Do you believe there is another dimension of time?
It is said that there are four dimensions, three spatial dimensions, and then time. When asked about possible additional dimensions, the question and the answers almost always only concern additional spatial dimensions. Now I would like to ask if you believe there are additional time dimensions. Feel free to write what you imagine these to be.
Here is a second time dimension, the "imaginary time" graphically represented, whether it exists and what it means is unclear:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
Actually, we all live in our own time dimension, even if the difference is only a few millionths of seconds.
It becomes interesting at speed of light or strong gravitation (black hole).
This is always one and the same time dimension, only the “view angle” is different.
Very interesting question. I don’t think anyone can imagine a second time dimension.
You don’t say that in general.
In the ART and the SRT time is used in the Minkowski space as a 4th dimension.
In control technology you can have 7 dimensions and more.
In mathematics there are infinitely dimensional spaces.
When I describe a robotic joint in the sense of classical mechanics, I do this with 6 dimensions xyz and the rotation around these axes.
Usw…
What a dimension is or is not generally defined by nature, but the term dimension appears only in the mathematical description.
So if you set up a theory in which time has 6 dimensions, then in your theory it has 6 dimensions.
In that respect, the question is wrong, because the statement there would be several time dimensions would mean that these are in any way predetermined by nature, which they are not. The more correct question would be whether there is a theory in which time is multidimensional and I can only say that I do not know what does not mean that it does not exist.
It’s called degrees of freedom, not dimensions. Three degrees of freedom of translation and three degrees of freedom of rotation still play in only three dimensions.
Yes, they are degrees of freedom, but they can also be described at the end as dimensions.
How many dimensions I have depends on how many entries I have in my vector. As I said, in nature there is nothing that defines a dimension as such or not, the concept of dimension is purely mathematical.
The difference here is only that I make my descriptions in a 3 dimensional space at the end and therefore the degrees of freedom are more than the dimensions of the space where it takes place.
Perhaps there is a dimension in which time does not matter.
Time is what you read from the clock. If watches display the known time, what should the additional time display? This question would be answered first. There can be no physical size without measuring rule.
At the latest in black holes, gravitation and distorted time.
That’s exactly what I thought.
But is that another dimension?
But that’s a separate dimension, isn’t it?
A distortion in space (by gravity) causes a distortion in time, I don’t understand what this would have to do with additional dimensions?
If after you, every atom would have its own time dimension, because every atom distorts space and thus also time.
You know how the hole ends and what’s next.
In such diagrams, I do not see any more than a time dimension. Different views of a time dimension do not mean several dimensions for a long time.
I think I’m totally unloaded.
For me personally, the seasonal “time change” is a challenge!
👍😉
Physical theories make predictions about a real, observable world. Thus, as long as there is no such theory in which an additional time dimension makes sense and can be occupied by experiments or observations, the pure and superfluous speculation is.
What is mathematically represented in space-time diagrams as a time dimension(s), the entropy as a true direction of time completely ignores. Space dimensions make sense, at least when there are three. But what should be displayed analogously to further time dimensions?
For “time travel” in the sense of the Allgem. Rel. You don’t need a lot of time dimensions, do you?
If a speed higher than the speed of light is used in the formula for the time dilation, an imaginary value comes out. This also applies in the case of the formula for the length of an object moved at an overlight speed.
My interpretation of the imaginary time results from the entropy. The entropy increases in the course of a normal time, but more precisely, only the probability of entropy increase is much greater than that of the decrease. In a (not observed) journey to the past, it would be different. With imaginary time, an entropy decrease would now be exactly the same as an increase. As you might think, when you look at the graphics here:
The graphics tell me nothing. The term of time is all too often misunderstood, we see time pass, because we remember how the clock hands were still standing, can compare it, count seconds, revolutions of the earth, … A journey into the past would mean, however, that my memory is running backwards. Why should it be excluded? In short, I don’t know that I had made a trip to the past. With entropy, this can in principle be no different, she ran “backward”, “forgive” her later states.
In my knowledge, entropy is increasing only. If it decreases locally, it is always at the expense of increasing entropy outside the locality.
This is completely pure speculation, currently by nothing to be documented. Mathematically, a lot is possible, but this is why not be used in real terms.
Where is there real overlight speed available?
Of course, you have no choice but to resort to probabilities, simply because you can never really capture all states. In principle, this should be impossible for us, on the one hand, because information needs time until they arrive. On the other hand, the overall effect of the “restuniverse” on a limited location should be inconceivable. Approximately the gravity forces of the observers on the locality under consideration.
I will not deny this in the article (and elsewhere), who would I be! But no one will be able to deny that we, as part of the universe, are in principle incapable of grasping the latter exactly. So, in my opinion, recruiting is unavoidable for us. No partial quantity in a total quantity can “store” the total quantity without information loss.
M. E., this applies in particular to entropy considerations. Maybe very stupid example: plastic. We use it to create our ordered life, have long ignored, ” overlooked” what happens to the plastic when it “destined” from our viewing area.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there can be only one direction in terms of entropy and time universally, even if local exceptions seem conceivable.
I stress: I do not say that, but my previous thoughts, my previous knowledge makes me realize this as a completely plausible view.
Simply read the article about Entropy in Wikipedia GANZ. Only in the beginning is this classical interpretation mentioned, after which reference is always made to statistics and probabilities.