I keep on hearing people say that time is the fourth dimension?! how is that possible?

We live in the 3rd dimension, right? Then how can time be a fourth dimension? We already posess it, right?

Very interestion subject if you ask me.

What i understand Cosmos Guru is that we dont precieve World with dimensions physically,do we? i think they are only the way to express an object's statocs and Dynamics,in that case i might take Time,or space-time to be another dimension,to find out more broadly about the motion and statics of an object that i wish to observe to fulfill the Newton in me.am i right?



bye!

We call it a dimension because in order to pinpoint an object at a location we need a value for the xyz axis as well as a value for time (because the object could have moved, it could have been there at one point in time and moved on since then etc). Therefor, time can be seen as a one dimensional plane (like a line). Maybe even something like a sheet of paper where time can not only travel in a straight line, but in all other directions as well (maybe to parallel universes or something). Interesting stuff though.

Also, from what I understand, time is not like a physical dimension of space, but that time and space are so intimately bound together that it makes sense to treat time as a fourth dimension. It's sorta like the matter/energy thing, they're separate, but interchangeable.

Io

We live in the 3rd dimension, right?

More or less correct. Everything in the universe has a 3 dimensional construct. Everything has length, breadth and depth to make up the 3 dimensions or in the case of a coordinate system, x, y, and z axes. But the 3 dimensions by themselves only make up the construct of everything. The universe in this case is not moving, not changing in any way. Everything in the universe is essentially 'frozen.'

But the way the universe works is that everything is in motion and is constantly changing. Therefore we must take this motion and change into account when trying to conceptualize the universe. We say that these motions and changes are events and occur in a series or line, one after the other. We call these series of events time or timelines.

We add this fourth concept of time to our 3 dimensional universe in order to understand occurences of events. We add this fourth variable (t) to our x, y and z axes to establish a coordinate in the universe as to where and when the events occured.

Without this fourth variable or coordinate, the universe is essentially frozen in time. No events take place. Nothing happens.

That is why we say that the beginning of the universe, or what is theorized as "The Big Bang," was the beginning of time. Our three dimensional universe came into existence and from that point on, everything was in motion and constantly began to change. Hence we say we have a 3+1 dimensional universe.

I think we have to seperate our 4 dimensions:

Our 3 'classical' dimensions are all based on space, and since we are talking about 'space-time' I prefer to say that we live in a 3 space dimension world with 1 time dimension.....maybe there are more time dimensions.....

Since this will never be accepted in science i would suggest a less drastic change, and call time the 0-dimension.

But I think it is important to realise that time is a real different dimension than the other known three, and don't let there be obscurity because of a 'wrong' name.

SPACE YA!

KneD,


Our 3 'classical' dimensions are all based on space, and since we are talking about 'space-time' I prefer to say that we live in a 3 space dimension world with 1 time dimension.....maybe there are more time dimensions.....

I actually used that technique to understand the fourth dimension and get to further conclusions such as a fith dimension... ;)

(Q),

What would you think it could possibly be the fith dimension...?

Love,
Nelson

What would you think it could possibly be the fith dimension...?

http://www.rodserling.com/images/5thdimensionX.jpg

When we say time is the fourth dimension, and you ask me to tell you the fifth...

I think we can call the warping of space a dimension, and would be the fith then, wouldn't it? Because the bending of a 2D world will create 3D, so the bending of 3D will be 4D + time....5D.

SPACE YA!

Yeah, Q, we need this time-factor in order to get it right when we want to know where something is, but that's where it ends for time as far as I'm concerned. It's a "mathematical dimension". It is not like the three other dimensions. Motion is primary in those three dimensions (as we can see). And we can use this "time" to calculate a position in the xyz, but that does not mean that there is really a thing "time"' who's doing its thing out there.
Any sort of theory that goes then to talk about 5, 6 and more dimensions is getting off track completely. And it does not help to take analogies like hair. It remains three dimensions. Always. Say you would see an object disappear before you and appear again somewhere else, it is absolutely simplistic and non-explaining at all that this would have to do with travelling to a 4th, 5th, etc. dimension. It was your perception that was different. That's it. Any imagination about movement in a higher dimension goes back to three dimension. We can't think of it 'cause it doesn't exist.

KneD,


I think we can call the warping of space a dimension, and would be the fith then, wouldn't it? Because the bending of a 2D world will create 3D, so the bending of 3D will be 4D + time....5D.

Exactly what I thought. I believe that the bending of the 4D creates gravity waves, that it is the 5D.

And I complement. If there are three dimensions of space, we probably should have three dimensions of time... ;)
That gives us already 6D! :)

Love,
Nelson

If something moves (ie. time; non-static universe), then it's co-ordinates in X-Y-Z change. You do know that, right? Still three dimensions...

c'est moi

How ya been? Havn't seen you in a while.

The dimension of time is more a natural occurence in regards to our universe and how it works, and not just something we use to calculate coordinates. Time simply allows one event to occur after another and not all at once.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think String Theory has something to do with other dimensions. The three dimensions in which we exist happened to be the only dimensions that 'unraveled.' The other string dimensions (however many dimensions there are theorized) are apparently curled up and are not detectable by us puny humans.

yeah Q, I think that what you've said is already answered in what I already said

your reasoning:

There is motion ---> something must make motion possible ---> there is a coordinate Time needed ---> we calculate the motion with this

all those links after motion are OUR things
and it does not make it a 4th dimension because we want it to be so
motion is primary, - consider this as an unwritten law
there's no need for a thing like "Time" to ALLOW motion
this is thinking within a Newtonian frame -> the effect must have been caused by something

and string theory (M-theory etc.) uses nice analogies but too bad for them, but analogies are not science
they're just nice but can easily be thrown in the bin
"unwrapped" etc. is not science

the argument of 3 dimensions and motion still stands
more dimensions find themselves in a philosophical dead-end

btw, nobody has ever come up with good argumentation against my thoughts about clocks and time

Keep at it!!

There is motion ---> something must make motion possible --->

The Big Bang is what is theorized as the cause of motion. Time is a result of the motion, not the other way round.

there is a coordinate Time needed ---> we calculate the motion with this

Time is used as a coordinate and we do calculate motion using time. However, if time didn’t exist, every event would take place instantaneously. There would be no logical order.

there's no need for a thing like "Time" to ALLOW motion

How then is motion supposed to exist without the concept of time? When an observer approaches the speed of light, time essentially stands still. The observer views the rest of the universe as frozen, unmoving, a complete lack of events. His ‘snapshot’ of the universe is devoid of time hence devoid of motion.

this is thinking within a Newtonian frame -> the effect must have been caused by something

Not really. Newtonian thinking is strictly on a local level. Time is universal. The effect is that time and space are intertwined and are reliant on one another. Without time, events will cease to occur. Without the other 3 dimensions, there is no need for time, as was the case prior to the Big Bang.

and string theory (M-theory etc.) uses nice analogies but too bad for them, but analogies are not science
they're just nice but can easily be thrown in the bin
"unwrapped" etc. is not science

the argument of 3 dimensions and motion still stands
more dimensions find themselves in a philosophical dead-end

I was referring to the Superstring Kaluza-Klein theory.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/extradim.htm

btw, nobody has ever come up with good argumentation against my thoughts about clocks and time

Perhaps they have but you’ve failed to acknowledge them.

Hey Q, let us see that shall we?

<<The Big Bang is what is theorized as the cause of motion. Time is a result of the motion, not the other way round.>>

It's no good to start building your (and many other people's) "Time theory" on another theory like the Big bang. I don't buy the big bang conception. Btw, a doctorate student making his thesis on this has told me that the Inflation theory is history. They're working on something new ... pff yet another big bang theory coming up.

Inflation theory explains nothing. I've read about it. It doesn't statisfy me (and it doesn't statisfy other people who are unlike me well-qualified). I don't believe motion has ever started. Btw, the inflation theory states that timespace, hence gravity, was created in an excited negative vacuum. I pressume some motion happened to make that possible ....

<<Time is used as a coordinate and we do calculate motion using time.>>

and that's great

<<However, if time didn’t exist, every event would take place instantaneously. There would be no logical order.>>

Why not? Why would every event take place instantaneously? Somewhere else you told us everything would be frozen. You got to make up your mind here. And what do you exactely mean with "every event would take place instantaneously"? Isn't it so that all kinds of events, in fact countless ones, are taking place at the same time? Maybe give an example or something.

<<How then is motion supposed to exist without the concept of time?>>

Motion happens. That's it. Things move in 3-D. Things always move. That's it. You can count certain units like seconds between the different positions in the xyz but that's where the mathematical time story ends.

<<When an observer approaches the speed of light, time essentially stands still.>>

That's not really the best argument. First you have to show that there is such a thing as "Time" in the way you want it to be. And it's not time that slows down but the motion itself. Time is a needless link in here. And what is time if it can stand still? So it must be "flowing" normally? Is that "Time stuff" that is flowing or what is that? And where is the flow? I haven't seen it. As far as I am concerned you might as well be talking about God. I know as much about him as I know about this "Time" with a capital "T". A clock is just a thing performing a uniform motion ... it certainly can't be measuring any "time flow".

<<The observer views the rest of the universe as frozen, unmoving, a complete lack of events. His ‘snapshot’ of the universe is devoid of time hence devoid of motion.>>

As I said, leave out time. We don't need decoration like time in science.

<<btw, nobody has ever come up with good argumentation against my thoughts about clocks and time

Perhaps they have but you’ve failed to acknowledge them.>>

That's absolutely untrue. I can't remember which thread that was but the discussion was primary with James R. I also don't feel like repeating what I said there. Fact is, here again, where is the argumentation for "time"?

As almost everyone in the world, including scientists, believe in this concept of time, I don't think it is too much asked when I want (1) proof for Time and (2) a clear definition. Why is Time needed to trigger of motion and what does it stands for? "Spacetime" is just a name. It doesn't proof time to me nor does it explain anything. If we can't do more than this then we might put God as a fact in the science books as well :D

damn, I fucked up with those quotes :o ............. too tired to make it right again and it's already 2:35, I gotta go to sleep
hope you can follow it........

I don't buy the big bang conception.

What conception do you buy, if any? If you don't acknowledge the evidence for the Big Bang theory, then what other theory do you suggest?

Btw, a doctorate student making his thesis on this has told me that the Inflation theory is history.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don't believe motion has ever started.

How is possible that motion never started?

Why not? Why would every event take place instantaneously? Somewhere else you told us everything would be frozen. You got to make up your mind here. And what do you exactely mean with "every event would take place instantaneously"? Isn't it so that all kinds of events, in fact countless ones, are taking place at the same time? Maybe give an example or something.

You're confused. Using your logic that time doesn't exist yet motion does, then we can assume all events would occur simultaneously and instantaneously.

You can count certain units like seconds between the different positions in the xyz but that's where the mathematical time story ends.

Excellent! We agree.

That's not really the best argument. First you have to show that there is such a thing as "Time" in the way you want it to be. And it's not time that slows down but the motion itself. Time is a needless link in here. And what is time if it can stand still? So it must be "flowing" normally? Is that "Time stuff" that is flowing or what is that? And where is the flow? I haven't seen it. As far as I am concerned you might as well be talking about God. I know as much about him as I know about this "Time" with a capital "T". A clock is just a thing performing a uniform motion ... it certainly can't be measuring any "time flow".

Sorry, I'm not following any of this. It resembles a rant.

I want (1) proof for Time and

Look at a clock.

(2) a clear definition.

You supplied one yourself above. But for the sake of argument, time is defined by what is read on a clock. It help us define a system, and with which systems can be organized in terms of their properties.

oh, forgot this thread! :p

"What conception do you buy, if any? If you don't acknowledge the evidence for the Big Bang theory, then what other theory do you suggest?"

I don't buy any theory (at the moment). They all come short. They all tell us that the all evidence points towards their theory ... The evidence can be interpreted and re-interpreted in many many ways ... but I feel attracted to an eternal universe - open or closed I don't know ...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "

I don't know if I said it correctly. He is making his doctorate thesis on this. I don't get your answer.

"How is possible that motion never started? "

how is it possible that it ever started?? inflation theory says the excited vacuum caused spacetime to start ...... what do you understand under an "excited" vacuum --> isn't that about motion in the vacuum field????
Motion remains primary.

"You're confused. Using your logic that time doesn't exist yet motion does, then we can assume all events would occur simultaneously and instantaneously. "

Nope. You will have to tell me first WHY exactly. What is time doing exactly that this isn't happening ... but maybe you should tell me first with what you mean with "all events would occur simultaneously and instantaneously". The more I think about that phrase the more I find that it says nothing and everything.

"You can count certain units like seconds between the different positions in the xyz but that's where the mathematical time story ends.

Excellent! We agree."

Excellent, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS

"Sorry, I'm not following any of this. It resembles a rant. "

You can't follow because you can't answer. You're like a theïst not knowing what to answer on specific questions on his "God". After all, Time works in mysterious ways, doesn't it? :D :D

"I want (1) proof for Time and

Look at a clock."

A clock performs uniform motion. End of story. It has nothing to do with measuring a "dimension". But if you agree with me that time is not something of nature but man-made to be able to caculate positions in xyz, then I agree.

"(2) a clear definition.

You supplied one yourself above."

The one I gave is the one which says that time is only maths.
But you cannot agree with that as it was you who said that:

"The dimension of time is more a natural occurence in regards to our universe and how it works, and not just something we use to calculate coordinates. Time simply allows one event to occur after another and not all at once."

how is it possible that it ever started?? inflation theory says the excited vacuum caused spacetime to start

I though you said you don't but into any theories on inflation.

but maybe you should tell me first with what you mean with "all events would occur simultaneously and instantaneously". The more I think about that phrase the more I find that it says nothing and everything.

Exactly. :)

A clock performs uniform motion. End of story. It has nothing to do with measuring a "dimension".
But if you agree with me that time is not something of nature but man-made to be able to caculate positions in xyz, then I agree.

I don't agree.

oh, forgot this thread!

I agree. Why?

I don't buy any theory (at the moment).

That's why.

hey (Q), if you don't wanna discuss this that's okay!

cest moi

The problem is that there are too many things we don't agree upon. If you interpret empirical evidence in a different way other than what has already been theorized, you must provide valid reasoning. That is where we have reached an impasse.

We need to get past other obstacles in order to discuss this topic.

Sorry.

"you must provide valid reasoning."

mine is simpeler and less "mysterious"

And the change would be very very small for science if accepted.
I guess it's not spectacular enough otherwise ...

cest moi,
Your ideas on space and time sounds like the classical Newtonian view that preceded Einstein. It basically seperates time as a different entity from the space dimensions and treats it as some mysterious force driving the universe forward. This sounds like common sense for most people.

Unfortunately things aren't that simple. Perhaps this is for the better because the classical view didn't satisfy physicists in describing what time really is and it couldn't explain certain phenomena.

Well the result was relativity theory which describes the world in four dimensions. This could explain the constant speed of light and other until then unexplained phenomena. So just like physics has done for hundreds of years, it added some theories to better improve our understanding of the world. They are still incomplete but at least we are moving in the right direction.

So allthough inconcievable (?) we do live in a four dimensional spacetime (or more). I think string theory assumes 11 dimensions, not sure. Even if this sounds strange and might be thought as a mathimatical invention, it is most real. The reason we don't see our world as having 11 dimensions is just that they are so small so we don't notice them, and we are used to thinking in 3 dimensions, but this doesn't mean that they aren't there.

So when did time begin? I think what Hawking claims, and which to my knowledge is the accepted theory (?), is that in the very begining there was no time, only space, and that time somehow seperated itself from the other space dimensions. Think of the surface of a cone where the center point is not an edge but is rounded off to a sphere shape and time being along the sides of the cone.

So this means that time never began because there was no time dimension, there was only chaos, and by chaos I mean that there is no link between cause and effect, and it is from cause and effect that we can define time and have order in the universe.

Enough said from me.

hum, it seems you haven't read at all what I think ... cause I don't agree with Newton on time
for the rest ... I don't see what it has to do with what I've said + there is a difference between just "saying" and "saying WHY it like that" - most people seem to be happy by just saying it

cest moi,

You speak in very vague and unspecific terms. Unless you try and formulate your ideas better there is no use in discussing further.

Good luck.

"So allthough inconcievable (?) we do live in a four dimensional spacetime (or more). I think string theory assumes 11 dimensions, not sure. Even if this sounds strange and might be thought as a mathimatical invention, it is most real. The reason we don't see our world as having 11 dimensions is just that they are so small so we don't notice them, and we are used to thinking in 3 dimensions, but this doesn't mean that they aren't there. "

you say this
you don't explain why this is most real

Time is a concept. It is such an inherent and natural thing that I believe you are simply overlooking it in the way you view your universe. As others here, much wiser than I have said, without time there can be nothing but chaos.
Take another look at your universe. You see things moving through three dimensions, all ordered and schematic. Take a look at a comet travelling through space. If you took a series of pictures and viewd them you'd see a flick book of it's path. You'll see that it takes a path that makes sense because with each tick of the clock that passes it moves in a certain direction that appears normal. This is not caused by time, as I believe you think others have said, but time is our way of viewing this as a continuous event.
I believe that you and everyone else here are arguing accross purposes. Time does not cause motion, motion gives us an inherent feeling of time.
:confused:

In your three dimensional universe, look at an apple. Look at an ordinary apple, on a table in an empty room. Now go away, read a book, walk the dog, anything. Now go back to the room and look at the apple. It's the same. The room's the same. There's nothing different. But this isn't the same event as before. It looks like it because you get exactly the same view, but you know that it's not because things have happened between then and now.
Do you get what I'm driving at? Time is inherent. It's passing distinguishes events and the order in which they occur, it does not cause them.

.