# Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

That is what I think too. It doesn't allow for time travel.

what's funny is, the post you just quoted says it is possible.

explain birth to death

Re:
[Write4U asked] a) Can time exist independent of the three spatial dimensions? IOW, is time a "constant"?

[Maxila Replied] Empirically the answer would be no

This is a good question, many people have a hard time finding physical motions in the everyday experiences they associate with a change in time; however look closely and the answer is self-evident:

The entire process is a function of changing of positions in three dimensions, from conception, to cell growth and creation, to cell functions, to all metabolisms, to brain waves, to experiences, to death and in decay.

there's also imaginary time,
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space

If you read my posts in this thread and in the “Time ala Einstein” thread created by Dinosaur [ http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137207-Time-ala-Einstein ], you’ll see I understand and agree it is essential in any description of any empirical change of position to use a concept of what time describes.

"I’ve agreed on that relationship many times, it’s why many have trouble separating the fundamental components, energy and space, from a necessary way to describe their dynamics (energy's change of position in space). Just as the only fundamental component of mass is a quantity of energy. Mass describes a relative quantity of energy (i.e. a gram), time describes a relative change in position (i.e. a second or day). Examine their fundamental components and that's what they come down too.

We can observe energy, and by its definition we can observe space (the room to move, or separation). Time cannot be observed or inferred without energy and space. I agree it is vital for human understanding and organization of any change in position; however we confuse that necessity as an empirical role (time being an empirical entity).

Observe an apple fall from a tree, we see energy and space; to accurately describe and communicate it we must keep and define the order our brains recorded its trajectory. Time did not cause the apple to fall (energy did), nor was it the venue the apple fell (space was), its function was describing its change in position, as points we could define along the trajectory with a magnitude relative to distance. Because that description (time) is vital to correctly organize and communicate such observations, many confuse that necessity as being some kind of empirical entity or phenomenon."

This is a good question, many people have a hard time finding physical motions in the everyday experiences they associate with a change in time; however look closely and the answer is self-evident:

The entire process is a function of changing of positions in three dimensions, from conception, to cell growth and creation, to cell functions, to all metabolisms, to brain waves, to experiences, to death and in decay.

If you read my posts in this thread and in the “Time ala Einstein” thread created by Dinosaur [ http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137207-Time-ala-Einstein ], you’ll see I understand it is essential in any description of any empirical change of position to use a concept of what time describes.

"I’ve agreed on that relationship many times, it’s why many have trouble separating the fundamental components, energy and space, from a necessary way to describe their dynamics (energy's change of position in space). Just as the only fundamental component of mass is a quantity of energy. Mass describes a relative quantity of energy (i.e. a gram), time describes a relative change in position (i.e. a second or day). Examine their fundamental components and that's what they come down too.

We can observe energy, and by its definition we can observe space (the room to move, or separation). Time cannot be observed or inferred without energy and space. I agree it is vital for human understanding and organization of any change in position; however we confuse that necessity as an empirical role.

Observe an apple fall from a tree, we see energy and space; to accurately describe and communicate it we must keep and define the order our brains recorded its trajectory. Time did not cause the apple to fall (energy did), nor was it the venue the apple fell (space was), its function was describing its change in position, as points we could define along the trajectory with a magnitude relative to distance. Because that description (time) is vital to correctly organize and communicate such observations, many confuse that necessity as being some kind of empirical entity or phenomenon."

again,
explain birth to death

em·pir·i·cal

em·pir·i·cal [em pírrik'l]
1. based on observation and experiment: based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory
2. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic
there's also imaginary time,
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space
if you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
-nikola tesla

again,
explain birth to death

there's also imaginary time,
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space
if you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
-nikola tesla

explain birth to death
I thought I already did? One is not born, does not live, does not grow, does not learn or experience, decay and die, without the motions in the forms of energy that we are comprised of, and use to experience the universe. Those motions all happen in the three dimensions of space. If you still feel this does not answer your question please be more specific next time.

if you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.

That is a great quote that I agree with. Examine empirically what comprises a frequency or vibration? They are increments of motion, look at a clock, a wave, etc, etc.. For example the frequency of the period one day is two points of the motion (a starting and stopping point) that is one Earth rotation. All empirical references I have examined for a frequency, or duration, have turned out to be a similar increment of physical motion (it is important to look at the source of their reference when examining them).

again,
explain birth to death,
explain how this is not empirical.

how do you measure motion ?
how do you even know motion occurred ?
you will probably say distance.
ok, so how do you know distance occurred at all ?
then you will probably say ordinates/coordinates,
ok so how do you know using motion and distance , that the coordinates changed ?
keep in mind,
"how do you even know motion occurred ? and how do you know distance occurred at all ? "
and also, if you say time doesn't exist,
then why are you using words like " period and duration "

Yes, but you are forgetting everything in the Universe is changing position (is in motion),......
....If we examine a Universe void of any motion (macro and micro) then it is stopped in time too.

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ?

you do not realize this.

....To describe that motion we need to use some concept or measurement such as time.

but why ?
according to you it does not exist
motion is what it exist, why could i not just measure motion, why could i not describe motion with just motion ?

why is time NOT a force of energy?

again,
explain birth to death,
explain how this is not empirical.

What you originally referenced: Write4U asked, if time could exist independent of three dimensions and I answered “no”. In other words I agree time refers to empirical things that exist in three dimensions. I explained that again in the second part of the post. Where we may disagree is, I’ve tried to show how time is a description of empirical things and not an empirical thing itself, analogous to mass being a description of energy (energy quantity being the empirical thing mass describes).

how do you measure motion ?
how do you even know motion occurred ?
you will probably say distance.
ok, so how do you know distance occurred at all ?
then you will probably say ordinates/coordinates,
ok so how do you know using motion and distance , that the coordinates changed ?
keep in mind,
"how do you even know motion occurred ? and how do you know distance occurred at all ? "
and also, if you say time doesn't exist,

then why are you using words like " period and duration "

All these questions come down to; what causes time, and what role does it play in the physical, fundamental dynamics, of an observation. In any physical way I’ve been able to examine or conceive, time has been an increment (a starting and stopping point) for a change in position of energy (energy in any form), with that change having a magnitude relative to a distance.

Like in the example of the falling apple, clocks merely record the same fundamental dynamics to derive a unit of time; they record a starting and stopping point of a consistent change of position energy that becomes the basis of their frequency in deriving time. Looking at causality, the cause is energy changing position within the venue of a space. Time’s role is an effect; in essence it describes that dynamic, it did not cause it, nor was it the venue for it.

The key question is who or what requires time? Did the clock or the apple require it to change position, or did we (humans) require it to describe that recorded information? I cannot communicate or make sense of data such as above without keeping the order for its change of position in space and giving it a relative magnitude to other changes of position in space (time).

Where we likely disagree is that I see such “events” as only needing energy and space to occur, while humans need time to describe and define them. I believe causality, and analysis of what is fundamental (energy and space), support my view. Therefore, while time is essential in describing energies change of position, it is not in anyway a cause or venue needed for that to occur.

It's best not to confuse nature with modeling theories that are modeling nature.

In nature there is space and energy. Space being an open space and energy occupying that space. Time seems to be the ability of energy to move / transfer in an open space, its as simple as that.

Since we need theories to model what is happening in nature, like relativity theory, we need to make a model of nature to account for what is happening so we can orientate ourselves in this nature. We use models to understand the causes and effects of the events that are occurring or a recorded process of statistics that will occur in energy interactions / reactions. We have atomic models that will predict the outcome of reactions, interactions, etc... the only reason these theories work is because nature is MECHANICAL and always obeys laws which govern how energy / matter affects other energy / matter in space. Our main goal is to quantise what all the energies are doing and this requires great precision and requires including all the effects energy / matter are experiencing, if we miss any effects our accounting will not balance and theory will be incomplete.

Like relativity theory uses space time to model nature, it is not nature. It uses 3 dimensions of space as a coordinate system to measure the 1 dimension of time to represent how energies / matter are moving in space coordinates. The 1 time dimension is the amount of motion that occurred for the matter / energy in space, like a 1 dimensional vector representing the motion of objects in 3 dimensional space.

To relativity model time is the fourth dimension, but in nature time is only the transfer of energy that occurred in space. Because of how nature works humans need to make an increment of "time" (1 second) to measure how long it took for the matter / energy to move that distance so we can account for the transfer of energy over the 1 second duration. This is where it becomes tricky, because we dont only need to know how the object moved we need to account for the amount of energy that was moved or transferred. Thats what time dilation is doing, its saying there was a change in the quantity of energy that was moving or transferred in the system on the atomic scale and we need to account for it or our models will not balance. Time dilation is saying that if time is dilated then the object experiencing the dilation is evolving (aging) slower / faster because the reduced / increased transfer of energy inside the objects atomic lattice is effecting how the object is processing its aging in nature. All the effects on the processes of energy transfer must be accounted for in theories and not forgetting the theories are models trying to do the accounting of energy transformations.

If that is not what relativity theory or nature is saying then I dont understand what its doing... Just my opinion...

Transformation
In
Mechanical
Energies

I agree, and have long proposed that time comes into existence (emerges) as a result (by-product) of change. Any other assumption that time can exist independently would be contrary to to the BB theory. The BB did not occupy any preexisting spacetime, the inflationary epoch created both space and time, where neither existed before.

Thus, where there is space (change) there is time, but when there is no space (change), time also does not exist. No change, no need for time to change.

What you originally referenced: Write4U asked, if time could exist independent of three dimensions and I answered “no”. In other words I agree time refers to empirical things that exist in three dimensions. I explained that again in the second part of the post. Where we may disagree is, I’ve tried to show how time is a description of empirical things and not an empirical thing itself, analogous to mass being a description of energy (energy quantity being the empirical thing mass describes).

All these questions come down to; what causes time, and what role does it play in the physical, fundamental dynamics, of an observation. In any physical way I’ve been able to examine or conceive, time has been an increment (a starting and stopping point) for a change in position of energy (energy in any form), with that change having a magnitude relative to a distance.

Like in the example of the falling apple, clocks merely record the same fundamental dynamics to derive a unit of time; they record a starting and stopping point of a consistent change of position energy that becomes the basis of their frequency in deriving time. Looking at causality, the cause is energy changing position within the venue of a space. Time’s role is an effect, in essence it describes that dynamic; it did not cause it, nor was it the venue for it.

The key question is who or what requires time? Did the clock or the apple require it to change position, or did we (humans) require it to describe that recorded information? I cannot communicate or make sense of data such as above without keeping the order for its change of position in space and giving it a relative magnitude to other changes of position in space (time).

Where we likely disagree is that I see such “events” as only needing energy and space to occur, while humans need time to describe and define them. I believe causality, and analysis of what is fundamental (energy and space), support my view. Therefore, while time is essential in describing energies change of position, it is not in anyway a cause or venue needed for that to occur.
with out the rambling and the reiterating stuff that doesn't pertian to the specific question,
agian,
how do you even know motion occurred ?
how do you know distance occurred at all ?
how do you know using motion and distance , that the coordinates changed ?
keep in mind,
"how do you even know motion occurred ? and how do you know distance occurred at all ? "

Time’s role is an effect

maybe you need to understand this little comment of yours.
and i'm sure in the next post i will have to show the definition of effect

i never said time was or is not the cause,
i'm trying to understand how it does not exist like you are claiming.
simple.

nor was it the venue for it
so what is the venue for space since space is the venue of motion ?

The key question is who or what requires time?

no not at all,
the key question is,
" how do you even know motion occurred ? "

and agian, since you conveniatly left this part out,

....To describe that motion we need to use some concept or measurement such as time.
but why ?
according to you it does not exist
motion is what it exist, why could i not just measure motion, why could i not describe motion with just motion ?

why is time NOT a force or energy?

Last edited:
I agree, and have long proposed that time comes into existence (emerges) as a result (by-product) of change. Any other assumption that time can exist independently would be contrary to to the BB theory. The BB did not occupy any preexisting spacetime, the inflationary epoch created both space and time, where neither existed before.

Thus, where there is space (change) there is time, but when there is no space (change), time also does not exist. No change, no need for time to change.

how does space exist in the beginning.
would an event need a platform to start ?

and again since this was conveniently side stepped,

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ?

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ?

It does not. It only appears to move at different rates, but it is a relative measurement. A Mayfly changes position very rapidly, but lives a very short time (24 hours relative to us), a Turtle moves very slowly but lives a long time (150 years relative to us). Does time go faster or slower for the Mayfly or the Turtle?

The question "explain birth to death" is meaningless. The only answer is that it depends on the rate of change inside the object and its "timeline" is uncertain, until it actually dies. At that point the period from birth to death can be measured with certainty, relative to our time.

i see contradictions, you do not realize this.
but why ?
according to you it (time) does not exist
motion is what it exist, why could i not just measure motion, why could i not describe motion with just motion ?
why is time NOT a force of energy?

You can, but it will be meaningless. The expression "faster than a speeding bullet", does not mean much until you define the direction and distance the object travels.

A bullet travels @ 2000 fps, thus hits a target 2000 ft away in one second. It is true we use the term light years to indicate a distance, but that is only possible because the rate of travel of light (photon) is a constant. Of course you always need to know the spatial coordinates from whence you came and the spatial coordinates of where you are going, in order to estimate your "time of arrival".

It does not. It only appears to move at different rates, but it is a relative measurement. A Mayfly changes position very rapidly, but lives a very short time (24 hours relative to us), a Turtle moves very slowly but lives a long time (150 years relative to us). Does time go faster or slower for the Mayfly or the Turtle?

The question "explain birth to death" is meaningless. The only answer is that it depends on the rate of change inside the object and its "timeline" is uncertain, until it actually dies. At that point the period from birth to death can be measured with certainty, relative to our time.

You can, but it will be meaningless. The expression "faster than a speeding bullet", does not mean much until you define the direction and distance the object travels.

A bullet travels @ 2000 fps, thus hits a target 2000 ft away in one second. It is true we use the term light years to indicate a distance, but that is only possible because the rate of travel of light (photon) is a constant. Of course you always need to know the spatial coordinates from whence you came and the spatial coordinates of where you are going, in order to estimate your "time of arrival".

sorry.

time stretches and space shrinks when an object moves at a high velocity.
in time dilation, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes.

SR describes how the universe behaves when an object is moving, called time dilation.
which forces time to go more slowly for you(relative to stationary people)the faster you travel.
LT reveals exactly how time grows when you move at a particular speed.

if you are traveling at c , 0 time passes. time is frozen.
LT's simple formula is that you can insert any speed as v to find out how time would pass.

time is reluctant to change except at high speeds.

as for distance,
it also shrinks as you move faster.
just substitute d in place of t

LT,
tells us that the cosmos doesn't have a single inviolable size.

if you could go at light speed to see what photon experiences,there would be no distance at all between you and the farthest edges of the cosmos.
you would find your self everywhere at once
and not because of some alteration in your perception.
the cosmos would really be that size.
LT tells us that reality actually changes when you vary your speed.

I suggest you do force yourself to read litrtle further.

To dismiss what I proposed without explanation other than "I stopped reading after the first two lines" is not informative or in any way constructive.

You asked the question, not I . If you want to describe motion with motion you are welcome, but I doubt that it would be any more useful than to say 2 = 2.

Write4U
I agree, and have long proposed that time comes into existence (emerges) as a result (by-product) of change. Any other assumption that time can exist independently would be contrary to to the BB theory. The BB did not occupy any preexisting spacetime, the inflationary epoch created both space and time, where neither existed before.

Thus, where there is space (change) there is time, but when there is no space (change), time also does not exist. No change, no need for time to change.

Space is the area where events happen, matter exists and change occurs, it is not an event, it is not matter nor is it a change. Time is a progression from what once existed, happened or changed to what exists now, is happening and is changing, the future is where the next events will happen, exist or change. It is the whole Universe moving toward higher entropy. But time is also a distance. To say something is a light year away is to say it is both a year away in time, but also a light year away in distance, they are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. And time is visible in a telescope, because everything you see is in your past. If the sun blew up right now you would not see or experience any knowledge of that event for 8 whole minutes, no physical manifestation of that event would affect the Earth for that 8 minutes. Comets in the Oort Cloud wouldn't know it for half of a year or more and the nearest star to us wouldn't know it until 4 years from the event. In spacetime, time is a dimension every bit as evident as length, breadth or height. Distance in space IS distance in time, in theory we can see every point in space at different distances in time, or we can see all points in time at different points in space, both are correct. Time happens whether or not movement, change or events happen(though they always are happening). Even empty space experiences time, in fact it experiences the quickest rate of time, the more mass in an area of space the slower the rate of time's passage. You might have trouble measuring time's passage in empty space(no events)but the time doesn't stop. Time is the duration events occur within(just like space is the area events occur within), it is not caused by the events, the duration exists with or without them(just like space exists even when it's empty).

So the correct answer to "Is time a dimension" is Yes.

Grumpy

Write4U

Space is the area where events happen, matter exists and change occurs, it is not an event, it is not matter nor is it a change. Time is a progression from what once existed, happened or changed to what exists now, is happening and is changing, the future is where the next events will happen, exist or change. It is the whole Universe moving toward higher entropy. But time is also a distance. To say something is a light year away is to say it is both a year away in time, but also a light year away in distance, they are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. And time is visible in a telescope, because everything you see is in your past. If the sun blew up right now you would not see or experience any knowledge of that event for 8 whole minutes, no physical manifestation of that event would affect the Earth for that 8 minutes. Comets in the Oort Cloud wouldn't know it for half of a year or more and the nearest star to us wouldn't know it until 4 years from the event. In spacetime, time is a dimension every bit as evident as length, breadth or height. Distance in space IS distance in time, in theory we can see every point in space at different distances in time, or we can see all points in time at different points in space, both are correct. Time happens whether or not movement, change or events happen(though they always are happening). Even empty space experiences time, in fact it experiences the quickest rate of time, the more mass in an area of space the slower the rate of time's passage. You might have trouble measuring time's passage in empty space(no events)but the time doesn't stop. Time is the duration events occur within(just like space is the area events occur within), it is not caused by the events, the duration exists with or without them(just like space exists even when it's empty).

So the correct answer to "Is time a dimension" is Yes.

Grumpy
I agree, but time comes into existence as a "measurable" dimension with the occurrence of events (change) in physical space. It is an emergent property, like kinetic energy is an emergent property of a moving object. Until there is movement the object's kinetic energy is a latent potential, but emerges in synch with the acceleration of that object.

IMO time is a Potential (a latent property) of physical space and cannot exist independent of an event or a sequence of events.

IMO, absolute time is the duration of a quantum event. IOW, it takes time for something to become expressed in reality. If no physical causality for a physical reality exist there is no requirement for the creation of time and measurement of any kind is impossible and the term time becomes moot, an abstraction (an infinite metaphysical potential).

Time cannot exist independent of reality which is our Universe, consisting of spacetime. Outside our universe there is no time. It is not needed and needs not be created.
Our Physical Reality (spacetime) began with the BB and the Inflationary Epoch. A single event (mega-quantum event) lasting 10^-36 seconds and creating our current spacetime. The evolutionary dynamics of physical energy requiring (NEEDING) a certain amount of time to become expressed in reality. From time at Planck scale to the far edges of our Universe, timelines emerge with continuity of change (any change) and individual timelines stop when that continuity is broken. From birth to death.

OnlyMe: Yes, I have posted the short Einstein POV relating to time in other Threads. It seems pertinent to almost any discussion of time & there have been many Threads on the subject.

BTW: Circa 1950 I was taking a philosophy course & the text book had a long chapter relating to time. It did seem to say anything meaningful. I mentioned the course & the text to my father. He remembered reading the Einstein POV in some book he had read & I found it in the school library. When I showed it to the professor, He decided that the chapter in the text was almost worthless in comparison & said that he would mention the Einstein POV in future discussions.

the key question is,
" how do you even know motion occurred"

That seems to be the crux of what you are asking. Please try to realize only something that can record a motion and analyze it could even ask such a question. We NEED a framework like time to record, review, and rearrange data of observed changes in position. We must use that framework to keep the order of what we observe (past) and not confuse that with how we might rearrange that data (future).

In other words, if you could not record the data of a motion you would have no knowledge a motion occurred, it is only in recording such data and playing it back in your mind you can say you observed a motion. Time is the necessary framework your mind needs that allows you to reconstruct the observation of a change in position by playing it back in the order it was recorded. This is how I answered your question in saying, the apple only requires energy and space to fall and we (humans) require time to observe and describe it.

In summary I’m saying, time is essential to the function of a mind, and for observations it is the framework that organizes that empirical data (past), and simulations of recorded data (future); with energy and space only being necessary for the phenomena itself. We could have no rational thought or awareness of any motion without a framework such as time; this is why I believe many think it is a phenomenon in its own right, they can’t separate its necessity for thought (observations) from fundamental phenomena.

P.S. I’ve ignored the unnecessary “rambling” remark, however please make an effort to understand the perspective I’ve already written and respond to it (agree or disagree). Asking again “how do you even know motion occurred ?” yet again, without addressing anything I’ve already said in reply, is redundant and not constructive in any way. I won’t reply to that same question without any additional argument or reasoning addressing what I’ve said in reply.

Space is the area where events happen, matter exists and change occurs, it is not an event, it is not matter nor is it a change. Time is a progression from what once existed, happened or changed to what exists now, is happening and is changing, the future is where the next events will happen, exist or change. It is the whole Universe moving toward higher entropy. But time is also a distance. To say something is a light year away is to say it is both a year away in time, but also a light year away in distance, they are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. And time is visible in a telescope, because everything you see is in your past. If the sun blew up right now you would not see or experience any knowledge of that event for 8 whole minutes, no physical manifestation of that event would affect the Earth for that 8 minutes. Comets in the Oort Cloud wouldn't know it for half of a year or more and the nearest star to us wouldn't know it until 4 years from the event.

I am in general agreement with all you say above.

In spacetime, time is a dimension every bit as evident as length, breadth or height. Distance in space IS distance in time, in theory we can see every point in space at different distances in time, or we can see all points in time at different points in space, both are correct.

Again I am in agreement, perhaps qualify my statement by saying I agree that is what the math of spacetime represents.

Time happens whether or not movement, change or events happen... Even empty space experiences time

Here I disagree, and would like to ask if you could reference any empirical example (or hypothetical that could clearly be empirical) where time happens void of any motion? Please note it is the reference to where (or how) time is happening that should be void of motion.

That seems to be the crux of what you are asking. Please try to realize only something that can record a motion and analyze it could even ask such a question. We NEED a framework like time to record, review, and rearrange data of observed changes in position. We must use that framework to keep the order of what we observe (past) and not confuse that with how we might rearrange that data (future).

In other words, if you could not record the data of a motion you would have no knowledge a motion occurred, it is only in recording such data and playing it back in your mind you can say you observed a motion. Time is the necessary framework your mind needs that allows you to reconstruct the observation of a change in position by playing it back in the order it was recorded. This is how I answered your question in saying, the apple only requires energy and space to fall and we (humans) require time to observe and describe it.

In summary I’m saying, time is essential to the function of a mind, and for observations it is the framework that organizes that empirical data (past), and simulations of recorded data (future); with energy and space only being necessary for the phenomena itself. We could have no rational thought or awareness of any motion without a framework such as time; this is why I believe many think it is a phenomenon in its own right, they can’t separate its necessity for thought (observations) from fundamental phenomena.

how do you need or use something that does not exist ?
i should be able to describe motion without something that does not exist.
i understand what you are saying,
you are implying that time is an man made/created entity.
do you not notice how you keep referring the need of an entity that does not exist.
we use math to describe entities or such,
does math not exist ?