# Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

## Recommended Posts

Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

How can we percieve this aside from the other 3, being height, width, and depth. this possible 4th dimension is something that is, at least to me, sort of incomprehensible. We have a static idea of what it is generally, but other than that what do we really know about it? Through motion and sound we can percieve the thought, but untill we find out what it is directly I don't think we could possibly break through and find the answer. I also believe that once we can understand what time is in itself, time travel will be like walking through a doorway from one room to another.

Much like the idea of God, I have a saying though I can't remember where I picked it up, it goes: God transcends time, he was in a time before time and since we cannot concieve of a time before time, we cannot concieve of the notion of God.

Instead of trying to figure out how to break into what 'time' is, shouldn't we try to figure out ultimately is first? if we can...

I'm very intirested on hearing everyones thoughts on this...

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Hello IS,

Nice post. You've reflected my own thoughts about time, at least with regard to the fact that we really need to understand it before we can hope to travel through it. IMO, the collective "we" does not yet understand time if we still think it is linear. And when folks claim that time is the 4th dimension, they are inferring that they believe time is: (a) Linear and (b) a Scalar, rather than a vector.

We know that space represents a vector field because it is directional... or one could say polarized into 3 orthogonal directions. It is my belief that both time and mass (the other two metrics beyond space) are also vector quantities. This would mean that just as space has 3 "subdimensions" (X, Y, and Z), the metrics we call time and mass also have 3 "subdimensions".

This is precisely what I have been working on with my research into Qabalah, and I've been validating a good deal of Qabalistic knowledge with tensor and vector math. (A tensor is simply a higher order vector). This math I have worked out states that just as space is a field (a 3-field of orthogonal subdimensions to be precise), both time and mass are also fields. When you roll them all together what you have is Massive SpaceTime, which is a 3x3 TENSOR field that exhibits the aspects of our physical realm.

God transcends time, he was in a time before time and since we cannot concieve of a time before time, we cannot concieve of the notion of God.

Yes, I agree. And this is also where my research is going. If my research and maths are correct, then our physical reality is that 3x3 TENSOR field, which would then say that we live in a 9-dimensional universe. What is the 10th dimension then that is beyond the 9 dimensions we live in? Currently, my theory says it is INFORMATION, and information exists "outside" these 9 dimensions of Massive SpaceTime. If memory serves me correctly, a lot of the string theorists have been debating whether string theory predicts 9 or 10 dimensions. Gee, I wonder if I might be on to something... cuz this is precisely what Qabalah has told us for ages! RMT

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

I believe that there really is no "time" dimension and that the first three are sufficient to perceive the world around us. I believe that the first three do not just define "length, width, and height" but also define the positions of objects within space in a frame. By "frame," I mean that time is only an illusion caused by the linking of "frames," like one would see in a movie.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

I've given this considerable thought. It is starting to appear to me that time can not be separated out as we would like to perceive it to be. Time is always associated with the expenditure of energy. So time might not be the fourth dimension. Instead time may be a composite of four dimensions.

In Newtons Law for every action there is always an equal but opposite reaction. So there has to be two reference frames for time to exist. An expenditure of energy between the two reference frames will determine the rate time flows.

But there is something else that I have noticed that seems to be ignored in general. Science doesn't really define or consider the concept of negative energy. Yet there is clear observational evidence that negative energy is there. Of course I tend to take existing observations and add my own interpretation to them. Just on the premise that possibly science took a wrong turn in the interpretation of some physical observation. Take for instance exothermic and endothermic reactions. Clearly there appears to be a directional flow of energy. An energy arrow. Did science take a wrong turn here by assuming energy to have a positive value in both situations? Should we reassign one of these observations as being undeniable evidence of negative energy? It is just an interpretation in both situations.

But by diverging from science in this manner a whole new area of investigation opens up. Two kinds of energy. If we start to pay attention on what types of energy are being utilized in the machines we build then maybe we can combine the two types of energy in a manner that produces machines that are mere concepts in the realm of science fiction. A time machine would be one of those concepts.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Anti-matter = Negative energy?

Anti-matter + Matter = No matter

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Anti-matter = Negative energy?

Anti-matter + Matter = No matter

No, experimental observations do seem to indicate that by combining both types of matter, energy is released. A true negative energy situation combined with positive energy would result in a net zero condition. The zero point. Total cancellation occurs. This concept actually knocks down energy conservation laws. But in so doing it opens a door to new possibilities. In our universe energy conservation does seem to prevail. But if negative energy conditions can be created then the realm of science fiction starts to look more and more like science fact. To me, endothermic and exothermic reactions seem to be teasing me into thinking about the possibility that negative energy may actually exist.

That and the fact that I seem to have conducted an experiment that produces a force field very similar to gravity. Gravity I might add has been described as a negative energy field.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Einstein,

I've given this considerable thought. It is starting to appear to me that time can not be separated out as we would like to perceive it to be. Time is always associated with the expenditure of energy.

You're absolutely on the right track. This is precisely what Minkowski stated - that space and time blend together when you rotate the 4D axes(a Lorentz transformation), "Space of itself and time of itself will sink into mere shadows, and only a kind of union between them shall survive."

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

IS,

It's true that time "t" taken by itself is a scalar and not a vector. But that particular notion of time where it stands alone as a simple scalar is Newtonian. Starting with the Special Theory of Relativity time can no longer be considered by itself. Thus "spacetime" rather than "space and time".

Without the time axis of the 4D spacetime continuum laws like the conservation of energy, momentum, etc. don't hold true. There is no "relativistic invariance" if you rotate the axes.

More simply it means that where you are (or what your velocity is) relative to a spacetime event makes no difference in how you view the physical laws involved in the event. They do not vary if you include time as a component of the 4-vector and apply the Lorentz Transformation.

Another way of looking at time as a component of a vector is this:

Consider a 3-vector where something is moving in 3D space. If we are graphing the object's velocity the length of the line will give us the magnitude (speed) and the 3-coordinates (x,y,z) of the line will give us the direction.

So we already incorporate time in 3-vector velocity notation by implication because velocity has a time component. In 4-vector notation we make time explicit by giving it a real axis (though making a hypercubic graph might prove to be a tad difficult. )

And here's something very interesting about a 4-vector relative to a time machine. The 4-vector indicates a path through spacetime - not space and not time alone. The time axis isn't treated any differently than the three space axes...they're all the same and when rotated they get mixed up together.

By a "simple" rotation of the system of coordinates the time machine can move not only through time but also through space or through both (something that neither Titor nor his "physicists" seemed to know, BTW. They had time travel but no space travel and Titor insisted that his gadget could only remain stationary in space).

The scare quotes on "simple" indicate that it is a simple math operation to rotate the system of coordinates. In the real world it's not all that simple to build a time machine, its navigation black boxes and then get spacetime to cooperate with you.

BTW:

We've been tossing out some physics terms that we should probably define so that everyone is on the same page.

A scalar is a quantity that is completely described by its magnitude. It has no "direction".(Speed is a typical scalar as is time).

A vector, on the other hand, is completely described by both its magnitude and direction. (Velocity is a typical vector - speed plus a direction).

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Hi...new guy.

I have always thought that space is best described as what is contained within the " height x width x depth " or what is in the box/sphere/whatever. The argument is also valid that it's spacetime inside the object of our 3 dimensions.

Anyway...I have often wondered if the 4th and 5th & 6th dimensions for the same reason could just be the inverse of what we already know..? Magnetism alone pretty much solidifies that we must accept the opposite of things or the mirror relations between ideals - phsyical and otherwise.

I think that finding a way to invert our own dimensions or maybe just one at a time can create the rip in the space(time) we are looking for. Because of this, I am always interested in everything per this forum. I hope I am welcomed here. I hope to learn much and share much as well.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Willy,

I do not understand quantum physics...no wait, maybe I...no, forget it.

You know the story about Sir Arthur Eddington?

In 1919 he headed an expidition to photograph a total eclipse of the Sun to prove (or disprove) Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. He published the paper in 1920.

Of course there was a presss conference. A reporter quipped to him that only three people understand Einstein's theory to which he supposedly replied (with a smile), "Oh, really. Who's the third person?"

Don't feel alone. I can assure you that no one else here understands QM. Even with a PhD and a lot of Post Doc work no one really understands QM. Real working physicists in the field obviously understand it a lot better than the average duck...but gravity, for example, still eludes even the best.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

oh yeah....but actually that line is just my little " tagline. " Haha.

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

*

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

we can perceive time because things are changing, things are in motion. If there were no time perhaps we would all just suddenly be frozen like in that game freeze tag! Your it!

Even though no human is capable of conceiving what a Creator (or God) is/was/will be. this article goes into great detail about what we know and do not know, there are some great quotes from hawking too. Although I think its over RMT's head, it would take someone of a more inquisitive mind and not such harsh rhetoric and that great "I know it all" attitude to truly understand the article.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Don't feel alone. I can assure you that no one else here understands QM. Even with a PhD and a lot of Post Doc work no one really understands QM. Real working physicists in the field obviously understand it a lot better than the average duck...but gravity, for example, still eludes even the best.

speak for yourself. My research on quantum computing, chaos theory, string theory, spiral theory, basically any type of theory dealing with any type of quanta has given me a very good working understanding of QM and I have no post doc, phd, etc.

as for gravity, I have tried to get this board to debate Einsteins principle of a gravitational constant to which none have seemed very keen. Gravity being the strongest force yet the least understood. I believe gravity to be the most important force, yet does anyone on these boards even understand what it is? You can take an inverse relationship of the "attractive" force of gravity and replicate precisely the exact same outcome in computer models with a "repulsive" force. Could it be there is a universal constant, could it be gravity is the great repulsive force in the universe? Ask RMT I'm sure he knows, he knows everything!

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Nice attitude, Ren.

Gravity being the strongest force

Well, I may not know everything, but I DO know that this statement is completely wrong. The other 3 forces beyond gravity (electromagnetic, nuclear strong, and nuclear weak forces) are all stronger than gravity.Have a read here, Mr. Rhetoric!

And then YOU can admit you are wrong for a change! :yum:

RMT

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

yes yes yes I am sure you'll find a thousand articles about the weak/strong nuclear force, magnetism, etc etc etc.

I believe gravity to be the strongest of the forces and if need be I can backup my assertations with facts which may or may not help you to see the forest through the tree's.

are you always going to believe everything you've been taught? Funny because Einstein didn't and he re-wrote the book. Maybe if you would like, instead of getting into a debate about it, we can take a poll on who thinks Gravity is the strongest force.

now I realize the strong nuclear force between protons/neutrons is very strong indeed, and I realize that magnetism gets stronger the closer it is to an object it attracts. I do know these, I am aware of whats being taught in physics/chemistry books. I merely think they are wrong.

Last I knew the strong nuclear force in a helium atom 10.5 billion light years away from earth didn't affect me much. Yet even at 10.5 billion light years away, gravity (which I believe to be instantaneous and not bound by light speed) can show its affects. I believe a supernova exploded recently and we got some great data on it, we are constantly in the wake of ever changing gravitational tides going throughout our solar system, galaxy/universe.

perhaps I think of gravity in a different way than you and I am sure not everyone has a firm standpoint on gravity. I'm sure there's plenty of info that can easily prove me wrong? Right RMT? the point is, I believe it to be the strongest force and I was waiting for you to correct me.

I will admit when I feel I am wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

Maybe if you would like, instead of getting into a debate about it, we can take a poll on who thinks Gravity is the strongest force.

I take it you think this is a scientific approach? Sounds more like a popularity contest to me.

I believe gravity to be the strongest of the forces and if need be I can backup my assertations with facts which may or may not help you to see the forest through the tree's.

But how would your "facts" measure up to those who have come before you who have included in their analysis the mathematical explanation of "force per unit mass"?

I merely think they are wrong.

And your scientific basis for thinking this (that is equal in depth to what we currently know) would be...?

I will admit when I feel I am wrong.

So that's the criteria? I could endlessly say that I never "feel" I am wrong, and you would berate me with "facts" intended to "prove" I am wrong. So how does your approach/attitude differ from mine? Help me understand, because I clearly don't know how you justify that your belief is more appropriate than that of a great many scientists with more knowledge than either of us!

Last I knew the strong nuclear force in a helium atom 10.5 billion light years away from earth didn't affect me much.

Did you read the simple explanation in the link I provided? When you account for the masses involved, it becomes pretty clear how strong the other forces are with respect to gravity.But if you believe you are right, more power to you! Just let it be noted that *I* admitted I was wrong when you presented factual information to me, and it didn't involve me having to "feel" I was wrong.

RMT

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

I know that if gravity decreased it affects the Earth's rotation - so shall the magnetism of the poles be affected.

There appears to be a strong relationship between the mass of a body, the angular velocity and the magnetic field strength at a macroscopic level. The foundation of this study indicates that the magnetic field strength is (commonly to one order of magnitude) proportional to the product of the mass and the square of the angular velocity of that body. The study is based upon data available from solar system measurements. This initial examination opens many prospects for the consideration of relationships between mass, gravity, magnetism, electromagnetics, velocity, momentum and kinetic energy, relativity dilations and quantum physics. The origin of ferromagnetism as a direct result of electron spin can not be ignored in conjunction with this finding. The general principle of magnetism as a result of mass in motion is also a derivative of this result. The magnetic field of the earth is expected, therefore, to continue to decrease with any decrease in the rotational rate of the earth.

.....so I can understand that much about gravity if you want to chat.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

G'day Ren! How are ya?

I have a question:

If gravity is the strongest force in the universe then it would be stronger then the "strong nuclear" force ... yes?

But ... if that were the case then we would all be just sub atomic particles swirling around in a subatomic soup and the whole universe would be full of fluidic clumps of these particles as a result of the conflicting forces involved. Accordingly, I wouldn't be here to discuss this with you.

Surely the strength of gravity is proportional to the "masses" involved in the equation.

Are you suggesting that sub atomic particles have enough gravitational mass alone to form the current universe? An early universe yes! (soup!) but our current evolved one???? .... hmmm

Over to you!.

##### Share on other sites

Re: Is the 4th dimension really 'time?'

what if you can get to a void where no energy exists, positive or negative, is there space or time in this void ? if not then is this where spacetime starts ends ? now how do you get get there without using any known forces ? now control is the problem, so you solve this and wala... start building your vehecle and travel is happening, but to go back you must eliminate and go ahead you must produce...what? i don't know. is this thought close? i know physics might be hard to put into this but that is why i'm here. i wait for your repies.

##### Share on other sites

×
×
• Create New...