It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Hypothesis: Time + Space = the 3 Dimensions (wip)

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:43 AM
I'm back with another hypothesis for you to disassemble and hopefully put to an early grave if wrong and in effect save me precious time spent on faulty logic. Or the total opposite if there could be something there.

## Introduction

My biggest problem with physics is how they handle the concept of time, being a main component in a world of science it should not be used as a toss in. An fundamental ingredient in all fields of science while simultaneously being one of the most discussed topics through time and still not really understood to this day makes it a quite remarkable phenomenon. Is it predetermined or ever-changing? Is it a single instance or is it just one of many? Is it linear or does it branch? Does it even exist in the physical world outside the human mind? Problem being that it's apparent unphysical existence would make it forever conceptual and only describable by it's proposed effects, effectively making it unprovable. This is of course using what we know today.

So, why don't give it a shot. One thing that has always bothered me is how time keeps being a trow in and a "it just works" solution. Since the universe is greedy, an eager recycler and everything seems to eventually get back to where it all started, one would think that time would be a quite simple process that effortlessly integrates itself into the existing framework.

## Time

Let's start by looking at three simple tasks as they are stated below;
- Describe the concept of time in..
A) 1 dimension
B) 2 dimensions
C) 3 dimensions

Yea, task A and B are not really rocket science. We have the linear point a to point b solution for task A and cycles simply answers task B, but what about task C? As far as I know it can not be done. Wait a minute, lets take another look at task B. Doesn't a cycle require something to exist? If nothing exists there are nothing to repeat, if nothing repeats then there are no change and it would simply just exist as linear.

## Space

Let's do that once more but change the subject to space.
- Describe the concept of space in..
A) 1 dimension
B) 2 dimensions
C) 3 dimensions

Now, this is interesting, it seems like the table has turned. Task C is now actually basically the definition of space as we perceive it in our reality. Task A may in our three dimensional existence be answered by referring to the "space" between two points, but without height or depth the two points would be no more than a reference in themselves (#1). Task B gives us an area which opens up the possibility for something to exist at a point. With two dimensions the universe would be able to coordinate itself and allow stuff to exist within it.

#1 On paper one may illustrate it at two dots on a line but remember that this illustration is in itself a two dimensional construct.

## Assembly

If time could only exist on it's own in one dimension and space needs two dimensions to even be a simple image of itself, what if they where to combine? Numerous hypothesis' presented in our modern world suggests that time exists within a 4th dimension looking down on our three dimensions from it's high throne, does this really sound like something created by a greedy universe? One would think that a greedy system would keep all things under it's main philosophy.

## Wave = Time + Space

Looking at this model one could maybe be able to disassemble a wave into time and space and maybe get the cause of time relativity. Time seems to have something to do with the speed of a object moving through space and we know that the higher the speed of a wave, the higher the frequency of said wave. We could look at it from the perspective of a black hole. As when waves enters water and they slow down and increases their wavelength it seems like a black hole slows down time by decreasing the frequency of waves to the extreme.

## Last words

It was a fun little problem to play around with, I hope it at least kept you entertained. In the end I did kill some time on a slow Saturday as intentioned.

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM

My biggest problem with physics is how they handle the concept of time

Let me add something on Time .

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a “curved space-time” was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic “space-time” binomium concept

Motion through space produces the “illusion of time”

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:01 AM

That's why I thought I'd take a look at what creates the illusion.

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:44 AM

Have you studied the concept of Relativity of simultaneity? The ideas you wrote about have been discussed in the relativity concept of simultaneity. It has some mind blowing implications, such as:

Relativity of simultaneity

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity–whether two events occur at the same time–is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
Basically it's saying that if two events occur, we don't know which one occurred first until we know the observer's reference frame, and if that changes, so could the answer about which event happened first.

I think most of your theory is wrapped up in relativity concepts so perhaps you should either study relativity, or if you've already done so, explain how your view differs from that and what evidence if any you have to back up the differences.

Other interesting effects are that at relativistic speeds, the three dimensions can appear very distorted. I downloaded some computer software that demonstrates this with models using the currently known math, and it was interesting to experiment with.

Here's a link that discusses how space and time behave in the theory of relativity, and it covers "Distortion of Space and Time", among other key concepts:

Chapter 7. Relativity

I didn't have time to review if for accuracy, but I did glance at it and it does seem to cover some key things relative to your OP, and it looks like it's written so a non-physicist can read it.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:44 AM
The theory of a holographic Universe predicts that 3D space is merely an illusion created by a projection from a 2D surface. Perhaps this could tie in with your theory some how.

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:27 PM

I think my head where focused on the waves part of it. Trying to figure out what time really is and it's origin. What it is we perceive as time. Looking at the possibility that waves are the inner signals as if it was a processor in a computer, speeding up and speeding down. Are time nothing but oscillation of matter on the canvas of space?

Thanks for linking to material, I will check if there is something I've overlooked but have to do that when my brain is back online. Seems to be down for maintenance again (on that thought, don't prioritize what i say in this reply when trying to understand OP as I can't really hold any lines of thought at the moment).

Oh and regarding your question about if it's based on some other theory, it's pretty much just me being bored on a Saturday staring into the wall and thinking about how waves would work in regards to time. Did some checking before posting to be sure I did not totally throw the readers much appreciated time out the window, but that's about it. Good to hear it's not all wack.

new topics

top topics

1