New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

[n2doc]

Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space. Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.

Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar, begins by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency and speed. But, by itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”

more

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/spacetime-has-no-time-dimension-new-theory-claims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html#more

[WheelWalker]

1. I'll need some time to process this.

[damntexdem]

3. Well, then, we'll give you the space to do so.

;-)

[sharp_stick]

9. LOL Well Done

:toast:

[burrowowl]

2. Interesting!

[The Doctor.]

4. Time is just the threshold at which bubbly-gooey probability forms a crust.

Mmmmm... pi.

[qazplm]

7. not sure that is true

because I can wait an exact period of time before I open a box, say with oh I dunno a cat in it along with a time released poison.

Yes the cat is both dead and alive to me before I open the box, but it seems to me at some point in time it is in reality dead. I may not know when that time is before I open the box, but I can figure it out with the right tools (assuming the cat is dead) right after I open the box. If I wait 100 years, there may be a non-zero probability that the cat is still alive, but I betcha I'm not going to need any milk when I open the box.

IOW time passed and stuff happened even though the probability was not "solidified" by direct observation.

[The Doctor.]

15. It's not 'whether' probability collapses upon which observation depends,

it's how.

There's all sorts of layers between the fruity-bubbly stuff and the outer crust too.

[Thor_MN]

20. "There's all sorts of layers between the fruity-bubbly stuff and the outer crust too."

That's flakey.

[The Doctor.]

25. Yeah, but...

It ain't half-baked.

[laconicsax]

5. Umm...

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but time dilation has been observed and matches the predictions of relativity.

[cprise]

23. I think you're both right

Its just that what has been observed isn't actually what we think of as classic "time". They're just saying that the more you accelerate, the more you reduce the potential for "material change" in the relativistic sense. The mechanics are the same, except that the concept of time travel becomes impossible... What S. Hawking and others describe as time travel to the future is really just the 'change potential reduction' at work (these guys already admit that "time travel" to the past would be impossible).

This jibes with what I've thought for years now: That "time" is an emergent property of space's thermodynamic qualities, which encode the passage of "time" (or the potential for change within a given frame of reference) as entropy. There is no dimension of time, and the so-called "arrow of time" is a misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics.

We may have a sense of time because our minds record that entropy abstractly, in a way that's not very different from how we memorize place and distance.

[laconicsax]

24. I never thought of it like that.

Thanks, I'll have to look into that.

[The Doctor.]

26. Yes; space and time are intricately entwined... and not separate dimensions.

Sure, it's easy to perceive them as such, but the reality is that entropy increases with mass and energy. Funny thing, now that I think about it; it's better to think of 'acceleration of entropy' as mass-related, rather than time related.

I've often said that the Universe is older than we believe because it accelerates, as I described it conveniently; "In both time and space". I've understood the inextricable qualities of space and time, but you've put it in a way that has given me reason to take another look at the functional constant (Hubble or otherwise).

Mass and/or energy represents an acceleration of entropy either linearly, volumetrically, geometrically, or otherwise.

Love to hear your thoughts here.

[Jim__]

6. Zeno's paradox resolves if you assume that space is not continuous.

It sounds like that's what they're doing:

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

...

In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.

The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.

Once you make the assumption that space is not continuous, I'm not sure how any assumptions about time enter into Zeno's paradox.

[WheelWalker]

8. If we're talking about a paradox shift,, I'm going to have to call a time out.

[KansDem]

10. Time is "measured" as motion and change.

And there isn't just one "time," but many, many "times," or "frames." The universe in one "frame" in which time moves the slowest--so slow it appears to stand still. Within this frame are smaller "frames," i.e., the birth, life, and death of stars. The star's "frame" moves and changes a little faster than the "frame" of the universe.

This can be carried down to the life of the fly. The fly's "frame," its birth, life, and death, is much, much smaller than the universe's. In this regard, the fly's change and motion is much, much faster and takes only a few weeks.

Just my observation...

[opihimoimoi]

14. Yup...I concur....in essense...time is EVOLUTION in motion...

Snippets of evolution....

[hootinholler]

11. Geeze, time really is what keeps everyting from happening at once.

:shrug:

-Hoot

[WheelWalker]

13. At least for now.

[hootinholler]

17. Well Played Sir/Madam n/t

:rofl:

[notesdev]

12. Makes sense to me

I never could reconcile myself with time as a dimension of its own, since that implies it can be traveled through, and if time could be traveled through then at some point during the entire history of the universe there would almost have to be one being crazy and omnicidal enough to go back to the very beginning and screw with the way how things turned out. Too many paradoxes in that kind of concept of time.

[laconicsax]

16. You're always travelling through time.

Even while you sleep, you (and everything else) are moving forward in time. Relativity shows that the rate at which you do so changes proportional to your velocity.

[notesdev]

18. They're saying that's true simply because we have defined it to be so

Space you can move back and forth in, it's real, has physical existence and properties. Time, on the other hand, is simply the order in which things happen in physical existence, rather than a physical dimension of its own that could be manipulated or traveled through.

[The Doctor.]

27. Not necessarily.

I love the term 'omnicidal', by the way. Genius!

Thing is, if one could accomplish the feat of 'going back in time' without managing to also expel themselves from the multiverse (yes, meant that), then what would essentially happen is the same as what happens everytime you make a decision between going to Tim Horton's or McDonalds (not that there aren't better ones) on your way to work; it splits.

It might have been tricky for people to wrap their heads around the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

It was probably difficult for many to grasp that ours was not the only galaxy... or perhaps not.

But the notion that we exist in but one of a nearly infinite number of alternate realities... damn, that's a big 'un!


Yeah, far as I know, the math says your omnicidal maniac would prevent a great deal of history... but who'd know but him?

[WheelWalker]

19. I think time is merely an ordering of experience. A mental organization

of data apprehended by the sense(s). As such, time is but the perceived sequence of events and requires an observer.

This approach may be verified by ingesting the flesh of certain fungi and noting that any given time-value has a direct dose correlation.

Blessings.

[Orsino]

21. Oh. Guess I was counting from right to left.

But if this is just another excuse for not taking out the garbage, I'm going to be very disappointed.

[DetlefK]

22. So our universe would consist of slices, stacked on an axis representing time

If time were just like space, we could rotate us out of it and instantaneous movement would be possible.

I myself imagine our spatial universe as giant disc. Time is running through that disc like a whirled stream of fluid. There are places were time runs through easily, and there are places, where only few droplets of time can pass through (areas of high gravity, relativistic particles...).