applied to Minkowski space-time, yields highly accurate predictions. Special relativity, SR, applied to 3D Euclidean space and time, is capable of yielding equally accurate predictions—provided both systems make the same assumptions about all the fundamental forces. (For example: In Einstein's GR, it is generally assumed that the warp of space-time is related to the instantaneous position, now, of the mass which causes it, rather than where it was at some past time. That is equivalent to assuming the propagation time for gravity in Euclidean space is zero, and therefore, the speed of gravity is infinite.)

As far as I know, there is no set of formulas for solving general relativity problems in Euclidean space. (I am referring to general relativity in the generic sense; any problem involving gravity or acceleration is a general relativity problem, regardless of whether Einstein's GR is used to solve it.) Instead, it is necessary to employ numerical analysis. Trajectories are projected a short time into the future; then the formulas of SR are applied before projecting the next increment of time. The increment is then shortened, and if the same result is achieved within acceptable tolerance, the problem is solved. This method does not yield the same numbers as GR because it predicts where trajectories will lead in Euclidean space, not in Minkowski space-time. However, both methods should agree on such questions as whether a collision occurs or does not occur.

A strength of GR is the fact that it computes much more efficiently. It also maintains the shapes of objects relative to the space-time in their immediate vicinity. Objects in strong gravity are distorted relative to Euclidean space, so that a hydrogen atom is no longer spherical, and time measured in Euclidean space flows at different rates in different directions. So, from the point of view of an observer in a deep gravity well, Euclidean space makes no sense, but Minkowski space-time does.

The real difference between the Euclidean space and Minkowski space-time is not the fact that Minkowski treated time as a dimension. In Euclidean space, gravity causes the path of light to bend; in Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. Straightening the path of light by definition yields the warp of space-time. So gravity is the cause of the warp, not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Time is something you made up to trick yourself, the individual self into forgetting that you are the one and all. If you don't get it, it's because you don't want to. You are still enjoying the game. So some part of me is still enjoying this game? WTF?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I am not a very religious man. A "deist", for the most part.

However, it would seem to me that time is an artifact of the purpose of our universe: the immerse yourself in the interactive causative actions locked in by our steady forward traversal of time.

Nothing happens without cause (even if they call it "spontaneous", that just means they don't know the cause). We live in a "cause and effect" universe. The 1 rule of God is The Universal Law Of Consequence. Nothing happens without cause, and this is ensured by our forward moving, 1 dimensional, temporal experience.

Just a few thoughts I bat around in the wee hours.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
id claim the forth is Comprehension of the three that make up the fifth,

which to is "inner" space =?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
there is only one dimension. The dimension of mind.....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join