Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Here I disagree, and would like to ask if you could reference any empirical example (or hypothetical that could clearly be empirical) where time happens void of any motion? Please note it is the reference to where (or how) time is happening that should be void of motion.

" Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. Space is what keeps everything from happening to me. - John Wheeler "

and again since this was conveniently side stepped agian,

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ?

how do you need or use something that does not exist ?

we use math to describe entities or such,
does math not exist ?

Time and math exist in exactly the same way; is math a physical phenomenon, or framework that can describe a physical phenomenon? I trust you may see time has the same function as math, they describe the physical world, they don't cause physical things to change, they merely describe that change.

" Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. - John Wheeler "

Once you recognize what time describes you can say more accurately "space (separation) and energy's ability to change position within it are what keep everything from happening at once"

and again since this was conveniently side stepped again,

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ?

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion, and moves faster at low rates of motion ?
Because the physical phenomenon of time (proper time) is something a massive body experiences and since massive bodies are at rest with respect to themselves, the issue you see does not physically exist for them.
And because the intuitive concept of time (coordinate time) is tantamount to assigning events a time-coordinate which is (as two perfectly functioning clocks can take different paths from event A and event B and need not agree on the elapsed time) not a perfect model of the behavior of physical events.

The mismatch between proper time and coordinate time is the only reason why someone would assert the "rate of time" was other than 1 second per second, because you are comparing physical reality (and the best models of it) with a deficient model of reality only slightly modified from Newton's concept of Absolute Time.

In physically accurate four-dimensional models of space-time, one is not allowed to single out a single direction as the direction of time, but the direction of coordinate time is a choice. However for the world-line of any massive object, the notion of proper time invariantly parametrizes the world-line of the massive object by the analog of arc-length in geometry. So while the coordinate time between events is not fixed, the proper time for a particular path between events is fixed.

ahh, yes finally,
thanks rpenner,
but i was hoping Maxila was able to describe this.
but all in all, thanks.

Write4U

I agree, but time comes into existence as a "measurable" dimension with the occurrence of events (change) in physical space.

Don't conflate the measurement with that being measured. Or, in other words, don't confuse the map(the measurement)with the territory(time). The territory exists independent of whether the map does(or can)or not. Whether events are occurring in a section of space or not, time passes in that section of spacetime. Empty space has the highest rate of time, mass just dilates the local time slowing it down. The more mass, the slower it goes and VICE VERSE. Time is just as built in to spacetime as space is, do you also claim space ceases to exist if it is empty? No, the space is there waiting to be filled, and it will take time for that to happen.

Maxila

Here I disagree, and would like to ask if you could reference any empirical example (or hypothetical that could clearly be empirical) where time happens void of any motion? Please note it is the reference to where (or how) time is happening that should be void of motion.

You are making the same error as Write4U, just because there is no way to make a map does not mean the territory pops in and out of existence based on your ability or inability to measure it. And, since more mass can be measured to slow down time and less mass causes less slowdown, why is it not logical to assume that time goes fastest where nothing exists? Time passes whether or not any change occurs which we can measure to draw that map. It is a built in property of spacetime, and just like spacetime is the least distorted when mass is not present, time is fastest in the absence of mass(events)to dilate it. Hell, Black Holes are invisible if they have no mass outside of the event horizon, but you would be foolish to assume that just because you can't map it, that it is not there. Same goes for time. Without events time is not measurable but don't think that inability has anything to do with time's existence. Events are yardsticks with which we measure time, but time exists independent of whether or not we have a yardstick to measure it by. And consider speed(motion), at lightspeed time stops, the slower you go from lightspeed the faster time passes, at rest time flows as fast as it possibly can, so motion is NOT the source for time, it AFFECTS time but does not bring it into existence, LACK of motion gives you your fastest rate of time's passage. So the rate of time's passage in empty space is the "purest" time there is, you just have no way to map it. Just because we need events to map time doesn't mean that time needs events to exist, those are two very different things, our limitations don't dictate reality, they just dictate what we can and cannot know.

Going back to mass, you have two extremes of the rate of time. At a certain radius from the center of a Black Hole time(as we know it in this Universe)stops. What happens closer to the BH, we don't know. But the further you get away from that BH the faster time will move for you(in relation to the Universe as a whole), it will get faster and faster the less mass you are near(including your own). And speed gives you mass as well, so move slowly. When you get into empty space at nearly zero velocity your time will be passing at the fastest rate that you can experience without a drastic dietary regimen, what mechanism then causes time to cease to pass?

Grumpy

ahh, yes finally,
thanks rpenner,
but i was hoping Maxila was able to describe this.
but all in all, thanks.

I owe you an apology krash661; I misunderstood the basis of your question. Instead of taking it at face value I thought you knew the premise of time dilation due to mass and motion. I thought the question was a general challenge that time could not be as I described in that context.

Write4U
Don't conflate the measurement with that being measured. Or, in other words, don't confuse the map(the measurement)with the territory(time). The territory exists independent of whether the map does(or can)or not. Whether events are occurring in a section of space or not, time passes in that section of spacetime. Empty space has the highest rate of time, mass just dilates the local time slowing it down. The more mass, the slower it goes and VICE VERSE. Time is just as built in to spacetime as space is, do you also claim space ceases to exist if it is empty? No, the space is there waiting to be filled, and it will take time for that to happen.

I agree with all you say, except the assumption that I am proposing that time comes into existence during measurement. This is not how I see it. Time comes into existence during an event (regardless of the presence of an observer). We can look back in time to long before there were observers. The thrust of my argument is that time is a result of something coming into existence (an event) such as space (spatial dimensions} empty or not. Any two points inside space are seperated in time. There cannot be simultaneity of two identical events in the same spacetime coordinate. Seperation for expression in reality is achieved by difference in either space or time.

Allow me a simplistic example. During warmup two basketball players shoot a ball at the hoop at the same time from the same distance. The two balls meet just above the rim and both are prevented from going in by the other. However if the players use different trajectories, one shoots a line drive and other a rainbow, the balls will arrive at different times and both will fall through.

It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) your argument rest on the assumption that space already exists independently, is infinite and therefore the associated time must also be infinite. But what was the condition before the BB? Did spacetime exist before the BB? Before the BB did any physical dimension exist at all, to which a timeline can be attached? I have never heard anyone say the age of the universe is 16 billion +

What if there is nothing? Is time a dimension of nothing? My original question was if time exists as a dimension seperate from space.
IMO, time comes into being along with an event or a sequence of events in physical space. Physical reality needs time to express itself, be it slow or fast. A muon decays (changes) almost instantaneously and its time of existence is very short, granite decays (changes) very slowly and its time of existence is very long. There are elements that decay (change) so slow we measure the time of their existence as "half life".

There may be a semantic problem with the terms "infinitely large" and "infinitely small". IMO, in the absence of physical properties, infinite or not, time is irrelevant. However "inside" our universe, which is still expanding outward, replacing the infinite nothingness, time is the one dimension which allows evolution, orderly sequence of becoming physical reality.

Maxila
You are making the same error as Write4U, just because there is no way to make a map does not mean the territory pops in and out of existence based on your ability or inability to measure it. And, since more mass can be measured to slow down time and less mass causes less slowdown, why is it not logical to assume that time goes fastest where nothing exists? Time passes whether or not any change occurs which we can measure to draw that map. It is a built in property of spacetime, and just like spacetime is the least distorted when mass is not present, time is fastest in the absence of mass(events)to dilate it. Hell, Black Holes are invisible if they have no mass outside of the event horizon, but you would be foolish to assume that just because you can't map it, that it is not there. Same goes for time. Without events time is not measurable but don't think that inability has anything to do with time's existence. Events are yardsticks with which we measure time, but time exists independent of whether or not we have a yardstick to measure it by. And consider speed(motion), at lightspeed time stops, the slower you go from lightspeed the faster time passes, at rest time flows as fast as it possibly can, so motion is NOT the source for time, it AFFECTS time but does not bring it into existence, LACK of motion gives you your fastest rate of time's passage. So the rate of time's passage in empty space is the "purest" time there is, you just have no way to map it. Just because we need events to map time doesn't mean that time needs events to exist, those are two very different things, our limitations don't dictate reality, they just dictate what we can and cannot know.

Going back to mass, you have two extremes of the rate of time. At a certain radius from the center of a Black Hole time(as we know it in this Universe)stops. What happens closer to the BH, we don't know. But the further you get away from that BH the faster time will move for you(in relation to the Universe as a whole), it will get faster and faster the less mass you are near(including your own). And speed gives you mass as well, so move slowly. When you get into empty space at nearly zero velocity your time will be passing at the fastest rate that you can experience without a drastic dietary regimen, what mechanism then causes time to cease to pass?
Grumpy

All scientifically correct, but the question remains, what would be the use of time in the absence of physical change? Can we say that "in the beginning there was metaphysical time"? Or did time come into existence with the expression of physical energy and dynamic change?.
Is it possible that in the heart of a black hole there is a condition of stasis (pure potential) where time is a meaningless dimension.
Similarly so "outside" of the our universe, where time is a meaningless term.

The only metaphysical condition which I can imagine outside of physical spacetime is what Bohm calls "pure potential" where everything is possible, but nothing is implied and no time is associated with the probability of "becoming into existence".

Write4U

I agree with all you say, except the assumption that I am proposing that time comes into existence during measurement. This is not how I see it. Time comes into existence during an event (regardless of the presence of an observer)

Time came into existence when spacetime was created in the Big Bang. It is an integral part of spacetime and it always exists, everywhere. It is not dependent on any event besides that one. The only thing dependant on events is your ability to measure time's passage, events can affect time(dilation), but time actually moves at it's fastest rate in their absence. Just because you can't measure it in the absence of events doesn't mean it is not there. Motion IS NOT the source for time, events ARE NOT necessary for time's existence(excepting the Big Bang), you're still looking at the map(your ability to measure it), not the actual territory(time exists even if you can not measure it due to lack of change). Events do not create their own time, they occur in the already existent spacetime manifold that expanded out of the BB 13.7 billion years ago.

The thrust of my argument is that time is a result of something coming into existence (an event) such as space (spatial dimensions} empty or not.

That argument is just wrong. Time and space are the stage where events occur, the floor of the stage does not flicker in and out of existence depending on whether someone or something is standing on it or it is empty. The floor is not a series of circles of floor around every actor/event with voids where there are none, it is continuous throughout. So is time. Events, mass and speed can only slow time's rate, they do not affect it's existence.

Allow me a simplistic example. During warmup two basketball players shoot a ball at the hoop at the same time from the same distance. The two balls meet just above the rim and both are prevented from going in by the other. However if the players use different trajectories, one shoots a line drive and other a rainbow, the balls will arrive at different times and both will fall through.

Both player's shots take place in time. You have a problem with physical things being unable to occupy the same space that has nothing to do with creating time, just in separating the events WITHIN the time that already exists.

It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) your argument rest on the assumption that space already exists independently, is infinite and therefore the associated time must also be infinite
.

Spacetime does exist independently from events. It is FINITE but unbounded(no edges). Time is also finite, it had a beginning which means that even if it never ends it is always finite in duration(currently about 13.7 billion years).

But what was the condition before the BB? Did spacetime exist before the BB? Before the BB did any physical dimension exist at all, to which a timeline can be attached? I have never heard anyone say the age of the universe is 16 billion + ∞

Don't know. But it is largely irrelevant to this Universe. Time and space as we know it in this Universe came into being about 13.7 billion years ago and have existed continually since then. Events are irrelevant to that. But events do allow us to map time, they do not CREATE time.

What if there is nothing? Is time a dimension of nothing? My original question was if time exists as a dimension seperate from space.

The answer to that is no, time and space cannot be separated, they are one thing called spacetime. They are the manifold within which all events(in our Universe)occur. You might as well ask if it is still a stage if the floor is removed.

IMO, time comes into being along with an event or a sequence of events in physical space.

You don't understand Relativity, time always exists, has since the BB and whether there are events or not has nothing to do with that existence, other than that you can now measure it's passage where without events you could not. Does a golfer dropping a few grass leaves to see the direction of the wind create that wind by dropping them? Without the leaves the wind was invisible, unmeasurable, with the event(dropping leaves)the wind became measurable. We have a similar situation with events and time, the events don't create time, they just make it measurable.

the question remains, what would be the use of time in the absence of physical change?

What gave you the idea that being of "use" is necessary? That is a value judgement, not something you should be trying to apply to anything in this Universe. Concentrate on what is. Empty space is pretty useless(I guess), most of the Universe is empty space.

Can we say that "in the beginning there was metaphysical time"?

Don't know what you mean by that, but yes, time was created in the BB along with space and all it contains. Time has been passing, everywhere, ever since.

Is it possible that in the heart of a black hole there is a condition of stasis (pure potential) where time is a meaningless dimension.

Don't know. Time stops at the Event Horizon, we haven't a clue what goes on closer than that. Personally, I think all Black Holes connect through the other half of the time dimension directly to the Big Bang(the only White Hole known in our Universe)and that that is the only way to go back in time(all time in our Universe goes only one way, toward the future).

Grumpy

Without events time is not measurable but don't think that inability has anything to do with time's existence

I agree and understand the behavior of time in reference to mass and relative motion; if you thought I didn’t? However even you agree the empirical evidence of times existence can only be found in the observations of energy (in any form); therefore although you say time exists in its absence, without empirical evidence that statement is tantamount to faith. Whether it is mathematics that point to things beyond our ability to comprehend, or a bible speaking of things beyond our ability to comprehend, they are arguments of faith. PLEASE don’t read this as being hostile or as trying to insult you in any way, it merely my analysis that is only meant to be part of a discussion. I want to evaluate counter arguments in ways I have not considered, don’t be offended; as you know it can be difficult to have a civil and sincere discussion in a forum like this. Also I haven’t dismissed there may very well be functions of the Universe that are truly beyond our ability to comprehend. I just feel one must exhaust every understandable empirical explanation before taking a leap of faith, and there is much circumstantial evidence our current understanding could need some modification.

In a later post to Write4U you mention time came into existence in the Big Bang. In a way this is more evidence that agrees with my perspective, we can only show it to exist when we can define a space (room to change position) and energy that could change position within it. As for the singularity, I agree with many physicists like Martin Bojowald of Penn State, who feel it is mere mathematical nonsense. I don’t think they exist, or existed prior to the expansion of the Universe; we just haven’t developed our theories enough to really understand what happened in the very early Universe or inside a BH.

Last edited:
I agree and understand the behavior of time in reference to mass and relative motion; if you thought I didn’t? However even you agree the empirical evidence of times existence can only be found in the observations of energy (in any form); therefore although you say time exists in its absence, without empirical evidence that statement is tantamount to faith.
funny are you not the one saying there is no empirical evidence ?,
and yet in the same line you agree there is, in the next you contradicting your self.

empirical
1. based on observation and experiment: based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory
2. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic

tantamount
the same as: equivalent to a particular thing in effect, outcome, or value, especially something unpleasant

faith
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

belief
1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
belief in an afterlife
2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
belief in democracy
3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one

I don’t think they exist, or existed prior to the expansion of the Universe; we just haven’t developed our theories enough to really understand what happened in the very early Universe .

first,
the BB happened ,
and then a theory called inflation happened.
at lease research things before you say such and such.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

funny are you not the one saying there is no empirical evidence ?,
and yet in the same line you agree there is, in the next you contradicting your self.

empirical

tantamount

faith

belief

first,
the BB happened ,
and then a theory called inflation happened.
at lease research things before you say such and such.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

Your in interpretations of those quotes is incorrect, or out of context; unfortunately what you quoted is limited and you lack giving any explanation or reasoning for it. It appears your only intent now is to be derogatory and argumentative void of any scientific discussion. I have no interest participating in such nonsense and will not reply again to a tirade.

if you mean " tirades " as in correcting the misinformation and the contradicting you are doing,
then that's fine,
i would also have no interest in something i was being rightfully corrected on either
and call it nonsense(even tho it's scientifically established) if i did not want to admit i was wrong also..
but i will also say,
i already concluded you are not worth listening to.

It appears your only intent now is to be derogatory and argumentative void of any scientific discussion
i'm no where near derogatory, i simply posted definitions to words you have no clue of their meaning.
as usual, if you are misinforming everyone,and corrected, then i can understand how you would see it derogatory, hilarious.
derogatory-
disparaging: expressing criticism or a low opinion
it's you who is stating "opinions " and not science.
disparaging-
contemptuous or disapproving: showing or expressing disapproval or contempt

Your in interpretations those quotes are incorrect,

umm, those are widely accepted and established definitions of human society.

or out of context;
then correct me on exactly what you meant of those words you used,
simple.

unfortunately what you quoted is limited and you lack giving any explanation or reasoning for it
it's only limited from what you stated,
i only went off of your own words.
the given explanation or reasoning is the actual definitions of what you are referring to.
the explanation of the definitions are to show you ,you do not understand what you are talking about.

I agree and understand the behavior of time in reference to mass and relative motion; if you thought I didn’t? However even you agree the empirical evidence of times existence can only be found in the observations of energy (in any form); therefore although you say time exists in its absence, without empirical evidence that statement is tantamount to faith.

I don't see belief that time exists has anything to do with faith....Not that there is anything wrong in faith in science.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
Max Planck:

Time [as we know it] along with space was created at the instant of the BB. To say time does not exist, is to say space also does not exist.
Without either, there would not be a Universe for us to discuss such a question.

I would also envisage time existing in a static Universe model, one without expansion and/or contraction.

I don't see belief that time exists has anything to do with faith....Not that there is anything wrong in faith in science.

The comment was made to Grumpy in a specific context of our conversation (you can read it above), where we agree we can only observe time, where their is an event (there is the presence of some form of energy), yet he believe time still exists even where there is true empty space (putting aside an argument that QM may tell us empty space is not be empty, or one of dark energy). In that context (of nothingness - true empty space) when their is no way to observe, or verify by experiment, I think it is accurate to call that a form of faith. Albeit I understand the basis of that conviction being a mathematical model that has proven itself in the many, many ways it can be tested.

Write4U

Don't conflate the measurement with that being measured. Or, in other words, don't confuse the map(the measurement)with the territory(time). The territory exists independent of whether the map does(or can)or not. Whether events are occurring in a section of space or not, time passes in that section of spacetime. Empty space has the highest rate of time, mass just dilates the local time slowing it down. The more mass, the slower it goes and VICE VERSE. Time is just as built in to spacetime as space is, do you also claim space ceases to exist if it is empty? No, the space is there waiting to be filled, and it will take time for that to happen.

Maxila

You are making the same error as Write4U, just because there is no way to make a map does not mean the territory pops in and out of existence based on your ability or inability to measure it. And, since more mass can be measured to slow down time and less mass causes less slowdown, why is it not logical to assume that time goes fastest where nothing exists? Time passes whether or not any change occurs which we can measure to draw that map. It is a built in property of spacetime, and just like spacetime is the least distorted when mass is not present, time is fastest in the absence of mass(events)to dilate it. Hell, Black Holes are invisible if they have no mass outside of the event horizon, but you would be foolish to assume that just because you can't map it, that it is not there. Same goes for time. Without events time is not measurable but don't think that inability has anything to do with time's existence. Events are yardsticks with which we measure time, but time exists independent of whether or not we have a yardstick to measure it by. And consider speed(motion), at lightspeed time stops, the slower you go from lightspeed the faster time passes, at rest time flows as fast as it possibly can, so motion is NOT the source for time, it AFFECTS time but does not bring it into existence, LACK of motion gives you your fastest rate of time's passage. So the rate of time's passage in empty space is the "purest" time there is, you just have no way to map it. Just because we need events to map time doesn't mean that time needs events to exist, those are two very different things, our limitations don't dictate reality, they just dictate what we can and cannot know.

Going back to mass, you have two extremes of the rate of time. At a certain radius from the center of a Black Hole time(as we know it in this Universe)stops. What happens closer to the BH, we don't know. But the further you get away from that BH the faster time will move for you(in relation to the Universe as a whole), it will get faster and faster the less mass you are near(including your own). And speed gives you mass as well, so move slowly. When you get into empty space at nearly zero velocity your time will be passing at the fastest rate that you can experience without a drastic dietary regimen, what mechanism then causes time to cease to pass?

Grumpy

Hi Grumpy!

That's an interesting take on time you put there, mate. However, I am slightly unclear what you mean to imply when you say above:

Without events time is not measurable but don't think that inability has anything to do with time's existence.

and:

...LACK of motion gives you your fastest rate of time's passage.

Can you elaborate on what 'rate' that 'maximum rate' would be in the absence of 'events'? And also, if there is "lack of motion" how you would go about measuring same if, as you also agreed, that "time is not measurable without events"?

Did you mean to imply an ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL MAXIMUM 'TIME RATE' or some such, mate? It sounds like it.

I also hark back to an earlier (correct) observation of yours regarding the "lightyears" convention as a measure of astronomical scale 'space distance', and I make the observation that the only way that 'space' related to 'time' in any way (ie, your reference to the 'spacetime' convention/model) is that WE apply an overlay of MOTION of light and observe the 'measure' of a certain distance with reference to ANOTHER motion standard time 'unit' (ie, light YEAR, light SECOND etc) in order to give a value to that distance in those terms. The space distance is what it is. The measurement standards are already established. And we use light MOTION across that space as a convenient 'vehicle/device' for creating 'astronomical space distance measurement conventions. At no stage have we 'equated' or directly connected' any 'time' with that space. We merely compared that light motion with a pre-existing time standard motion (second/year etc) and called that distance traversed in said elapsed time unit standard a LIGHTSECOND/LIGHTYEAR etc.

In short, it is not clear where your take of 'space being intimately tied up with time' concept comes from, since motion of light and other standard clock rate motions are necessary? Also it is not clear what MAXIMUM 'rate' time has in the absence of any such events/motions IN/ACROSS space per se; or how one would measure that maximum rate if no events/motions as mentioned are available as referents?

I will continue to read you discussion with Maxilla et al with interest over the coming days as I get the time. Cheers, Grumpy, Maxilla, write4U, everyone!

I don't see belief that time exists has anything to do with faith....Not that there is anything wrong in faith in science.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
Max Planck:

Time [as we know it] along with space was created at the instant of the BB. To say time does not exist, is to say space also does not exist.
Without either, there would not be a Universe for us to discuss such a question.