time is not a dimension

time is not a dimension

Postby Leonard » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:35 am

It looks like you've fallen for the oldest mistake in the book - time is not a dimension, so your concept of ten dimensions is based upon a house of cards that comes crashing down. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!

Postby Audrey » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:35 am

Here is a link to a really great article that helps to explain how science and physics tell us there is no good reason why time couldn't flow in either direction. Read it and then tell me the concept of time being a full-fledged fourth-dimensional line rather than just a quality we add to the other dimensions doesn't make oodles of sense!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/scie ... cause.html

Postby Rob Bryanton » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:36 am

Hi Leonard,

I agree that the idea of time being a full dimensions turns some people off right away because they have been taught that "time as a full dimension" is a hackneyed science fiction cliche. In the book I invite people to try to forget for a moment that H.G. Wells proposed that time is a full dimension over a century ago in his classic science fiction novel "The Time Machine"... and if people can suspend their disbelief on that idea for a bit, I think there are many persuasive arguements that time is more than just a quality you lay over the other full spatial dimensions. Please allow me to immodestly quote from my book:
"Interestingly, science has a bit of a split personality when it comes to discussions of time. So, while Einstein’s theories (and the theories that follow from his concepts) seem to indicate that “space-time” is a tangible fabric which can be bent and stretched, there are many other examples where science treats time as being a completely separate entity..."
"...There are string theorists though, who have been expressing their reservations about the scientific tradition of treating time as a separate element from space. This has led to many interesting quotes, where string theorists are starting to express concepts which we once expected to hear only from yogis and gurus. Nathan Seiberg, of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying “I am almost certain that space and time are illusions”. Edward Witten (one of the most respected researchers in modern physics, and the man who first advanced M-Theory) has said that “time and space may be doomed”. Viewpoints such as these hint that the way of looking at the dimensions we are exploring in this book may not be as outlandish as some might think."

Thanks for writing!

User avatar
Rob Bryanton
Site Admin
Posts: 1356
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:10 am

Agree with Leonard

Postby Brian » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:08 am

Time is change from one state to another, it is not a dimension.

The article quoted (and most other material I've seen) makes assumptions on assumptions and treats it all as fact. I think a lot of people want to see a simple representation and therefore want to believe time can be represented as such.

But the absense of evidence that we can return to an original state seems to suggest that we would violate a number of other physical laws to do so.

And if we cannot return to a point in time, or a previous state, then time is not a dimension.

Can time be represented as a ray? A point with direction? But with no 'connection' (in the sense of two points making a line).

Postby Richard » Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:38 pm

How do you explain that people in 2 dimensions can experience the 4th dimension time, without experiencing the 3rd dimension? I think assigning the 4th dimension to time, instead of to length or width or height, hints intuitively that time is a separate thing from the first three dimensions. Maybe all the universe's dimensions come in triplets?

Postby Jim » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:14 pm

I recently read a book by Brian Greene called "The Fabric Of The Cosmos" that explains time as a dimension, while providing empirical evidence that backs up his description. It's not proof that time is a dimension I admit, but it makes sense to me that it is.

No problem with time in any direction...

Postby jamram » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:17 pm

Well, I haven't read the book yet, and I don't know if I will, but have meditated a long time about time :), because I'm on a book (fiction) about it.
Next to Einstein was Kurt Goedel, a well known mathematician in the last century, who first showed that some things in math can't be proved without changing the frame of reference (I can't tell it mor particular). So the same problem with time, we can't prove behaviour of it without leaving our 3-dimensional thinking of objects. You do not have to start with a point as the zero-dimension. It's a common start for an explanation. You could also postulate the "moment" as a dot in zero-dimension (pure existence of whatever (let me call it fnord). From fnord you can go in either direction and you get the first dimension (a line), this could be the a lifetime for example. In the second dimension you move the line (not just a dot, or draw another line an fold or whatsoever) since we want to cover the undulation with it. (Imagine a "square" of time possibilities). Now we have a problem. You can draw endless many squares on the one "2 dimensional level" and there is no need for more different levels. You can already construct all timelines and possible "undulations". Seems as if this is a problem of our three-dimensional thinking and our languages. Time and space can't be compared in the way we use to describe things without building analogies, because no words (concepts of thought) exist for this. There are also a lot of other models to describe dimensions (also interesting ancient ones with TAO and CHAO and so on...) All mankind knows about physics is based on assumptions declared as a law. The more we follow laws, the more non-solvable logic problems occur. Fnord or a dot is a logic contruct, you can't touch it, but it exists for the only purpose of being a helper. It's an abstraction. Take an apple and you can touch it and eat it. If you go farther to understand what the apple consists of, everything is cool until subatomar stage. Then we need helper to explain, what we are eating (bosons and quarks and all friends). You can tell a lot about an apple (how it tastes, how it is growing, how it looks like), you can't tell much more about quarks than they exist and assume how they develop. It's like a microscope, you can see only focussed things sharp and clear. In micro- and macrocosmos it's the same thing - we can focus molecules at minimum and we can see galaxies at maximum. Everything beyond is just an assumption. I guess we'll have to live with it, though it's not satisfying.
So creativity is coming up. We take things we know by experience and combine them in a different matter. For example paperfolding makes a cube out of a sheet of paper.
So you can do with dimension. It's just a concept, like a papercube. What you to do with a papercube - your creativity tells you.
So you can't say something is impossible. It's a question of your mind. Oh no, right - often it's impossible not to break any laws kept by the authority of science ;).
I have also read a lot of esoteric crap by R.E. Byrd, about Philadelphia Experiment, UFO's and Wilhelm Reich. Most of this crap has one thing in common: It's not crap, its a dimension for itself, very often a nice "science"-fiction with a lot of useful thoughts, no matter if they work - only time will tell!

greetinx, alex sidow

Postby Jared R. J. » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:24 am

I've not yet read the book, though I am really looking forward to doing so. I'll just try to explain my take on time here, though...

I've never considered time as its own dimension, nor as something else like that. Time is relative to what dimensions we do see. Just as 2D objects, in order to see things in 3D, would have to take them in 2D sections, they cannot experience what we call time. A point to see a line could only see points in time to make lines, and could imagine the second dimension in whether or not there was a point.

However, 4D isn't truly beyond a 2D observer. The could imagine having the 2D world in different positions, forming a different 3D object that it would have, when mapped out, than it did instead.

Here's what I say: For an Nth dimension observer, the 1+Nth dimension is time. The 10th dimension has no change, and therefore the 9th and 10th do not really have time.

For several dimensions, though I haven't expanded this out fully yet, but at least for the first four (starting with 0) dimensions, the 2+Nth dimension represents possible causes. What all could have been done. It's not something we can directly observe, but a thing which we can imagine.

Think, now: 2D time can be graphed as 3D space. As time progresses, things can change... But how will they change? They could change this way, or they could change that way. Those represent two different possible things that could have happened. In order to graph the different possible happenings of 2D existence, you'd need a 4D graph. 1D causes could actually be graphed in our 3D reality, with the length it is, and the lengths it could've been, side by side, going along its record of time, the outward, second dimension. And due to its total lack of size in any way, 0D could be mapped out in 2D, having no depth whatsoever, variably 0 or 1 point length (which could be told apart if you were a point yourself, don't you think?), and quite literally a timeline.

When you think of how beings of lower dimensions would experience higher dimensions, you can begin to really see how we experience higher dimensions ourself.

The 3+Nth dimension shows yet another thing: Effect. Before we saw what all could be done. This shows where we would be if the other had been done. For dimension 0, points would begin to branch out in other directions in order to continue along the different choices, then making choices along those, as well. In order for even the 1st dimension to branch out its chart to the new choices that arise due to the previous actions, you need a 4th dimension, as you've already got 1, 2, and 3 put to work.

Note, however, that the effects from 3+N is also found in the 2+N, but they happen completely separate from one another. In 3+N, they are folded over onto one another. Think about having two identical cubes which represent the 1D's 2+N level, and rotating one so that the time axis remains the same. Now map them together as part of the same 4D object rather than two 3D objects, and you'd have all of the timelines overlap. This is what I call the "What if" stage, in that you can imagine what if I had done this, or what if that happened instead, with all the other possibilities that could have been now overlapping into every other.

The 4+N dimension is not merely an alternate dimension as most people think, but rather (likely) something completely different because you'd have completely different starting conditions. The two would likely be radically different and face radically different choices due to a radically different trigger.

These thoughts can continue to be expanded on further for higher dimensions, although I'm sure an 8+N or higher degree has no analog for N = 3, which is the reality in which we exist, and therefore we could not link these levels of experience which only lower levels could ever wonder about.
Jared R. J.

Re: Agree with Leonard

Postby Paul » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:21 am

Brian wrote:Time is change from one state to another, it is not a dimension.

Is length not a change from one point to another? Therefore length must not be a dimension either?

If this same scrutiny is put to the 3rd dimension, it too seems nonexistent, as the 3rd dimension can never be observed without the existence of the 4th. It seems we all must be living in a 2-dimensional world, but then if legnth is simply a change from one point to another along a line, it must not be a dimension either, so, Leonard, Brian, there you have it, we're all living in a one-dimensional world.

thinking about time as one dimension

Postby Rob Bryanton » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:05 am

I've posted this paragraph elsewhere already, but I think it's relevant to where this discussion is heading. This is from chapter ten:

“The same logic that we use to think of time as being only one dimension could be used to argue that in reality there is only one spatial dimension, the line, and that the space we live in just represents every possible one-dimensional line that can be drawn.”


User avatar
Rob Bryanton
Site Admin
Posts: 1356
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:10 am

Postby rad_brad503 » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:22 pm

I always thought that time was the measurement of entropy - the moving toward the "end".

Maybe all the universe's dimensions come in triplets.

Didn't you see the "line, split, fold, line, split, fold" pattern locked inbetween two points? Granted, a very smallish point and an overly largish point...
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:06 pm

Postby rad_brad503 » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:26 pm

Wow... found the answer to the entropy part already... don't beat me up about it!
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:06 pm

maybe looking at it like this might help

Postby Speedwell » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:28 pm

This helped me when I was trying to puzzle this all out for the first time.

Don't think of a point as a 0th dimensional thing. A point IS an 0th dimension, a dimension that has only one attribute, that of position. Then you add motion. You move the entire dimension. The act of moving determines the next dimension. We can select an 0th dimension by naming a position in our universe. Moving our 0th dimension in a direction perpendicular to itself gives us a vector of motion, which we can think of as a line drawn along the vector. That direction (both forward and back) is a 1st dimension based on our chosen 0th dimension.

"Perpendicular" does not have a lot of meaning here; you could say it is undefined as it does not describe a direction, yet it describes all possible directions. You can move a point through any dimension, but we have to construct our model in numerical order.

The 1st dimension is not a piece of line. The 1st dimension is something that has only one attribute, that of length. If the 1st dimension is infinite, then its single attribute, length, is infinite. Say we take the whole 1st dimension (that we have just generated by moving our selected 0th dimension in a selected direction), and we move it perpendicular to itself. This now makes sense. We know what a perpendicular line is. We will pick any of the infinite number of perpendicular directions, and sweep our 1st dimension (forward and back) to create our new 2nd dimensional plane.

Now, we could have picked any one of infinite points in the universe, moved the point in any of infinite directions, and moved the line in any of infinite directions. We might say that all these choices are taking place in the dimension of choice, that is, the 5th dimension. We have not even got to dimensions 3 and 4 yet, but all that we are doing takes place in the 5th dimension of possibilities. All possible 0th-dim point choices, for example, exist in the 5th dimension until we "collapse" things down to our level by designating our starting point.

So then, of course, we can choose a direction perpendicular to that plane we just created. Now, since we can only see in the 3rd dimension, we can no longer see that there are an infinite number of perpendicular directions available. There are, but we just can't see them. We can only see one, and that one leads through our own 3rd dimension. So we choose that perpendicular (collapsing the 5th dimension probability), move our 2nd dimension plane along it, and we get what we call "space."

Now we have to construct our remaining dimensions by choosing a perpendicular to space. We can choose any of infinite possibility perpendiculars (5th dimension directions). If we move space along one of these, we get the 4th dimension, which looks very much as though we have to call it time, because time is the thing that happens to space in a linear fashion.

I don't know what the next step is. I want to say that you move spacetime to get the 5th dimension, but I don't know how to describe an infinity of optional perpendicular directions in the 6th dimension. This is new and slippery to me too. But maybe I've helped you think farther along the path than before.

OK, I'm trying to get ready for a training class tomorrow morning and I''m trying to conserve some brain power so I'll check back after I've got some sleep. :)


Postby Rob Bryanton » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:36 am

Nice explanation, Speedwell, and good job of explaining some of the simplifications from the animation that have raised questions in some people's minds - for instance:
The 1st dimension is not a piece of line. The 1st dimension is something that has only one attribute, that of length.

You are exactly right. Representing the first dimension as a line segment in the animation rather than trying to show the abstract quality of "length" helps to get people started, but drawing a line and saying "this has no width or depth" does leave the possibility for misinterpretation all right. As soon as you draw a line, you run the risk of people assuming that the first dimension is a line that we can see, and this confusion is reflected in some of the posts in other parts of this forum.

Thanks for writing!

User avatar
Rob Bryanton
Site Admin
Posts: 1356
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:10 am

time is not a dimention

Postby mindfind » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:21 am

i have a thought. lets say that time is not a dimension as we understand it. let's say that time is an incomplete dimension. an incomplete dimension that can not exist without the dimensions of height, length and depth. now let us suppose that the other dimensions can not exist without the incomplete dimension of time. what if it is a symbiotic relationship. they need each other to exist. it is only a thought. ok. time for some ice cream to re-freeze my brain. but seriously guys, all the comments and ideas make for great brain crunches.


Return to Everything Forever - Learning to See Timelessness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests