Time is not a dimension. There is no time

[Cagey_Drifter]

I’m not sure I understand the argument about why time exists as a dimensional construct. Is there any scientific evidence to suggest this, or is this just some intuitive way of thinking about it? To me “time” just means that molecules in the universe have rearranged themselves in a manner that is so unlikely to recur that it is essentially a singular and irreproducible arrangement.

[tim314]

@Cagey_Drifter

I’m not sure I understand the argument about why time exists as a dimensional construct. Is there any scientific evidence to suggest this, or is this just some intuitive way of thinking about it? To me “time” just means that molecules in the universe have rearranged themselves in a manner that is so unlikely to recur that it is essentially a singular and irreproducible arrangement.

I address this a little in my post #39 of this thread.

Basically, the idea of time being a dimension (in the same sense as the spatial dimensions – “length, width and height”, so to speak) comes from Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein (and others building on his work, like Minkowski) showed that there’s no universal definition of how far apart two events are in space, and likewise no universal definition of how far apart they are in time. It depends on your frame of reference. However, how far apart they are in spacetime will be the same regardless of your reference frame.

Anyone trying to argue against the idea that time is a dimension really ought to be addressing this issue, which this thread doesn’t really seem to do.

Also, as I mentioned in post #68, it’s kind of bogus to claim that science has proved time is discrete at the Planck scale. Our current physical theories break down at the level of Planck units, so we don’t really know what happens. Moreover, relativity and quantum mechanics treat time in two different ways, and we need a theory of quantum gravity to reconcile the two.

Basically, until we understand quantum gravity I don’t really think we can answer these questions from a physical point of view. Assuming quantum mechanics applies down to the Planck scale while ignoring relativistic considerations isn’t the way to go.

[pmwgreen]

Scylla got decent onion rings from BK? How’d he manage to post in this universe then? The only decent onion rings I can find here are from Steak N’ Shake. And they’re only barely OK. I’d go get some now except motion causes the four dimensions to rotate and since I’m spinning plates on the ends of my axes, I’m stuck here.

[DSeid]

Scylla, if you’ve never read Pratchett’s Thief of Time you should, as your concept seems a bit derivative of it. The concept as summarized on wikipedia is as follows:

called the “quantum cosmic tick”, is described in Thief of Time as the shortest interval of time anything in the universe can occur. To the History Monks, it is the time it takes for the universe to be broken down and rebuilt by Time (or the time it takes for “now” to become “then”). The tick itself, however, cannot be measured since it actually occurs outside the perception of those within the universe. Attempting to measure the tick results in a paradox that is equated to “opening the box with the crowbar you will find inside” (perhaps referring to a Spike Milligan line): the instrument measuring the tick is supposed to be broken down and rebuilt during the tick.

Of course more to the book than that … but the concept is as you espouse: an infinite series of separate plank-time long universes with the illusion of continuity.

[HoboStew]

@Scylla

What you have is simply distinct separate universes each consisting of planck units (frozen time). Stacking them, or keeping them in proximity doesn’t create time.

So what is the difference between distinct separate universes each consisting of planck units and time as we generally understand it?