A Star as Old as the Universe Found in Milky Way -- A Galactic Mystery
"We are One of a Vast Universe of New Universes Constantly Being Created " --MIT Physicist (Today's Most Popular)

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

Z32SpacetimeWormholes (1) Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space.  Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.

Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar, begins by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency and speed. But, by itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change.  This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

Without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time.
Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time.

The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space -- as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs -- can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists.

An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.

“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable;  you cannot prove it or disprove it -- you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”

In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.

The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.

Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.

The Daily Galaxy via physorg.com and physicsessays.org

Get Your Daily Dose of Awe @'The Daily Galaxy' in Your Facebook News Feed


Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such.
Rajnish Roy

So then what holds us in the "present"?

Amen my brothers! Time is but our ruler to better quantify energy in its infinite forms.

This article is a lot of splitting hairs.

OK, the 4th dimension is not time. Just something that allows us to perceive time... whats the difference?

"So then what holds us in the "present"?"
Posted by: SB | April 26, 2011 at 06:33 AM

SB, looks to me like you posted that in the past.

Behold! If time is an illusion, then history is also an illusion. Therefore sorrow and forgiveness is unnecessary.

We are not "held" in the present. Like was mentioned before, it is simply a term used for rereferencing and differentiating a series of events /moments. The present changes to the past instantaneously as we think to label it...

As for Zeno's paradox, I have never understood why Achilles can never run a distance greater than the distance between him and the tortoise. If we are imposing that limitation it is obvious he can never reach the tortoise, not because of any weird conclusion, but because we have imposed a limitation that does not exist in our universe. But then again, I did flunk match. :-)

time = chaince

if no chaince then no time

So without time how are we going to read the days and i know t, is the fourth dimension.

This is not new but very exciting in my view. Dr Julien Barbour published a book called 'The End of Time' in 1999. Here is his website http://www.platonia.com/index.html

sucker that i am - setting my clocks backward and foreward.

can some one explain gravity's factor in this? gravity creates 3d and zero gravity breaks it..

Time, as the rate of material change, can be considered, not an independent dimension but instead as a dependent variable, derived from the energy/matter density of a particular region of space; time "passes" more slowly in regions having a high energy/matter density than in regions with a lower density. An observer within one of these regions would perceive a "normal" rate of change, though he/she/it could perhaps observe other rates occurring in different regions of space (which might be described by the observer as regions of "highly energetic" or "very slow" activity). As no region of space is preferred over any other, all rates of change are relative, and are perceived as "fast" or "slow" in relation to the observer's own frame of reference.

For example, the crew aboard a spacecraft moving at a relativistic velocity away from Earth perceives time inside their vessel as "passing" at the same rate as they had perceived it while on Earth; however, Mission Control on Earth reports that the spacecraft's clock is ticking more slowly than an identical clock in the control room. Both perceptions are, of course, correct and in accordance with Special Relativity. Viewed from the standpoint of relative energy/matter densities, the spacecraft (having a higher local energy/matter density than the control room) is indeed changing at a slower rate than is Mission Control on Earth (of course, the crew of the spacecraft can accurately report that the clock in Mission Control is ticking faster than theirs is, for the same reason).

time is one of the features of having a memory, thats all.

I'd also like to see a real explanation of what time is, as a separate entity outside our own experience/construction of it, and outside of simply "measured change". What do we measure change by? Our internal clocks, or other processes we use as clocks because they have "regular change" we compare against other change.

How do we determine if something, like a pulsar, has "regular change"? Well, our internal clocks again. Everything comes down to that.

Imagine if we did not posses an electrochemical process in the brain which "ticked" at precise, regular intervals? If we didn't have that, we wouldn't be able to detect any regular changes around us. Days would seem to be different lengths. A pulsar signal would "slow down" and "speed up", from our perspective. No two people would be able to agree on "when" an event occurred. We would only agree if two things happened simultaneously.

So I see only one reasonable assumption. That we do have a physical process in the brain which "marks time" for us, and this allows us a construct to use to measure events around us. Without it we would not survive anyway.

I see no real evidence for time existing as an independent thing, and Occam's Razor would seem to indicate no such thing is required to exist. All that's required is the chemical ticks in our brains, allowing us to measure change. No other assumption is needed to understand why we view "time" as a property of the universe.

Aristotel said that the notion of time exists only as long as there are minds who notice its passing.

All good - no time, just NOW. What's the best part about just a NOW?

No fate - we are truly making things up as we go. Nothing is predetermined until it happens NOW.

Freewill is confirmed with just a NOW.

No multi-universes being created from every possible action that we can make. Just this one and just in this NOW. Note that other universe can still exist, just not an infinite amount being created every moment because of every possible scenario. I always thought that was a ridiculous theory anyway.

NOW can flow just like TIME though, something we seem to need to have, a continuance of sorts. Instead of time flow from past to future, we have entropy flow from organization to disorganization, or a "change" flow.

I hope this idea takes root and is the main discussion now and (pun intended) into the future.

Seriously, SungKow? Do you just trawl every site that hasd ever had a "Digg" and post some meaningless "wow" statement just so you can advertise your url. Piss off.

If time is just a way of measuring motion, then does time stop at absolute zero?

Why would it be so difficult to imagine that there is no past or future, in the linear ‘time’ sense? Suppose everything that has ever been and ever will be already exists, simultaneously, at this instant. Our notion of time is just a product of our physical perception abilities. Picture the early fantascope, a device that simulated motion. A series or sequence of separate pictures depicting stages of an activity, such as juggling or dancing, were arranged around the perimeter or edges of a slotted disk. When the disk was placed before a mirror and spun or rotated, a spectator looking through the slots ‘perceived’ a moving picture. Yet nothing was really moving – everything was already there … it was just how we perceived seeing the sequence of images that provide the illusion of animated motion. Extend that to our universe – everything has already happened … everything “is”, we’re simply “seeing” serial instances.

That description looks eerily similiar to Peter Lynds' proposal from the previous decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds

If you want to see this four-dimensional reality, there are a number of psychoactive recreational drugs that will do the trick.

The article does not dispute the existence of time, rather it disputes the notion of treating time as a dimension of our universe. If time is not a dimension, then what is it? To call it a measure of activity, a perception is to defraud our minds and lives. Time is real, the question has always been why and how.

Time is measurably linear, and must have a certain ultimate level of resolution. Time is not reversible, as unbreaking eggs and unbaking cakes has been proven to be impossible.

Time is the ultimate. It equalizes everything, it guarantees that we are all merely dust in motion, and the universe itself is merely a very dark cold place that occasionally isn't - both in time and space.

We live in an infinite universe,that we posit is constructed upon a few simple laws. Time proves perhaps this isn't so. Either it is so complicated we can't understand it or we are merely able to perceive a fraction of the actual world in which we exist.

Time is a conundrum that will outlive us all.

Let's say it takes me 10 minutes to get to work, a distance of 5 miles. If time was not a dimension the the math to calculate the distance would not exist - distance too would be purely a perception. So everything is a mere perception inside a singularity. Great logic.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)