Space Time

A while back CFTraveler and I had a small discussion about the 4th dimension - she maintaining it being the dimension of Time and I suggesting a little different concept that would describe the dimension of dreams (or something).

I’ve noticed reading articles re physics in Nature magazine physicists still referring to the 4th dimension of Time which should settle the matter. But when my limited knowledge and a STRONG intuition tell me otherwise, I can’t turn away from it.

I just happen to meet three young physics majors last night and put the question to them. Whether it has anything to do with the condition of dreamland or not my hypothesis is simply this: Time and Space are a requirement of a single dimension - SpaceTime as Albert coined it. Time should not be considered as a dimension unto itself.

Now these three kids are brilliant but not yet authorities, still, they were in agreement with me. I asked them if the concept of Time as a separate D was necessary in the calculations of physical laws - that perhaps it was merely of convention of the math involved. They agreed it was not necessary.

Heisenberg tells us we cannot know the position of a particle and its momentum at the same time - the one measurement destroys the possibility of the other. This to me is sufficient proof that Time and Space are really one and same. Or, at least, you can’t have one without the other.

Take a cat running around the house (like mine does after I feed her Fancy Feast) and we determine where in the house she is, but in doing so we destroy the cat. In other words we can no longer know how fast she was going. Can’t take that measurement because the conditions have been destroyed with the first measurement. Likewise if we determine how fast she’s running, then we can no longer locate her.

We cannot know where she is (Space) and how fast she’s running (Time) at the same time because the condition collapses if we take either measurement. Which tells me that that condition is SpaceTime, a unitary Dimension.

Anyone’s thoughts on this would be fun. :)

I just read CF’s “Please don’t read this” thread and suddenly realized I don’t need to explain a thing to you guys, which then leaves me with a different question. Humor me on this if you will. 8) The three D’s of Space are only conceivable in Time, so what is Time to the D of dreams?

That to me is the real puzzle. I think CF refers to non-local as a characteristic of dreamland - i.e. a wave function. All I’m saying is that THIS non-local experience is the true next D and it is the 4th D where Time is plastic and nothing we can bring from the D of SpaceTime can really inform us as to the nature of this 4th D.

The problem is we DO bring our experience in the physical heavily to bear on our experience in the Astral and beyond and maybe, just MAYBE, we might do better to disenfranchise our biases and conditioning from and in the physical to better investigate the higher planes.

There's no lack of knowledge here, but could we walk the talk better? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1B

Heisenberg tells us we cannot know the position of a particle and its momentum at the same time - the one measurement destroys the possibility of the other. This to me is sufficient proof that Time and Space are really one and same. Or, at least, you can’t have one without the other.

---

Heisenberg is talking about a quantum particle, simply because its position can only be measured by the collision of another particle, which destroys the first one, and the speed can only be measured after it has traversed its space, making location impossible to figure out.
I agree what you are saying about time and space being possibly characteristics of 'the same thing' (Bohmian style) but I'd like to read how you come to that conclusion.

Quote:

---

I think CF refers to non-local as a characteristic of dreamland - i.e. a wave function.

---

I don't necessarily refer to nonlocality as a wave function, but I do think that a wave function can be a characteristic (or explanation) of nonlocality- superposition can also be a way of explaining nonlocality- that is, what we see locally (in timespace) isn't 'really' there- it's out of 'timespace'- we just see a sort of 'reflection' of it in timespace.
I know, not that easy to explain or conceptualize, but Bohm said it much better than I possibly can, and so far I like his explanation better than almost anyone else-for now.
ps. BTW, I don't know that dreamtime may be nonlocality- but at times it seems that it is possible that what we get info from nonlocal states and describe this info in our dreams or projections. It just seems right, at least sometimes.

Quote:

---

we might do better to disenfranchise our biases and conditioning from and in the physical to better investigate the higher planes.

---

That may be true, but some of us aren't sufficiently prepared to do so- my mind just doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

There's no lack of knowledge here, but could we walk the talk better?

---

Better than what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFTraveler

I agree what you are saying about time and space being possibly characteristics of 'the same thing' (Bohmian style) but I'd like to read how you come to that conclusion.

---

I'd like to read that too :lol: . Like I said, limited knowledge and strong intuition. I've been thinking about it a long time though, prob since reading Hew Price's Archimedes Point and the Arrow of Time. If I can think of anymore clues I'll let you know. :|
Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi speaks of bubbles of universes long before, I think, any cosmologist thought of it. It's possible to get information that isn't built from the ground up - it's just there to wonder about....

Quote:

---

I don't necessarily refer to nonlocality as a wave function, but I do think that a wave function can be a characteristic (or explanation) of nonlocality- superposition can also be a way of explaining nonlocality- that is, what we see locally (in timespace) isn't 'really' there- it's out of 'timespace'- we just see a sort of 'reflection' of it in timespace.
I know, not that easy to explain or conceptualize, but Bohm said it much better than I possibly can, and so far I like his explanation better than almost anyone else-for now.
ps. BTW, I don't know that dreamtime may be nonlocality- but at times it seems that it is possible that what we get info from nonlocal states and describe this info in our dreams or projections. It just seems right, at least sometimes.

---

I like that, ALL of it. Who's this Bohm you refer to?

I'm saving the rest of your reply for further thought, but thanks for your input CF! :)

This dude.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

I hope I didn't delete too much.

Agreement on what you write. I must say, however, that I never liked the mathematical simplification of the nature of reality. I.e. the oversimplisized model of 4 dimensions where 1 of them is time does not reveal the truth about the reality, it's the opposite. When A. Einstein saw it for the first time, he becacme puzzled and confused. I don't think he ever accepted this idea as something more than just an intellectual (i.e. purely mathematical) concept, and nothing more.

All it comes to measure. I.e. the change (see the book of changes, I-Ching). I.e. perception. I.e. probably: illusion.

The change has two sides: the change itself (cause) and the result (effect). Always - but they are both just sides of the same coin.

How can time exist without space?

My explanation: it cannot. When there is no reference (space), time cannot be measured.

How can space exist without time?

My explanation: again, time and space cannot be measured when one does not exist. Both are reference to each other.

Remember the yang-yin concept? One cannot exist without the other, its mirror. Space is the static side of the same coin, the other side is dynamic time.

In mathematics there are "objects" which are "defined", final: like numbers, and objects that are "potential", producing the static, i.e. changeable depending on what comes to them: functions. The function is only conceptual and potential, you cannot add one function to another, of course (you can add only results of the functions).

This mathematical concept perfectly ressembles the ultimate dualism in the time-space.

In other words, you can see the result: the static form (space), and observe its changes (time). Without time, space is static. Without space, time has no reference. Replace "time" with "change", to get the essential idea of what time is: the change.

What scientists see is the result: position and speed of a particle are just RESULT of "something" going on. This something is energy.

So scientists are bound into illusion of seeing the manifestation of 2 opposite "concepts" (like time and space, or dynamic change and the static state), while there should be triangle discovered: the third angle representing the real cause, energy behind everything. This is my understanding after a long analysis.

In the end, the only factor that is important is PERCEPTION: you perceive the state (space) changing (time) in your mind. This is my current understanding of time-space, both of which are inseparable.

Quote:

---

This mathematical concept perfectly resembles the ultimate dualism in the time-space.

---

As you said, both are a function of perception, which is a circular argument- but perceptually valid. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFTraveler

As you said, both are a function of perception, which is a circular argument- but perceptually valid. :D

---

You are right. Circural argument is, in fact, what all science that is based only on matter is, isn't it? This is the old scientists' argument: if we cannot rely on "something" (materially perceived reality typically), then how can we rely on anything at all? However, if we go this way further, you will not have any reference at all which you can base your idea about the reality on, except maybe stating: after all, it is just my (function of) perception :) Obviously, it seems unresolvable to have this "ultimate" reference. Unless you presume something like: I percieve therefore I am / I perceive therefore it is?

The Kurt Godel's discovery (that mathematical systems, after all, are not possible to be ultimately defined, there is no such possibility - because, putting things simple, they have no "ultimate" reference; he also was working on the time question - in particular, mathematical proof that we can travel in time) whom you probably have heard about shows the above problem pretty clearly, I think. :) Quoting wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

the system cannot prove its own consistency

---

:thumbsup: