Could the aether be time?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of dimensionless points and their relation to time. The speaker suggests that time can be considered as a dimensionless point and that it is always expanding. However, another speaker argues that dimensionless points are mathematical abstractions and cannot be detected. The conversation also delves into the measurement of time and the idea of t=0 as a direction rather than a concrete point. Overall, the conversation highlights a difference in understanding and interpretation of the concept of dimensionless points and their role in defining time.
  • #1
petm1
399
1
How many dimensionless points have to expand and combine, before we would be able to detect them? When t=0, are we not naming time as a dimensionless point? If we can write time as "one" dimensionless point then would it stand to reason we can name time as all dimensionless points? In my minds eye, time as the forth dimension, is delta time, or “motion”, and the zero dimension that is always expanding relative to us is “time”. This small question is followed by the larger question "of all the time we know about, the age of the visible universe, could we still think of it as "one" whole dimensionless point? Could the aether be time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How can "dimensionless" points "expand and combine". And, in any case, dimensionless points are mathematical abstractions- you can't "detect" mathematical abstractions! The whole post seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the definitions of "dimension", "time", and "aether".
 
  • #3
How could the dimensionless points between dimensions not, expand, contract, divide, or combine as long as the dimensional particles are moving? Are you saying “dimensionless points” are a mathematical abstract because they are negative, or because they are so small? Either way that is why I describe them as “potential movement” or a negative number. I’ve read that the smallest unit of time that has been measured is about 10^26 Planck’s times, so even one Planck’s time is a mathematical abstract. What about cutting one Planck’s time into two could this be considered a dimensionless point what about cutting a Planck’s time into 120^26 pieces would these be dimensionless points?. Time is always expanding and if you think of time as a real dimension then expanding from a negative to a positive would be a natural progression. Of course all measurements are relative I don’t really think that t=0 is ever reached; it is just a direction for time if it were contracting.
 
  • #4
I don't follow your logic petm.

Thousands of years ago you couldn't measure anything smaller then what you could see, therefore those smaller distances at that time were abstracts?
 
  • #5
petm1 said:
How could the dimensionless points between dimensions not, expand, contract, divide, or combine as long as the dimensional particles are moving? Are you saying “dimensionless points” are a mathematical abstract because they are negative, or because they are so small?
??What kind of question is this? "Dimensionless points" are a mathematical abstraction because they have no physical existence. It makes no sense to talk of dimensionless points as either "negative" or "so small".

Either way that is why I describe them as “potential movement” or a negative number.
I'm afraid you will have to define "potential movement" for me.

I’ve read that the smallest unit of time that has been measured is about 10^26 Planck’s times, so even one Planck’s time is a mathematical abstract.
What? The fact that it has not (yet) been measured doesn't make it a mathematical abstraction. Planck's time is defined as being the smallest interval of time that CAN (theoretically) be measured. If it CAN be measured then it is not a "mathematical abstraction".

What about cutting one Planck’s time into two could this be considered a dimensionless point what about cutting a Planck’s time into 120^26 pieces would these be dimensionless points?.
Since, theoretically, "half a Planck unit" cannot be measured, such a thing would be a mathematical abstraction. I wouldn't think of it as a point, that's a different abstraction.
Time is always expanding and if you think of time as a real dimension then expanding from a negative to a positive would be a natural progression.
No, "dimensions" do not expand. Yes, you can measure very small or very large time intervals but that doesn't mean that the unit of measure is "expanding" in any sense.

Of course all measurements are relative I don’t really think that t=0 is ever reached; it is just a direction for time if it were contracting.
t= 0 is purely arbitrary- it is only intervals of time that are measured. And, again, measuring a very small time interval has nothing at all to do with time itself "contracting".
 

1. Could the aether be time?

This is a complex and debated question in the scientific community. The concept of the aether has been largely abandoned in modern physics, and time is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Some theories, such as the theory of relativity, suggest that time is a dimension and not a physical substance like the aether. Therefore, it is unlikely that the aether is time.

2. What is the aether?

The aether is a hypothetical substance that was once believed to fill all of space and serve as a medium for the propagation of light and other electromagnetic waves. It was proposed in the 19th century in an attempt to explain how light could travel through empty space, but it has since been disproven by modern physics.

3. Is the aether related to time in any way?

There is no direct relationship between the aether and time. The aether was proposed as a medium for the propagation of light, while time is a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, some historical theories, such as the luminiferous aether theory, did attempt to connect the two concepts.

4. Why was the concept of the aether abandoned?

The concept of the aether was abandoned in the early 20th century as new theories and experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, disproved its existence. Additionally, the theory of relativity provided a more comprehensive explanation for the behavior of light and other electromagnetic waves without the need for an aether.

5. Are there any modern theories that support the existence of the aether?

No, there are no widely accepted modern theories that support the existence of the aether. While some fringe theories may still propose the existence of the aether, the majority of the scientific community has moved on from this concept and it is not considered a valid explanation for any physical phenomena.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
376
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
477
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
806
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
Back
Top