Time as a First and Fundamental Dimension...

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But then it struck me that even in a one-dimensional universe, time would be required for two lines to interact.

You are adding in the "interact" part, no? Just to display two intersecting lines, why would (external) time be required?

However you want to experience an n-dimensional world, time is required.

Again, you are adding in the "you want to experience" aspect to the equation. For existence of n-dimension, time is not required. For experience of n-dimension, perhaps (I'd say likely) time is a requirement.

Part of me is pleased as punch you are setting things up the way you are here, as it strikes me how (human) science actually works. Observer adds dimension and phenomenal input to the testable hypothesis, thus changing or influencing the study, unless categorically denying own influence.

But as I understand dimensions and cartesian coordinates, it doesn't assume "experience" and anything beyond this is how things have always appeared in this dimension. Things always appears as single point in the single point dimension and not the point came into being and then is subject to interaction and decimation by the environment.

Information about anything and everything cannot breach the speed of light, in other words, it takes time.

I'm not advanced on theory of relativity and physics, probably not even intermediate in this discipline, but my novice mind is under impression that there is 'communication' that occurs at speeds observed as apparently faster than speed of light. If this is not so, and/or one can update me about this, please do so (in layman terms). Essentially, I thought 2 particles appearing a distance away, have been observed to 'communicate' in way that would be faster than speed of light.

I don't know if this undoes the conclusive statement above - "it takes time" but perhaps that's another discussion.

So a one-dimensional universe cannot be perceived by a one-dimensional observer in the absence of time.

As interesting as I find that, it seems like some logical fallacy at work. I think it's introducing "observe" into equation. How about "exists" as the criteria for one dimensional universe (assumption)?

My far reaching mind thinks that what your point is saying, is like also saying, "a three dimensional universe cannot be observed without judgment by a three dimensional being, in the absence of Spirit."

And I would recognize the "without judgment" part would be my nifty little addition to the assertion, which may be accurate, but may be argued as - is it necessary for say empirical data collection and utilization?

But if Time is indeed the first dimension, being fundamental, it seems as if Time has to exist before any of the other dimensions can unfold. And that the other dimensions (or their existence) is impossible in the absence of Time...

If there are dimensions beyond time (beyond the 4 which we tend to mentally construct reality into), then it would seem like whatever is the "highest" dimension, would be the most fundamental from which the others unfold. I realize there's like around 10 to 11 'known' dimensions based on theory.

Single point dimension strikes me as mental construct to convey understanding, and not a hypothesis that such an universe exists. You might think that we could extrapolate from this idea that 3 or 4 dimensional (only) universe doesn't actually exist, even while we may at times insist this is all we experience. Since we are still coming to terms with dimensions and understanding environment, you might think that what we think we have experienced, isn't actually "all that has been going on" at any given instant. (Oops, there's that time reference again.)

I suppose a lot of interesting conclusions can be drawn from this. For instance, if Time is indeed fundamental, it would imply that Time alone can merrily exist in the absence of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th dimensions - but that none of those dimensions are possible in the absence of time...

Thoughts?

This subject fascinates me for philosophical and spiritual reasons for long time now. And recently, with advent of virtual globes (like Google Earth), it interests me a bit more. Currently, on a more massive level, we experience virtual globes as if 'real time' is not part of the scene (there). But more and more, I see time being introduced into that virtual environment, and so I can see why time is considered 4th dimension. When virtual globes become truly immersive, rather than crude renditions we have now, I feel we will have collectively gone beyond 4th dimension. Perhaps not, but it seems to me that not only will it be a different mental construct, it will be an active way to experience alternative construct of physical reality. Elevate our consciousness really.

Thanks for opportunity to share my thoughts,
Jway

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Try physically finding a set of more than 3 directions which are at right angles to each other.

This is likely not what you meant but,

Take any free moving object traveling in a strait line. The kinetic energy measured in that object is equal to the energy it takes to turn it 90 degrees and twice the energy it has to turn it around. What I mean is, you tried to turn the object 90 degrees, it is the same event as stopping it, and if you were to turn it around, it is the same as accelerating it back to the original speed (the forces may be different, but the total work should be the same)

In that sense we can visualize a 90 degree circular plane with an arrow piercing its center, which is a geometry that expresses x y as the 90 degree potential vectors and z and 2z as the momentum or mass vector.

That is, any moving object can be expressed like this using its total energy. Nature has 90 degrees

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Jway

You are adding in the "interact" part, no? Just to display two intersecting lines, why would (external) time be required?

To "display" any intersecting lines, no time is required. This will be like putting a schematic of intersecting planes on a piece of paper. But there is no way any "observer", any "observer", of course, being anything that can have any natural force affect it, can experience any force whatsoever, in the absence of time - in however many dimensions this observer might exist. The transmission of forces takes time.

Originally Posted by Jway

Again, you are adding in the "you want to experience" aspect to the equation. For existence of n-dimension, time is not required. For experience of n-dimension, perhaps (I'd say likely) time is a requirement.

For anybody or anything, time is essential in order to experience any forces, or, in other terms, to interact with anything else - regardless of dimensions. That's what I said in the OP - time is fundamental.

Originally Posted by Jway

But as I understand dimensions and cartesian coordinates, it doesn't assume "experience" and anything beyond this is how things have always appeared in this dimension. Things always appears as single point in the single point dimension and not the point came into being and then is subject to interaction and decimation by the environment.

I think you're confusing "experience" as I used it, with "experience" in the human sense. The second sentence in this quote makes no sense to me at all. Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Jway

I'm not advanced on theory of relativity and physics, probably not even intermediate in this discipline, but my novice mind is under impression that there is 'communication' that occurs at speeds observed as apparently faster than speed of light. If this is not so, and/or one can update me about this, please do so (in layman terms). Essentially, I thought 2 particles appearing a distance away, have been observed to 'communicate' in way that would be faster than speed of light.

Entangled pairs seem to communicate certain attributes faster than light - but this cannot be utilized to transmit information in any way. It's one of those quirky quantum thingies...

Originally Posted by Jway

I don't know if this undoes the conclusive statement above - "it takes time" but perhaps that's another discussion.

No, it does not undo it - because no information can travel faster than light. And please don't confuse information in this sense with information in the human sense. Information here, implies propagation of information pertaining to natural laws - gravity, transmission of kinetic energy, interaction of matter, chemical reactions etc.

Originally Posted by Jway

As interesting as I find that, it seems like some logical fallacy at work. I think it's introducing "observe" into equation. How about "exists" as the criteria for one dimensional universe (assumption)?

Once again, I think you're confusing matters here. With terms like "observe" and "observer", we don't imply human participation in any event. Two atoms speeding past each other qualify as "observers". It's just an aid to explanation.

Originally Posted by Jway

My far reaching mind thinks that what your point is saying, is like also saying, "a three dimensional universe cannot be observed without judgment by a three dimensional being, in the absence of Spirit."

That is clearly not what I was saying. Why would you need to introduce anything like "Spirit" to understand what I'm saying about two objects interacting? Two objects cannot interact, they cannot experience the transmission of forces in whatever number of dimensions you might want to assign to their universe, in the absence of time. That was the point I was making in the OP, and nowhere does it imply or require the participation of anything remotely qualified to be called a "spirit".

And I would recognize the "without judgment" part would be my nifty little addition to the assertion, which may be accurate, but may be argued as - is it necessary for say empirical data collection and utilization?

"Judgement"? How do you propose to include that concept here? Put a piece of matter in a timeless universe with the dimensions of your choice. Place a piece of anti-matter right on top of it. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, will happen at the interface of the two pieces, until you introduce time into this universe. The one does not know about the other. And if you fail to see that I use the term "know" here in non-human terms, then that's where you're making your error. It implies absolutely no human-like "judgement" or "knowledge", it's just shorthand to describe the transmission of forces, be it chemical, electrical, gravitational or whatever.

Originally Posted by Jway

If there are dimensions beyond time (beyond the 4 which we tend to mentally construct reality into), then it would seem like whatever is the "highest" dimension, would be the most fundamental from which the others unfold. I realize there's like around 10 to 11 'known' dimensions based on theory.

Like Pyrotex said in his post above, the assignment of dimensional numbers is completely arbitrary. What I said in the OP, is that however many dimensions you might want, time would be involved from the get-go. I don't understand what you mean with the "highest-number" dimension being the most fundamental. Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Jway

Single point dimension strikes me as mental construct to convey understanding, and not a hypothesis that such an universe exists. You might think that we could extrapolate from this idea that 3 or 4 dimensional (only) universe doesn't actually exist, even while we may at times insist this is all we experience. Since we are still coming to terms with dimensions and understanding environment, you might think that what we think we have experienced, isn't actually "all that has been going on" at any given instant. (Oops, there's that time reference again.)

Higher dimensions aren't speculations. If you consider the old demonstration of a piece of paper being our 3D universe, and you fold it double (into a higher dimension) then two dots (the one on the top part of the paper and the other on the bottom) might be right next to each other, but only in the higher dimension - not the 3D which the paper represents. Things like higher dimensions might be responsible for instant communication between entangled particles, where they are right next to each other in the higher dimension, but separated by a few light-years in 3D. It's not whimsical speculation, it's hard maths and there are lots of people right now breaking their brows in figuring this out.

Originally Posted by Jway

This subject fascinates me for philosophical and spiritual reasons for long time now. And recently, with advent of virtual globes (like Google Earth), it interests me a bit more. Currently, on a more massive level, we experience virtual globes as if 'real time' is not part of the scene (there). But more and more, I see time being introduced into that virtual environment, and so I can see why time is considered 4th dimension. When virtual globes become truly immersive, rather than crude renditions we have now, I feel we will have collectively gone beyond 4th dimension.

However nice a virtual globe might be, it's still merely a representation of reality, and, as such, has very little to do with the physics behind the real world.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by arkain101

This is likely not what you meant but,

No, it definitely wasn't what I meant.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Take any free moving object traveling in a strait line. The kinetic energy measured in that object is equal to the energy it takes to turn it 90 degrees and twice the energy it has to turn it around. What I mean is,

What you mean is that a rigid wall is a source of energy when you bounce a ball of it, and so is a mound of sand when it stops a ball?

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

No, it definitely wasn't what I meant.

What you mean is that a rigid wall is a source of energy when you bounce a ball of it, and so is a mound of sand when it stops a ball?

I was expressing the conservation of momentum and energy through specific relationships; demonstrating the equivalence of 90degrees radians and whole value momentum/energy conservation.

If you have a spaceship in space and you are moving directly towards a given position, such that we consider both the ship and the position on the Z axis (coordinates x = 0, y = 0), it will require the same amount of thrust to stop the ship as it will to turn the ship 90 degrees(assuming you aim your thrust at the precise angle throughout the burn) while remaining the same vector velocity. Ie, after the turn is complete the object is still moving the same velocity.

What you mean is that a rigid wall is a source of energy when you bounce a ball off it, and so is a mound of sand when it stops a ball?

Momentum of a moving object can be observed to:
1) be completely transferred to another object, (think of pool ball interactions)
2) bond with an object (crash into a bucket of sand in space),
3) be observed to remain the same with the original object during a changing interaction, on a new trajectory only if it was a 90 degree change.

Interesting conclusions can be drawn from this, in a simple method.

1)If turning an object 90 degrees (without accelerating it) requires the equal expenditure of thrust (energy) that it does to stop an object, (where a moving object has a given momentum and kinetic energy, thus stopping requires an equal value) then one can easily conclude that, because 90 degrees is equal to 1/4 of a circle, than:

1/2 of a circle requires a factor of 2x...
3/4 of a circle requires a factor of 3x...
1 full circle requires a factor of 4x...(four times) the contained kinetic energy of the moving object.

or

90degrees = 1x
180degress = 2x
270degress = 3x
360degrees = 4x

What is expressed is, when given a specific vector, only 90 degree relationships will suffice as whole value transformations. If we had used a method to turn the object only 45 degrees it would only require 1/2 of the original kinetic energy and/or momentum that was originally in the system. In the case of a pool ball bouncing off a wall at 45 degrees, the wall would only supply 1/2 of the energy value measured in the pool balls total kinetic energy.