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

The dimensions of time

  1. Jun 1, 2005 #1
    Why it that as the speed of an object increases, time seems to slow down for the object experiencing that acceleration/velocity? Secondly, in a completely different puzzling fact of physics, what could possible explaining the phenomena of entangled particles – where one of two entangled particles seems to immediately reflect the property of the other?

    Can the answer be found within the framework of time? An answer which does not need formulas to understand? Not time as we understand it today, but as it might actual exist in the universe. Is it possible that the single dimension of time, with its arrow of progression only be part of the full definition of time? Might the explanation for these two phenomena be explained by two additional dimensions of time?

    It is widely held that the universe consists of 10 or 11 dimensions, of which space is three and time is one. The remaining ones are thought to be basically unused, tightly wrapped. If, in fact, time has three dimensions, how and thus be part of these other dimensions, how might time be structured? The following is an attempt to answer that. For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to use the framework used to describe space – the framework of an X – Y – Z coordinate system.

    We most often represent space with the three graphical axes of X, Y and Z - or length, width and depth. Using that same frame of reference, and for ease of visualization, assume something called Absolute Time along the Y ordinate. Movement of time in this upward direction reflects what we currently understand of the single dimension of time along with the idea of the arrow of time.

    If, however, there are other dimensions of time, then this single oridnate cannot adequately describe time as it affects us. So let’s assume there is a second dimension of time. For this dimension, we’ll assume it runs along the X axis that, for lack of any other term, I’ll descriptively call Existence. Now as we look at this two dimensional structure of time, consider where on this mapping we would exist. I submit it would depend on our velocity, just as our travel through space defines where we are.

    Time may not be a constant beating, single dimension but rather a varying dimension in the same sense as space. Just as the movement of a body in space determines its location, so, in a similar fashion, the movement in this two dimensional time framework dictates where time you are. And thus, when a body speeds up relative to the speed of objects around it, it experiences a different time. This can be represented graphically wherein bodies moving at different velocities define different curves on the graph.

    To expand on this idea, let’s assume a third dimension of time along the Z coordinate that I’ll call Proximity. Although much vaguer in concept, assuming this dimension exists, then two objects widely separated in the Absolute and Existence framework could actually be very close in this dimension. If so, the perhaps what we observe with the seemingly instantaneous parroting of actions in two particles distant from one another in space are simply two particles adjoining in this dimension of time across which the transmitted information is sent.

    So? Is time a single dimension or does, perhaps, a concept of a three dimensions of time better describe what actually exists in our universe?
    Your thoughts?

    john johnbonn2004@yahoo.com
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2005 #2
    Gravitation and another forces has 1/d^2 dependence on a distance, it is not 1/d.
    This mean that spacetime has nonlinear structure and gravitation, for example, force is equal to

    {G (4pi)}* M1*M2/(4pi)r^2
    Here (4pi)r^2 is a square of sphere with radius r.

    This determined by dynamic geometry of spacetime, there a real object submitted as {0(t), 1(t), 2(t),… n(t)} instead of {x, y, z, t}Here 0,1,2,3 ….n are dimensions.
    0(t) – dynamic point .It has two conditions 1 (existence) and 0 (nonexistence).
    1(t) – dynamic line
    2(t) – dynamic circle
    3(t) - dynamic sphere
    This is a basic dynamically drawn figure.
    Further follows
    4(t), (5t) …n(t) - dynamic sphere of next level which include spheres of previous level as a points.

    So spacetime has a complex structure. This is a set of enclosed spheres.


    Michael.
     
  4. Jun 5, 2005 #3

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Time of the speeding object slows down for an observer watching the speeding object. The object itself doesn't experience any time dilation.
     
  5. Jun 10, 2005 #4
    Why it that as the speed of an object increases, time seems to slow down for the object experiencing that acceleration/velocity?

    I am not an expert. But from some of the books I have read there seem to be a relationship between the speed of light and time. The closer the object reach the speed of light the slower time have pass. If the object velocity reach the speed of light time would seem to stand still. So if you are traveling faster then light you're going back in time?? Another thing about time and speed of light is in the black hole. A black hole trap light, light cannot escape therefore cannot move, so if you were to be in a black hole you are moving at the same speed as light(you have caught up to light) therefore time would stand still, which is what some of the books say. Time stand still in a black hole. I don't know if there have been any kind of proof to this.
     
  6. Jun 10, 2005 #5

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Remember that velocity is relative. No object can reach the speed of light relative to another object. Infinite acceleration would be needed.
     
  7. Jun 10, 2005 #6
    Yes, in a reality sense. But, theorecticaly if one could, then what does relativity suggest?
     
  8. Jun 14, 2005 #7
    I think a simple approach for time and speed is a clock that works with light, the clock consists of two mirros that reflects the light, consider the time that a light beam takes to reflect on both mirros as one second, a clock in rest would be the fastest in time, and the slowest in speed, but if u moved the clock the light will reflect on other surfaces before hitting the second mirror, and so as the speed increases light will take more time to count a second, i hope to find an image as an illustration soon..
     
  9. Jun 14, 2005 #8
  10. Jun 17, 2005 #9
    one thought

    Why it that as the speed of an object increases, time seems to slow down for the object experiencing that acceleration/velocity? Secondly, in a completely different puzzling fact of physics, what could possible explaining the phenomena of entangled particles – where one of two entangled particles seems to immediately reflect the property of the other?

    Can the answer be found within the framework of time? An answer which does not need formulas to understand? Not time as we understand it today, but as it might actual exist in the universe. Is it possible that the single dimension of time, with its arrow of progression only be part of the full definition of time? Might the explanation for these two phenomena be explained by two additional dimensions of time?

    It is widely held that the universe consists of 10 or 11 dimensions, of which space is three and time is one. The remaining ones are thought to be basically unused, tightly wrapped. If, in fact, time has three dimensions, how and thus be part of these other dimensions, how might time be structured? The following is an attempt to answer that. For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to use the framework used to describe space – the framework of an X – Y – Z coordinate system.

    We most often represent space with the three graphical axes of X, Y and Z - or length, width and depth. Using that same frame of reference, and for ease of visualization, assume something called Absolute Time along the Y ordinate. Movement of time in this upward direction reflects what we currently understand of the single dimension of time along with the idea of the arrow of time.

    If, however, there are other dimensions of time, then this single oridnate cannot adequately describe time as it affects us. So let’s assume there is a second dimension of time. For this dimension, we’ll assume it runs along the X axis that, for lack of any other term, I’ll descriptively call Existence. Now as we look at this two dimensional structure of time, consider where on this mapping we would exist. I submit it would depend on our velocity, just as our travel through space defines where we are.

    Time may not be a constant beating, single dimension but rather a varying dimension in the same sense as space. Just as the movement of a body in space determines its location, so, in a similar fashion, the movement in this two dimensional time framework dictates where time you are. And thus, when a body speeds up relative to the speed of objects around it, it experiences a different time. This can be represented graphically wherein bodies moving at different velocities define different curves on the graph.

    To expand on this idea, let’s assume a third dimension of time along the Z coordinate that I’ll call Proximity. Although much vaguer in concept, assuming this dimension exists, then two objects widely separated in the Absolute and Existence framework could actually be very close in this dimension. If so, the perhaps what we observe with the seemingly instantaneous parroting of actions in two particles distant from one another in space are simply two particles adjoining in this dimension of time across which the transmitted information is sent.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The dimensions of time
  1. Is Time a Dimension? (Replies: 0)

  2. Time as a dimension (Replies: 13)

  3. Time as a Dimension (Replies: 3)

  4. Time as a dimension (Replies: 29)

Loading...