Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could the aether be time?

  1. Mar 24, 2007 #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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 28, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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".
  4. Mar 28, 2007 #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.
  5. Mar 28, 2007 #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?
  6. Apr 1, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ??What kind of question is this? "Dimensionless points" are a mathematical abstraction because they have no physical existance. It makes no sense to talk of dimensionless points as either "negative" or "so small".

    I'm afraid you will have to define "potential movement" for me.

    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".

    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.
    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.

    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".
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook