BigMoosie Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I understand the geometry of space with n dimensions and see how greater than 3 dimensions of space would apply to a theoretical reality, but what about more dimensions of time? Does that even make sense to consider 2D time? I can't quite get my head around how that might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 It make sense from a mathematical perspective. All that distinguishes time from space in the theory is the signature of the metric. You could add another dimension which has a the same sign in the metric as normal time and it would officially be an extra time dimension. I am not sure how you would interpret the results though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Having two dimensions of time? That's an interesting idea. It could be the equivilent of the parallel universe thingy, where one action with two different outcomes can both be realised... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 hmmm......things in multiple states and/or multiple places simultaniously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 It make sense from a mathematical perspective. All that distinguishes time from space in the theory is the signature of the metric. You could add another dimension which has a the same sign in the metric as normal time and it would officially be an extra time dimension. I am not sure how you would interpret the results though. Dear Severian, yes, mathematical dimensions are arrays and powers, and that is why an idea as simple as acceleration has a 2D-time concept as seen from the dimensional analysis. [math]\cf{Acceleration = [L / T^2]}[/math] As you may see there is a term that we can spell-out as "the square of time". However, in the Euclidean 3D all the L dimensions are orthogonal to each other to make sense. Nevertheless, all powers of time indicate that the time dimension as multiple instances parallel to each other and not orthogonal. As for the physical interpretations, it is very easy when one think that time scales can be embedded indefinitely. I do not recall the names now but someone came up with new names to match the powers of time in the denominator: velocity, acceleration, jerk, ........ something (not sure) Anyway, think that when velocity changes constantly, it is under acceleration, and similarly, when acceleration is under constant change [T^3] it is something else, and so on. To sum it up, Length and Time are single unique dimensions, but our perception indicate a maximum of 3D orthogonal relations of length as it varies directionally. Time has one direction only and its powers are parallel rather than orthogonal, which is evident from graphs where velocity is represented by a slope while acceleration is represented by a curve; such curves can get more complex as we increase the power of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panamaja Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I understand the geometry of space with n dimensions and see how greater than 3 dimensions of space would apply to a theoretical reality, but what about more dimensions of time? Does that even make sense to consider 2D time? I can't quite get my head around how that might work. I don't think it is possible that anyone could. For either. How can you expand space into a 4th dimension when no-one has seen what it would look like, and because it is so unfathomable, how can anyone imagine what it might look like on their own. I think the same applies for time. Although you cannot see time (and although personally i feel that it does not exist), such a way as to image it would be extra-ordinary. Would a second dimension of time run ahead or or behind our current dimension so we can travel forwards or backwards in it. Or would create this "parallel universe" where everything happens at the same time as it does in this one, and there is another "me" out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMoosie Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 panamaja: I do not suggest that I could visualise 4 dimensional space correctly but what I was getting at is that it makes sense mathematically and all the ideas are consistant, it quite simple means that an entity has to be expressed with 4 spacial coordiantes to identify its location. I do not aim to correctly visualise 2D time as that too would be impossible without experiencing it, but what I do want to know is if (like space) all of the "area" of time is passed or accessible to each entity, or if everthing passes through a unique path of time etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I go one step further with 3D time http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12476 My thaught is that the gamma factor of relativity is simply the projection of multi dimentional time to one dimentional time. Our sense of time is very primitive. We don't have a very elaborate organs to sense time. We are not in the same time location as the galaxy ten million light years from here. And the other one 10 million lightyear in a direction 90 degres from the first one is in other time location. If you want to compute the difference in time location between the first one and the second one you will use trigonometric function. Time is not a simple line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajama Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I read the paper on the '3D time' thread - it was interesting (it jumped around alot). It's interesting that the scale of the two additional time dimensions are properties of the chosen particle - or did I misinterpret something? My thought is that the gamma factor of relativity is simply the projection of multi dimentional time to one dimentional time. While I don't know much beyond standard SR & QM, the way I understand 'gamma', it is already well defined in a 3 + 1 spacetime. Having said that, I think I understand your hunch / where you're coming from. Maybe additional time dimensions would - in some way - explain the successes of MOND? Also, 3 + 3 dimensions is appealing... Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 It's slightly easier to imagine 4D space, as you already have 3 you're aware of - you just need to extrapolate another right angle across which you can do by using the others as a point of reference. More than one dimension of time is tricky to wrap your head around... What could this 4th value be called? Height, length, width and... depth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 There is only one time and it is part of one continuum. I say gravity is a continuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I say gravity is a continuum. what the hell is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I don't understand, perhaps you're using a definition I'm not familiar with...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now