Forgive is this subject has already been brought up. I could find no thread that pertained to my question. I was wondering if anyone could help to explain, what is time. I am not talking about the man made time, A way to know when it is lunch time or how to determine velocities. I am wondering about time in terms of physics. Like does time have to "exist"? Is there any other way to get the leading theorys for explaining the universe to work without using a time component? Also, if for some reason time does have to "exist", Wouldn't there need to be some sort of quantum unit to transmit is "force" to other particles? I have very little background in physics, but this is a question that has bugged me for a while. I appreciate any insights anyone can give me.

Hi MikeD,

As far as I know, there is to date no physical theory that can explain where time comes from, or why it "evolves". Time is introduced as a variable parameter.

What probably comes closest to a "description" of time is the spacetime structure introduced in General Relativity.

Bye!

Crisp

Short answer no one knows. Long answer it is the something that gives an order to events. When two people (and other objects) are in the same place they can agree on the order things happen. This is what is meant by time. There is also a concept that certain things (clocks) repeat in a consistant way so that we can compare two (or more or many) devices and observe that the give a predictable ordering to events, and this is how we measure time.

One unanswered question is a chicken and egg situation. Is the speed of light dependant on time or is time dependant on the speed of light ? Put another way the question is "Is the way we measure time always dependant on the speed of light in vacuo" or is "Time separate and the speed of light fixed relative to time" ? The maths for SR, GR etc all work out the same whichever assumption you start with.

Originally posted by MikeD22
I am wondering about time in terms of physics. Like does time have to "exist"? Is there any other way to get the leading theorys for explaining the universe to work without using a time component?

MikeD22

Yes mike it would be possible to explain the universe without using the time component as being responsible for the causality of events as relativity does. Relativity defines the causality of the force of gravity in terms of a curvature of space-time. However if one defines time is only as a measure of <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm> the sequential ordering of the causality of events </a> one can explain the workings of a universe where time does not contribute to the physical causality of events.

Jeff

Welcome MikeD.

What I have understood of the matter (not much, maybe ;)) time is dependent of the speed of light in vacuum (c).
Also, there are those who say time is the direction of processes caused by the increase of entropy. We experience time as going a certain direction, because our brains obey the same law of therodynamics, so that our memory 'forces' us to perceive time as we do.

However, how the two relate (if at all) is alltogether unclear to me at this moment (whatever that is).

merlijn

Hi Merlijn, all others

There are several possible definitions of a time arrow. I believe some of them are discussed in "A Brief History of Time" (dutch translation was entitled: "Het Heelal") by Stephen Hawking.

First of all there is what you could call a psychological arrow of time, which is what you refer to as how our brain perceives events. Some events just "feel right" when they happen in a certain order (a cup breaks after it hits the floor and not in mid-air). Secondly - more into physics - there is the thermodynamical time arrow, i.e. that time flows forward in the direction of increasing entropy. Unfortunately the increase of entropy is more or less a postulate in thermodynamics, and it happens to be a hot topic in current research to explain how the increase of entropy can be explained in terms of particles and their interactions. I should add that the increase of entropy is also not an absolute law, research suggests that it does not always hold (I think I've mentioned this before on the forums, there is going to be a forum on this somewhere in the summer: quantummechanical calculations seem to somewhat contradict this, but I guess we'll have to wait a while before some results are published).

Note also that "a direction of time" is totally unexpected from a physical point of view: after all, all fundamental equations of motion in physics are time reversible (Newton's third law, Schrodinger equation, relativity, ... ). I've also mentioned this in the "emergent properties" thread.

So what is time and what about a direction of time ? I am not entirely sure if the scientific community has already a good idea what time is exactly. We're working hard on it though :)

Bye!

Crisp

Time, as you've probably heard, is another coordinate in the 3 dimentional space we know, thus turning it into a 4D space.
I'll try to explain why is that so and by doing it I'll answer on some of your questions.

Some imagination and basic algebra lead to the following formula:

(Delta)t = (delta)t' / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

sqrt = square root.

I won't explain how to derive the formula. I can if you want, but right now I don't have the patience for that.

According to the above formula, (Delta)t (the time) depends on the speed of a moving frame (v), the speed of light (c) and a (delta)t', which I won't explain, and even if I did, you would not understand, because it can only be understood if I derive the formula step by step.

Note: I'm not sure what's the exact word for what I mean by "frame" in english, but the word in russian is sistema otchota. I'll just use the word "frame".
It's simply put a coordinate system to which things are related.
For instance, a ball thrown forward at a speed of 7 m/sec from a car moving at a speed of 25 m/sec will seem to be moving at a speed of 25+7=32 m/sec to a still observer outside the car. The person who threw the ball from inside the car will see the ball as if it was moving at the speed of 7 m/sec.
In other words, the car is another frame, moving relatively to the frame of the earth at the speed of 25 m/sec. the observer outside the car is in the frame of the earth and that is why the ball seems to be moving faster.
whenever you move, you are a frame, or a coordinate system and every part of you is in that coodinate system. Your liver, your brain, your heart, everything.
If my English vocabulary was slightly wider, perhaps I could explain better... sorry about that...

Now, take two coordinates. X and Y. Coordinates are not absolute, but relative.
The geometrical place of point A (see attachment) can be described using X and Y and also using X' an Y'.

from now on, I'll use 'D' for 'delta'.

When turning the coordinate system clockwise, from (X,Y) to (X',Y'), one coordinate (Y) becomes shorter and the other one (X) -longer. Thus, there should exist a combination of the coordinates which always remains constant.
In our case, it's:

(Dr)^2 = (DX)^2 + (DY)^2 = (DX')^2 + (DY')^2 = ... = const.

because a^2 + b^2 = c^2, the pithagorian theorem (dunno how to spell it).

Now, lets get back to our formula.
According to the formula, the higher the velocity (v), the larger the values of Dt and DX (=Dt*v). :eek: Ok, I guess I'll have to explain how to derive the formula... but not now. Maybe tomorrow...
Anyway, now a question arises. What if there is a combination of Dx and Dt which, as in the case with the coordinates, remains constant?
There is a little problem. You can't combine time and distance.
luckily, this problem has a solution. All you have to do is to simply multiply Dt by c, which is the speed of light ~ 300000 km/sec.

The next stage requires a full understanding of the first formula plus knowing how to derive it plus it's geometrical representation.
Just in case you're familiar with it, I'll continue, but probably it won't make any sense...
Don't worry. When I have time, I'll post the explanation.

Dx/2 and c*Dt/2 are two sides of a triangle. Its' height remains constant in all frames:

DS=sqrt[(c*Dt)^2 / (Dx)^2]

If you raise the above expression to the power of two, you'll have:

(DS)^2 = (c*Dt)^2 - (DX)^2 = (c*Dt')^2 - (DX')^2 = ... = const.

Wow, this looks just like the coordinates formula!!!

And thus we have proved that time is the fourth coordinate of space.

Now, back to your questions.
Does time have to exist? Yes. It's a part of space-time, it's the fourth coordinate. Assuming that space will exist without time is like assuming that a man can live without his brain.
Your second question is basically the same as the first one...
The third question I didn't quite understand. Maybe it's my English... What do you mean by "force"? As long as I know, time has no "force"...

All written above are the basics of the special theory of relativity
and it's not guaranteed to be 100% correct. I'm not a professional, I just buy books and read them. I think it's much better than learning it in a class... dunno.

Anyway, if there are any mistakes, please let me know...

Thank you all for the great explainations. They have really helped me to better understand time.

BloodSuckingGerbile,

If time is a fundemental component of the universe, would in not need a unit to carry or transmit it's "force"? For example, the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons and the electromagnetic force is carried by photons. Wouldn't time need a "timeon"? My thinking my be wrong on this issue, but it seems to me that time would need some way to make its effects felt by the universe.



Mike

Time is a coordinate. It's the same as an x axis or a y axis or a z axis. It is a 't' axis.
The examples you gave are the fundamental forces in the universe. Well, time is not a force and and it doesn't possess any energy either.
To imagine what time is think of an infinitely long table with an infinite number of columns and each column contains a still image of a 3 dimentional space. If you load this table into a cine projector and run it, you'll see the real 4D space.
This is just another way to imagine a 4D space coz it's hard to imagine a 4th coordinate. Think of the table as being the 4th coordinate, the time. It gives order to events. These events are the images of the 3D space in the table.
Time has no force, just like space. It just exists. It sustains everything, including the fundamental forces.

P.S. Mike, do you want me to post the derivation to that equation or not? :confused:

Time is a song by Pink Floyd.

Seriously;
I could give my usual patois on the nature of time but it's not really necessary.

Time is d4.

there are other threads on the forums relating to this and other temporal / dimensional phenomena.
EDIT: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5085&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

I just now saw a program in which the ideas of Julian Barbour about time were discussed. (See http://www.platonia.com/ for his website.) His idea is that time does not exist but is only percieved by us: it only appears to exist. Change is what matters, not time. Time is perceived by the changes in the world around us.

Time in Einstein's theory is flexible whereas in quantum physics it is inflexible. The Wheeler-De Witt theorem unified these two theories. This theorem doesn't use time. So the way to unify these two perceptions about time is to leave the time out!

He explained his idea using a three particle universe. In this universe every instance of the universe can be represented by three numbers: the distance between (A and B), (B and C) and (C and A). So every instance can be represented by a point in three-dimensional space. Not every point in this three dimensional space represents a valid instance of the universe: if A is close to B and B is close to C then A and C cannot be very far apart). Imposing these restrictions in the three dimensional space gives a section of this space representing all the possible configurations of this universe. What we perceive as time is a certain sequence of instances in the universe (in the model this is represented by a one-dimensional curve connecting all those instances). In classical mechanics there are certain laws connecting those particular instances. This also explains why mechanics has no direction of time.


Interesting view...

Looks like the view of the beings in the wormhole in Star Trek Deep Space Nine: they cannot perceive time and don't understand why we would use such a concept.



Greetings,


Han.

Hi Han,
Welcome to Sciforums. I am glad you desided to join. (Heb je me opgegeven als referral? :))

Can you please give us some more insoght on the Wheeler-De Witt theorem? It sounds very interesting!

Merlijn

The problem with Julian Barbour is that he fails to understand that there is real time and there is recorded time, both of which exist in two different forms. An analogy: Take a video recorder and record a clock so that you have a recording of a clock showing time. Take the video out and place the video on a table, the video looks timeless, yet does not change the fact that in the video, there is time, but of a different nature than the time outside the video.

Barbour visualizes our universe from a point standing outside of the space-time model where it appears time stands still and therefore, according to Barbour, time is an illusion. He fails to understand that it will always look like that no matter what the real nature of time is, thus it is a lack of time that is the illusion.

Q, thank you for pointing this out. You are right: Barbour does not explain anything about the nature of time. However, as you also pointed out: his model is independent of what the nature of time is. This is I think the real strength of the model: freed from any particularities of time we can think about time in the model. The question of what time is then becomes in the model (without loss of generality): what relation is there between the different points in Platonia (different "nows"). (Platonia is the name Barbour gives to his model.) The classical vision of time would then say that for every history (any given path in Platonia) the next point would be a function of the points before. The restrictions that come from Einstein in this model would be the light conus: nothing travels faster than light: so no history is possible where particles travel faster than light.


Greetings,


Han.

I've always preferred Wheelers statement on the nature of Time; "Time is natures way of ensuring everything does not happen at once".

It's either that or the immortal line from Ford Prefect in Hitch Hikers, "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so".

I have a problem with these existentialist arguments that time is some how an illusion or a human construct. It seems obvious to me that time is a very real phenomena. I'll freely admit I can't describe what time actually is but it's there.

Originally posted by thed

I have a problem with these existentialist arguments that time is some how an illusion or a human construct. It seems obvious to me that time is a very real phenomena.

Does time have a physical property that can be experimental observed or is its “physical” existence or "what it is" based only on abstract mathematical equations?

Jeff

BloodSuckingGerbil,
No, I don't want you to waste you time deriving your formula for me. It will just go over my head. Thank you though.

I would like to thank everyone who posted for trying to clear up this question for me. From what I gather from your posts and other reading the nature of time is not well understood by many in the scientific community.

Han,
I read an article in Discover Magazine(vol.21,No.12,Dec.2000) discussing Julian Barbour's ideas on time and that is what started me thinking about the nature of time. He has some really fascinating ideas on the subject.

Han

The question of what time is then becomes in the model (without loss of generality): what relation is there between the different points in Platonia (different "nows").

Since we live in a 4 dimensional universe, 3 spatial and 1 temporal, these dimensions are not completely separable as Einstein shows how distance and time can to some degree be exchanged. The universe can be divided into spacelike and timelike directions and is something that can be measured precisely with clocks and distance measurements according to Minkowski. This is the relationship between the points or 'nows' in Platonia, and is no illusion.

The classical vision of time would then say that for every history (any given path in Platonia) the next point would be a function of the points before.

The most fundamental aspect of time is the effect that makes a cold beverage warm and a warm soup cold, the same effect that causes us to remember as well as forget the past but not the future, the effect that is the direction in which computers work, the effect which is the direction of increase in entropy. This would be the function of points before the next.

Therefore if both forms of time, the direction of time, as shown by Einstein and Minkowski, and the direction of increase in entropy, can be measured, they exist.

"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so". Those books are cool.

"The problem with Julian Barbour is that he fails to understand that..."

I wouldn't be so quick at saying that. Are you implying that you understand more than this Barbour. I think instead of insulting you might give some proof for your part.

"Since we live in a 4 dimensional universe, 3 spatial and 1 temporal"

It is not very prudent to take this kind of thing as a fact. Just becuase Einstein said it, does not make it true.

Apart from this id just like to give a little food for thought. Time doesn't make a hot soup cold or a cold soup hot, directly. Time only lets the mechanisms for the universe work their magic.

The only problem i have with the idea of frames of time that are that our brains don't just preceive time. Our brains are a construct of matter in the univers just like everything else is. So The only way our minds work is through the passing of time.

There is no reason to suppose that time does not exist. The only thing we do know is that there is a very many direct patterns to how one time frame looks and how the next one looks. So it makes sence to suppose that the previous frame was derived from the last.

Actually I can see what the original subject was aimed at.

I've discussed many times about the subject of parallel worlds, and the usage of a timeloop that proves the universe itself repeats over the same ground using it as a kind of guide rail.

(You might see this as some form of trace if you move your hand infront a particular frequency of light. You see you arm in front and the trace behind, but your hand at some point exists as that trace.)

This pretty much means that the whole universe is in time, some form of universal time, although some very small changes can occur with the use of mutliworlds. In a visual sense a bit like a pattern continually evolving and morphing in an animate fractal.

If you could continue keeping an observable position though (and move it when it needs to be moved to keep it relative) time would repeat itself with no change what so ever. (Since your changing the observation point)

The main problem here is never being able to be at that observation vantage point, at least for no longer than an instance.

French

I wouldn't be so quick at saying that. Are you implying that you understand more than this Barbour. I think instead of insulting you might give some proof for your part.

If you read and understood my post, you would see the proof for yourself.

It is not very prudent to take this kind of thing as a fact. Just becuase Einstein said it, does not make it true.

Einstein didn't say it.

Apart from this id just like to give a little food for thought. Time doesn't make a hot soup cold or a cold soup hot, directly. Time only lets the mechanisms for the universe work their magic.

Again, if you read my post, you would see that it was the direction of increase of entropy I was referring, not time.

So The only way our minds work is through the passing of time.

Not bad. :)

Gwwwwaaaaaaaggghhhhhhkkkkhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!%@#&%^$%$%



Gawzirra smash Q ... Gawzirra Smash Tokyo!!!!

all is my assumptions


if we measure our universe in 3D we get a map.
If we take one point of the map- let's say Earth.
We live at the present time and place

ok- so my question is-> does future exist now?
future for the particular point in the universe

we can go freely in 3D environment then theoretically we should be able to somehow go in a 4D environment also.

and we go- slowly forward.
But if the future is right here, now then theoretically we should be somehow able to go forward in it faster
(and we can, if we go through space around earth close to light speed)

so- what limits or what is required for us to go back in time relative to our earth instead of forward?

and if not- what doesn't allow us to do that

--It is not very prudent to take this kind of thing as a fact. Just becuase Einstein said it, does not make it true. --

"Einstein didn't say it. "

"these dimensions are not completely separable as Einstein shows how distance and time can to some degree be exchanged."

I think this is what i was refering to when i said "said".


---Apart from this id just like to give a little food for thought. Time doesn't make a hot soup cold or a cold soup hot, directly. Time only lets the mechanisms for the universe work their magic. ---

"Again, if you read my post, you would see that it was the direction of increase of entropy I was referring, not time. "

What does this sentence say to you Q:

"The most fundamental aspect of time is the effect that makes a cold beverage warm and a warm soup cold"

Maybe if you read your own post you would find it quite interesting.

"we can go freely in 3D environment then theoretically we should be able to somehow go in a 3D environment also. "

Sorry, did you mean 4D when you said "3D" the second time?
If you did, then I could say that this was only if time WAS a dimention. Time has been thought of as such, but there really is no evidence whatsoever. It is just a very interesting theory and is a better theory than "time just exists, period" so we use it. If it is a dimention, your right.

"so- what limits or what is required for us to go back in time relative to our earth instead of forward?"

Well i don't know, but it wouldn't be relative to the earth, it would be relative to a certain point in time.

French

What does this sentence say to you Q:

"The most fundamental aspect of time is the effect that makes a cold beverage warm and a warm soup cold"

Not much because there is no reference to the "effect."

However, if you were to read the entire sentence, you might find out what is the reference to the "effect." I will bold it out for you so you don't miss it again:

The most fundamental aspect of time is the effect that makes a cold beverage warm and a warm soup cold, the same effect that causes us to remember as well as forget the past but not the future, the effect that is the direction in which computers work, the effect which is the direction of increase in entropy.

FYI - A comma indicates a break in a sentence, it does not signify the end of a sentence. That job is left to the period. ;)

If you're having trouble reading a sentence in its entirety, I would be happy to take the Hemingway approach. :)

(No, I won't blow my head off.)

"No, I won't blow my head off."

Funney man, seriously. :D

"The most fundamental aspect of time is the effect that makes a cold beverage warm and a warm soup cold, the same effect that causes us to remember as well as forget the past but not the future, the effect that is the direction in which computers work, the effect which is the direction of increase in entropy. "

Sure, sure. If I were to take that, i would say that ENTROPY makes a cold beverage warm and vice versa, not time. Time only lets things work the way the highly evasive laws of nature allow them to. Besides, if you define entropy as the increase in disorganization, as my biology book says, I don't believe in the "law" of entropy. Entropy is not a law, it is a generalization, and like most generalizations, they are not accurate.

The "effect" of entropy is not an aspect of time, it is an observation.

can you tell me of cases where entropy might not be working?

French

Besides, if you define entropy as the increase in disorganization, as my biology book says, I don't believe in the "law" of entropy.

Entropy is a measure of microscopic disorder, and according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases with time. On a macroscopic scale, entropy increases when heat is added to a thermodynamic system at an absolute temperature relative to an arbitrary zero point. Therefore, as temperature increases, so does the entropy of a system.

Entropy is not a law, it is a generalization, and like most generalizations, they are not accurate.

Actually, the laws of thermodynamics are generalizations determined empirically by repeated scientific experiments. The second law is a generalization dealing with entropy.

The "effect" of entropy is not an aspect of time, it is an observation.

The direction of the effect of entropy IS an aspect of time.

Avatar

If the energy and volume of a system are constant and never change, entropy remains zero.

I doubt that it can be observed smwhere in our universe if not in singularities

but then- if the entropy/dissorder of our universe gets bigger and bigger and if we come to a big crunch (I know it's only one of the theories) then we have a paradox that the greatest entropy turns in the greatest order

i know this will take some criticism, but if



power=energy /time,

conversly, by algebra we can say



time=energy/power

but then again, power is defined by time, so i guess this wouldnt qualify as a definition right?

distance = velocity * time
d=vt
thus (?)
time=distance/velocity
ergo:
distance/velocity = energy/power ??

don't thinkso

"Entropy is a measure of microscopic disorder"
- Q

Disorder is an opinion, and opinions are not theories. You can't say disorder increases, or heat increases in the universe. Thats just like saying humans become more evil....

On radioactive waves:

What is energy? (i have a definition that is pretty vauge, im sure yours is as much so)

What is power? (that i don't have a scientific definition for)

French

Disorder is an opinion, and opinions are not theories.

Can you provide some explanation as to why disorder would be considered an opinion ? Opinion by whom ?

You can't say disorder increases, or heat increases in the universe.

SLofT - The entropy of a closed system shall never decrease, and shall increase whenever possible.

Thats just like saying humans become more evil....

Wrong analogy.

On radioactive waves:

What is energy? (i have a definition that is pretty vauge, im sure yours is as much so)

That depends on what you're referring; kinetic, thermal... All definitions of energy are definitive.

What is power? (that i don't have a scientific definition for)

Again, what reference to power ?

"Can you provide some explanation as to why disorder would be considered an opinion ? Opinion by whom ? "

I would be happy to. How can you judge 'order'? You could say it has a pattern to it, but it is all in perspective. How can you prove that the universe will have more 'pattern' later than now? The universe is not -trying- to loose heat, it just so happens that that is what is going on in suns, the major composition of the universe.

How can you distinguish order from disorder without giving an opinion? You can say that people running around and screaming is disorderly, but what do you base that on, the fact that noone knows what they are doing? I can tell you that most people don't know what they are doing anyway...

"The entropy of a closed system shall never decrease, and shall increase whenever possible."

ok..... fine you can SAY it, but it doesn't mean its true. By the way, good job on the -saying-.

"Wrong analogy." - this shows your idea on opinions....

"Again, what reference to power ?"

.... don't make me come over there and slap you. On Radioactive Waves said :
"power=energy /time,"

that is what im talking about.

How can you judge 'order'? .... How can you prove that the universe will have more 'pattern' later than now?
Structuring, or ordering, is in fact a collapse (or any decrease) in degrees of freedomwithin the system.
The degrees of freedom can be quantified. Thus we can judge 'order'

Merlijn

"Structuring, or ordering, is in fact a collapse (or any decrease) in degrees of freedomwithin the system.
The degrees of freedom can be quantified. Thus we can judge 'order'"

What do you mean by degrees of freedom? Books say life is more organized, how does life have less degrees of freedom?

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Merlijn

"Structuring, or ordering, is in fact a collapse (or any decrease) in degrees of freedomwithin the system.
The degrees of freedom can be quantified. Thus we can judge 'order'"

What do you mean by degrees of freedom? Books say life is more organized, how does life have less degrees of freedom?

Interesting question. I also find the "order decreases" a bit counterintuitive. I know that it is a global property of a closed system so locally the order can increase (such as the formation of life). However when we look at the universe we see order increasing everywhere: formation of atoms, galaxies, life etc. How can that be.
Another question is: how can degrees of freedom increase or decrease when all the physical laws are reversible: the degrees of freedom in such a system must stay the same.

Greetings,


Han.

Another question is: how can degrees of freedom increase or decrease when all the physical laws are reversible: the degrees of freedom in such a system must stay the same.
increasing the degrees of freedom (df) in a system is easy.... take for example a drop of water in a closed bottle. the water will evaporate, causing the df the increase.

What do you mean by degrees of freedom? Books say life is more organized, how does life have less degrees of freedom?
degrees of freedom is a term describing on how many ways the state of a system can be realised. Hmm maybe this is still quite vague.
When you read any book by Ian Stewart (e.g. "Life's other secret", a very good book!) you will get to understand what I mean. You do not need special training in mathematics to read them.

Hmm, im sure if its so easy you can explain it here. Water to gas.... i can't see any difference in the ways it can be "realized" how many are there usually?

how many degrees of freedom are in a watch, or a car? Is this "degrees of freedom" stuff scientific?

It DOES seem vauge, but i don't exactly want to buy a book to try to understand it.

Frencheneesz,
Degrees of freedom is most often used in statistics. In mathematics or physics, it resembles the term entropy.
try a google search.
Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com) gives this definition
"The number of degrees of freedom in a problem, distribution, etc., is the number of parameters which may be independently varied. "

According to the link you gave me and other sites i looked up, degrees of freedom are purely mathematic. In phisics it is the number of ways of describing something, like measuring the pressure, temperature, size, motion, and anything else you can think of.

The universe does not have some sort of conspiracy for it to be mathmatically easy to anylize. The number of parameters is on the fringe of opinion, because you could say color and what light bounces off of it, is absorped by it, and what wavelengths an object is transparent to are either different parameters or interchangable parameters.

there are almost infinite number of ways an object can be described, and there can be no rule that the universe gets progressively less parameters.

You never answered my question about how you can measure the number of parameters an object, like a car, has. So, how do you measure that?

why I haven't answered your quastion: because ...
the number is astronomical (just like in CUBE)

And I am not even interested in doing so. I just gave a measure for ordering. You told us that ordering is a purely subjective measure. I told you that you were wrong (in my opinion). I feel in no way obliged to actually do the measuring/calculating.

In regards to time, here is what I think. Imagine your three dimensional space. Place a bubble over top of it. The origin is the beginning of the universe, the x,y,x coordinates are the locations of events, and the bubble is the time we currently exist in which is always exanding as time progresses. Does this make sense to anyone?

THX
°Stormcrow°

we live in a 4 dimensional universe, 3 spatial and 1 temporal

(Frencheneesz:) It is not very prudent to take this kind of thing as a fact. Just becuase Einstein said it, does not make it true.

What makes it true, as true as something can get that is defined rigorously with mathematics, is that the main descriptors of physical phenomenon other than mass involve space and time. Speed, acceleration, energy, work, momentum, power, all have time in the equation. Without time there is no energy, and no observable universe.

Le Coq

"Without time there is no energy, and no observable universe."

Did I say time didn't exist?!

Welcome Stormcrow,
I can't quite follow what you mean with the analogy....could you elaborate more?
e.g. why is the bubble not party of the 3-d space it envelopes? or did I not understand it at all?

bye,
Merlijn

i think Stormcrow was saying that we must describe our observable universe in four dimensions, x,y,z and t so this would mean parrametric equations right?

Yes Yes,
X,Y, and Z are spatial coordinates and t is our temporal position. The orgin of x,y,z, and t would be the creation of the physical/ temporal universe (Big Bang or God). As the universe expands the t-sphere expands around the equally expanding xyz system. If you can imagine this you can say mathematically where and when an event has occured. Also it would suggest that time travel to the past is possible, but not into the future where xyz,t have not existed yet.

Any clearer?

°Stormcrow°

there is a good book that explains this stuff in only about 100 pages and it covers very diverse topics about life and our existance the way we know it

it called : "stalking the wild pendulum"