Time

Most people think of time as a line, but I suppose I imagine time as an extra dimensional sphere. The center would be the 'beginning' and infinite alternate timelines extend out from the center constantly growing. Like a tree chart with all the branches compacted and rooted in the same place.

Thinking of time as anything is the first mistake.

Time is not necessarily real, but it is a real perception.

That is probably correct. If the sphere is an ideal sphere, each timeline can be represented by a corner.

That is probably correct. If the sphere is an ideal sphere, each timeline can be represented by a corner.

i see.

That is probably correct. If the sphere is an ideal sphere, each timeline can be represented by a corner.

A sphere has no corners. A sphere is all points equidistant from a single point in 3 dimensions.

Time is the fourth dimension.















lol, just kidding. It's really nothing.

Quote from: Wendy on November 04, 2008, 12:43:38 PM

That is probably correct. If the sphere is an ideal sphere, each timeline can be represented by a corner.

A sphere has no corners. A sphere is all points equidistant from a single point in 3 dimensions.

A perfect spehere has an infinite number of corners, all equidistant from the middle. That's why every corner could represent one of the endless possiblities.

Time is the fourth dimension.















lol, just kidding. It's really nothing.

Last time I said so, they called me troll. But I hold it, time doesn't exist.

Aren't there theories about time actually being another demension?  I don't understand any of it very well.  My understanding is probably wrong.

Aren't there theories about time actually being another demension?  I don't understand any of it very well.  My understanding is probably wrong.

Time is a dimension. There's nothing magical or special about a dimension, it's just a co-ordinate used to express a point. Any point in space can be uniquely expressed using three numbers; hence, three-dimensional. To uniquely express a point in spacetime, however, requires four numbers, so time is an additional dimension.

I see.  And as for time itself, I've heard it described as a plane, which makes much more sense to me than a line. 

Time is interesting.  Does that count as an answer?

Time is interesting.  Does that count as an answer?

Yes, and you should elaborate more in this thread.  I know for a fact you have more interesting thoughts on time.   

I see.  And as for time itself, I've heard it described as a plane, which makes much more sense to me than a line. 

I don't think a plane makes any sense at all, because that would imply that it is possible to travel through time in a direction perpendicular to that which we currently do.

Quote from: Moonlit on November 06, 2008, 09:01:44 AM

I see.  And as for time itself, I've heard it described as a plane, which makes much more sense to me than a line. 

I don't think a plane makes any sense at all, because that would imply that it is possible to travel through time in a direction perpendicular to that which we currently do.

I meant more of a space/time plane.  If you went perpendicular you would just be moving through space.  If you went parallel you'd be moving through time.

Two dimensions of time were recently used to show one possible way of unifying GR with QM - what the guy who was looking into it said was that in one 4-D manifold you have the laws of GR and in another 4-D manifold you have the laws of QM.  The Universe we live in is a superposition of those two manifolds, with a very tightly bound coupling between the two time dimensions.  This is needed to prevent causal loops forming, but slight deviation from a 1D time 'line' permits you to describe GR and QM within a single framework

It looked quite interesting, but as with many other theories has yet to make any concrete predictions beyond 'the LHC should see something interesting but we don't know what yet'.  Sadly, this makes it just another interesting idea, rather than a proper theory, but it's worth keeping an eye on in case they do come up with something interesting

(there ya go Moony  )

I meant more of a space/time plane.  If you went perpendicular you would just be moving through space.  If you went parallel you'd be moving through time.

Oh, well yes, if you visualise all of space as one-dimensional, then spacetime would indeed be a plane. If you envision a two-dimensional spatial world, then spacetime would be three-dimensional. As it is, we live in three-dimensional space, so spacetime is a counterintuitive four-dimensional concept.

Two dimensions of time were recently used to show one possible way of unifying GR with QM - what the guy who was looking into it said was that in one 4-D manifold you have the laws of GR and in another 4-D manifold you have the laws of QM.  The Universe we live in is a superposition of those two manifolds, with a very tightly bound coupling between the two time dimensions.  This is needed to prevent causal loops forming, but slight deviation from a 1D time 'line' permits you to describe GR and QM within a single framework

It looked quite interesting, but as with many other theories has yet to make any concrete predictions beyond 'the LHC should see something interesting but we don't know what yet'.  Sadly, this makes it just another interesting idea, rather than a proper theory, but it's worth keeping an eye on in case they do come up with something interesting

(there ya go Moony  )

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.

No worries   It was in New Scientist a few issues back, but I can't remember the guy's name...

That's good, my body isn't exactly in tip-top shape right now due to excessive un-exercise (unless typing theses counts as exercise...? Didn't think so  )

Back to time, love.  So if you go forward in time and also move through space simutaneously could you view the earth as it is in prestent time even though you are in the future?  Like we view stars from earth as they were however long ago (depending on how many light years they are away).  Am I making any sense?   

Back to time, love.  So if you go forward in time and also move through space simutaneously could you view the earth as it is in prestent time even though you are in the future?  Like we view stars from earth as they were however long ago (depending on how many light years they are away).  Am I making any sense?   

You see everything as it was in the past. If you hold your arm out in front of you, you see your hand as it was a nanosecond ago.

Quote from: Moonlit on November 06, 2008, 09:55:13 AM

Back to time, love.  So if you go forward in time and also move through space simutaneously could you view the earth as it is in prestent time even though you are in the future?  Like we view stars from earth as they were however long ago (depending on how many light years they are away).  Am I making any sense?   

You see everything as it was in the past. If you hold your arm out in front of you, you see your hand as it was a nanosecond ago.

Yes, but if you were in the future,  you'd be looking at it in the present.  As I'm typing this, I realize it makes no sense.   

Yes, but if you were in the future,  you'd be looking at it in the present.  As I'm typing this, I realize it makes no sense.   

Yes, but then the future would be the present, and the present would be the past.

Quote from: Moonlit on November 06, 2008, 10:01:17 AM

Yes, but if you were in the future,  you'd be looking at it in the present.  As I'm typing this, I realize it makes no sense.   

Yes, but then the future would be the present, and the present would be the past.

I guess it depends on who your asking. The person in the present or the person in the future.

I guess it depends on who your asking. The person in the present or the person in the future.

But the person in the present doesn't know that the person in the future is there until the future becomes far enough into the past that they can see them.

Quote from: Moonlit on November 06, 2008, 10:04:23 AM

I guess it depends on who your asking. The person in the present or the person in the future.

But the person in the present doesn't know that the person in the future is there until the future becomes far enough into the past that they can see them.

Unless the person in the future was able to create some sort of device to communicate with the person in the past.

Unless the person in the future was able to create some sort of device to communicate with the person in the past.

Like a time machine?

Quote from: Moonlit on November 06, 2008, 10:07:28 AM

Unless the person in the future was able to create some sort of device to communicate with the person in the past.

Like a time machine?

No.  A device that would allow you to stay in the time you're in but communicate with others in the past or future.  Sort of like the way they did it on "12 Monkies" where they communicated through an answering machine at a business.

No.  A device that would allow you to stay in the time you're in but communicate with others in the past or future.  Sort of like the way they did it on "12 Monkies" where they communicated through an answering machine at a business.

You could still call it a time machine, even if all it transports through time is information and not matter.