My Personal View: Time as an Extended Dimension

[rippler]

---

I just had an enlightening concept about ‘Time’ when I was in the bathroom and that was March 19th. Weirdly enough though I get many great ideas from there. This however, is yet to be one of the most enlightening I’ve had.

I think time to be 3 dimensional at least, much like a regular 3d object is. So far, most of us are content about knowing that reality has three dimensions: The width and the height, as well as the length.

I’ve learned though that if we talk about physical existence, matter that occupies the 3-dimensional space also occupies time. That said, then time, if it exists, should also be something that ‘envelopes’ reality as a 3-dimensional thingy.

If we do talk about time, we do wonder if it really exists. I am often led to think that time may not exist at all but a label we use to describe a moment of reality.

Why do I ask if time exists? Because I think we base it from a perception of the idea of ‘flow of time’, where a given event happening is constrained to a given moment in time, and thus ends, and then is considered history.

But what if everything is just a sequence of events, of motion and reaction and time is nothing more than an adjective to portray in our mind the idea of ‘when’ the observation took place?

Past is merely an attribution to describe an event that occurred before so we can differentiate the event now and the event which is no longer taking place (for mathematicians we say true ‘in the now’ for current event and false ‘in the now’ for the previous event).

To make it short, we use time to measure the order of when events are taking place.

Time, for me, may even be compared to the labels in a graph, where the given material object which occupies space, exists in a given time. If time is real, then time must have properties to own dimensions.

These would be:

1) Moment in Time. I compare this to a single point in the material realm. It is the moment of instance, a single graduation from the linear set or sequence of time.

For example we say 7:00 AM when we see the short hand on the number 7 of the clock and the longer hand pointing at the number 12 of the clock as well as the second hand, but only exactly as it happens. 7:00AM is no longer true the moment the second hand moves beyond 12. But in the true sense, the graduation is infinitely ‘finer’ where a single moment of time is only true at one moment, not a nanosecond earlier, nor nanosecond later, or even finer than a nanosecond.

2) Duration / Elapsed Time. This is what I would compare to the material plane’s line as the counterpart of the flow of time, denoting a ‘direction’ of flow. It is the time ‘spent’ for a given action of observation.

3) Possibilities/ Probabilities / Choice. This is the dimension which gives time it’s ’3D form’. But there is an interesting insight to this:

If the law of motion states that any action gives an equivalent reaction. In a frictionless void, let’s say a ball floating in space moving across, hits another object like a square, the cube moves according to the direction it was hit with the speed or energy equivalent to the one exerted by the moving ball during impact. It follows a singular, predetermined reaction. That is a linear form of time. In a sense, it’s only 2D.

Probability would like to think it can enter here because the square could be hit on any of it’s 6 faces or 8 corners or any given point on its surface, and this would give multiple time possibilities. This should be a 3d component. However, it is not, because if a linear action is given, then there must also be a linear reaction. Probability disappears because the motion was predetermined so there should only be one outcome. Without a conscious choice of action, there can only be a singular expected outcome for every event, because they all follow a rule of action = reaction.

When an influencing object becomes conscious however, he can choose the direction and speed or amount of energy exerted on something. Therefore anything that happens beyond his decision becomes a qualified possibility and these ‘time directions’ become close to infinite possibilities. The flow of time therefore enters a 3D realm.

As I was pondering about these, I became excited. Never had I a time to perceive time as such before. I went on to research on the internet for any further discussion about concepts of the dimensions of time. There was one I found in particular:

Ouspensky had a theory of the dimensions of time. Rather he perceived reality to have 6 dimensions. But stating them would take me longer to discuss. But the fact is, I was amazed at some similarities of his theory with mine but of course there are differences as well. His wonder about it expresses confirmation of a man’s need to understand his existence in reality and reality’s existence itself.

I consider these moments precious, however, as I it always brings me joy to address issues as deep as this, and even rarer still with great clarity. But what makes this more interesting is how others perceive time as well. If there are among you who have a different perception about time I would love so much to hear it.

[fritzd]

You have a very interesting imagination and philosophy. Well, time from a philosophical standpoint can be interesting, confusing, and even mysterious. But the way I see it from a pure scientific point of view, time is just the "length" in between two unsynchronized events. This is perfectly emboddied in Einstein's relativity theory which I will briefly go into later.

The best way to describe time is to use a constant that is true in vacuum and everwhere else in the universe. This is can be done with light because we all know that the speed of light is constant in space in pure vacuum. Physicists love doing this. I'm guilty as well. hehe Anyway, we can try using the speed of light to define what a second is and say that 3.3 nanosecond is the time at which light travels exactly one metre. Of course, this is just an example which can be found in wikipedia. However, instead, time is defined by something that we can measure even more exactly and this is set by atomic clocks. One can fix and define time by the two hyperfine level transition of an atom. For Cesium, a very famous element for atomic clocks, it corresponds to a microwave transition. The idea is that the population of the 2 hyperfine atomic levels osciallate from one to the other an extremely fixed rate. I don't want to do calculations now or open my atomic physics books so I will quote wikipedia, "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

Going back to Einstein, Einstein treated time as a dimension. What does this mean? How do we even imagine a 4 dimensional universe? How much more for a multidimensional universe according to String theory? Anyway, Einstein pointed out that gravity and the way you move in space affects the curvature of space meaning an observer would perceive you in a diferent way that how you would perceive yourself. But he also pointed out, that time is not exempted from this, space and time are both curved. So what do we get out of this? Well, we have time dilation. And this has been proven. This one is a very good resource. Is there any practical proof for time dilation?

So there it is, unfortunately my being a physicist makes all my opinions and answers too scientific. hehehe. I lost all my philosophy when I started going into deeper high level physics where everything is described by abstract equations. But yeah, time has more to it that what meets the eye. It's a river the never flows backward. In this river, a regular person in normal conditions can never swim agaisn't it. We can never go back to yesterday. We only have events and memories that prove that yesterday occurred. And now, the more advanced we get, the easier it is for us to record history and prove that something happend before today. Whereas, before people just relied on word of mouth and had to write down what they heard. From now onwards, our near past will be remembered exactly.

[diehard96]

@rippler: I'm not so scientifically informed so pls clarify a few things for me. which part of your post is scientific? does the ouspensky part count?

...the square could be hit on any of it’s (sic) 6 faces or 8 corners...

so how many faces and corners does a square now have? maybe geometry has gone really far these past years. when i was in high school a square only had 4 sides and 4 angles. it was the cube that had 6 faces and 8 corners then. apparently the square has caught up. interesting development.

would it not be parsimonious to view reality as having only 4 dimensions: 3 dimensions of space and time being the 4th? if there are as many as 6 dimensions to reality, how would that apply to, say, a black hole?

[cebugdev]

yes time is considered a the 4th dimension.
a person specific location can be defined by 4 coordinates rather than 3, location in space XYZ and the time.

Example:
i will be at location(using long and lat coordinates) ___,___,___ at 8oclock tonight.

[rippler]

@diehard96: It shouldn't be a squre, my bad. It should be a cube. We all know a cube has six sides and 8 corners.

@everyone: Exactly, physicists say time is a 4th dimension, and it's called the space-time continuum. But if we imagine time for what it is, it is at best a way to describe the moment spent for motion. If an object is static, time is the length of the sequence of event starting from observation up to any moment.

Time as a 4th dimension states that an object carries along with it a property of time. Example John walks from point A to point B, in a 3D space, we imagine an environment portraying a change of direction and location, but also it takes 'time' to travel from point A to point B.

But let us take time separately, as onto itself. A moment in its instance 'consumes' a point of time, the very basic graduation from a total length of what may be finite or infinite flow of time. If we 'observe' time, the total duration is what we call the length of time, making it it's 2D property. two points: from start to finish.

Now here's the tricky part, as mentioned by fritzd, flow of time is only linear. In the unconscious material world, it is true, because the law of physics states that for every action, there is an equal (or include opposite) reaction. Like an object hitting another object. It wouldn't matter how many sides or rough angles the objects have or which part they collide on, because once an impact is made, the reaction is already pre-calculated, because the movement is already a complete preset of sequential events. Though for the human mind, it's almost impossible to predict where a multifaceted object with several properties might go and in what angle and velocity it might travel, but the object's reaction is already predetermined.

However when an influencing object gains a conscious control of its motion, then if it impacts another object, the former has the option or choice to apply any amount of speed or energy or force prior to impact. Hence, a new set of probability arrays open up for what happens next. These new possibilities become a part of the future time, or multiple possible timelines. This is then what constitutes the 3D component of time.

I think that's about it.

[rodsky]

Jer, as interesting the idea/notion is, and how you elegantly presented it, I personally still don't see it as any more intriguing/convincing than "Doc" Brown's explanation of "multithreaded" time, or "split timeline" in the "Back to the Future" series of films. But why limit it to just three dimensions of time, as you said? Why can't it be four or more?

I'm not downplaying your presentation though--it's about time someone posted a "real" discussion topic again in this subforum.

-RODION

[rippler]

Jer, as interesting the idea/notion is, and how you elegantly presented it, I personally still don't see it as any more intriguing/convincing than "Doc" Brown's explanation of "multithreaded" time, or "split timeline" in the "Back to the Future" series of films. But why limit it to just three dimensions of time, as you said? Why can't it be four or more?

I'm not downplaying your presentation though--it's about time someone posted a "real" discussion topic again in this subforum.

-RODION

Oh my goodness you are right sir rod! I was imagining the 'design' of time and attempted to see what it would look like if it were made into an image with regards to the 3d space. But I suppose the reason why I didn't realize the similarity of split timeline is I imagined it to be a dimension represented in a graphical view.

But my point though is that time in itself must have 3 dimensions at least. If there were more, it is beyond my grasp yet.

Imagine that... I love fritzd's discussion on time dilation though.

[fritzd]

Now here's the tricky part, as mentioned by fritzd, flow of time is only linear. In the unconscious material world, it is true, because the law of physics states that for every action, there is an equal (or include opposite) reaction.

I never said time is linear. hehe On the contrary, it is very much relative depending on the state of the observer. We all know this very well from Einstein's relativity.

I think the most absolute and reasonable way of describing time is through scientific method which already is done precisely in my previously discussion through experiments. If we measure it and we have a theory to describe it, then it works.

[Kenshiro]

Can anybody explain what happens at the center of a black hole. Scientist says that it is a point where time and space cease to exist.
What does it mean that time cease to exist?

[rodsky]

Can anybody explain what happens at the center of a black hole. Scientist says that it is a point where time and space cease to exist.
What does it mean that time cease to exist?

My attempt.

I don't really think the expression "where time and space cease to exist" is meant to be taken in a literal sense. I think what the statement means is, all we know about physics in this universe ceases to work in a logical manner once we approach the event horizon. The known laws of nature as they function in this universe/dimension ceases, and perhaps some other form of physics takes over--but we shall never really know until someone falls in and "reports" the experience to us. But then, once you fall into a Black Hole, there's no going back, so it's a dilemma.

It's like the expression "Blacker than black"--we don't have anything darker to compare to the color pigment known as black, so when we talk of something that we feel is really dark, we tend to say "blacker than black", when the fact is, we don't really know if there's anything blacker than black.

-RODION