I've heard again and again that time is more or less the same as any other spatial dimension. I'll refer to them as X, Y, Z, and W, where you can pick any three to be space and a fourth to be time, since they're the same. W will be time for ease of reference.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Except, if that's the case, and space is really X, Y, Z and W, then why do particles emit in the X, Y and Z dimensions but not the Z?

Also, If time really is a fourth dimension as surely as the spatial dimensions, then how come nothing can rotate on an axis that would change their relationship with this dimension, time?

If it's a Minkowski x1 x2 x3 x4 manifold (which I honestly have only a very basic understanding of, if any at all) as earlier described in another thread, then how come rotations and translations only apply to x1 x2 and x3 but not x4, in that sense, x4 truly must be unique. Because a force on one end of a 3-d object along the X axis can create a movement along the Y axis through angular velocity, i.e. rotation.

In the same since, since an object exists for any length of time, then it has a length in the W dimension. And if it has a length in the W dimension, why is it a force along any of the X, Y, or Z axes could not cause angular velocity so as to change it's speed along the W dimension?

Either that, or for some reason the universe is completely "flat" in the fourth dimension, so there is no + or - interactions along the W axis, while there are interactions along the X, Y, and Z axes. To imagine this, In this case, if you were to replace X for W, then the universe would look like a giant 2-d plane revealing a 3-d shape one 2-d cross-section at a time, like MRI imagery. Now add 1 to each of those numbers, and I think that's how modern science has it, if anyone can verify.

A giant 3-d plane revealing a 4-d shape one 3-d cross-section at a time.

Here's a question that's stinging me, then, is that same question about dimensional rotations. Does that mean it would be possible to "rotate" through time? Also, if this is the case, then particles don't emit "randomly", but their emissions are dependent on factors so chaotic that randomly generating numbers is just as accurate as anything else.

(i.e., try to imagine how 50 million ping pong balls will hit 50 million basket balls at different angles when they're all floating in space... Yeah. You're better off picking random numbers.)

Now what if all of them were perfectly aligned on a 2-d plane, so that there is NO downwards or upwards motion in-between them, so they all only bounce along the X and Y planes while their movement through the Z dimension is uniform and undisturbed at all by their X and Y motion. Now apply this to four-dimensional space, where they all interact along the X, Y and Z coordinates but not W.

But, if particles truly did emit randomly, then why would they only emit in the X, Y, and Z, dimensions and not the W dimension? As any emission or otherwise any motion at ALL in respect to the W dimension (time) would cause a cascade of reactions so objects would all fall out of our 3-d "plane", which is this very moment, so they'd be pushed into the past and future, since the plane is no longer perfectly aligned.

However, that picture only works if the center of mass of every object is perfectly aligned. However, since particles live a finite amount of time, and time is an object's length in the W dimension, then their center of masses can NOT be aligned, and the applied forces offset from the center of mass wouldcreate angular momentum along the W axis.

No matter how I look at it I can't get myself to see time as another spatial dimension. The only way I can picture that without a chaotic collapse of uniform time flow is if every particle in the universe came in and out of existence every quanta of time. In which case, everything would be fine and handy-dandy. What's wrong with that?

Well... that was sort of complicated and I'm sort of diving into the deep end here, so could someone

please tell how I'm wrong? Is my very assumption that time is a spatial dimension wrong?

I'm not even going to ask If I'm right...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

# Space as a 4-D MRI Scan?

Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email,
Google+,
Twitter, or
Facebook

- Similar discussions for: Space as a 4-D MRI Scan?

Loading...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**