Do We Live in a 10-Dimensional Hologram?

[Lestat]

I should have said, forwards, with referral to the viewpoint of an observer (I mean this not in the sense of a sentient, or living one, but a fixed reference point with regards to itself, will move forward in time, if it has mass)

I'm hardly the best at physics, and I BLOW at math, so its probably not the best explanation.
But does a 'direction' have to GO anywhere.

Take a car moving along a road. The road (or time as the case may be) doesn't have to move anywhere, the CAR is what moves. Forward, or turn round and head back in the opposite direction.
Thus we get the three dimensions of space that we interact in, plus one of time, in minkowski spacetime at any rate. Spacetime geometry is NOT something I know a great deal about, too much bloody well math.

Read faye kane's blog for a better (much better, my version has less BDSM, arserape and necrophilia) understanding of spacetime geometry. (and some interesting astrophysics stuff)

Fayekane.blogspot.com

NSFW NSFW NSFW don't even think about it NSthefuckFW !!

[ZEGH8578]

I should have said, forwards, with referral to the viewpoint of an observer (I mean this not in the sense of a sentient, or living one, but a fixed reference point with regards to itself, will move forward in time, if it has mass)

I'm hardly the best at physics, and I BLOW at math, so its probably not the best explanation.
But does a 'direction' have to GO anywhere.

Take a car moving along a road. The road (or time as the case may be) doesn't have to move anywhere, the CAR is what moves. Forward, or turn round and head back in the opposite direction.

then time is the road!
and WE are the movement, yes?

But the road is tangible! It is there, a real thing, an object.

Time is like God. It is something human psyche needs there to exist - but that _reality_ has no need for.
Christians are adament God HAS to exist, ask any one of them - their argument is:
The universe cannot come from nothing - so God MUST exist! MUST exist, to explain the universe.
Time MUST exist - MUST exist to represent "the road"

But it all is in our psyche, for us to understand things.
Apart from that, time is nothing. It is a name we give the surroundings in which cars can move at all

[Lestat]

It was a metaphor. And yes, in a sense, as I understand it I think that may be the case. 'we' being 'reality'

Reality happened long before we got on the scene. For something to occur there must be time, no? Take for instance, radioisotope dating. Don't think everything started or stopped decaying for our benefit do you?

[ZEGH8578]

It was a metaphor. And yes, in a sense, as I understand it I think that may be the case. 'we' being 'reality'

Reality happened long before we got on the scene. For something to occur there must be time, no? Take for instance, radioisotope dating. Don't think everything started or stopped decaying for our benefit do you?

Take any dating. Is the past somewhere else?
The soil you try to date - does it belong to another realm of reality?
No, it's right there.

Did the dinosaurs, who walked upon it - exist in another dimension, in another place? No! They existed in "another time", but that means nothing, because the location is the same! Motion has happend! Motion! Many many times motion! Cellular degeneration many, many, many times, aging each individual dinosaur, aging each individual plant - chemical reactions have happened, many many many!
Time is the name for one or many motions. In fact - time is the SYNONYM for "one or many motions."

"What one-or-many-motions is it?"

Now, I must emphasize, this is my personal take on it, so... if you disagree, you are with the major consensus on this, so, it's not a loss in any way

[Lestat]

I haven't the cunting foggiest how to explain to someone else, in a language *I* understand poorly.

And if a mass occupies a point in space, which aside from the (hypothetical) point-like particle (which is zero-dimensional) then like other matter in space, it interacts with the time dimension. Weather from the 'point of view of' time, not that it can have a point of view, we, and the spatial 3D material universe, moves along at the same rate. A perception of time might differ, from a given individual's (I use the possessive) viewpoint, but to an external observer at an unchanging point, one that hypothetically could observe time yet not be affected otherwise (which doesn't exist in practice, to the best of my current knowledge), then two bodies separated by a fixed distance in time, would be 'seen' as moving in the same direction, in a fixed, unchanging ratio of distance between those two bodies.

That is to say, the past never gets a runup and toepunts the present in the nads from behind. The two do not crash into each other.



Zegh, when using 'motion', please do qualify when doing so in a topic like this, as it is important to state weather you mean motion in space, or along the time dimension.

[ZEGH8578]

I synonymize motion and time.

Once a motion has happened, it has happened. "Time" has passed. With no motion, there is no time. A motionless state of existence is impossible, anywhere, because - according to string theory (the little i understand of it) - motion is the core of all existence.

If time is a measurement of motion, it is entirely dependent of motion, and therefore as good as a synonym of motion. Compare it with "evolution", another word that in reality means nothing. This is NOT blasphemy - if you hear me out

Evolution is the result - the symptom - of biological entities battling each others out, or environment interacting with chemical activity in biology. Evolution is the name we give an event once it has allready happened - it is NOT a "rule" that nature "plays by".
Time is just something we call something after it has happened. We observe something, and then we apply time.
Our _mentality_ NEED there to be a "place" in which a past existence can be. We visualize it - for example when carbon dating a piece of rock. We imagine, visualize, a distant past in which this rock was recent. But the rock _IS_ recent RIGHT NOW. It is in your hand, is it not? It's not in a distant past. It has merely experienced a lot of motion

[Lestat]

Your correct in that actually. Zero-point energy is for instance, the reason why the helium isotope 4He does not freeze. Even at absolute zero there is still that vacuum energy there to create movement.

Or is it 3He...ugh, I'm tired, sleep deprived. Possibly not the best frame of mind for a dyscalculic to try and explain space-time geometry. Either way, one of the two turns superfluid, rather than solidifies, and this has to do with its zero point energy. That energy is just enough to keep some tiny bit of motion going, enough to ensure that the very minimum potential well, energetically speaking, is not reachable.

[ZEGH8578]

Your correct in that actually. Zero-point energy is for instance, the reason why the helium isotope 4He does not freeze. Even at absolute zero there is still that vacuum energy there to create movement.

Or is it 3He...ugh, I'm tired, sleep deprived. Possibly not the best frame of mind for a dyscalculic to try and explain space-time geometry. Either way, one of the two turns superfluid, rather than solidifies, and this has to do with its zero point energy. That energy is just enough to keep some tiny bit of motion going, enough to ensure that the very minimum potential well, energetically speaking, is not reachable.

Hey, take my ramblings w some salt It was fun discussing anyway!

If you really wanna go insane, there is a favorite "human idea" to apply to things that it is not applicable to: "Why"
"Why is energy? :0"
"Why is space? :0"
people love that
"Why is life? :0"

[odeon]

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

[ZEGH8578]

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

A watch?
You... tell me that a WATCH... can explain "time" to me?
A mechanical object that needs a battery in order to run, that is based on the swinging of a planet around  a star?

come on, Odeon, we're talking about much deeper concepts than wether on not a watch runs.
What happens if the watch goes to fast? Time speeds up?

I'm not so daft that I haven't discovered watches or calledars, and never noticed a human sense of time before, that isn't the discussion here...
anyway, wanna know what I mean, read my replies to Lestat up there, otherwise I'm gonna hafta explain myself all over again. But this is NOT about watches, digital or traditional, and not about callendars. Western or Asian...

[TheoK]

odeon non est philosophus. Nerd est 

[odeon]

Perhaps travelling ALONG time would be a much better metaphor.

It is a direction. In the case of matter with positive mass, forwards.

Forwards?
What IS forwards?

Do you mean ---------------------------------------> this direction? From left to right? Because that is the way we read? Our eyes? Our culture?
OR
do you mean forwards in terms of pedal locomotion? What if I U-turn? What is forwards then? What if two people walk past each others? Which one is walking forwards?



It's all arbitrary... Time doesn't go in a direction "forwards" or "backwards", in fact, time NEVER went "backwards" for comparison, meaning time only goes one direction.
If there is no white, can there be black? If there is no up, can there be down?
If time only does one thing, can there be an alternative thing for it to ever do? No!

Time is fleshed out - by us, people, by our culture and our perception - fleshed out way beyond its real nature - which is just a measurement of one motion compared to another motion :I

I guess this puts me in disagreement with most physicists in the world, but I just cannot accept that time is trivialized like that - we travel through it like a tunnel? Tunnel made of cement? We travel alongside it, like a railing? A railing made of brass or stone or wood? It travels forwards. Why can't it travel sideways? How does it travel? How can time afford plane tickets, if it does not have a job?
I know I make it very silly now, but... that how I see it - giving time all of these properties

Silly, yes, and wrong. You make it very easy for yourself, mixing concepts (and dimensions) where it suits you. I wonder if it is because your grasp of them is weak, or is this just some basic silliness at work, a reaction of some kind?

May I suggest you to read a book or two about physics? Start with Newtonian physics and his concept of time, but do include something about relativistic physics and the Minkowski space.

Good luck.

[odeon]

odeon non est philosophus. Nerd est 

Posting nonsense doesn't make you a philosopher. It just makes you stupid.

[TheoK]

It only "explains" the concepts of a model, though.

Wittgenstein said that great philosophy should only be written as poems 

[ZEGH8578]

Research involving time tends to take the assumption that time allready is tangible

'Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.'

It also is a matter of semantics... like I pointed out before. What names we give what we have around us, and whenever we give two names to one idea, or overlapping ideas.