What is the force propelling us through time?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Being the fourth dimension, Time should be at 90 degree to previous three dimensions. It is shown as angular momentum and leads to rotation of 3-d objects.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by brodix
So it would seem that time is a measure of the motion in a physical relationship, rather than something more basic.

Absolute zero would be a state lacking any activity. As such it is empty space. So empty space is absolute zero, but time is a particular measure of motion.

Lacking activity does not necessarily mean empty space.

Take 400m running track.
Althletes will take an amount of time, X, to complete one circuit.
If you reduce the track, so it now measures 300m, the athelete will be able to complete one circuit in less than X. If you extend the track to 500m the time will be greater than X.

Between races there is no activity on the track. This doesn't mean that time has stopped, merely that there is no activity to measure.

What you define as empty space would have no reference frame. Any activity that happened in this region of space would bring with it its own frame of reference

 

[paglren]

Brodyx,
indeed a 3 dimensional coordinate system is a good map of space. The problem is: why this occurs? And what is time really?
I don't think that any space could exist without something outside space itself that permits its perception. I wonder that space “exists”: what does it mean “continously”? We must have a clock that allows us to say “now”. This clock must be orthogonal to space coordinate system not to interfere with it but must also be strictly related to it.
Suppose that Time is defined as a function of space coordinates only in mass-points (i.e. in the points in which we find any mass). Let's suppose that in any mass-point t=CU(x,y,z). From the point of view of the mass-point time is not directly measurable: it is measurable only through the observation of “space” relations with other mass-points that are syncronized with it.
This supposition leads also to conclusion that in (x,y,z) time is related with mass; i.e. Mass itself is function of space. I called this function “Universal Contraction” since it means that the whole empty space (that has no reference frame) would collapse in a symmetrical 3-D sphere towards the fourth dimension that would be perceived as time. This collapsing movement would bring with it its own frame of reference (space-time) derived by its particular symmetry and frequency (in this contest time is not yet involved).
When two or more collapsing points share the same frame of reference then actual space-time is really made.

 

[brodix]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Being the fourth dimension, Time should be at 90 degree to previous three dimensions. It is shown as angular momentum and leads to rotation of 3-d objects.

And by this logic, at 180% as well.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by brodix
Michael,

And by this logic, at 180% as well.

Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

 

[brodix]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

Rotate relative to what? Since your frame of reference is the cube itself, isn't it the context which is rotating in a counter direction?

regards,

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by brodix
Michael,

Rotate relative to what? Since your frame of reference is the cube itself, isn't it the context which is rotating in a counter direction?

regards,

The rotation of object occurs relative to center of mass and as special case (particular ) of moving it is evidence of object’s existence in time. The unmoving objects can’t exist.

 

[paglren]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

Thi is a 3-dimensional observer point of view.
A 2-dimensional observer would have difficulty to explain the 3-d statement yet.
4-d doesn't cause any rotation because it should be orthogonal to the previos 3, so it has not influence on "space" but on "time" (that is on space movements).

 

[Organic]

Do you think that a 2-dimensional observer will observe 3-d as its time?

Or more genaral:

n+1 Dim. is obsereved as time to n-dimensional observer?

 

[paglren]

Yes, I think so.
To observe anything an observer must have some varation of observation itself, but this is not possible if we don't assume that something is "clocking" our observation. In fact we can observe also still space 3-d frame, thus something is moving so that it doesn't interfere with 3-d space.
Indeed this leads to a strict connection between space (3-d) and time (4th dimension).

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by paglren
Thi is a 3-dimensional observer point of view.
A 2-dimensional observer would have difficulty to explain the 3-d statement yet.
4-d doesn't cause any rotation because it should be orthogonal to the previos 3, so it has not influence on "space" but on "time" (that is on space movements).

I think to be capable to observe n-d, it is necessary to be in (n+1)–d.
The inhabitant 3-d can observe 2-d only.
“To observe “ is means “to make a measurements in the progress of Time”.

 

[paglren]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I think to be capable to observe n-d, it is necessary to be in (n+1)–d.
The inhabitant 3-d can observe 2-d only.
“To observe “ is means “to make a measurements in the progress of Time”.

What do you mean with inhabitant 3-d? We are actually 3-d observers of a 3-d world; and indeed we distinguish a sheet (2-d) from a cube (3-d). Both objects are observed within time.
What I say is: how can we observe 3-d objects moving in space-frame if we would not have an "external" clock?
This clock doesn't distorce 3-d objects (i.e. doesn't modify space frame), it only makes them "move through space". This is due to the need not to "tear" space-time frame, maintaining yet the necessary syncronism that allows objects to interact among them.

 

[Organic]

Do you think fermions and bosons differences can be a good starting point to understand space-time relations?

 

[paglren]

I'm a Mathematician, so I have only a superficial knowledge of fermions and bosons: by the Pauli Exclusion Principle no two fermions can exist in the same state at the same place and time; two bosons can.
But I think that those two types of particles could be only expresssion of a special behaviour of space-time (i.e. the point of view has to be changed to really understand space time reletionship).
Suppose that space (3-d) is determined by mass-point. Einstein said something like "mass curves space frame". He was quite right in the sense that the presence of two masses really "makes" space frame.
Now, if space curves, where does it curve? The logical answer for a 2-d space (i.e. a sheet) would be "in the 3rd dimension". For analogy 3-d space must curve in a 4th dimension.
It's quite difficult to imagine.
Suppose that each mass-point curves space in a manner that it is "swallowing" space (like a whirlpool) with a 3-d spherical symmetry at c speed.
It should be evident that this movement has to be pulsating (cannot be endless continuous to be perceived) and must identify a "critical radius" (i.e. the whirlpool must have an edge).
Within the Critical Radius (CR) we experiment a really no-space/no-time situation for which Heisenberg indecision principle is elegantly confirmed.
Since CR can be expressed either in space units (probably proton's dimension) either in time units (probably the minimum interval time of proton observation), the space time relationship are stable (deterministic) outside CR and unstable (probabilistic) within it.
Fermions and bosons are only two ways to identify this single odd behaviour of mass/space/time but they do not explain space-time intrinsic nature.
By the way, if mass is the limit of space collapsing at light speed, the Einstein formula E=mc^2 is also elegantly confirmed if we define Energy as a "variation of space curvature".

 

[Organic]

And what if space-time is fractalic by nature?

 

[paglren]

Originally posted by Organic
And what if space-time is fractalic by nature?

Just words.

 

[brodix]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
The rotation of object occurs relative to center of mass and as special case (particular ) of moving it is evidence of object’s existence in time. The unmoving objects can’t exist.

I agree, but your observation serves to give a further example of my point. All motion exists within a greater equilibrium. In this case, one side of the object in question is going one way and the other side is going the other way.

Think of the Earth and moon as one object. They are rotating around a common center, but from either point of perspective, it is the other side that is moving.

My point is that by proposing time as one direction, then this motion is against an absolute context and there are no such absolutes in relativity.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Time is a measure of action, for which the larger context provides equilibrium.

Can you cause any object in open space to spin around any point other then its center of axis? No, because it would lack equilibrium.

regards,

 

[brodix]

paglren,

Originally posted by paglren
I'm a Mathematician, so I have only a superficial knowledge of fermions and bosons: by the Pauli Exclusion Principle no two fermions can exist in the same state at the same place and time; two bosons can.
But I think that those two types of particles could be only expresssion of a special behaviour of space-time (i.e. the point of view has to be changed to really understand space time reletionship).
Suppose that space (3-d) is determined by mass-point. Einstein said something like "mass curves space frame". He was quite right in the sense that the presence of two masses really "makes" space frame.
Now, if space curves, where does it curve? The logical answer for a 2-d space (i.e. a sheet) would be "in the 3rd dimension". For analogy 3-d space must curve in a 4th dimension.
It's quite difficult to imagine.
Suppose that each mass-point curves space in a manner that it is "swallowing" space (like a whirlpool) with a 3-d spherical symmetry at c speed.
It should be evident that this movement has to be pulsating (cannot be endless continuous to be perceived) and must identify a "critical radius" (i.e. the whirlpool must have an edge).
Within the Critical Radius (CR) we experiment a really no-space/no-time situation for which Heisenberg indecision principle is elegantly confirmed.
Since CR can be expressed either in space units (probably proton's dimension) either in time units (probably the minimum interval time of proton observation), the space time relationship are stable (deterministic) outside CR and unstable (probabilistic) within it.
Fermions and bosons are only two ways to identify this single odd behaviour of mass/space/time but they do not explain space-time intrinsic nature.
By the way, if mass is the limit of space collapsing at light speed, the Einstein formula E=mc^2 is also elegantly confirmed if we define Energy as a "variation of space curvature".

It seems to me that what what we define as mass is what is being gravitationally contracted, while what we understand as energy is expanding radiation.
Could they be opposite sides of a convection process? As matter condenses out of background radiation into the vortex of galaxies, where it is heated to the point breaking down its atomic structure and being radiated back out.

regards,

 

[Organic]

paglren,


What do you mean by: "Just words."?

For example, please look at:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9912035 and http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09n2sel.PDF

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mathclub/fractalnotes.html

http://www.wspc.com/books/physics/1579.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5833/

http://www.earthmatrix.com/orbital/measuring_spacetime_movement.html

 

[paglren]

brodix,
I think that our points aren't so different.
When you assert "mass is what is being gravitationally contracted, while what we understand as energy is expanding radiation" you are right. The subtle question is: what's the true meaning of "contraction"? And more: from which point of view "expanding"?
My think is that the point of view is contracting in effect. The expansion feel is illusory like the moving of landscape outside the windows of a running train. In this case, though, since mass (where is sited any point of view) is "contracting", the opposite movement is, of course, an illusory expansion of anything that is still in effect: Light must be still!
Another elegant conclusion is the following.
There are no "photons" capable of "pushing" something: simply any "lightened" surface stops its contraction in a given direction and become "more attracted" by the whole Universe in the opposite direction.
As I said before, it's only the point of view of observer to be revolved: the laws don't change but all the concepts can be re-defined in a more elegant theory that embraces the whole.
It's a quite hard work.

 

[brodix]

paglren,

My think is that the point of view is contracting in effect. The expansion feel is illusory like the moving of landscape outside the windows of a running train. In this case, though, since mass (where is sited any point of view) is "contracting", the opposite movement is, of course, an illusory expansion of anything that is still.

This I would disagree with. Gravity can only contract the area equidistant to other gravitational sources. Light radiates out at least 13 billion light years. (It's as though gravity is the seed and light is the pollen.)

What I should mention is that I think the Big Bang theory is wrong.
If space expands, but the universe doesn't, the pressure of this expansion would be exerted on gravitational structures, causing the additional spin currently assumed to be caused by dark matter.

Following is an article making that very point;

Things fall apart
Feb 5th 2004
From The Economist print edition
_
THINGS FALL APART

What if the dark energy and dark matter essential to modern
explanations of the universe don't really exist?

IT WAS beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria
published his theory of epicycles--the idea that the moon, the sun and
the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were
moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of
celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was,
however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant
solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer,
replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws.

Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to
Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff
in the universe--stars, planets, gas clouds and so on--is actually only
4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark
matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of
matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The
remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to
push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter
and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible,
familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects,
the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down.

According to a paper just published in the MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL
ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY by Tom Shanks and his colleagues at the University
of Durham, in England, that might be about to happen. Many of the
inferences about dark matter and dark energy come from detailed
observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is
radiation that pervades space, and is the earliest remnant of the Big
Bang which is thought to have started it all. Small irregularities in
the CMB have been used to deduce what the early universe looked like,
and thus how much cold, dark matter and dark energy there is around.

Dr Shanks thinks these irregularities may have been misinterpreted. He
and his colleagues have been analysing data on the CMB that were
collected by WMAP, a satellite launched in 2001 by NASA, America's
space agency. They have compared these data with those from telescopic
surveys of galaxy clusters, and have found correlations between the two
which, they say, indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of
the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot
gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be
enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark
matter and energy.

Dr Shanks is not the only person questioning the status quo. In a pair
of papers published in a December issue of ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS,
Sebastien Vauclair of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the Midi-Pyrenees,
in Toulouse, and his colleagues also report the use of galaxy clusters
to question the existence of dark energy. But their method uses the
clusters in a completely different way from Dr Shanks, and thus opens a
second flank against the conventional wisdom.

Cosmological theory says that the relationship between the mass of a
galaxy cluster and its age is a test of the value of the "density
parameter" of the universe. The density parameter is, in turn, a
measure of just how much normal matter, dark matter and dark energy
there is. But because the mass of a cluster is difficult to measure
directly, astronomers have to infer it from computer models which tell
them how the temperature of the gas in a cluster depends on that
cluster's mass.

Even measuring the temperature of a cluster is difficult, though. What
is easy to measure is its luminosity. And that should be enough, since
luminosity and temperature are related. All you need to know are the
details of the relationship, and by measuring luminosity you can
backtrack to temperature and then to mass.

That has been done for nearby clusters, but not for distant ones which,
because of the time light has taken to travel from them to Earth,
provide a snapshot of earlier times. So Dr Vauclair and his colleagues
used XMM-NEWTON, a European X-ray-observation satellite that was
launched in 1999, to measure the X-ray luminosities and the
temperatures of eight distant clusters of galaxies. They then compared
the results with those from closer (and therefore apparently older)
clusters.

The upshot was that the relationship between mass and age did not match
the predictions of conventional theory. It did, however, match an
alternative model with a much higher density of "ordinary" matter in it.

That does not mean conventional theory is yet dead. The NEWTON
observations are at the limits of accuracy, so a mistake could have
crept in. Or it could be that astronomers have misunderstood how galaxy
clusters evolve. Changing that understanding would be uncomfortable,
but not nearly as uncomfortable as throwing out cold, dark matter and
dark energy.

On the other hand, a universe that requires three completely different
sorts of stuff to explain its essence does have a whiff of epicycles
about it. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Physics should be made
as simple as possible, but not simpler." Put Dr Shanks's and Dr
Vauclair's observations together, and one cannot help but wonder
whether Ptolemy might soon have some company in the annals of
convoluted, discarded theories.
_

See this article with graphics and related items at
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626

regards,