February 11th, 2007, 03:48 PM
We live in a 4d universe. 3 spatial, 1 time. General Relativity says objects bend space-time. If you imagine a sheet suspended in air, it can be considered 2d. If you place a ball on it, it bends to a 3rd dimension. So, would the 4d universe bend onto another dimension, proving a 5th? Or is the object itself the 5th dimension?
I do not recognise time as a dimension, only as a product of the existence of the other three dimensions.
Wasn't it Einstein who said time was a dimension?
Probably, why do you ask?
cuz if it was him... it MUST be true!
Einstein said "The big bang is a fallacy" - I guess that didn't happen either, Einstein refused to accept Quantum Physics - I spose that's crap too then? (silly smiley omitted).
never omit smileys! and the caps were to hint sarcasm, should I have used :wink: instead
It was Minkowski who said time was a fourth dimension. Einstein was really unhappy about it at the time, but later found it useful when developing General Relativity. From what I've read, he ended up thinking it wasn't, and that spacetime was actually space. Have a google, and you see that this has been somewhat "sanitised":
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...HT/Time_2.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...&start=30&sa=N
Yes I have heard that Einstien said that the fourth dimension was time.
It was some aeroplane accident in the air in the empty atmosphere which left some paint on it which was obsolete at that time. So it was the speed of the plane which took it to some other time.
That's it.
I personally do like the 4D view of the universe - I don't think that necessarily implies a 5th dimension though. When you place a ball in a sheet you are doing so in a 3D space with a 3D ball. But you could imagine that instead of placing a ball on the sheet, you could "warp" the 2d space by say heating it up (causing it to expand) or cooling it down (causing contraction) without a 3rd dimension required.
Perhaps your keyboard is also suffering from 'timeslip' as well.Originally Posted by anand_kapadia
Why did i say some thing wrong or something late.
megabrain ahve you never read anything about relativity?
A hell of a lot more than you have read about 'bubble chambers' I'll wagermegabrain ahve you never read anything about relativity?
Yeah I know what you are saying, but please, let me keep one piece of crap in my head!
Seriously, I am concerned that if time 'exists' independant of the other three dimensions, I see no reason why time requires a universe to exist in. Since I am a firm believer in 'no time before the big bang' I conclude that time is an illusion of the appearance of matter and energy, as to relativity it does not need 'time' to explain it, one could tie it to motion.
sorry mega as a friend i cant allow you have false ideas in your head, and as mod you cant have it eitherA hell of a lot more than you have read about 'bubble chambers' I'll wagermegabrain ahve you never read anything about relativity?
Yeah I know what you are saying, but please, let me keep one piece of crap in my head!
Seriously, I am concerned that if time 'exists' independant of the other three dimensions, I see no reason why time requires a universe to exist in. Since I am a firm believer in 'no time before the big bang' I conclude that time is an illusion of the appearance of matter and energy, as to relativity it does not need 'time' to explain it, one could tie it to motion.
and people please listen to me now TIME IS NOT MOTION
time is the increase of ENTROPY. the universe goes from ORDER to DISORDER that is what time is and gives it a direction.
time as motion means there is no differens between present, past, future wich we all know it is.
Time is neither a illusion but a physical fact wich can be observed by living humans and none living machines.
Time does neither exist alone it coexist with space in SPACETIME wich is connected with each otehr and effect each other all the time.
Mega if they werent connected relativity would collapse and be false wich we know it isnt (stay out of this mike youre not sane enough to answer here) so time/space is one in spacetime.
hope this small parts of facts about time helped you
The existence of time is still debated, no, not farsight's paper, beyond that, it's debated by philosophers and scientists alike, all I have said is that I am 'concerned', that is I have doubts, I am open minded. I have more reading to do on it at some 'time' :wink:
My question to you would be "Do you believe time started coincident with the big bang?"
Your post infers NOT since you say:
But I would like to to state it in unambiguous terms.
philosophers is of no relevans they just think and think without coming to any realistic conclusionsThe existence of time is still debated, no, not farsight's paper, beyond that, it's debated by philosophers and scientists alike, all I have said is that I am 'concerned', that is I have doubts, I am open minded. I have more reading to do on it at some 'time' :wink:
My question to you would be "Do you believe time started coincident with the big bang?"
Your post infers NOT since you say:
But I would like to to state it in unambiguous terms.
time exist and it has been proven jsut as E=MC². if you claim time dont exist then call einstein wrong, QM aswell and everything
whatt you mean with the last part i have no idea
Do you believe time existed before the big bang?
Maybe I'm just being obtuse but who argues that time does not exist? The nature of time may be hotly debated but I'm not familiar with an argument that claims it flat doesn't exist. My watch (I actually don't wear one) happily ticking away seems to show that time at least exists.
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I'll asnwer anyway. I don't think I'd phrase it that "time started coincident with" the big bang, but rather that the Big Bang is one of the end-points of time, sort of like how the South Pole isn't the beginning of the earth, it's just that special point where south=0. Likewise the Big Bang isn't the "beginning" of time, it's just that special point where time=0.My question to you would be "Do you believe time started coincident with the big bang?"
Up and down are just part of the universe, but so are forward and backward in time if you truly accept a 4D Universe (which I think you stated you don't in another thread - but I do)
dont know nor care if it did
time might have existed before, time might not it is of no relevans for us anyway
Either way it's irrelevant, one thing (can't find the answer) is planck time 'universal' ?
ie are all planck events synchronous throughout the universe? since all events were 'synchronised at the big bang, do they remain so?
What do you think?
seeems most reasonble that the constants of the universe would rather be 1 than any specefic values
If all planck events occur simultaneously throughout the universe then I urge you to consider the implication of that with respect to time, especially considre it in relation to the work of Einstein.
Um, what do you mean here exactly?
As I understand it time cannot be broken down below planck time, ie time occurs in 'planck increments. [stop me there if I am wrong].
If this is the case, and threfore all motion is also by [planck] increment, do all objects move synchronously.
If I want to move an object, by applying a force, does it have to wait for the next 'planck tick'?
One way of understanding the planck "mini black hole" problem is that time is discrete, the other is to say that the theories are incomplete and this is just the mathematics screaming that fact at us.
But lets ignore that fact and assume that the time comes in little discrete packets (like energy). Now this does not say that everything is synchronized, as each observer would carry his own little "Planck clock" and these would not match - for the same reason that any other clock would not be synchronized.
I agree in fact you mention of 'Little black goles' prompted me to think that plank time varies between observers subject to differing gravities. A large black hole could have a plank time equavelent to many of our years, is that, in your opinion a fair assumption?
I rather think time doesn't come in any little packets at all. I think it's a measure of events, of motion. OK, there might be some quanta here because the underlying space might come in increments. But it might not. The planck length might be merely some artifice of our ability to measure and observe. Maybe it's like radar. If you use a 10cm wavelength you won't make out so much detail, but it doesn't follow that there's a minimum size of 10cm.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gl)/guides/rs/rad/basics/wvl.rxml
o didnt say things happen at the same time just that all constants for the universe percpective would allways be 1
I was just thinking, if 'planck ticks' wherever they were all occured at the same 'time' then to my opinion TIme would clearly be a dimension of this universe, since they do not, I feel there is scope for at least debate as to whether time truly is a dimension, or just (like pi) a result of the universe.
they dont have tot ick at the same time. why would it? time is bent with space near massive objects.
Yeah but if it's bent in little plank-length segments, Megabrain's question holds true. If time-dilation occurs in little plank-time intervals, his question still holds true.they dont have tot ick at the same time. why would it? time is bent with space near massive objects.
Do we KNOW it doesn't?
i dont get the problem if its bent the slightiest it will go slower no matter how littleYeah but if it's bent in little plank-length segments, Megabrain's question holds true. If time-dilation occurs in little plank-time intervals, his question still holds true.they dont have tot ick at the same time. why would it? time is bent with space near massive objects.
Do we KNOW it doesn't?
Do you guys know that Einstein never agreed with the notion of gravity being curved spacetime?
See Pete Brown's essay:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044
"There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with..."
he did agree with it since it was what his entire theory was about and is based on. he walked along thinking and got that idea, or sitting it doesnt really matters. it was the only way to solve the accelerating all parts on the planet and yet keeping them at the same spot
Read the paper Zelos. There's a lot of things people throw around which they incorrectly attribute to Einstein. The guy spent thirty years arguing against the interpretation of gravity as curved spacetime.
Well I guess I won't get the debate I wanted in this thread... So I'll open a thread called the origin of time, When I get a chance.
whos it written by? einstein? not? then its equally worth as any. but einstein didnt argue against it since his theory is based on that idea, you gotta be mad building a theory on a idea hten argue that idea isnt the case
| « does density effect specific heat capacity in metals? | Help with general relativity? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
