Computer Aces

Tech for the Rest of Us

March 9th, 2011

The Non-Dimensionality of Time – My Contribution to Geek Pride Day

Science/Math, by CmputrAce.

Jim Baker We cannot travel through time because it is not a dimension. It is merely the measurement of movement.

Sun 11:39pm · Comment · Like · Hide Feedback (32)

James Baker at 1:40am May 25
I want to slap someone everytime I hear them refer to time as a dimension.

Pushan Bishi at 8:16am May 25
mmmm, that like saying height is not a dimenstion but a measurement of length 😉

Kenneth Wimbish at 8:16am May 25
When we would plot a measurement of some phenomena as a function of time in physics lab, it always seemed so arbitrary to me.

What were we truly measuring when it came to time? How do we know that the observed phenomena is a function of time itself?

James Baker at 10:34am May 25
Is weight a dimension because it is the measurement of the force of gravity upon mass? Simply because it is a measurement, does not mean it is a dimension.
It can be graphed along a spatial dimension, but it cannot be defined as one.

Jordan Mills at 10:43am May 25 via Facebook Mobile
movement through what?

James Baker at 10:45am May 25
space, the 3 observable dimensions at least.
If all motion stops, all measurement of time stops.

Jordan Mills at 10:52am May 25 via Facebook Mobile
that’s like saying space stops exiting in a vacuum

James Baker at 10:53am May 25
I didnt’ say that time stops.
I said that all MEASUREMENT of time stops.

Jim Baker at 10:55am May 25
To relate time to height one must have already accepted time as a dimension. Any argument using that analogy is already invalid. To prove time as a dimension, you would need to travel through it or alter it, not measure it, for when you say you are measuring time, you cannot prove to me that you are not, in fact, measuring movement. The measurement of “time” cannot be accomplished without movement, which strengthens the argument.

Think about it.

Jordan Mills at 10:56am May 25 via Facebook Mobile
but the implied conclusion is that it doesn’t exist as conceived

James Baker at 10:58am May 25
And frankly, it’s not like saying space stops existing in a vacuum. A vacuum is just the absence of matter in a given area. The space that the matter would reside in still exists.

Jim Baker at 11:01am May 25
Time is not a measurement of movement “through”, but “in relation to… anything” if there is any movement of anything at all, from the minutist quantum entity to universes, there is time, simply because there is change. Time measures the change, but does not “remember” the prior state.

Jordan Mills at 11:03am May 25 via Facebook Mobile
my point was that not being able consider circumstances that would let you measure it doesn’t change its nature.
how would you propose to explain radioactive decay?

James Baker at 11:04am May 25
The space can still be measured in the absence of matter.
Time cannot be measured in the absence of motion.
Fortunately, nearly everything is in motion.

Time is more analagous to weight in this way, as weight cannot be measured in the absence of gravity.
Time does not exist as a dimension, no more than weight does.

James Baker at 11:11am May 25
In every way we can observe the nature of time, however, it does not act as a dimension, but moreso a function of movement within space.

Jordan Mills at 11:30am May 25 via Facebook Mobile
except for when it doesn’t. radioctive decay, zero point energy, and reltivistic effects kinda throw a wrench in that.

Donna Adam at 1:07pm May 25
I’m not sure we can be Friends any more after this…

Jim Baker at 1:13pm May 25
LOL! You’ve known I was a geek with crazy ideas longer than anyone here!

Jim Baker at 1:17pm May 25
What is radioactive decay other than movement? Yes, there are forces involved, but nothing requires the dimensionality of time. What does relativity really define? Space, mass, energy, and the interaction and measurement of the interaction of those things. Time does not have to be dimensional for relativity to work.

Jim Baker at 1:22pm May 25
Time as a dimension is a new concept. It’s odd, but the whole concept came to me when I was trying to answer an old problem; to define (not describe) time without referring to a property or reference to time (or any synonym of time).

I did. “Time is the measurement of motion.”

Can you define time without a reference to time or motion?

Jim Baker at 1:32pm May 25
About space: first you must agree to a definition of space. Einsteinian (relatavistic) space is finite and exists only in conjuction with matter. Prevalent theories of the universe have it being a four-dimensional equivalent of a sphere or torus, with the fourth dimension NOT being time. It us theorized that if we could shine a laser whose photons travelled infinitely fast, we would see the beam coming from the opposite direction (sphere model, of course).

Jim Baker at 1:34pm May 25
With that model it is possible, though not purported, that we could potentially see an earlier version of ourselves when looking into the night sky. (“closed universe”)

Jim Baker at 1:39pm May 25
In the visible universe, we know of NOWHERE where a “perfect” vacuum exists – no quanta whatsoever. No matter, no energy. We can’t make one, either. Zero point energy is a nice theory, but by nature untestable.

Kenneth Wimbish at 4:10pm May 25
An experiment: a substance is placed in a calorimeter and combusted. At t plus 2 seconds, temperature measurements are taken.

Change in temp is graphed as a function of time.

Now ( just to play devil’s advocate), where was the motion?

Jim Baker at 7:32pm May 25
The motion occurred whether the item was combusted or not. electrons are constantly “orbiting” atomic nuclei, quark are “spinning” (the property we by which we describe quarks). Things are always moving. The clock itself provided movement – if a mechanical clock, then gears turned; if an electronic, then you had a crystal vibrating or timing circuit flowing electrons.

You definitely cannot measure time without movement. I’m somewhat convinced that without movement, there is no time – similar to Einstein’s concept of space. Without matter and / or energy, you don’t have space.

Keith Holloway at 7:34pm May 25
It was in my head… as all the “mass” was moved within the finite “space” it filled & bounced mercilessly against the immovable boundary of the skull and was instantly measured by the pain and “decay” that filled my being! Dang, can’t you guys just speak normal?! 🙁

Kenneth Wimbish at 10:27pm May 25
Sorry, Keith. We’re just some geeks with nothing better to do on the Holiday weekend. Pitiful, I know. 🙂

Kenneth Wimbish at 10:36pm May 25
I accept the theory that time is the measurement of motion. However, there must be other facets of the nature of time.

Luis Mata at 5:09am May 26
any one who believes time is not a dimension simply because we as mortals can put a measurement to it, cannot believe in god unless we can put a measurement to him

Jim Baker at 10:21am May 26
Luis, There is nothing about the nature of God that demands time to be a dimension. Again, that is an analogy that presumes the dimensionality of time has some eternal significance, which I don’t believe it does.

If we accept that God is the God of infinite universes, then it is quite possible to accept that He has created universes of varying dimensions, one of which could be time; however, there is no evidence that time functions as a dimension in ours, and that does not preclude the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator.

I am not only a believer in God, I love Him with all of my heart – he is my Father, and Jesus Christ is my Savior, brother, and friend.

Nevertheless, I am persuaded that time is not a dimension.

Jim Baker at 10:36am May 26
Whether or not time is an actual dimension has no impact on our daily lives since we have no technology or even good theory on how we would navigate time. We know full well how to navigate in the three (and probable fourth non-time) dimensions that we are aware of, and we do just that. All my theory does is explain why we can’t navigate through time, and if it is true, becomes the proof that we will never be able to.

We can always “travel” to the “future”, and relativity gives us one method involving really fast MOVEMENT of a vessel in space (defined by the relative mass and energy in local space) which will slow down the relative “time” (read movement) of the objects in the vessel. It’s really not travel TO the future so much as a slowing of the movement of quanta within the vessel. When the vessel comes to a stop, the occupants will have experienced less overall change / movement than the objects outside the vessel.

After all, that’s how we perceive time.

 

Back Top

Comments are closed.