A quaternion is just a geometric product. The non-commutative geometric product of two vectors is the sum of a commutative inner product and an anti-commutative wedge product. uv = u•v + u∧v When u is perpendicular to v, the angle between them is 90° or 270°, which means that the cosine of the angle is 0, and the equation simplifies to uv = u∧v, which causes uv to take on the property of being anticommutative. Which means that uv = -vu. The geometric product of a vector with itself simplifies to the dot product of a vector with itself, which is equal to the square of the length of the vector. Thus, if u and v are both unit vectors and perpendicular to each other, (uv)² = uvuv = -uuvv = -u²v² = -1. From the definition of the imaginary number i, we then see that i = u∧v when u and v are both unit vectors that are perpendicular to each other In 3D space, there are 3 bivector planes: an xy plane, a yz plane, and a zx plane; i = e₀∧e₁, j = e₁∧e₂, and k = e₂∧e₀. Thus, we have imaginary vector part of the quaternion. The real (scalar) part of the quaternion comes the dot product. The rules of quaternion multiplication fall out this. Including the fact that when you apply a quaternion to a vector, you need to apply the inverse of that quaternion on the right. Because if you don't, you'll have bivector terms left in the result and can't come back to normal vector.
The reason quaternions would be used instead an arbitrary geometric algebra is that quaternions are a division algebra, however geometric algebras are not always division algebras. Also there are infinitely many geometric algebras, but only one quaternion algebra. (Also quaternions have a built in reason for 4d, whereas with geometric algebra you have to find an additional reason for 3+1 dimensions. Geometric algebra is still very useful as a stepping stone towards a good theory of physics. (I actually used the relationship between the Pauli algebra G(3) (which is 3d geometric algebra) and the quaternions to obtain a version of the weyl equation in the quaternions, which when I take two of them, I end up with the Dirac equation (which is commonly described using complex spacetime algebra))
@@magma90 Quaternions are an incorrect conception of a rotor, which is the geometric product of two vectors. Specifically, it's the ijk=-1 part that's incorrect, from which the rules ij=k, jk=i, and ki=j are derived. It should be ijk=+1, which results in ij=-k, jk=-i, and ki=-j. I just uploaded a response video a few minutes ago that dives into the math and proves why it's the case.
@@MilosVuksanovic-sj8kj perhaps. I'm just hoping to grab Unzicker's attention here because he seems to be really focused on quaternions and has yet to realize that they're wrong. The ijk=-1 rule violates the anti-commutative property of the outer product. A rotor is pretty much the exact same thing as a quaternion, and it doesn't have this mistake.
This is the most fundamental of all questions. I tend to agree with Dewey Larson. He posits that both time and space are three dimensional and that the progression of time and space produce the "natural reference system" dominated by the constant c. He calls it the Reciprocal System. Because it is the basis of all causation, time moves in only one direction. He posits a separate region of the "small" where time does in fact move in both directions. His theory is most profound but when you understand it this question is answered in a most elegant way.
The quaternion structure is essentially given by the multiplication, making it a field with addition. But what is its physical meaning if Galileo should be taken at his word? Lorentz transformation is the wrong answer, since it isn't a multiplication among space-time points.
I fully agree with the surrealism of blended 4d spacetime. 3 d coordinates organise measurement of positions. The fourth coordinate is an abstraction telling the state of a clock at position given by three other coordinates multiplied by c for homogeneous units if all coordinates . Grouping this as 4d vector is very useful and nothing peculiar about it . This mental picture allows to understand and prove the absolute rest state and measure the absolute velocity. All clearly impossible in Minkowski space
I’d love to know why mathematicians are driving this conversation. Literally anything other than 3+1 does not produce a working universe. Think about it. Even if there was some randomness about the structure no other formula would work - that’s not just because I’m a 3+1 creature (I’ve read flatland - it doesn’t work), it’s logic. Let’s move past this point - mathematician should not be given the reigns of physics…
You might want to look into ADs-CFT. The logic you think works is only logical because your brain is incapable of using higher dimensional logic. If it was capable we would likely intuitively and logically be able to solve most of these problems as easy as we can comprehend Newtonian physics.
There are 3 dimensions of past, 3 of present, and 3 of future.. which, because we aren't a size propagation at the planck scale... our physical nature exists in the past, present and future. But our senses and cognition expands this relationship
I think the 3 dimensions of space are a by product of the interface equilibrium dynamics of two domains either side of an inflationary boundary,, and that time is just a phase change in the exogenous temporal state outside of a universe due to same equilibrium dynamics. Also, I think the 3 generation particle hierarchy might be a topologically dual version of that macroscopic inflationary 3 boundary hypothetical.
Fundamentally, time is a measurement of the relative movement of physical phenomena, so it's not really a separate dimension in itself but merely a convenient yardstick. Its basis, of course, is the length of our day. Everything else is measured relative to this interval.
Movement is relative, in a empty universe you wouldn't be able to move, direction would have no meaning along with no meaningful acceleration. Time is a measurement of space... or is it a measure of entropy since time can be independent of space 🤔
@@sosomadman Yes, movement is always relative to something else (I edited the OP to correct this :) In the case of being alone in the universe, of course one can't move from one location to another, since there are no locations. However, the observer has their own internal sense of time since they can still observe. In fact, the very act of thinking can be thought of as a type of motion taking place in time, without the need for a physical universe.
@@markedwinwebb this would only be true if thought was independent from the mind, in the same way that time is independent from space. I see thought as a tangible thing where neurological activity/structure can be associated with thoughts/concepts, and their is a finite number of ways a thought/concept can be conceived/conveyed. Their is a argument for a soul hidden in their somewhere.
Thought experiments often have holes in them and this one is no exception. But going back to the original question, we seem to agree (external) time is inextricably linked to motion and is quite meaningless without it.
@@markedwinwebb I would go further and say time is linked to entropy, and motion is a form of entropy since you can work out how far its traveled by the degree of decay. The vibration of the atoms, and the uncertainty principle suggest to me that a particle is partly in another dimension (area of probability) giving it nonlocal properties which we would register as movement. Phenomenon like quantum tunnelling or wave duality would be a example of this. So is a particle really moving, or is spacetime just washing over it & eroding it in a process we know as decay from our dimension.
Time is the internal movement of the atom, so it progresses when the atom is rotating, which they always are. What we observe in space is external. I don't know if quaternions are the answer, bc they are different movements.
Even asking this question, indeed any question, rests on the acceptance of the existence of space and time. I see no prospect of going deeper, under space and time
But, as Kant first theorized, consciousness itself is dependent upon these apriori (scalar and vector) characteristics of space and time. They are the basis for his identification of the forms of inuition and thus for the category of synthetic apriori experience itself - which is the fundaamemtal ground of metaphysics according to him. Indeed his other apriori categories are mostly or exclusively logico mathematical in character, which is what gives his interpretation its robustness in accounting for the possibility of phenomenological experience. One cannot simply dispense with them, Alexander is right.
@@alecmisra4964 In my judgement, local time should be defined and measured by local atomic clocks, and local space by local crystal spacings. It then becomes an empirical matter to compare local times and spacings for different locales. As I see it, the GPS people are the ones with much or even perhaps most of the relevant data. This approach makes local quantum mechanics king, because local atomic clocks and crystal spacings obey local quantum mechanics. By this, I do not mean to imply that quantum mechanics is an ultimate or complete theory, just that it works locally. For example, I think that quantum mechanics is incomplete because it gives no account of the internal processes of quantum jumps.
It turns out that based on the commutation/anti-commutation relations, we can recreate the Weyl equation in the quaternions as abla\psi=0, where abla=d/dt+id/dx+jd/dy+kd/dz. By combining two weyl equations we can recreate the Dirac equation as abla\psi_L=m\psi_R, \bar{ abla}\psi_R=m\psi_L, where \bar means the quaternion conjugate. I am not fully sure if the solutions to these equations are perfectly accurate, however they should give at least a good starting point. (Also once we have the Dirac equation, it is possible to increase the amount of equations used to calculate massive particles of any spin by using the Bargmann-Wigner equations as they can be thought of as many coupled Dirac equations)
I like Alexander because he criticizes establishment physics. But I don't understand why he doesn't straight up say that the most logical explanation of the universe will come from studying geometric emergence. For example, he has an object called a unit Quaternion. But does he even see that this object emerges from i? I'm currently reading his book, The Mathematical Reality... Very accessible.
No, the solution will come from a radical shift coming directly from philosophical and metaphysical considerations. Mathematics, like physics and the rest, pretty much stopped at the end of the 19th century, and has been stagnating since then. That is because the next step in discovery has to involve something of the order of a millenial revolution, something that happens every couple of thousand years or so. Grothendieck was closest to the truth when he said around 1970 that all of mathematics was going to disappear in at most two generations. I reckon he's still on tracks if you speak about 30-year generations. Because that's exactly what is going to happen! Most people won't understand what I am saying here, but this won't change anything. The discovery of homogeneous coordinates was probably the last discovery made in math so far. The Erlangen program basically stopped almost as soon as it started. And group theory or the usual linear algebra won't help. No matter what you do, the next step beyond homogeneous coordinates will be a qualitative "infinite" step forward. More precisely, what has to be understood is what a "dimension" really is. So far this concept is not at all understood. It has to do with epistemology and the nature of knowledge itself, applied to the understanding of the concept of a "continuuum". No mathematician will figure it out, because it takes much more than mathematics to understand it. So mathematicians and physicists are taken in a roundabout process that goes nowhere. They can keep going for another 1000 years if they like, they won't figure it out. For those interested, I'll just tell you something simple : when you have 2x2 matrices, what really do you have? What kind of object is it? What is its "dimension"? Why? Nothing's obvious. Nothing!
I presume you are alluding to the phenomenology of consciousness in your comment and that these structures are apriori requirements for consciousness to express itself at all and so this is what it (physics) is really all about.
@@alecmisra4964 How do you separate mind (consciousness) from matter (body)? If you can't then you can't say one is primary and the other is secondary. This is an incorrectly formulated question (what is primary mind or matter?) based on incorrect assumptions (mind/body are separate).
@@Test-kg5qo What you are saying here is interesting, because I have a (mathematical answer). At the end of the 19th century, mathematicians (like everyone else) basically turned "materialist" or "reductionist". We are now at the logical end of that process. What it means is that they framed all of math in terms of a theory that they called "set theory", which had an intrinsically reductionist bias. The bias was to put all of reality (namely here, mathematical reality), on the concept of "extension". In other words, the reduced the concept of a set "in comprehension" to that of "extension", supposedly in order to avoid contradictions. This is typical of a materialist bias. What they should have realized (in light of thse famous paradoxes), is that the concept of a set defined "in comprehension" is fundamentally of a different nature than the extional definition. But insteadm they preferred to deny "comprehension" and say that it doesn't exist! That is in fact one of the things I corrected through my work. I took up that theory fro scratch and rebuilt a proper mathematical framework in which BOTH the idea of a set defined in extension and that of a set defined in comprehension are on an equal footing and logically consistent. With absolutely NO PARADOXES! Once people will realize that the mind is of a fundamentally different nature than the body, and that so, as a consequence, BOTH are needed to explain reality, one being of no more or less importance than the other (making matter and mind within reality absolutely unseparable "to infinity"), this is when "mathematics" as we know it today will disappear, because it will be able to explain BOTH apsects of reality, not just one half like right now.
@@Absomet We could just ditch digital math and use analog much the same as the universe does :) Yeah, I know analog is difficult and irrational but it works exceptionally well :)
2x2 matrices of what? With which restrictions? Matrices are just a way to organize linear operations. For instance the linear fundamental representation of SU(2) is a 2x2 unitary and unimodular matrix of complex numbers. What really do we have? Well, a linear representation of SU(2) in C^2. Matrices model whatever you want to have.
Show us how your thinking results in the correct chirp frequency of a gravitational wave in a black hole merger, or the predicted results of, say, the Gravity Probe B.
Rip Van Winkle: See "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics" by David Hestenes. Dr. Hestenes gives a good historical summary in his first few chapters about the vector algebra war and how quaternions and Clifford Algebra appeared in Quantum Mechanics in the guise of matrices and spinors.
Wonderful point raised in this question , is it a fundamental physics point of view. Notoriously yes because the physics of 3+1 dimension is distinct from 4 dimension when two big operator of present day physics quantum mechanics and classical mechanics have difference in their presence . If philosophy of natural law is concern physics should be same irrespective of dimensions foliation. This is a poorly addressed science3 charge instead of 2 and electric and magnetic field coupled should be a concern in fundamental laws including gravity. A complex mathematical structure made the analysis easy but complex physics and states is not a simple structure to rule of observation. Hair or flux seen on the skin not inside lower dimension or main structure.
Time and space are different in nature. Time is related to causality. Without time, there can be no partial ordered causality in time. And without causality, there is no point in looking for causes or explanations for anything. You can reduce the 3 dimensions of space to one dimension, it does not change causality.
I refuse to view "Spacetime" as a separate dimension. Spacial Dimensions Add up. X,Y andZ-axis "add Space" to eachother. While time "only" describes motion within it. Usable time is always in the future, used time in the past. And since light can be bent by mass, it is quite logical to assume, that it can be slowed down, or (attracted by mass/gravity) accelerated. So it cannot, by definition, be a constant. The Units of time we invented, only serve our PERCEPTION of it. (Hint: we still don't have a Calendar that ACTUALLY works with cosmic rythms. like the Lunar or Solar one, which would be "Natural"). We have the "second" as a unit, which is determined by an arbitrary number of "moves", a cesium Atom makes. And use that miniscule unit, to then be "precise" in "determining" where a motion will happen, where it happens, and where it has happened,How many "rythms" it took/takes/will take, and how many times this number fits in a (Insert a Time unit). And yes, we separate our "head-spacetime" into past, present and future again, (3-dimensions)? In the past we search for comparable traits, In the present, we try to be attentive, and the future we try to predict, with the comparison of the other two. (This usually happens under ignorance for the "attentive/present" part. We call it dreaming). History does not repeat itself, but it Rythms. We measure speed by " made-up" units of distance, divided by counted number of made-up "time units". It's a "Standard-dilemma" if you ask me. And i wouldn't be surprised, if some of our "Calculations" are off, because they didn't factor in influences by other rythms/effects of other elements or their mere presence. What we seek, is something Constant. something True at any given moment. A bloody fundament to base our knowledge on. which is, quite frankly: boring. (in my headspace).
Prime number 3 is the largest consecutive prime before continuity breaks (number 4 is skipped before next prime being 5). If everything can be distilled into the most basic units measured by integers, they are all divisible by themselves, or divisible by 1, 2 or 3 - forming the 3 spatial dimensions. Time just measures change in motion, so we can visualise 4 dimensions when this happens.
Einstein adopted linear parameterization (ln pz), forcing [ln] Time, which works in GenRF, but in retaining ZeroRF misses nonlinear UniRF. Æ (2022) found the nonlinear continuous pz, per Bošković continuity for sT(E) spheric pz.
unifying the forces- gravity, electricity,magnetism,nuclear - should be an easier problem than wondering if space and time dimensions can be any different..maybe dimensions can logically only be that way..maybe matter can only logically be rotational symmetry shapes
3 dimensions works just fine for a universe as a mathematical and geometric description, but even that has some issues when attempting to apply it to the real universe. It's just a human construct. Unfortunately we are stuck viewing most things through the lens of the slow photon, so we have to use that 4D like histogram to rebuild the 2D view back toward a past 3D slice of the universe. We can never really get a true 3D slice though, because the latency of the photon messes it all up. The only past universe we can build is the 2D surfaces (slice) of a sphere along its radii (distance.time), so even then we can only get a shell rather than a true 3D slice. But I suspect/expect that a (actual) universe is 3D like even if the photon makes it impossible to view :)
Other than the arrow of time and gravity following the inverse square law are there any other reasons not to belive time is a spatial dimension same as the other 3?
No, they're all 3D + 1/2 a dimension for time, as it's only 1 way, you can't go back, unlike spatial dimensions.. There are geometric/phsyical/mathematical dimensions that occur in 3D space and 1/2D time.
@@PrivateSi Lesser spaces only appear to be 3D when viewed from 3D space. Like atoms are really only 1D rods but when a rod spins around in 3D space they appear to be 3D with orbiting electrons.
@@daveulmer .. No, everything has some some length, width, height.. Even atoms, even waves. You can declare a sphere to be '1D', mathematically as it can be described with 1D, but it exists in 3D space.
I think space and information are probably one and the same, one side of the same coin that emerges like time and probably also gravity. The invention of the mechanism and new principle that would contribute to this mathematically and physically is then perhaps also an agreement of general relativity with quantum mechanics, whereby the interpretation of quantum mechanics would have to be reinterpreted (Emergence of Mach's principle from the quantum level or something like this), which could also be bound to such a level in one way or another, seems plausible in order to capture the quantum units in a consistent picture.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such: In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... what are your thoughts? Point me in the right direction I feel like I am wrong 😕
3D Space and 1/2D Real Time (as it's uni-directional, unlike space) are fundamental and absolute. The One Field exists in space and time, forming varying relative spatial and temporal metrics (varying with gravity, which is an emergent property of the base EM Field that is most likely a load of old +ve and -ve balls superimposed and neutralised, each connected to 12 nearest neighbours as if they were touching close-packed spheres. -- Split a field cell into +ve and -ve parts and they bond with a neighbour to form an electron and positron. A Proton is likewise 2 1/2 neutralised positrons and 1 central, neutralised electron.. As there is a spare electron and we're in a matter rather than antimatter universe due to a small initial bias, it started off as a hyrdogen plasma soup that BALANCES OVERALL. Equal number of positrons and electrons in the universe at any one time. NO QUARKS.
Dimensions in this case (as of a 3D space) means a degree of freedom. A unidirectional time is not a degree of freedom, os contricted to one direction. Furthermore, time as a full degree of freedom leads to a break in causality, a big nono. A violation to t_P. Time is emergent, there are only 3 degrees of freedom (dimensions)
Mad t-party party written by Euclidian mathematician of Victoria age Lewis Carroll, suggestion that quaternions is absolute concept of time rotation around table without intrinsic force. Watch not measure time watch not measure at all it is only timing between two events. Feynman: it's how long we wait. It can probably not be defined any further. It is important how we measure it. We don't have definition of time that is worrying phislophical problem. Rotation (spinning) as time concept is something it can show tht. Hopf fibration can explain how electrons and protons have internal energy based on absolute concept of time 3+1. Three space coordinates + time.
i believe Gauss Law fails in 2D because of the nabla operator: one does not get the correct electrostatic potential. Dirac Delta does something here if I remember correctly....
I have yet to be convinced that there are more than two dimensions. What evidence can be brought to bear to support a third? Ref: Physicist Dr. Tom Campbell "My Big TOE."
As for space, we observe mass extent and existence with light. Light originates from mass and only stops when encountering mass and therefore it has mass and is a component of mass. So light defines mass and therefore space.
Maybe ask the question of what is going to be done with understanding after having the searched for answers. Everyone seems to be having fun treating others like lowly animals with tech available now. How adorable, not very. From plastics and pesticide in your food to a nuke on your day out. The snake charms others it seems.
Space to me is the difference matter & the void, with time being a measurement of space (or vice versa) between matter, with the smallest unit being the planck length. It must be matter that gives space its properties, with that in mind if their was no matter their would be no space, only void which would have its own properties that differ from the properties of space (it would not be interacting directly higgs field for instance idk) I believe the void to encounter a catastrophe that leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in the big bang. The presence of matter in our universe stops the universe from folding in on itself and imploding. I think the lowest energy state something could be would be to be 2D and our 3D immergance is the from a 2D reduction process. But im just a crackpot layman.
Why time is not a dimension like space? The answer is simple. What do we need to measure a length and what do we need to measure a time? To measure a time, we always need something mechanical, which counts occuring ticks within a duration, but to measure length we only need sticks. The length is the simple count, how many of those sticks in a row are even to the measured length, while the mechanic of the gadget, which measures time always underlies physical laws like the classic Doppler effekt.
@@kylelochlann5053 nice words, but empty words. Spatial dimensions are width, height and depth only. which are all lenghts or distances. You can put other well defined lengths or distances parallel to other unkown lengths or distances. You can't do that with frequencies at all and frequencies are the base of clocks and therefore for time also. Because the behavior of clocks, measuring lengths with radar is like measuring them with rubber bands, which aren't well defined length. That was meant to be the conclusion of my first post. Now show me the spatiality of time, please.
@@nichtvonbedeutung The experimental evidence has already falsified your theory. All experimental evidence corroborates WEP, LLI, and LPI meaning that the gravitational field is necessarily a metric field, which is a field over a 4-dimensional manifold. Non-null causal curves, i.e. the paths of massive objects, can be parameterized by the elapsed time of a clock. It needn't be, in which case there's no such thing as time and all you have are 4 spatial dimensions.
I think science can only approach such topics from a difficult direction. It may be better to start with a fresh slate. Either the basis of reality is something arbitrary, chosen using an arbitrary method chosen using an arbitrary method...ad infinitum (turtles all the way down) or else there is no limit on what is real. Everything possible exists. Even mathematical patterns like dimensionality are regional in the comprehensive array of all that can be. But we can still apply the mediocrity principle. Within the scope of all possible things we are probably in the most common type. Patterns (such as waves) are important because they imply infinite consequences from finite definitions, so they predominate. Mostly what makes worlds work is dimensions using something like our familiar geometry. Further, I propose that time is just the whole of Reality expanding because the fundamental fact that comes before all others is the necessary comprehensiveness of existence. Reality can never be complete because new permutations of the whole of it are constantly being made possible by each increment of expansion. So each new moment is a newly created extension of the sequence of universe moments into all possible dimensions in which this comprehensive reality contains the next moment that extends a pattern. Every moment, time takes a right angle turn and the wave function of the universe evolves that way. We have to reason to this stuff, we can't observe our way to it. You can't even explain math from inside math. Comprehensiveness is the only place to start. And it has a lot of your answers right there.
The key to understand minkowski space îs to consider to be formed by quantum space-time events. Events are primordial. Enthengeled quantum events made elementary particles, local time flow, gravity, fotons, all kind of interractions, by obeing algebric operation în discret sets, statistics at macroscopic scale. Quaternions and algebric geometry use for reference and movements. Histories are some macroscopic quantum enthengeled events, macroscopic quantum states. Humans are by resonance enthengeled with our reality. Must see The relation between clasical resonance and quantum enthengeled events. I think this îs The way...Events are some kind of quantum structures with an intrinsec Time, some kind of degree of freedom of existence îs Time. Time exist and îs sacred, like rain from eternity. If you not have vision, îs hard to conceptualize truth of reality. And I have 't.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such: In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
If we distil spatial and temporal domains down into simultaneous and sequential information, or parallel and serial data forms, and accept that true simultaneity is non-physical per Einstein, then all information is inherently temporal in the first instance, the spatial domain abstracted via the temporal integration windows (akin to critical flicker freqs) of our senses and resolving nuclei.. IOW it is arguably the spatial domain that is the stubbornly-persistent illusion, the three spatial dimensions somehow arising in the act of processing. Not a satisfactory conclusion by any means, yet a thorny reduction nonetheless..
No one has ever proved light is a wave. You run light through a slit less than half the wavelength of the light, that induces an interference response with the electric field of the matter comprising the slit. The result of light and electric fields is a wave behavior, but does not show this is an actual nature of light. I say wavelength in that all our measurements of light involve studying it in electric fields. Light comes only from matter and is absorbed by matter, so light is a property of matter. Since the equations of state of electric fields and gravity are identical, just on different scales, we can infer that electromagnetism on a large scale is gravity, gravity is a force, and therefore clearly we are going to have gravity waves. The question remains is whether different masses have different gravity wavelengths, and are these quantized values. However, I don't feel myself deforming space as I attach to the earth and neither does any other object. There is stronger gravity pull around mountains but the mountains are attached to the earth, so more mass makes more gravity without deforming space. We have variable gravity all over the earth, it is not a constant deformation of nearby space should that occur. The Einstein stupidity that the earth is this monotonic blob that deforms space by X for some reason of its existence is just gibberish as there are thousands of stronger and weaker gravity points on earth. Denser areas, usually iron ore bodies are linked to higher gravity so gravity is related to local mass density.
'c' is the speed of causality. Mathematicians declared as a measurement convention that be distance/time. So as a pseudo dimension of space 'ct'. It's all just a measurement "convention".
Then from that, how big is the universe and what is beyond? The universe is wherever light is and beyond that is where there is no light. Without light we cannot define mass and so that beyond the universe has no mass.
What does "Dimension" mean? See on RUclips: "The Fifth Dimension (build a 5d square) penteract" What is a "dimension"? Time and space are the same thing, Alex. Time is speed over distance. Distance is speed over time. Speed is distance over time. There is no distinction between the two. The Earth falls about 1-million miles a day around the sun and it spins 25k miles on it axis, divide by 24 and you have an hour, not arbitrarily related to a clock but because the Earth moves at that rate in relation to the Sun. The problem is not how space and time emerge but how movement emerges, movement being the definer of time relative to position in space. But must mass emerge before time or simultaneously with time? What is moving?
John Brandenburg says he has unified GR and QM. Since the VSL theory is compatible with GR, I would like your opinion on whether or not something practical could be put together using parts of his research, like adding only one dimension for example, that would also unify VSL and QM. ruclips.net/video/U_ybjj6Awms/видео.htmlsi=zfrbkPGxj2K4jPX9
Space and time are easy understandings within the Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) Model. There are 3 Matter PARTICLE energy levels and their corollary space fabrics. There are 3 Aether energy PARTICULATE energy levels and their corollary space fabrics. Matter particles : Tau electron energy level - with Tau graviton and Tau tensor boson fabric Tau tensor boson is the Higgs-1 boson. Muon electron energy level - with Muon graviton and Muon tensor boson fabric Muon tensor boson is the Higgs-2 boson. Electron energy level - with Electron graviton and Electron tensor boson fabric Electron tensor boson is the Lord-1 boson. Aether domain particulates : Small electron energy level - with S electron graviton and S electron tensor bosino fabric Small electron tensor bosino is the Lord-2 boson. Electrino energy level - with Electrino graviton and Electrino tensor bosino fabric Electron tensor bosino is the Lord-3 boson. Graviton (basement) energy level - with Graviton and Graviton tensor bosino fabric Graviton tensor bosino is the Lord-4 boson.
The depiction of these space-time fabrics is : Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton .... II II II II II II II Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor .... II II II II II II II Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton .... II II II II II II II Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor .... II II II II II II II Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton .... Here you see the 3 Matter and 3 Aether strings (theory). They exist in all 3D (4D) dimensions of x1, x2, y, z1, and z2 axi. If you outline the gravitons into a bubbly-shaped mesh, you have the quantum gravity, and the quantum gravity field If you outline the tensors into a bubbly-shaped mesh, you have the quantum tensor, and the quantum tensor field If you circle (ring or loop) the gravitons with other gravitons (like chain mail) in all 3D (4D) axis, you have the corrected string ring or loop theory of these 3 + 3 graviton formations If you circle (ring or loop) the tensors with other tensors (like chain mail) in all 3D (3D0 axis, you have the corrected string ring or loop theory of these 3 + 3 tensor formations Looking at the graviton = tensor = boson string connections, you see the tensor boson (having both gravitational force and electrical force) holding the gravitons together by gravitational force (no cosmic expansion), but also holding them apart by electrical force (no cosmic contraction and collapse). Herein is the true definition of quantum cosmic tension in all 3D (4D) axis. This also explains why the gravitons are positron-positron pairings, as the tensor bosons are electron-positron pairing,
This shows that the quantum gravity field across the entire cosmos is 1/2 of the gravitons and 1/2 of the tensor bosons space fabrics, having a steady state of cosmic tension. positron < electron > positron < electron > positron 1/2 particle cosmic repulsion electrical force positron > < positron > < positron > < positron > < positron 1/2 particle cosmic attraction gravitational force graviton = tensor = graviton = tensor = graviton While this appears to be totally attractive, the string ring/loops of the tensor bosons repelling each other keep the graviton particles apart. These are the quantum dimensions of QM and QCD for the matter particles operating in light/particle physics. These are the sub-quantum dimensions of QM and QED in the Aether particulates operating in wave physics. Quantum Matter and Sub-quantum Aether entanglements are easily seen in all 3D (4D) axis. Such Aether domain dark matter, energies, and forces are no longer dark ... as they are the same properties as the higher energy level matter particles (being higher composites of the smaller Aether particulates). Thus, the ES and EG model has explained and unified a vast majority of physics sector arguments and non-unification problems.
Each energy level has its row and column of particles/particulates : ES electron/EG positron ES electron/ES positron EG electron/EG positron positron/positron Electron Positron tensor boson neutron boson photon boson graviton There are 3 grades of gravitons in each energy level depending on the mix of ES and EG positrons pairing up. ES positron - ES positron ES positron - EG positron EG positron - EG positron All positrons have the same energy level, but minute compositional differences with pure positrons, and others with minor electron population in the ES particles. These ES positrons have a smaller gravitational attractive force than the totally pure and smaller gravitons making up the positron. As such, all ES and EG positrons are actual mini-gravitons with gravitational attractive force in their own right. Thusly, positrons are NOT anti-matter and other such super symmetry statements of other anti-matter particles. Positrons are the missing gravitons and graviton positron-positron pairing that science and physics refuses to admit and find, having denied their existence, let alone not finding them as valid gravitons. The atomic proton in its own right is a massive positron composite graviton. The atomic neutron with half electrons and half positrons for its neutron boson -0- charge, is half electrical force and half positron graviton force. The neutron in its own right (and the photon also) are their own tensor bosons with the appearance of a (stealthed gravitational force) massless identity. The neutron is not affected by gravity. ... as are the photon (gravitational lensing) and variable light speed (gravitational capture) photino. Herein explains many of the enigmas of physics that remain quandries - when the easy truths, DEPICTIONS, and explanations need no formulas, calculus, or other philosophical Schrodinger's cat or Schrodinger's electron surveillance. The ES and EG Model explains the Grand Unified Field Theory in simple explanation and depictions.
@@johnlord8337 Why do people like you believe their super basic Theory of everything has been missed by the brightest minds of the last century? The narcissism that one must have to think that way blows my mind.
You are asking the wrong questions. The right questions are not the reaaon the universe has a particular mathematical structure but to what extent a particular mathematical structure models the universe.
Exactly. Let's, for example, take the 4D Minkowskian spacetime, and add to it another dimension: the proper time. In this 5D model, events have 5, not 4 coordinates. And... The spatial Euclidean distance distance between any two events is equal to their temporal Euclidean distance! It's easily proven by using the Lorenz invariance. Two time dimensions and three spatial dimensions make the 5D spacetime Euclidean and flat.
What is electric charge ? Fundamental and Basic question ......oficial answer = It is a property of matter......Can you call It a answer? Or a proto-answer? Or a non-answer? ALL electrodynamics derive from this non-answer.....
The problem with Einstein’s Space-Time is that space has three dimensions, and time has one. To resolve the problem, the singular dimension of time must be divided into three separate dimensions, a past, an instant, and a future. My KnoWellian Axiom of mathematics: “ -c>∞
It should be related to the asymmetry of time via the Scarr-Friedman acceleration matrix. An acceleration matrix can represent a field that prohibits geodesic motion. For such a matrix to cover spacetime it must be skew symmetric and regular. It describes two planes of rotation and scaling. A 4-acceleration of a 4-unit vector is perpendicular to the unit vector. It is a rotation by 90 degrees and scaling of the unit vector. Since there are 4 dimensions, such rotation and scaling happen in two perpendicular 2-planes. One is a boost and the other is a turn. Now, keeping such a matrix regular along a world line while also respecting the orientability of space filiations requires the asymmetry of time.
If 1D space is bi-directional then 1D time should be considered 1/2D as it's uni-directional, else you have 2 definitions for 1D that fundamentally conflict with each other. Scientists and mathematicians used to be about precise language, but Libs and The US took over.. Still, I think this is beyond national mindsets, it's just a fundamental definitional error.. The other option is 6D space instead of 3D, and 1D time.
There is only positive velocity. An object can only move forward from it's current location regardless of the direction :) An object is always at the center of an imaginary sphere and it can only ever move away from the center along any infinite number of radii, only ever out from the center, forward.
@@axle.student .. I don't buy your logic as there is a clear difference between 1D time and 1D space... If the origin is 0, an object can have +ve or -ve direction in space, +ve in time.
@@PrivateSi that's math and euclidean geometry. Show me any real object that can move with an actual negative velocity :) It's always forward, positive speed. Nothing can travel slower than 0m/s.
@@axle.student .. You're confusing degrees of freedom with velocity or something.. How can we differentiate between bidirectional and unidirectional space or time without adding another factor/dimension? This is the problem with using standard maths to describe physical phenomena / rules. I admit space is 3D in standard Euclidean geometry but it doesn't capture the fundamental difference between 1D space and 1D time.
The reason why the speed of light is a constant for all observers is explained by a theory called "relativity". It was developed over half century ago.
2 dimensional space is too limited, even if infinite, things cannot go over each other, but have to go around. This limits the complexity of what can exist. The 3rd dimension opens a universe of possibility, enough for space to contain everything we see. The same reason that seeing in 3 colors reveals us a dimension more of information, although in case of vision, maybe since it is a 2d projection, with only 2 colors you can get a pretty good image. But 3 seems to be the deal, where there is sufficient wiggle room to describe a big amount of complexity, while staying to a minimum number of components.
Time is necessary for change to occur, otherwise the universe would be static and it could not have evolved us. Change is how we perceive time as observers from within a concrete position in spacetime. But, what is an observer? Why are you a conscious part of the universe? Well, maybe the universe is just exploring itself, in all facets, and all timelines, and all possibilities, but it does it through subjective points of view, that are contained within the fabric of spacetime. If the universe is attempting all paths, aka everett's many worlds, then it's not that surprising that we exist, in fact, it makes sense that we do.
We model the nature with to understand the nature and nature is never bound to follow math because it doesn't need math because math is nothing but logoc and in the end logic is nothing bit philosophy and in the end the philosophy of nature is what the almighty creator wanted to do with it and knowledge is so vast that even math is now failing to predict things correctly because math itaelf is flawed so we need something new. That's it. You physicists are just simply mad now because people no longer have respect for you because they know everything is engineering if something is true. Only exploration and finding evidences will let us to know the truth.
Time is just a human concept. It correlates processes relative to themselves and other processes. It is not some separate thing. Math just mimics reality, imperfectly. Read Korzybski - math's value is that it so closely mimics reality-
Man defines space and time differently which is why they are different. Differences as a matter of study requires their discovery and study independently in nature, which has not occurred. Since we define space in x, y, z it cannot be compressed, deformed or warped because we say so, it is our convention. As for time, time is light. Why can't we go faster than light? Because you cannot defeat you point of reference. No other reason and no mathematical reason. Time does not speed up or slow down due to errors in reference frames because that is not how we defined it.
We do not describe or define time and space differently, they are inseprably the same thing. Time is speed over distance. Distance is speed over time. Speed is distance over time. We describe an hour drive as an hour drive because distance is THE SAME as speed over time. We DO NOT describe these things differently.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such: In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
@@Art.Therapy93Time and space are the same thing as spacetime. Time is speed over distance. Distance is speed over time. Speed is distance over time. There is no distinction between time and space.
@@ZeroOskul To tell the distance from my house to my mailbox I do not use my watch. The two are different, and since we define distance in km or miles not seconds, they are not mixable except in imaginary worlds. Imaginary means they cannot be correlated back to the real world.
A quaternion is just a geometric product.
The non-commutative geometric product of two vectors is the sum of a commutative inner product and an anti-commutative wedge product.
uv = u•v + u∧v
When u is perpendicular to v, the angle between them is 90° or 270°, which means that the cosine of the angle is 0, and the equation simplifies to uv = u∧v, which causes uv to take on the property of being anticommutative. Which means that uv = -vu.
The geometric product of a vector with itself simplifies to the dot product of a vector with itself, which is equal to the square of the length of the vector. Thus, if u and v are both unit vectors and perpendicular to each other, (uv)² = uvuv = -uuvv = -u²v² = -1.
From the definition of the imaginary number i, we then see that i = u∧v when u and v are both unit vectors that are perpendicular to each other
In 3D space, there are 3 bivector planes: an xy plane, a yz plane, and a zx plane; i = e₀∧e₁, j = e₁∧e₂, and k = e₂∧e₀. Thus, we have imaginary vector part of the quaternion. The real (scalar) part of the quaternion comes the dot product.
The rules of quaternion multiplication fall out this. Including the fact that when you apply a quaternion to a vector, you need to apply the inverse of that quaternion on the right. Because if you don't, you'll have bivector terms left in the result and can't come back to normal vector.
The reason quaternions would be used instead an arbitrary geometric algebra is that quaternions are a division algebra, however geometric algebras are not always division algebras. Also there are infinitely many geometric algebras, but only one quaternion algebra. (Also quaternions have a built in reason for 4d, whereas with geometric algebra you have to find an additional reason for 3+1 dimensions. Geometric algebra is still very useful as a stepping stone towards a good theory of physics. (I actually used the relationship between the Pauli algebra G(3) (which is 3d geometric algebra) and the quaternions to obtain a version of the weyl equation in the quaternions, which when I take two of them, I end up with the Dirac equation (which is commonly described using complex spacetime algebra))
@@magma90 Quaternions are an incorrect conception of a rotor, which is the geometric product of two vectors. Specifically, it's the ijk=-1 part that's incorrect, from which the rules ij=k, jk=i, and ki=j are derived. It should be ijk=+1, which results in ij=-k, jk=-i, and ki=-j.
I just uploaded a response video a few minutes ago that dives into the math and proves why it's the case.
@@bitskit3476 don't bother too much. when i read comments, i realize that people here are more in mysticism/mythology then in math/physics.
@@MilosVuksanovic-sj8kj perhaps. I'm just hoping to grab Unzicker's attention here because he seems to be really focused on quaternions and has yet to realize that they're wrong. The ijk=-1 rule violates the anti-commutative property of the outer product. A rotor is pretty much the exact same thing as a quaternion, and it doesn't have this mistake.
The way we constitute time is extremely short-sighted
This is the most fundamental of all questions. I tend to agree with Dewey Larson. He posits that both time and space are three dimensional and that the progression of time and space produce the "natural reference system" dominated by the constant c. He calls it the Reciprocal System. Because it is the basis of all causation, time moves in only one direction. He posits a separate region of the "small" where time does in fact move in both directions. His theory is most profound but when you understand it this question is answered in a most elegant way.
The quaternion structure is essentially given by the multiplication, making it a field with addition. But what is its physical meaning if Galileo should be taken at his word? Lorentz transformation is the wrong answer, since it isn't a multiplication among space-time points.
I fully agree with the surrealism of blended 4d spacetime. 3 d coordinates organise measurement of positions. The fourth coordinate is an abstraction telling the state of a clock at position given by three other coordinates multiplied by c for homogeneous units if all coordinates .
Grouping this as 4d vector is very useful and nothing peculiar about it .
This mental picture allows to understand and prove the absolute rest state and measure the absolute velocity. All clearly impossible in Minkowski space
I’d love to know why mathematicians are driving this conversation.
Literally anything other than 3+1 does not produce a working universe. Think about it. Even if there was some randomness about the structure no other formula would work - that’s not just because I’m a 3+1 creature (I’ve read flatland - it doesn’t work), it’s logic. Let’s move past this point - mathematician should not be given the reigns of physics…
You might want to look into ADs-CFT. The logic you think works is only logical because your brain is incapable of using higher dimensional logic. If it was capable we would likely intuitively and logically be able to solve most of these problems as easy as we can comprehend Newtonian physics.
@@seditt5146 Do you imagine the universe we live in is actually an anti de Sitter space?
The expansion of the universe creates spacetime, from its beginning and into the future by the momentum of spacetime expansionary frame dragging.
There are 3 dimensions of past, 3 of present, and 3 of future.. which, because we aren't a size propagation at the planck scale... our physical nature exists in the past, present and future. But our senses and cognition expands this relationship
I think the 3 dimensions of space are a by product of the interface equilibrium dynamics of two domains either side of an inflationary boundary,, and that time is just a phase change in the exogenous temporal state outside of a universe due to same equilibrium dynamics. Also, I think the 3 generation particle hierarchy might be a topologically dual version of that macroscopic inflationary 3 boundary hypothetical.
Time is a cognitive phenomenon.
Fundamentally, time is a measurement of the relative movement of physical phenomena, so it's not really a separate dimension in itself but merely a convenient yardstick. Its basis, of course, is the length of our day. Everything else is measured relative to this interval.
Movement is relative, in a empty universe you wouldn't be able to move, direction would have no meaning along with no meaningful acceleration.
Time is a measurement of space... or is it a measure of entropy since time can be independent of space 🤔
@@sosomadman Yes, movement is always relative to something else (I edited the OP to correct this :)
In the case of being alone in the universe, of course one can't move from one location to another, since there are no locations. However, the observer has their own internal sense of time since they can still observe. In fact, the very act of thinking can be thought of as a type of motion taking place in time, without the need for a physical universe.
@@markedwinwebb this would only be true if thought was independent from the mind, in the same way that time is independent from space.
I see thought as a tangible thing where neurological activity/structure can be associated with thoughts/concepts, and their is a finite number of ways a thought/concept can be conceived/conveyed.
Their is a argument for a soul hidden in their somewhere.
Thought experiments often have holes in them and this one is no exception.
But going back to the original question, we seem to agree (external) time is inextricably linked to motion and is quite meaningless without it.
@@markedwinwebb I would go further and say time is linked to entropy, and motion is a form of entropy since you can work out how far its traveled by the degree of decay.
The vibration of the atoms, and the uncertainty principle suggest to me that a particle is partly in another dimension (area of probability) giving it nonlocal properties which we would register as movement. Phenomenon like quantum tunnelling or wave duality would be a example of this.
So is a particle really moving, or is spacetime just washing over it & eroding it in a process we know as decay from our dimension.
Time is the internal movement of the atom, so it progresses when the atom is rotating, which they always are. What we observe in space is external.
I don't know if quaternions are the answer, bc they are different movements.
Even asking this question, indeed any question, rests on the acceptance of the existence of space and time. I see no prospect of going deeper, under space and time
But, as Kant first theorized, consciousness itself is dependent upon these apriori (scalar and vector) characteristics of space and time. They are the basis for his identification of the forms of inuition and thus for the category of synthetic apriori experience itself - which is the fundaamemtal ground of metaphysics according to him.
Indeed his other apriori categories are mostly or exclusively logico mathematical in character, which is what gives his interpretation its robustness in accounting for the possibility of phenomenological experience. One cannot simply dispense with them, Alexander is right.
@@alecmisra4964 In my judgement, local time should be defined and measured by local atomic clocks, and local space by local crystal spacings. It then becomes an empirical matter to compare local times and spacings for different locales. As I see it, the GPS people are the ones with much or even perhaps most of the relevant data. This approach makes local quantum mechanics king, because local atomic clocks and crystal spacings obey local quantum mechanics. By this, I do not mean to imply that quantum mechanics is an ultimate or complete theory, just that it works locally. For example, I think that quantum mechanics is incomplete because it gives no account of the internal processes of quantum jumps.
We dont have a information overload it's just filtering problem.
It turns out that based on the commutation/anti-commutation relations, we can recreate the Weyl equation in the quaternions as
abla\psi=0, where
abla=d/dt+id/dx+jd/dy+kd/dz. By combining two weyl equations we can recreate the Dirac equation as
abla\psi_L=m\psi_R, \bar{
abla}\psi_R=m\psi_L, where \bar means the quaternion conjugate. I am not fully sure if the solutions to these equations are perfectly accurate, however they should give at least a good starting point. (Also once we have the Dirac equation, it is possible to increase the amount of equations used to calculate massive particles of any spin by using the Bargmann-Wigner equations as they can be thought of as many coupled Dirac equations)
I like Alexander because he criticizes establishment physics. But I don't understand why he doesn't straight up say that the most logical explanation of the universe will come from studying geometric emergence. For example, he has an object called a unit Quaternion. But does he even see that this object emerges from i? I'm currently reading his book, The Mathematical Reality... Very accessible.
No, the solution will come from a radical shift coming directly from philosophical and metaphysical considerations. Mathematics, like physics and the rest, pretty much stopped at the end of the 19th century, and has been stagnating since then. That is because the next step in discovery has to involve something of the order of a millenial revolution, something that happens every couple of thousand years or so.
Grothendieck was closest to the truth when he said around 1970 that all of mathematics was going to disappear in at most two generations. I reckon he's still on tracks if you speak about 30-year generations. Because that's exactly what is going to happen! Most people won't understand what I am saying here, but this won't change anything.
The discovery of homogeneous coordinates was probably the last discovery made in math so far. The Erlangen program basically stopped almost as soon as it started. And group theory or the usual linear algebra won't help. No matter what you do, the next step beyond homogeneous coordinates will be a qualitative "infinite" step forward.
More precisely, what has to be understood is what a "dimension" really is. So far this concept is not at all understood. It has to do with epistemology and the nature of knowledge itself, applied to the understanding of the concept of a "continuuum".
No mathematician will figure it out, because it takes much more than mathematics to understand it. So mathematicians and physicists are taken in a roundabout process that goes nowhere. They can keep going for another 1000 years if they like, they won't figure it out.
For those interested, I'll just tell you something simple : when you have 2x2 matrices, what really do you have? What kind of object is it? What is its "dimension"? Why?
Nothing's obvious. Nothing!
I presume you are alluding to the phenomenology of consciousness in your comment and that these structures are apriori requirements for consciousness to express itself at all and so this is what it (physics) is really all about.
@@alecmisra4964 How do you separate mind (consciousness) from matter (body)? If you can't then you can't say one is primary and the other is secondary. This is an incorrectly formulated question (what is primary mind or matter?) based on incorrect assumptions (mind/body are separate).
@@Test-kg5qo What you are saying here is interesting, because I have a (mathematical answer). At the end of the 19th century, mathematicians (like everyone else) basically turned "materialist" or "reductionist". We are now at the logical end of that process. What it means is that they framed all of math in terms of a theory that they called "set theory", which had an intrinsically reductionist bias. The bias was to put all of reality (namely here, mathematical reality), on the concept of "extension". In other words, the reduced the concept of a set "in comprehension" to that of "extension", supposedly in order to avoid contradictions. This is typical of a materialist bias.
What they should have realized (in light of thse famous paradoxes), is that the concept of a set defined "in comprehension" is fundamentally of a different nature than the extional definition. But insteadm they preferred to deny "comprehension" and say that it doesn't exist!
That is in fact one of the things I corrected through my work. I took up that theory fro scratch and rebuilt a proper mathematical framework in which BOTH the idea of a set defined in extension and that of a set defined in comprehension are on an equal footing and logically consistent. With absolutely NO PARADOXES!
Once people will realize that the mind is of a fundamentally different nature than the body, and that so, as a consequence, BOTH are needed to explain reality, one being of no more or less importance than the other (making matter and mind within reality absolutely unseparable "to infinity"), this is when "mathematics" as we know it today will disappear, because it will be able to explain BOTH apsects of reality, not just one half like right now.
@@Absomet We could just ditch digital math and use analog much the same as the universe does :)
Yeah, I know analog is difficult and irrational but it works exceptionally well :)
2x2 matrices of what? With which restrictions? Matrices are just a way to organize linear operations. For instance the linear fundamental representation of SU(2) is a 2x2 unitary and unimodular matrix of complex numbers. What really do we have? Well, a linear representation of SU(2) in C^2. Matrices model whatever you want to have.
You must think of relativity and how we carry cognition and electromagnetic energy as we move through spacetime
Show us how your thinking results in the correct chirp frequency of a gravitational wave in a black hole merger, or the predicted results of, say, the Gravity Probe B.
I only recall coming across Quaterinions in Herbert Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" in the chapters on Rigid Bodies.
Rip Van Winkle: See "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics" by David Hestenes. Dr. Hestenes gives a good historical summary in his first few chapters about the vector algebra war and how quaternions and Clifford Algebra appeared in Quantum Mechanics in the guise of matrices and spinors.
Wonderful point raised in this question , is it a fundamental physics point of view.
Notoriously yes because the physics of 3+1 dimension is distinct from 4 dimension when two big operator of present day physics quantum mechanics and classical mechanics have difference in their presence .
If philosophy of natural law is concern physics should be same irrespective of dimensions foliation.
This is a poorly addressed science3 charge instead of 2 and electric and magnetic field coupled should be a concern in fundamental laws including gravity.
A complex mathematical structure made the analysis easy but complex physics and states is not a simple structure to rule of observation.
Hair or flux seen on the skin not inside lower dimension or main structure.
Time and space are different in nature. Time is related to causality. Without time, there can be no partial ordered causality in time. And without causality, there is no point in looking for causes or explanations for anything. You can reduce the 3 dimensions of space to one dimension, it does not change causality.
I refuse to view "Spacetime" as a separate dimension. Spacial Dimensions Add up. X,Y andZ-axis "add Space" to eachother. While time "only" describes motion within it.
Usable time is always in the future, used time in the past. And since light can be bent by mass, it is quite logical to assume, that it can be slowed down, or (attracted by mass/gravity) accelerated. So it cannot, by definition, be a constant.
The Units of time we invented, only serve our PERCEPTION of it. (Hint: we still don't have a Calendar that ACTUALLY works with cosmic rythms. like the Lunar or Solar one, which would be "Natural"). We have the "second" as a unit, which is determined by an arbitrary number of "moves", a cesium Atom makes. And use that miniscule unit, to then be "precise" in "determining" where a motion will happen, where it happens, and where it has happened,How many "rythms" it took/takes/will take, and how many times this number fits in a (Insert a Time unit).
And yes, we separate our "head-spacetime" into past, present and future again, (3-dimensions)? In the past we search for comparable traits, In the present, we try to be attentive, and the future we try to predict, with the comparison of the other two. (This usually happens under ignorance for the "attentive/present" part. We call it dreaming). History does not repeat itself, but it Rythms.
We measure speed by " made-up" units of distance, divided by counted number of made-up "time units".
It's a "Standard-dilemma" if you ask me. And i wouldn't be surprised, if some of our "Calculations" are off, because they didn't factor in influences by other rythms/effects of other elements or their mere presence. What we seek, is something Constant. something True at any given moment. A bloody fundament to base our knowledge on. which is, quite frankly: boring. (in my headspace).
Space, matter and time is local, EMR is connecting everything
Prime number 3 is the largest consecutive prime before continuity breaks (number 4 is skipped before next prime being 5). If everything can be distilled into the most basic units measured by integers, they are all divisible by themselves, or divisible by 1, 2 or 3 - forming the 3 spatial dimensions. Time just measures change in motion, so we can visualise 4 dimensions when this happens.
0 is an Integer, stupid.
Einstein adopted linear parameterization (ln pz),
forcing [ln] Time, which works in GenRF, but
in retaining ZeroRF misses nonlinear UniRF.
Æ (2022) found the nonlinear continuous pz,
per Bošković continuity for sT(E) spheric pz.
does aether have a viscosity or elasticity and how would you measure it
unifying the forces- gravity, electricity,magnetism,nuclear - should be an easier problem than wondering if space and time dimensions can be any different..maybe dimensions can logically only be that way..maybe matter can only logically be rotational symmetry shapes
The answer to your questions is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
3 dimensions works just fine for a universe as a mathematical and geometric description, but even that has some issues when attempting to apply it to the real universe. It's just a human construct.
Unfortunately we are stuck viewing most things through the lens of the slow photon, so we have to use that 4D like histogram to rebuild the 2D view back toward a past 3D slice of the universe. We can never really get a true 3D slice though, because the latency of the photon messes it all up.
The only past universe we can build is the 2D surfaces (slice) of a sphere along its radii (distance.time), so even then we can only get a shell rather than a true 3D slice.
But I suspect/expect that a (actual) universe is 3D like even if the photon makes it impossible to view :)
Other than the arrow of time and gravity following the inverse square law are there any other reasons not to belive time is a spatial dimension same as the other 3?
How does the uncertainty principle interact with this?
In multi-space physics you have: Nutron Space 0D, Atom Space 1D, STEM Space 2D., and Our Space 3D.
No, they're all 3D + 1/2 a dimension for time, as it's only 1 way, you can't go back, unlike spatial dimensions.. There are geometric/phsyical/mathematical dimensions that occur in 3D space and 1/2D time.
@@PrivateSi Lesser spaces only appear to be 3D when viewed from 3D space. Like atoms are really only 1D rods but when a rod spins around in 3D space they appear to be 3D with orbiting electrons.
@@daveulmer .. No, everything has some some length, width, height.. Even atoms, even waves. You can declare a sphere to be '1D', mathematically as it can be described with 1D, but it exists in 3D space.
I think space and information are probably one and the same, one side of the same coin that emerges like time and probably also gravity. The invention of the mechanism and new principle that would contribute to this mathematically and physically is then perhaps also an agreement of general relativity with quantum mechanics, whereby the interpretation of quantum mechanics would have to be reinterpreted (Emergence of Mach's principle from the quantum level or something like this), which could also be bound to such a level in one way or another, seems plausible in order to capture the quantum units in a consistent picture.
To me time is emergent. A property of 3D space that tells us how fast can a change happen.
Basically C = 1L_P/t_P
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such:
In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... what are your thoughts? Point me in the right direction I feel like I am wrong 😕
3D Space and 1/2D Real Time (as it's uni-directional, unlike space) are fundamental and absolute. The One Field exists in space and time, forming varying relative spatial and temporal metrics (varying with gravity, which is an emergent property of the base EM Field that is most likely a load of old +ve and -ve balls superimposed and neutralised, each connected to 12 nearest neighbours as if they were touching close-packed spheres.
--
Split a field cell into +ve and -ve parts and they bond with a neighbour to form an electron and positron. A Proton is likewise 2 1/2 neutralised positrons and 1 central, neutralised electron.. As there is a spare electron and we're in a matter rather than antimatter universe due to a small initial bias, it started off as a hyrdogen plasma soup that BALANCES OVERALL. Equal number of positrons and electrons in the universe at any one time. NO QUARKS.
We're you talking to me or the other guy? Lol
Dimensions in this case (as of a 3D space) means a degree of freedom. A unidirectional time is not a degree of freedom, os contricted to one direction. Furthermore, time as a full degree of freedom leads to a break in causality, a big nono. A violation to t_P. Time is emergent, there are only 3 degrees of freedom (dimensions)
There are two things that tells you if the theory you are working on are good. It avoids both paradoxes and singularities
Mad t-party party written by Euclidian mathematician of Victoria age Lewis Carroll, suggestion that quaternions is absolute concept of time rotation around table without intrinsic force. Watch not measure time watch not measure at all it is only timing between two events.
Feynman: it's how long we wait. It can probably not be defined any further. It is important how we measure it.
We don't have definition of time that is worrying phislophical problem. Rotation (spinning) as time concept is something it can show tht. Hopf fibration can explain how electrons and protons have internal energy based on absolute concept of time 3+1. Three space coordinates + time.
i believe Gauss Law fails in 2D because of the nabla operator: one does not get the correct electrostatic potential. Dirac Delta does something here if I remember correctly....
I have yet to be convinced that there are more than two dimensions. What evidence can be brought to bear to support a third?
Ref: Physicist Dr. Tom Campbell "My Big TOE."
As for space, we observe mass extent and existence with light. Light originates from mass and only stops when encountering mass and therefore it has mass and is a component of mass. So light defines mass and therefore space.
What do you mean? :$
Point source light is the observation of 0 mass you only see light.
@@KryptonitePhysics oh, like a hologram ?
@@Art.Therapy93 No, Take a 3mm led light, you can see the light from 10m away, you don't see the led as its angular size is to small
Maybe ask the question of what is going to be done with understanding after having the searched for answers. Everyone seems to be having fun treating others like lowly animals with tech available now. How adorable, not very. From plastics and pesticide in your food to a nuke on your day out. The snake charms others it seems.
Space to me is the difference matter & the void, with time being a measurement of space (or vice versa) between matter, with the smallest unit being the planck length.
It must be matter that gives space its properties, with that in mind if their was no matter their would be no space, only void which would have its own properties that differ from the properties of space (it would not be interacting directly higgs field for instance idk)
I believe the void to encounter a catastrophe that leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in the big bang.
The presence of matter in our universe stops the universe from folding in on itself and imploding.
I think the lowest energy state something could be would be to be 2D and our 3D immergance is the from a 2D reduction process.
But im just a crackpot layman.
Sir, tell us, exactly what is this universe understanding of "times."
Why time is not a dimension like space? The answer is simple. What do we need to measure a length and what do we need to measure a time? To measure a time, we always need something mechanical, which counts occuring ticks within a duration, but to measure length we only need sticks. The length is the simple count, how many of those sticks in a row are even to the measured length, while the mechanic of the gadget, which measures time always underlies physical laws like the classic Doppler effekt.
Time is a spatial dimension, an aspect of the gravitational field.
@@kylelochlann5053 nice words, but empty words. Spatial dimensions are width, height and depth only. which are all lenghts or distances. You can put other well defined lengths or distances parallel to other unkown lengths or distances. You can't do that with frequencies at all and frequencies are the base of clocks and therefore for time also. Because the behavior of clocks, measuring lengths with radar is like measuring them with rubber bands, which aren't well defined length. That was meant to be the conclusion of my first post. Now show me the spatiality of time, please.
@@nichtvonbedeutung The experimental evidence has already falsified your theory.
All experimental evidence corroborates WEP, LLI, and LPI meaning that the gravitational field is necessarily a metric field, which is a field over a 4-dimensional manifold. Non-null causal curves, i.e. the paths of massive objects, can be parameterized by the elapsed time of a clock. It needn't be, in which case there's no such thing as time and all you have are 4 spatial dimensions.
I don't know why Unzicker doesn't learn about relativity. He definitely seems interested in the same sorts of topics that are described by the theory.
We observe the universe in the only way we can. See Immanuel Kant. 🙂
I think science can only approach such topics from a difficult direction. It may be better to start with a fresh slate. Either the basis of reality is something arbitrary, chosen using an arbitrary method chosen using an arbitrary method...ad infinitum (turtles all the way down) or else there is no limit on what is real. Everything possible exists. Even mathematical patterns like dimensionality are regional in the comprehensive array of all that can be. But we can still apply the mediocrity principle. Within the scope of all possible things we are probably in the most common type. Patterns (such as waves) are important because they imply infinite consequences from finite definitions, so they predominate. Mostly what makes worlds work is dimensions using something like our familiar geometry. Further, I propose that time is just the whole of Reality expanding because the fundamental fact that comes before all others is the necessary comprehensiveness of existence. Reality can never be complete because new permutations of the whole of it are constantly being made possible by each increment of expansion. So each new moment is a newly created extension of the sequence of universe moments into all possible dimensions in which this comprehensive reality contains the next moment that extends a pattern. Every moment, time takes a right angle turn and the wave function of the universe evolves that way. We have to reason to this stuff, we can't observe our way to it. You can't even explain math from inside math. Comprehensiveness is the only place to start. And it has a lot of your answers right there.
The key to understand minkowski space îs to consider to be formed by quantum space-time events. Events are primordial. Enthengeled quantum events made elementary particles, local time flow, gravity, fotons, all kind of interractions, by obeing algebric operation în discret sets, statistics at macroscopic scale. Quaternions and algebric geometry use for reference and movements. Histories are some macroscopic quantum enthengeled events, macroscopic quantum states. Humans are by resonance enthengeled with our reality. Must see The relation between clasical resonance and quantum enthengeled events. I think this îs The way...Events are some kind of quantum structures with an intrinsec Time, some kind of degree of freedom of existence îs Time. Time exist and îs sacred, like rain from eternity. If you not have vision, îs hard to conceptualize truth of reality. And I have 't.
Time do not exist as dimension. It's like to say, that speed is 'another dimension'. They are the same... both are relative to something.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such:
In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
would you like some balsamic vinegar and olive oil with your word salad?
@@axeman2638 what's wrong with my words lol
@@Art.Therapy93 they are meaningless gibberish.
@@axeman2638 what makes you say that?
@@Art.Therapy93 this, "space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space"
If we distil spatial and temporal domains down into simultaneous and sequential information, or parallel and serial data forms, and accept that true simultaneity is non-physical per Einstein, then all information is inherently temporal in the first instance, the spatial domain abstracted via the temporal integration windows (akin to critical flicker freqs) of our senses and resolving nuclei.. IOW it is arguably the spatial domain that is the stubbornly-persistent illusion, the three spatial dimensions somehow arising in the act of processing. Not a satisfactory conclusion by any means, yet a thorny reduction nonetheless..
It's 9 plus 1 in actuality
No one has ever proved light is a wave. You run light through a slit less than half the wavelength of the light, that induces an interference response with the electric field of the matter comprising the slit. The result of light and electric fields is a wave behavior, but does not show this is an actual nature of light. I say wavelength in that all our measurements of light involve studying it in electric fields. Light comes only from matter and is absorbed by matter, so light is a property of matter. Since the equations of state of electric fields and gravity are identical, just on different scales, we can infer that electromagnetism on a large scale is gravity, gravity is a force, and therefore clearly we are going to have gravity waves. The question remains is whether different masses have different gravity wavelengths, and are these quantized values. However, I don't feel myself deforming space as I attach to the earth and neither does any other object. There is stronger gravity pull around mountains but the mountains are attached to the earth, so more mass makes more gravity without deforming space. We have variable gravity all over the earth, it is not a constant deformation of nearby space should that occur. The Einstein stupidity that the earth is this monotonic blob that deforms space by X for some reason of its existence is just gibberish as there are thousands of stronger and weaker gravity points on earth. Denser areas, usually iron ore bodies are linked to higher gravity so gravity is related to local mass density.
Space-time is non-existent. Universal space is time-invariant.
I would say the explanation should not necessarily depend on maths.
c is not the speed of light, light is the speed of time
'c' is the speed of causality. Mathematicians declared as a measurement convention that be distance/time. So as a pseudo dimension of space 'ct'.
It's all just a measurement "convention".
Then from that, how big is the universe and what is beyond? The universe is wherever light is and beyond that is where there is no light. Without light we cannot define mass and so that beyond the universe has no mass.
intro is louder than mic
I just can't listen to "real physics" from someone who can't fix a mic, definitely not paying attention 😕
What does "Dimension" mean?
See on RUclips:
"The Fifth Dimension (build a 5d square) penteract"
What is a "dimension"?
Time and space are the same thing, Alex.
Time is speed over distance.
Distance is speed over time.
Speed is distance over time.
There is no distinction between the two.
The Earth falls about 1-million miles a day around the sun and it spins 25k miles on it axis, divide by 24 and you have an hour, not arbitrarily related to a clock but because the Earth moves at that rate in relation to the Sun.
The problem is not how space and time emerge but how movement emerges, movement being the definer of time relative to position in space.
But must mass emerge before time or simultaneously with time?
What is moving?
John Brandenburg says he has unified GR and QM. Since the VSL theory is compatible with GR, I would like your opinion on whether or not something practical could be put together using parts of his research, like adding only one dimension for example, that would also unify VSL and QM.
ruclips.net/video/U_ybjj6Awms/видео.htmlsi=zfrbkPGxj2K4jPX9
Why all of you seems to accept that ´time´ exist at all ?? We can´t see it, we can´t measure it , why it should be there ??
@@steffanreichenbach3124 our memories and dreams create the illusion of linear time ...
Space and time are easy understandings within the Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) Model.
There are 3 Matter PARTICLE energy levels and their corollary space fabrics. There are 3 Aether energy PARTICULATE energy levels and their corollary space fabrics.
Matter particles :
Tau electron energy level - with Tau graviton and Tau tensor boson fabric
Tau tensor boson is the Higgs-1 boson.
Muon electron energy level - with Muon graviton and Muon tensor boson fabric
Muon tensor boson is the Higgs-2 boson.
Electron energy level - with Electron graviton and Electron tensor boson fabric
Electron tensor boson is the Lord-1 boson.
Aether domain particulates :
Small electron energy level - with S electron graviton and S electron tensor bosino fabric
Small electron tensor bosino is the Lord-2 boson.
Electrino energy level - with Electrino graviton and Electrino tensor bosino fabric
Electron tensor bosino is the Lord-3 boson.
Graviton (basement) energy level - with Graviton and Graviton tensor bosino fabric
Graviton tensor bosino is the Lord-4 boson.
The depiction of these space-time fabrics is :
Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton ....
II II II II II II II
Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor ....
II II II II II II II
Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton ....
II II II II II II II
Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor ....
II II II II II II II
Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton = Tensor = Graviton ....
Here you see the 3 Matter and 3 Aether strings (theory). They exist in all 3D (4D) dimensions of x1, x2, y, z1, and z2 axi.
If you outline the gravitons into a bubbly-shaped mesh, you have the quantum gravity, and the quantum gravity field
If you outline the tensors into a bubbly-shaped mesh, you have the quantum tensor, and the quantum tensor field
If you circle (ring or loop) the gravitons with other gravitons (like chain mail) in all 3D (4D) axis, you have the corrected string ring or loop theory of these 3 + 3 graviton formations
If you circle (ring or loop) the tensors with other tensors (like chain mail) in all 3D (3D0 axis, you have the corrected string ring or loop theory of these 3 + 3 tensor formations
Looking at the graviton = tensor = boson string connections, you see the tensor boson (having both gravitational force and electrical force) holding the gravitons together by gravitational force (no cosmic expansion), but also holding them apart by electrical force (no cosmic contraction and collapse). Herein is the true definition of quantum cosmic tension in all 3D (4D) axis.
This also explains why the gravitons are positron-positron pairings, as the tensor bosons are electron-positron pairing,
This shows that the quantum gravity field across the entire cosmos is 1/2 of the gravitons and 1/2 of the tensor bosons space fabrics, having a steady state of cosmic tension.
positron < electron > positron < electron > positron 1/2 particle cosmic repulsion electrical force
positron > < positron > < positron > < positron > < positron 1/2 particle cosmic attraction gravitational force
graviton = tensor = graviton = tensor = graviton
While this appears to be totally attractive, the string ring/loops of the tensor bosons repelling each other keep the graviton particles apart.
These are the quantum dimensions of QM and QCD for the matter particles operating in light/particle physics.
These are the sub-quantum dimensions of QM and QED in the Aether particulates operating in wave physics.
Quantum Matter and Sub-quantum Aether entanglements are easily seen in all 3D (4D) axis.
Such Aether domain dark matter, energies, and forces are no longer dark ... as they are the same properties as the higher energy level matter particles (being higher composites of the smaller Aether particulates).
Thus, the ES and EG model has explained and unified a vast majority of physics sector arguments and non-unification problems.
Each energy level has its row and column of particles/particulates :
ES electron/EG positron ES electron/ES positron EG electron/EG positron positron/positron
Electron Positron tensor boson neutron boson photon boson graviton
There are 3 grades of gravitons in each energy level depending on the mix of ES and EG positrons pairing up.
ES positron - ES positron ES positron - EG positron EG positron - EG positron
All positrons have the same energy level, but minute compositional differences with pure positrons, and others with minor electron population in the ES particles. These ES positrons have a smaller gravitational attractive force than the totally pure and smaller gravitons making up the positron.
As such, all ES and EG positrons are actual mini-gravitons with gravitational attractive force in their own right.
Thusly, positrons are NOT anti-matter and other such super symmetry statements of other anti-matter particles.
Positrons are the missing gravitons and graviton positron-positron pairing that science and physics refuses to admit and find, having denied their existence, let alone not finding them as valid gravitons.
The atomic proton in its own right is a massive positron composite graviton. The atomic neutron with half electrons and half positrons for its neutron boson -0- charge, is half electrical force and half positron graviton force. The neutron in its own right (and the photon also) are their own tensor bosons with the appearance of a (stealthed gravitational force) massless identity. The neutron is not affected by gravity. ... as are the photon (gravitational lensing) and variable light speed (gravitational capture) photino.
Herein explains many of the enigmas of physics that remain quandries - when the easy truths, DEPICTIONS, and explanations need no formulas, calculus, or other philosophical Schrodinger's cat or Schrodinger's electron surveillance.
The ES and EG Model explains the Grand Unified Field Theory in simple explanation and depictions.
@@johnlord8337 Why do people like you believe their super basic Theory of everything has been missed by the brightest minds of the last century? The narcissism that one must have to think that way blows my mind.
I enjoy the videos but I am frustrated that they are all negations of existing ideas rather than positive speculations.
You are asking the wrong questions. The right questions are not the reaaon the universe has a particular mathematical structure but to what extent a particular mathematical structure models the universe.
Exactly. Let's, for example, take the 4D Minkowskian spacetime, and add to it another dimension: the proper time. In this 5D model, events have 5, not 4 coordinates. And... The spatial Euclidean distance distance between any two events is equal to their temporal Euclidean distance! It's easily proven by using the Lorenz invariance. Two time dimensions and three spatial dimensions make the 5D spacetime Euclidean and flat.
That is a very good catch, it may seem insignificant, but it is in fact a major issue with his approach.
Actually, your formulation is what we hear about 99.9% of the time. His conjecture is more interesting
@@RockHudrock Huh?
What is electric charge ? Fundamental and Basic question ......oficial answer = It is a property of matter......Can you call It a answer? Or a proto-answer? Or a non-answer? ALL electrodynamics derive from this non-answer.....
The problem with Einstein’s Space-Time is that space has three dimensions, and time has one.
To resolve the problem, the singular dimension of time must be divided into three separate dimensions, a past, an instant, and a future.
My KnoWellian Axiom of mathematics: “ -c>∞
It should be related to the asymmetry of time via the Scarr-Friedman acceleration matrix. An acceleration matrix can represent a field that prohibits geodesic motion. For such a matrix to cover spacetime it must be skew symmetric and regular. It describes two planes of rotation and scaling. A 4-acceleration of a 4-unit vector is perpendicular to the unit vector. It is a rotation by 90 degrees and scaling of the unit vector. Since there are 4 dimensions, such rotation and scaling happen in two perpendicular 2-planes. One is a boost and the other is a turn. Now, keeping such a matrix regular along a world line while also respecting the orientability of space filiations requires the asymmetry of time.
FIRST, for once
Time is only in the mind of man.
Doubtful. People who say this tend to have no understanding of what time even is or why Spacetime is a thing.
@seditt5146 no, you are wrong
You're dreaming!
If 1D space is bi-directional then 1D time should be considered 1/2D as it's uni-directional, else you have 2 definitions for 1D that fundamentally conflict with each other. Scientists and mathematicians used to be about precise language, but Libs and The US took over.. Still, I think this is beyond national mindsets, it's just a fundamental definitional error.. The other option is 6D space instead of 3D, and 1D time.
There is only positive velocity. An object can only move forward from it's current location regardless of the direction :)
An object is always at the center of an imaginary sphere and it can only ever move away from the center along any infinite number of radii, only ever out from the center, forward.
@@axle.student .. I don't buy your logic as there is a clear difference between 1D time and 1D space... If the origin is 0, an object can have +ve or -ve direction in space, +ve in time.
@@PrivateSi that's math and euclidean geometry.
Show me any real object that can move with an actual negative velocity :)
It's always forward, positive speed.
Nothing can travel slower than 0m/s.
@@axle.student .. You're confusing degrees of freedom with velocity or something.. How can we differentiate between bidirectional and unidirectional space or time without adding another factor/dimension? This is the problem with using standard maths to describe physical phenomena / rules. I admit space is 3D in standard Euclidean geometry but it doesn't capture the fundamental difference between 1D space and 1D time.
The reason why the speed of light is a constant for all observers is explained by a theory called "relativity". It was developed over half century ago.
2 dimensional space is too limited, even if infinite, things cannot go over each other, but have to go around. This limits the complexity of what can exist. The 3rd dimension opens a universe of possibility, enough for space to contain everything we see. The same reason that seeing in 3 colors reveals us a dimension more of information, although in case of vision, maybe since it is a 2d projection, with only 2 colors you can get a pretty good image. But 3 seems to be the deal, where there is sufficient wiggle room to describe a big amount of complexity, while staying to a minimum number of components.
Time is necessary for change to occur, otherwise the universe would be static and it could not have evolved us. Change is how we perceive time as observers from within a concrete position in spacetime. But, what is an observer? Why are you a conscious part of the universe? Well, maybe the universe is just exploring itself, in all facets, and all timelines, and all possibilities, but it does it through subjective points of view, that are contained within the fabric of spacetime. If the universe is attempting all paths, aka everett's many worlds, then it's not that surprising that we exist, in fact, it makes sense that we do.
We model the nature with to understand the nature and nature is never bound to follow math because it doesn't need math because math is nothing but logoc and in the end logic is nothing bit philosophy and in the end the philosophy of nature is what the almighty creator wanted to do with it and knowledge is so vast that even math is now failing to predict things correctly because math itaelf is flawed so we need something new. That's it. You physicists are just simply mad now because people no longer have respect for you because they know everything is engineering if something is true. Only exploration and finding evidences will let us to know the truth.
Time is just a human concept. It correlates processes relative to themselves and other processes. It is not some separate thing. Math just mimics reality, imperfectly. Read Korzybski - math's value is that it so closely mimics reality-
Man defines space and time differently which is why they are different. Differences as a matter of study requires their discovery and study independently in nature, which has not occurred. Since we define space in x, y, z it cannot be compressed, deformed or warped because we say so, it is our convention. As for time, time is light. Why can't we go faster than light? Because you cannot defeat you point of reference. No other reason and no mathematical reason. Time does not speed up or slow down due to errors in reference frames because that is not how we defined it.
We do not describe or define time and space differently, they are inseprably the same thing.
Time is speed over distance.
Distance is speed over time.
Speed is distance over time.
We describe an hour drive as an hour drive because distance is THE SAME as speed over time.
We DO NOT describe these things differently.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such:
In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
@@Art.Therapy93Time and space are the same thing as spacetime.
Time is speed over distance.
Distance is speed over time.
Speed is distance over time.
There is no distinction between time and space.
@@ZeroOskul To tell the distance from my house to my mailbox I do not use my watch. The two are different, and since we define distance in km or miles not seconds, they are not mixable except in imaginary worlds. Imaginary means they cannot be correlated back to the real world.
A reference frame in motion does not mean two behaviors can be mixed.
Just say Einstein is a joke