Is the time dimension more fundamental?

  • B
  • Thread starter thermia
  • Start date
  • #1
19
3
If we do the thougt experiment to delete one of the three spacedimentions we end up with a flat-land universe, which is fully possible to imagine (while probably not existing)
But if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin. Whithout time there is no existence.
Could that mean that the time dimension is more fundamental than the other three?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,536
6,902
Personally, I don't think it's more fundamental, just different. Flatland is an interesting mathematical construct but not, I believe, a possibility for actual existence.
 
  • #3
Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,107
6,040
But if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin.
It's just a Euclidean space. I don't see the problem imagining it - we have been doing so since Euclid's time.
 
  • #4
19
3
Personally, I don't think it's more fundamental, just different. Flatland is an interesting mathematical construct but not, I believe, a possibility for actual existence.
Thanks for your reply. Of course flatland is highly improbable. My thought came from my inability to imagine a universe without time.
 
  • #5
19
3
It's just a Euclidean space. I don't see the problem imagining it - we have been doing so since Euclid's time.
Well, I was tryiing to imagine physical universes. Euclidian space is just math.
 
  • Like
Likes itfitzme
  • #6
5
1
If we do the thougt experiment to delete one of the three spacedimentions we end up with a flat-land universe, which is fully possible to imagine (while probably not existing)
But if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin. Whithout time there is no existence.
Could that mean that the time dimension is more fundamental than the other three?
If you examine the measures of time in detail you will find that time is simply a measure of distance, more specifically a measure of cyclical distance. For instance, we measure time by counting the number of instances that the Sun moves around the Earth (celestial sphere).
 
  • #7
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
15,030
7,206
If we do the thougt experiment to delete one of the three spacedimentions we end up with a flat-land universe, which is fully possible to imagine (while probably not existing)
But if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin. Whithout time there is no existence.
Could that mean that the time dimension is more fundamental than the other three?
I'm not sure I would use the word fundamental, but your point seems trivially true. We can study motion and systems in 1, 2 or 3 spatial dimensions, but we always need a time dimension to get physics, as we know it.
 
  • Like
Likes thermia
  • #8
19
3
If you examine the measures of time in detail you will find that time is simply a measure of distance, more specifically a measure of cyclical distance. For instance, we measure time by counting the number of instances that the Sun moves around the Earth (celestial sphere).
Yes, of course. But physisists have thught a lot about why the so called "time arrow" seem to be forced to go in just one direction, which may indicate that there is a fundamental difference between time and other dimensions.
I have been thinking that maybe all the dimensions are not created in exactly the same moment. I'm probably wrong but it is interresting to speculate about
 
  • #9
19
3
I'm not sure I would use the word fundamental, but your point seems trivially true. We can study motion and systems in 1, 2 or 3 spatial dimensions, but we always need a time dimension to get physics, as we know it.
Thanks for reply. I understand you see my point :-)
 
  • #10
Grinkle
Gold Member
681
187
we always need a time dimension to get physics
if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin
Also, I can imagine exactly one time dimension and I can imagine not moving at all or moving forward in that one dimenion. I have no idea what is implied by multiple time dimensions. I also don't have any intuitions that I trust at all regarding time travel to the past.

I can easily imagine 0, 1, 2 or 3 space dimensions, and I have intuitions that I trust regarding the implications of more than 3 spatial dimensions even if I can't make a mental picture of them.

But I don't know if that is anything more than an observation of human brain evolution.
 
  • Like
Likes thermia and PeroK
  • #11
19
3
But I don't know if that is anything more than an observation of human brain evolution.
Well, that's the wall we allways are running into, aren't we? :-)
 
  • #12
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
9,314
4,009
Suppose that I lay out a two dimensional coordinate system with axes labelled x and t. Suppose further that I draw a graph that satisfies the equation: ##xt=1##

What grounds do I have for considering t more "fundamental" than x? Why am I forced to consider that position x evolves over time t. Why can I not with equal rigor declare that time t evolves over position x?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #13
19
3
Of course that's correct but only in Eucledian mathematics. My question is about physical dimentions i.e.the "real" world.
 
  • #14
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
9,314
4,009
Of course that's correct but only in Eucledian mathematics. My question is about physical dimentions i.e.the "real" world.
Lacking a measurement procedure, both are equally hypothetical. It is a distinction without a difference.
 
  • #15
Nugatory
Mentor
13,011
5,724
Could that mean that the time dimension is more fundamental than the other three?
It's different.
Does that mean that it's more fundamental? There's no answering that question unless someone provides a definition of "fundamental" that we can use to determine how fundamental something is and compare that with the "fundamentalness" of something else - and I'm not seeing that happening.
 
  • Like
Likes Asymptotic, Vanadium 50, russ_watters and 2 others
  • #16
5
1
Yes, of course. But physisists have thught a lot about why the so called "time arrow" seem to be forced to go in just one direction, which may indicate that there is a fundamental difference between time and other dimensions.
I have been thinking that maybe all the dimensions are not created in exactly the same moment. I'm probably wrong but it is interresting to speculate about
And there's the problem, this imagined "time arrow" which supposedly might run in some other way. At it's core, physics is simply correlating on property with another. "Time" is label we give to one of these correlations. Fundamentally, physics is a study of how things change. There are cyclical changes that we recognize, the magnitude of voltage going up and down, the point end of the hand of a clock passing a mark "12" on its face, the change of a pulse of light as it goes down and back, reflecting off some distant mirror. The standards of weights and measures was devised so that we have a common reference for correlation. When we get down to the root of it, "time" is a measure of distance. A light year is the distance light travels compared to some other reference we have chosen as a cyclical distance. Time isn't some real property of space, it is the change of an object's position in space which we mark by correlating those positions to the swing of a pendulum that cycles in position in space.
 
  • #17
Grinkle
Gold Member
681
187
Time isn't some real property of space
That remark is not physics, whatever else it may be. General Relativity models spacetime and gives very specific attributes to space and time.
 
  • #18
19
3
It's different.
Does that mean that it's more fundamental? There's no answering that question unless someone provides a definition of "fundamental" that we can use to determine how fundamental something is and compare that with the "fundamentalness" of something else - and I'm not seeing that happening.
A clever answer, well worth to consider, thank you.
 
  • #19
5
1
Yes, of course. But physisists have thught a lot about why the so called "time arrow" seem to be forced to go in just one direction, which may indicate that there is a fundamental difference between time and other dimensions.
I have been thinking that maybe all the dimensions are not created in exactly the same moment. I'm probably wrong but it is interresting to speculate about
I find it an interesting think to wonder. The single observation that come close to the arrow of time is entropy. But this, as far as I know, is simply that things tend towards spreading out evenly across space. Again, we're down to that fundamental point of measure of distance, whatever changed position.

I have made some effort at finding some fundamental measure of time that doesn't involve a measure of distance and haven't. Always, in there, is that requirement of comparison to some other thing displaced in a spatial dimension, by convenience a cyclical displacement.
 
  • Like
Likes thermia
  • #20
Grinkle
Gold Member
681
187
I have made some effort at finding some fundamental measure of time that doesn't involve a measure of distance and haven't.
Does it make less sense to claim that a universe containing only a single static particle is getting older than to claim that same universe is expanding? For either case, I can't think of an experiment to define either older or bigger. My point is that I don't see how time is different from space in requiring some anchor points if one is to actually measure.
 
  • #21
30,296
6,760
But if we delete the time dimesion it becomes inpossible to imagin.
I disagree 100%. A world without time is easy to imagine, it is just very boring.
 
  • #22
19
3
I find it an interesting think to wonder. The single observation that come close to the arrow of time is entropy. But this, as far as I know, is simply that things tend towards spreading out evenly across space. Again, we're down to that fundamental point of measure of distance, whatever changed position.

I have made some effort at finding some fundamental measure of time that doesn't involve a measure of distance and haven't. Always, in there, is that requirement of comparison to some other thing displaced in a spatial dimension, by convenience a cyclical displacement.
Interresting, could you elaborate some more about this?
 
  • #23
19
3
I disagree 100%. A world without time is easy to imagine, it is just very boring.
I would say, not boring rather inexisting
 
  • #24
30,296
6,760
I would say, not boring rather inexisting
Of course it is “inexisting”. What exists is 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Anything else is automatically non-existent.

That is far different from your claim of “inpossible to imagin”. I can imagine lots of non-existent things, and a universe without time is one of those.
 
  • #25
30,296
6,760
When we get down to the root of it, "time" is a measure of distance.
Do you have a professional scientific reference for this? Not just that some practical measuring devices use a measure of distance to measure time, but one that actually makes this general claim that time is a measure of distance?

I have made some effort at finding some fundamental measure of time that doesn't involve a measure of distance and haven't.
Decay time of unstable fundamental particles.
 

Related Threads on Is the time dimension more fundamental?

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
4K
Top