Spacetime has No Time Dimension

[Museigen]

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension"

Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/spacetime-has-no-time-dimension-new-theory-claims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html#more

 

[KingNothing]

The "Newtonian" concept of time has always been something I took issue with, so this is great to read! Thank you so much OP!

For example, I always cringe when I hear "the universe is X number of years old" >> how do we have any idea what amount of 'time' these particles have experienced, and how can we translate that to 'earth time' when the Earth had not even existed for some of that 'time'?

 

[Physicist1231]

That is pretty cool that they theorize this but Newton has come up with several laws that do not support the theories suggested. It is a little brass though to replace these laws with theories. While it is good to think outside the box and think that time is flexible and cannot be used as a universal standard (like 3d space) it does not hold a good foundation upon some of the most basic laws.

There have been several theories that came about after Einstein came up with the Relativity Theories. Very extravigant and interlocking but some get to the point of ignoring the previous laws that have been known and defined.

In short:

Laws are Laws and Theories are Theories. If your Theories do not fit the Laws then you need to rewrite your Theories.

Interesting read though!

 

[Disinterred]

That is pretty cool that they theorize this but Newton has come up with several laws that do not support the theories suggested. It is a little brass though to replace these laws with theories. While it is good to think outside the box and think that time is flexible and cannot be used as a universal standard (like 3d space) it does not hold a good foundation upon some of the most basic laws.

There have been several theories that came about after Einstein came up with the Relativity Theories. Very extravigant and interlocking but some get to the point of ignoring the previous laws that have been known and defined.

In short:

Laws are Laws and Theories are Theories. If your Theories do not fit the Laws then you need to rewrite your Theories.

Interesting read though!

Well F=ma (in three dimensions) does not fit Special Relativity (relativistic mass). So there is an example of a law being thrown out by a theory.

 

[KingNothing]

In short:

Laws are Laws and Theories are Theories. If your Theories do not fit the Laws then you need to rewrite your Theories.

I have read your post a few times...and I still can't seem to get anything out of it. Could you provide some examples of these contradictions that arrive?

 

[Physicist1231]

Well F=ma (in three dimensions) does not fit Special Relativity (relativistic mass). So there is an example of a law being thrown out by a theory.

You are correct that it does not fit all of Special Relativity. Special Relativity was built on the assumption that time and space are flexible. This came about when Galileo failed to come up with a proper formula to explain the Time Dilation and lengh contraction issues noted for high velocity objects (Galilean Transformation). This was a theory of his (Galileo) that was using Newtonian physics. The formula that he created worked mainly for lower speeds but was inaccurate when you start incorperating 3 dimensional velocities. Thus as the speeds increased the inaccuacy became more noticeable. So science (Einstein and a few others) tried to explain the phenomonons. They came up with some extra theories that did not fit with Newtonian laws (ie. F=MA). They assumed that rather than space and time as rigid structures that it was flexible.

This created a turning point away from Laws and other theories were built off of these new theories.

One thing that most have not noticed is WHY the Galilean Transformation is incorrect and fix it.

 

[DrGreg]

Laws are Laws and Theories are Theories. If your Theories do not fit the Laws then you need to rewrite your Theories.

You have a misunderstanding over the use of the terms "law" and "theory". In physics, they mean pretty much the same thing, and it's just an artefact of history that we refer to Newton's "laws" but Einstein's "theories". Both are mathematical models of reality, but Einstein's model works better, in more diverse situations, than Newton's. Einstein's theory therefore supersedes Newton's so-called "laws" which are now seen as approximations which work well in many situations but break down when you push them too far.

 

[Doc Al]

In short:

Laws are Laws and Theories are Theories. If your Theories do not fit the Laws then you need to rewrite your Theories.

So basically, according to you, progress in physics ended with Newton?

 

[Bloodthunder]

A scientific law is a observation that always occurs when under the same conditions. That's where you have Ohm's Law, Newton's Law, Hooke's Law, Snell's Law... They don't try to explain anything, they just state what happens.

A scientific theory tries to understand these laws and give an explanation for why they happen.

They are not the same.

From dictionary.com:
Scientific Law: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon

Scientific Theory: a theory that explains scientific observations.

And why would progress in physics end with Newton? As more laws are discovered, theories whose observations are seen to have predicted these observations are kept, while others are otherwise revisited to attempt to accommodate the new observations.

 

[Physicist1231]

bloodthunder, nice definitions. that fits very well. i definitely do not think physical pass should stop with Newton. rather any new laws that area to be made need to coincide with existing laws (including the simpler ones).

if one market a theory that defies a law (and us only usable at high speeds) then perhaps it needs to be rewritten.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The "Newtonian" concept of time has always been something I took issue with, so this is great to read! Thank you so much OP!

For example, I always cringe when I hear "the universe is X number of years old" >> how do we have any idea what amount of 'time' these particles have experienced, and how can we translate that to 'earth time' when the Earth had not even existed for some of that 'time'?

The universe being a certain number of years old is not a Newtonian term. It is a GR term where cosmic time is the time measured by co - moving galaxies (congruence of wordlines).

 

[Doc Al]

bloodthunder, nice definitions. that fits very well. i definitely do not think physical pass should stop with Newton. rather any new laws that area to be made need to coincide with existing laws (including the simpler ones).

So you claim that once something is declared to be a 'law' it is no longer subject to revision? That's not how real science is done.

if one market a theory that defies a law (and us only usable at high speeds) then perhaps it needs to be rewritten.

Sounds like you have it backwards. Lorentz transformations apply at all speeds, whereas Galilean transformations are only approximately correct for low speeds.

 

[Drakkith]

bloodthunder, nice definitions. that fits very well. i definitely do not think physical pass should stop with Newton. rather any new laws that area to be made need to coincide with existing laws (including the simpler ones).

if one market a theory that defies a law (and us only usable at high speeds) then perhaps it needs to be rewritten.

There have been plenty of laws which have been shown to be incorrect or inaccurate in many circumstances, and which have been modified to only be used in specific circumstances. This is pretty much exactly what happens to a theory when a different one is shown to be more accurate. Like Newtons laws only working at low speeds while relativity works at all speeds. Newtons laws still work in the low end because they are accurate enough for things like Space Flight and anything moving on earth.

 

[Dale]

any new laws that area to be made need to coincide with existing laws

Almost correct. The correct statement would be that any new theories (or laws) need to coincide with existing theories wherever the existing theories have been experimentally verified.

In the case of relativity and Newtonian physics this is certainly the case: relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in all situations where Newtonian physics has been experimentally verified.

 

[Drakkith]

Almost correct. The correct statement would be that any new theories (or laws) need to coincide with existing theories wherever the existing theories have been experimentally verified.

In the case of relativity and Newtonian physics this is certainly the case: relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in all situations where Newtonian physics has been experimentally verified.

When you say Reduces to, I'm assuming you mean that the Newtonian physics are accurate enough for all intents and purposes?

 

[Dale]

Yes. More specifically, I mean that, in any situation where Newton's theory is experimentally verified, the difference between Newton's and Einstein's is smaller than the experimental noise in the measurement.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes. More specifically, I mean that, in any situation where Newton's theory is experimentally verified, the difference between Newton's and Einstein's is smaller than the experimental noise in the measurement.

Ah ok. That's what I thought.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/spacetime-has-no-time-dimension-new-theory-claims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html#more

Time like vectors stay time like under any boost. There is no way to transform space like vectors into time like ones I don't see what the article is getting at because the writing does not contain enough science.

 

[khairul_Islam]

Dear Museigen,
I strongly support your idea. I was researching on fourth dimension for many years, recently I invented Euclidean 4 dimensional coordinate system where time is not the fourth dimension. Further researches suggest that time is absolutely 10th dimension which has no matter shape. I am looking for Scientists who are interested on it. If you have more information about Scientists in Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, Please send me their contact information.

 

[pete20r2]

Just to be clear about laws and theories:
Only mathematics can have proofs, this is because maths is self defining.
Physics "laws" are only theories that have been accepted as the most correct.
Newton's Law's, are derived from Newtonian Theory.
He nor anyone else can ever prove their validity for all conditions.
This is how physics progresses:
1. Make a theory
2. Test the theory, practically or virtually
3. Refine or disprove the Theory

This is how we got to where we are today, hundreds upon thousands of revision of old theories, as well as the creation and testing of new ones.

 

[Disinterred]

Just to be clear about laws and theories:
Only mathematics can have proofs, this is because maths is self defining.
Physics "laws" are only theories that have been accepted as the most correct.
Newton's Law's, are derived from Newtonian Theory.
He nor anyone else can ever prove their validity for all conditions.
This is how physics progresses:
1. Make a theory
2. Test the theory, practically or virtually
3. Refine or disprove the Theory

This is how we got to where we are today, hundreds upon thousands of revision of old theories, as well as the creation and testing of new ones.

Does mathematics truly have "proofs"? A proof, at least from the way I see it, is an argument using logic. But where did our system of logic come from? Observation. So mathematics, indirectly, is a by-product of the real world and thus cannot find absolute truth.

Just some thoughts, I could be terribly out to lunch though.