Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thelonious
One could reason that time is nothing more than a dimension, an intrinsic property of space-time. Other spacial dimensions do not have to be observed to exist. According to string theory they could be curled up and as small as the Planck length, too small to be probed, read detected, by anything.
|
John D. Barrow writes about this in his book, "The Constants of Nature" (and also in his "Anthropic Principle", if I recall correctly). There can only be one time dimension because two would not be able to coexist, no matter how large or small. Multiple spatial dimensions work fine as long as there is one time dimension, but multiple time dimensions ruin the concept of space-time.
Quote:
|
However, in order to do so there must be some strong reasoning negating the hypothesis.
|
Nobody is telling you to not investigate it. But you seem strangely hell-bent on confronting your critics without providing more proof. You only have a "hunch". Fine.
Quote:
|
Now, consider this. A stationary observer watching an object accelerate towards the speed of light would see the object's activity slowing down. This is the same thing that happens as we freeze an object. An "observer" would notice decrease in activity of the freezing object. I realise that the circumstances and forces at play are different, but the way that both processes work is strikingly similar.
|
Time dilation is caused by the acceleration of an object. That is also the solution to the twin paradox - both will see each other as younger than one self. But when the traveller steps out of his space ship it becomes apparent that he is the youngest because he is the one who has accelerated, not the other.
That near-zero temperaturs makes things move slowly does not in any way imply that time itself is freezing, only that the object's motion slows down. The flow of time is not determined by the motion of a single object, nor it's temperature. It is the acceleration of that object that defines it's time frame.
