# Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by stateofmind, Sep 28, 2011.

1. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Maxila

Ah, but you've got that backwards, the change in energy allows you to measure(describe)that time, it has nothing to do with creating that time.

Time is a dimension of the 4 dimensional manifold we call spacetime, it's built in to the structure of the Universe. Over 13 billion years of it passed before our ancestors climbed down from the tree, so whether you think it has no meaning means nothing. What you should have said was that it can't be measured without reference to something tangible, kind of like a BH with no mass outside it's horizon is not measurable. But, like the invisible BH, undetectable time goes on.

If the dilation is high with lots of mass, medium with medium, low in low mass how is it not logical to expect that time dilation will be zero at zero mass. How would that be unwarranted extrapolation? It follows the slope all the way into the noise, where we can no longer get a measurement, but you claim dilation goes to 100%(IE time stops passing)once that final little bit leaves the area? I don't think you've thought this through. Time doesn't exist because we can measure it. It always exists even if there is no way to measure it and that's all energy allows you to do, measure the passage of time. But it is a map, time is a real thing that map measures, the measurement is not the thing being measured. And just like singularities probably don't exist, nothing can ever be said to be motionless, nothing with mass can reach lightspeed therefore time does not completely stop for anything with mass(exception: the event horizon of a BH), and no point in space can ever be completely empty therefore time can never reach a theoretical maximum, empty state rate.

Grumpy

3. ### DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,885
This issue is really a matter of context.

If contemplating the volume of (for example) a 4D Sphere, the fourth dimension is the same as the other three: It relates to a distance from the origin (0, 0, 0, 0) in a particular direction.

When dealing with the laws of physics (especially SR & GR), it is convenient to use (x, y, z, t) to represent a point & a set of (x, y, z, t) values to represent a curve (which could be a straight line).

In some contexts (Example: An idealized Solar System), it is convenient to use (x, y, t) coordinates because all the objects are in the same plane. In this context, time is the third dimension.

BTW: As mentioned by me in other Threads, the use of an (x, y, z, t) coordinate system results in a static model. The motion of a particle is represented by a 4D curve, which is a fixed object in a 4D space. While I like the model, I do not think of a particle as actually being motionless. The model requires a slight amount of 1984 Double Think.

5. ### MaxilaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
156
We could both go in circles defending our perspective on this. I’d only like to reiterate that causality and empirical observations support energy and space being fundamental. I’ve already discussed that in other posts so I’ll spare you a long winded answer.

Spacetime is coordinate locations (i.e. x, y, z, t) it has no existence on its own, even Einstein said that in appendix 5 of his book “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory”; "Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field." (He was speaking of a gravitational field). Whether you speak of Cartesian coordinates or spacetime, they are a way to define a location in space; they are a man made constructs they don’t exist as independent entities (they are manmade mathematical constructs).

Fundamentally that is just the change of position of energy (in all forms) relative to the change of position of energy that comprises a clock, or the Earth rotation, etc. It’s simply a relative comparison of energy that changes because it changes position in space (in varied and complex ways). However 13 billion years is not a phenomenon, just the description of one.

Because such an extrapolation cannot be observed, and contradicts empirical evidence of what is fundemental and observable when it has meaning (time is only observed and has meaning in a change of position of energy).

Not exactly, I claim time is a framework that describes (in a relative way) the change of position of energy, that it is not a phenomenon in its own right; therefore, where no energy or space exists there’s nothing to describe (a position that would be supported by any conceivable experiment). I believe people make it a phenomenon because intuitively they can’t separate what is necessary for their mind to function (a framework for order and reference of recorded observations and simulated thoughts), from what is fundamental to the observation (energy and space).

...and I would argue what energy does is necessitate a framework to describe its change of position. After all energy fundamentally is the cause of all that exists, and all the change in the Universe, albeit in some very complex and fascinating ways. In other words change is the product of energy’s change of position and time is a framework to define and describe that change and existence.

Messages:
27,543

Hey Maxila! I have found your posts Interesting to say the least, but I do have a query re time, and more Importantly space/time.
If space/time and time do not really exist, what then did the results of GP-B tell us?
Didn't it measure the amount of space/time curvature that the Earth causes, and also the amount of twisting of space/time [Lense Thirring Effect] that the rotating Earth caused?
It may not be a concrete reality similar to the Moon, or your car, but its effects are real and measurable, are they not?
That leads me to be of the opinion that space/time is real, as is space and time.

8. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Maxila

Time is a dimension of the 4 dimensional manifold we call spacetime, it's built in to the structure of the Universe.

I don't see any conflict between what I said and what he said.

If you are speaking about a gravity field in Relativity, you are speaking about warped spacetime, gravity is a result of mass warping spacetime, that cannot be considered separately. The "manifold" in this case is the "container" within which events happen, it is not a participant in those events(though it is distorted by them). Time is a structural quality of spacetime that is not turned on and off by events in that spacetime. You can dilate it to the point of stopping, but that takes mass at lightspeed or gravity/acceleration that is equivalent, as far at the other end of the energy density spectrum as you can get from empty space. And just what is the minimum energy/movement that can exist before time flips it's measured properties and stops speeding up(un-dilating?)and comes to a sudden stop(ceases to pass)?

The coordinates are man made, so is the map they create, spacetime exists independent of the man made coordinates, it is a real thing our maps are an attempt to model, you're still thinking our map is the actual territory and that flaws in your ability to model reality are flaws in reality.

That will give you a measurement of time's rate of passage, yes. But the movement in no way creates time, the less movement you have, the faster the rate of time's passage. It would be more accurate to say the movement of energy slows/eventually(theoretically)stops time, because that's what every observation since EVER shows to be true.

Dodge. The extrapolation is only at the scale below which we cannot even measure. Engineers call it noise. It is the level where your signal is so faint that the background overwhelms your sensor. And all along the slope from just outside a BH to empty as we can measure it space the rate of time increased with less mass(THAT IS WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL AND OBSERVED FACT), and you say that when a bottom is reached time instantly goes from minimum dilation to 100% dead stop dilation. And there's that word "meaning" again. A value judgement, being applied to a physical property as if that physical property gave a hoot about what it means to you.

You seem to have gotten lost between the map and the territory, you can't tell one from the other and you think the map(a measurement)dictates to the territory(time). You may or may not be able to measure time's rate without the yardstick of energy, but that inability has no effect on time.

You're all screwed up, then. And wrong. You really don't understand anything about how much modern physics has learned about the Universe. I recommend "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking as a primer so you can catch up with the rest of the class. Until you get up to speed on Relativity and spacetime you are not speaking about our Universe and how it works. The Universe IS spacetime, the matter and energy in it are a very minor addition. Estimates I've seen are there is a single proton's mass per cubic yard(not sure what current, more accurate estimates are). The matter and energy we see represents about 4% of the mass we measure, most of that is circling the drains that are Black Holes.

Grumpy

9. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,070
What is wrong with the concept that in the absence of change, (the passage of) time is a meaningless term. Time is a potential in that it is allowed (determined) by the laws ofuniversal constants to be created in unlimited amounts as required.
But only with change does time emerge into existence as required by the expression and duration of physical events in reality.

From David Bohm,
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

This analysis seems to support the notion that time is a phenomena (not an independent dimension) which emerges along with reality itself.

10. ### Motor DaddyValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,425
One second of time has elapsed when the length of the path that light traveled in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters, by definition.

Nonnegotiable!

Messages:
27,543

That's exactly the way I see it, and as relayed to me by an Astronomer named Geraint Lewis.

12. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695

I have essentially withdrawn from starting/engaging in new discussions/threads for a while, but of course there were a couple of 'loose ends' from existing discussions (such as this one) which I feel I should post to just for completeness' sake. Hence...

I think I have identified where the possible cause of much cross-purpose exchanges arises, and it can be found in one of Einstein's/Grumpy's statements, as follows:

I would advise everyone to substitute the term "dynamics" for the term "structure" in the above statement. Then we would all be 'on the same page'.

You see, 'time' is part of the modeling WE construct to describe the dynamics of the structure. Time is not 'in built' into any real physical 'structure' as such. It is merely an abstract 'component of OUR abstract 'construct' for graphing and otherwise describing/modeling the 'dynamics' in order to predict the behavior of the energy-space 3-D structure per se. The universal 'structure' as such has NO 'time' in it. It is only our abstract 'overlay' onto it after the motional-spatial dynamics is evident and capable of being extrapolated/predicted/measured etc via our observational/modeling construct in which we include 'time' as an 'abstract graphing dimension' component of that abstraction/observation 'modeling structure' we call 'mathematical/geometrical spacetime' modeling tool/convenience etc.

So let's not put time in universe structure, but rather in dynamics model OF that universe structure which only fundamentally really ONLY comprises energy-space (motional-spatial degrees of dynamical freedom from which WE abstract such things as 'time' and other 'graphing/mathematical only 'dimensions' above the real energy-space 3-D ones).

That's it from me on this topic, everyone! No more loose ends now, so I'll sign off and read through as I find time. Cheers, good luck and good discussions all until we speak again!

Messages:
2,973
comical.

Messages:
1,695
No comment.

15. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,070

I have no quarrel with that.
Some people might say you need to "set aside" some time otherwise you will never "find" the time..:shrug:

16. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Write4U

Ah, the old holographic Universe interpretation of Quantum mechanics. You know, there's a reason that Quantum Mechanics are in the Theoretical Sciences section, I am approaching time from a Cosmological aspect, not speculating about yet to be evidenced, minority opinions, even the Copenhagen interpretation leaves more questions than real answers. That was one of the reasons the LHC was built, to try to answer those questions. But up here in the macro world my description of reality is well evidenced. You can describe something as a wave function if you like, it sounds like woo to me. But we shall see in the next few years, I think.

Grumpy

17. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,070
This may be of interest
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-credence-theory-universe-hologram.html#ajTabs

18. ### river

Messages:
17,307

What nonsense

Just another proof that mathematics can contrive and prove anything

19. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Write4U

You should know that arXiv is a prepublish archive, don't you? It is one of the sites some scientists are complaining about concerning lack of rigor. While I would not go as far as to say that nothing of value is ever found there, it is true that things of no value can easily be found there. Some people take advantage of that to get absolute dreck "published". I saw the article, seems a first tentative step, If it turns out to lead somewhere, good. It did say it might turn out to be the first evidence of that interpretation. Like I said, Quantum theory is in the Theoretical department for a reason. Interesting, but not solid, open to different interpretations and currently inaplicable to the macro Universe. When you nail down Quantum Gravity we may be getting somewhere beyond what Einstein has shown us. I found the wormhole connecting entangled particles interesting as well. I've always thought that the Event Horizon of a Black Hole is the only edge our Universe has, and the wormholes and backward time that some math says is possible may mean that every BH has a wormhole that goes back in time to the Big Bang singularity, where it erupts in a White Hole that the theory also says may actually exist. String Theory posits that everything is just bits of vibrating strings, it's awfully squishy too. And it's likely our computers will understand it before we do and it will take some time for them to explain it to us(IF they decide to explain it to us). The LHC is large enough to answer these questions and create many more. We will know pretty soon, they already seem to have found the Higgs Boson, let's see where it leads.

Oh, hologram is a horrible word for it, it leaves the impression that reality is an illusion, I would use emergent structure. But like strings, I'm not buying it yet. Cosmology has it's own Theoretical theories including the Zombie theory(it's all about BRANES).

Grumpy

Messages:
27,543
No what I see as rubbish and nonsene is that old discarded Plasma/Electric Universe contrived rubbish.

21. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,070
Oh, I completely agree with you. The intent of posting the link was only to inform of a development by a (reputable?) source. Nothing more, nothing less
It seemed related to the discussion. Please note, I made no claim of any kind other than as an item of interest.

Perhaps a better term, "a set of standing waves"?

22. ### river

Messages:
17,307

My contention , in the above quote , by me , has nothing to do with Plasma and Electric Universe thinking

This is simply a truth

23. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,070
I like Bohm's use of the metaphysical word "Implicate" as an abstract potential to become expressed in reality