Time as a First and Fundamental Dimension...

[Boerseun]

There's been a few threads discussing the nature of Time and Space, and having thought about the matter, something occurred to me:

We all know the old analogies of explaining n-space, where you start off with a single dimension in which only a line can exist, and then one dimension up, in which 2D objects like squares and triangles can exist, and then up one dimension to the 3D universe around us, which we can perceive as objects with height, width and depth. And then we normally add in Time as the fourth dimension, so that our calculations work out, ala Minkowski.

But then it struck me that even in a one-dimensional universe, time would be required for two lines to interact. However you want to experience an n-dimensional world, time is required. Information about anything and everything cannot breach the speed of light, in other words, it takes time. So a one-dimensional universe cannot be perceived by a one-dimensional observer in the absence of time.

So, following from that, it seems that if we consider Minkowski's space-time, a "four-dimensional universe", with the regular x,y and z axes, with time combined, then it should make sense to consider time as the very first dimension, and not the fourth. The common view on the subject is that time is added as the fourth dimension, kinda like an afterthough.

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...

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?

[freeztar]

As I already stated, this is Brilliant!

Why has no one proposed this before?

As you say, some interesting conclusions can be derived from this idea.
If time is fundamental (which I think it is) and spatial dimensions are dependent upon this, this means that time is the "cosmic glue".

So, "space" can not exist without time? It would seem that way.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by freeztar

So, "space" can not exist without time? It would seem that way.

...and "time" cannot exist without the "space" in which events can take place -
- so we are, once again, slap-bang back to square one!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

...and "time" cannot exist without the "space" in which events can take place -
- so we are, once again, slap-bang back to square one!

Ah, yes...Square One. That's the first spatial dimension eh?

[arkain101]

What I thought about when reading this was; you are separating spacial dimensions from the time dimension, which is a method of newtonian thinking.

My understanding is that space and time have been considered one entity ever since special relativity became a part of formal thinking and academia.

In that sense, no dimension comes before any other dimension by means of importance or order. On the contrary, an 'n' dimensional space-time is used as is needed for problems at hand.

Which would lead me to think, you have found an alternative way (relative to typical methods) of finding the need and or requirement to unify space and time.

What method Einstein used to arrive at these conclusions, I am not sure, maybe it was along these lines?

Or maybe someone could enlighten us on that query aswell!

[Rade]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

.....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...Thoughts?

This is not my understanding. First, it is of no consequence that we hold that time = first dimension, this statement has no more importance than to say time = forth dimension. Next, it is not correct to hold that time is more fundamental than space--it is not an either/or situation, it is a dialectic. In the same way the heads of a coin has no priority over the tails as relates to existence, time has no priority over space. Thus, while it is true that time must exist before any other dimensions can unfold (note that unfolding is a type of movement), it is equally true (at the same time) that the other dimensions must unfold (there must be a movement of something within these dimensions) before time can exist. And, while it is true that the other dimensional existence is impossible in absence of time, it is equally true (at the same time) that existence of time is impossible in the absence of other dimensions.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Rade

This is not my understanding. First, it is of no consequence that we hold that time = first dimension, this statement has no more importance than to say time = forth dimension. Next, it is not correct to hold that time is more fundamental than space--it is not an either/or situation, it is a dialectic. In the same way the heads of a coin has no priority over the tails as relates to existence, time has no priority over space. Thus, while it is true that time must exist before any other dimensions can unfold (note that unfolding is a type of movement), it is equally true (at the same time) that the other dimensions must unfold (there must be a movement of something within these dimensions) before time can exist. And, while it is true that the other dimensional existence is impossible in absence of time, it is equally true (at the same time) that existence of time is impossible in the absence of other dimensions.

As stated in post #3... which means we're still back at square one!

[Rade]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

As stated in post #3... which means we're still back at square one!

Well no, we are not back to square #1, because square #1 puts time as being 'only' possible as the 'first dimension'--which as explained above in a few posts is incorrect logic. So, rather than conclude this thread has yet to be answered, a better conclusion is that the OP question is asked and answered, i.e., time is not a first and fundamental dimension. But, perhaps I miss something in what you are saying, so please let me know what it is.

[Pyrotex]

Simmer down, guys. Ordinal labeling of the 'dims' is just an arbitrary tradition-thingie. First, third, zeroth, fourth, it's just a bunch of labels. Time and space come as a 'package' -- you cannot get one without the other. I think that's the point Boerseun was making. And if he wasn't, then he should.

Personally, I think it's more interesting to consider WHY do we speak of the 'three' spacial dimensions?

Long before the cartesian coordinate system, and our tradition of 'XYZ', how did we come to think of 'space' around us as 'having' dimensions -- and then settle on exactly 3 of them?

There is no Grid inscribed in the sky or etched on the mountains.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Long before the cartesian coordinate system, and our tradition of 'XYZ', how did we come to think of 'space' around us as 'having' dimensions -- and then settle on exactly 3 of them?

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