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

Time as a spacial dimension

  1. Apr 8, 2003 #1
    I came up with an idea more than a year ago, but I've yet to take a physics course, still in high school, but please bear with me.

    Take the Kaluza-Klein approach that light originates from the 5th spatial dimension, at the nearly unreachable Planck length. Now, light is supposedly a vibration that originates from there. If the light traveled parallel to our 4 dimensions of space-time, then we would never see it, confined to the 5th dimension. But it doesn't and crosses our dimensions.

    That's where you can bring back the concept of absolute space and time. Since the entire universe may be moving at an immeasurable rate, because we all have mass, but it isn't measurable without some known constant, because everything in the universe is moving together at that speed in addition to any expansion or any other movement. But take the light beam. Since it crosses our dimensions from the 5th, all matter we know may be moving through the universe at a certain rate. But light isn't confined to our dimensions, moving through the 5th dimension as well, but it is not affected by the motion of the matter through space-time.

    As best as I can illustrate it, imagine our space-time by a line, and the light beam crosses our dimensions from some other point. The point of intersection can be a reference for absolute motion, space or time.

    Then suppose that time is a spatial dimension, that we are moving through. The reference point, to determine our velocity is the point of intersection of the light beam. Suppose that we are the ones that are traveling through space-time at 300,000 km/sec, away from the beam of light. Since we are moving through the universe together with everything else, except for light, we can just as well be moving from the light beam at the observed rate that it moves away from us.

    Relativity says that as we move faster, time slows down for us. Now, time, as a "different" represents change as well as space. Now if we have a particle, and its velocity increases, the change that occurs is the particle begins to approach the point of intersection of the light beam and space-time. As it approaches the speed of light that we observe, which in this case is the speed that we are moving away from the light, its change in time decreases, and at the point that it reaches 300,000 km/sec, the velocity of light, time comes to a stop because the particle has ceased to change or move through time.

    Take e=mc^2
    If e is the total energy of the particle that encompasses the difference between c^2 and e, that gives the true mass to be 1/m, a hyperbolic function of absolute energy vs. mass. When the difference in energy approaches 0, then mass becomes infinite.

    I can barely continue anymore because I can barely keep up with my thoughts. I'm as confused myself as many of you might be right now, so I'll get back to this in a little while. Again, I'm only 15 and have yet to take a formal course in physics, but any comments would be appreciated. I posted this a while back in the old forum with little replies. Hopefully I can get some more help this time around.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 8, 2003 #2
    Time is not measurable in the universal sense because time is an invention of man. The only measurement of space that we can use is distance.
  4. Apr 8, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, in Relativity, space and time really are treated as exactly the same. The only difference is that one particular quantity is positive for temporal directions and negative for spatial directions, so when you actually plug numbers into the equations, the differences between space and time appear.

  5. Apr 9, 2003 #4
    Are you sure? May be on the contrary, indeed?
  6. Apr 9, 2003 #5
    At first my sense of time was simply a measurement of change, but I had wondered as many had referred to time as a dimension itself, to try to apply it as another spatial dimension. I'm not satisfied by defining the 4th dimension of time as simply the rate of change.
  7. Apr 11, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    The idea that time may be an extra spatial dimension has been around for a while. Intriguing, but it doesn't seem like an idea we'll ever be able to test.
  8. Apr 11, 2003 #7
    I was speaking to a friend of mine today, regarding the idea. He said that approaching time as a spatial dimension isn't new, but the idea was mostly incorporated with space-time. I guess that's to a certain extent what I'm trying to say, but again, it's something different. It makes some sense to me, but I'm just a soph at high school, and haven't taken a formal physics course. I'm not too familiar with the mathematics of most physics so it wouldn't be up to me to test my own theory just yet. It's just an idea, thanks for the thoughts, though.
  9. Apr 12, 2003 #8
    Since the space and time are equivalent, that it is correct to speak of not curvetion of space or its geometries, but about local change of the move of time. Herewith in the mass time goes quicker. The Atoms of different chemical elements have a different move of time. The Chemical reactions this averaging the move of time on two or several elements.
  10. Apr 13, 2003 #9
    If asked the question - can time form the spatial dimension - I satisfy myself by saying that time is usually written as.......10m/sec....10m^2/sec........10m^3/sec....in comparision to other dimensions....not 10m^3 sec/some other dimension........
  11. Apr 14, 2003 #10
    But how you'll do perceive idea of measurement of the distance by means of Time only? Does it sounds strange? Though the Astronomy does not measure the distance by a metre or mile. It does measure by the Light Year. This is done as a matter of convenience simply, but has much greater sense indeed. Because
    Distance = Time
  12. Apr 14, 2003 #11
    I never meant to say that time cannot be equal to distant....all I wanted to say was that time may not be the 4th spatial dimension..........
  13. Jun 2, 2004 #12
    Hi, I know this is an old post, but just had to add my $.02.
    1. I couldn't agree more that the 4th dimension (time) is no different than the first 3, the only thing that is different is our perception of it.
    2. I think the term "spacial dimensions" should be trashed. It implies that all of the first 3 dimensions are somehow "Full of space" or describe space, try to imagine having any space, with only 2 dimentions, or worse one. That's just silly.
    4. the idea of dimensions being increadibly small or big is laughable. Dimensions are not measurable, they provide for measurement. I see no difference in the measure of time, or the measure of length. The only thing missing is a measure of timevolume. I can do it, easily, I just don't know what it would be useful for, because I don't PERCIEVE 4 dimensions very well. (at least not as well as I percieve 3) but the idea that something has more of some yet undefine unit of measure because it exist in a particular place for some particular time, is not hard to concieve.
  14. Jun 2, 2004 #13
    my take on the matter is:

    Mass(Gravity) is the fourth dimension. it has the ability to warp and distort the other 3 dimensions, we just can't perceive it on a small scale.

    indeed its effects are pretty much absolute, such that even light is subject to its power. everything in the universe has a subsequent Mass(Gravity) "footprint" that affects its actions.

    on a small scale we can ignore the effects, but on a vast scale we have to take it into account. suppose we were to make a 3D map of the universe and start filling it in with the locations of known stars etc.

    suppose someone in a difference solar system at the same time starts doing the same thing.

    his map will probably come out different from ours because the things he is using to deduce the object's location, be it (radar waves, light, gamma, whatever...) are coming to him from a different direction because its subject to different gravitational forces along that course.

    if we take gravity into account when plotting, we can get a more accurate picture of where things really are.
  15. Jun 2, 2004 #14
    An equivalence of space and time (t) can be realized using one dimension of space in term of distance (d) by the following simple equation.

    [tex] d = ct [/tex]

    where c is the speed of light in vacuum. This says that a time of one second is equivalent to a distance of 300,000 km.

    If the one dimension of space possesses a local motion then space is also the same as time with two intrinsic directions of motion.
  16. Jun 3, 2004 #15
    Time Dimension Distinguished from Spatial Dimension

    This is where I stopped erading. Everything was fine untill this. Either you switched a subject or something I'm confused.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook