Two dimensions of time describe the Universe

According to the Uniform expansion theory there are two dimensions of time, absolute and relative. It is hoped that the readers in this forum will find some of the properties of these two unique dimensions of time interesting to consider.

One prediction of the Uniform Expansion Theory is that all our relative measures of time are continuously slowing down. Since all physical processes are all slowing down at the same proportional rate, all local measures of time keep their proper proportional measure. Verification of this effect is found when objects in the past are observed to be more energetic than they are now. (I posted on this forum an explanation of the energy output of a quasar without resorting to a black hole. Quasars without super massive black holes I also provided the geometric model that produced the relationships for review at My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied )

The relationship for relative measures of time to absolute measures of time was shown to be.

t∆2/t∆1= T2/T1

Sample problem. When the universe was 1 million years old in a 10 billion year old universe, how much faster did relative time pass?

t∆2/t∆1= T2/T1 = 10,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 1,000.

What takes 1,000 years to occur now only took 1 year to pass when the universe was 1 million years old.

When the universe was only 1 year old in a 10 billion year old universe, how much faster did relative time pass?

t∆2/t∆1= T2/T1 = 10,000,000,000 years / 1 year = 10 billion.

What now would take 10 billion years to occur only took 1 year to pass when the universe was 1 year old. (Actually this is a bit misleading, the processes should only be related to relative rates at this moment in time.)

One conclusion of these examples is that the cumulative relative measure of time that has elapsed sky rockets as we consider eras closer to the beginning of time.

The universe based upon our cumulative relative measure of time is nearly infinitely aged.

Correspondingly, as time passes, less and less actually changes in the same period of absolute time. The universe will never end.

The Uniform Expansion model predicts an eternal universe that essentially always was and will always be, based upon our relative measures of events, which is how mankind perceives the universe.

Correspondingly, the Uniform Expansion model predicts a universe that begins almost instantaneously which will also eventually end, at least based upon absolute measure of events, which is how God perceives the universe.

Snowflake

A couple of notes here:

First, what you are describing is not two different dimensions of time, you are describing two different parametrizations of one time dimension. Calling it "two dimensions of time" is inaccurate and misleading.

Second, what evidence do you have for this "absolute" time-scale and for your relationship between the "absolute" and "relative" time-scales? Is there some way in which we can measure absolute and relative times in a laboratory so that we can determine the present-day ratio of the two? Is there some kind of clock that can measure this "absolute" time?

Finally, please don't drag the deity of your choice into this. It adds nothing to your argument and only serves as a distraction that might send this thread veering off course.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

Thank you for your response.

You said
"First, what you are describing is not two different dimensions of time, you are describing two different parametrizations of one time dimension. Calling it "two dimensions of time" is inaccurate and misleading."

Would I be inaccurate in stating that there are three spatial dimensions? Why not 1 dimension and the others are “parameterizations “ of the first dimension?

One of the tests for the necessity of a dimensional measure is “uniqueness”. How many variables does it take to describe the properties of “something”.

Lets say we want to describe the location of a point, (where you are), relative to another point, (where I am) using the basic 4 dimensional framework of three spatial and 1 temporal dimension.

You are separated a specific distance away from me, which can be described by a reference frame as so far in the x, y and z direction, and we are separated by a specific interval of time, as established by the speed of light.

These 4 dimensional measures are all that are used in special and general relativity, the time interval involved is the time between the two points. Is that all that is necessary to describe our spatial relationship of one to another?

No

We also have to consider WHEN these measures are made. Since I have written this, you have probably moved. You, me, and everyone all occupy a unique moment in history that no one else can ever have. This historical measure of time is absolutely required to accurately describe the location or the relationship of one point to another.

Also, I need two dimensions of time in my model to describe how our relative measures of time are slowing down compared to an Absolute or fixed measure of time. Two dimensions of time are a geometric requirement of the Unifrom Expansion Theory.

Thank you for your comments

Snowflake

The other two spatial dimensions are not "parametrizations" of the first, they are independent and orthogonal to one another. I can choose to go two steps in the X direction or I can choose to go two steps in the Y direction and I can even get out a step ladder and climb two rungs into the Z direction. The size of a rung is probably not the same size as a step, it's just a different way of parametrizing these dimensions. In all three cases I end up at a distinct point. And having settled on how to parametrize the dimensions (steps for X and Y, rungs for Z), every point can be described by a unique triple of numbers.

Can you go one second in your so-called "absolute" time dimension without any elapsed time in your so-called "relative" time dimension? Can you go one second in your so-called "relative" time dimension without any elapsed time in your so-called "absolute" time dimension? If you can do this, will these two points be distinct? And once you settle on the parametrization of your two time dimensions, will every point have a unique pair of time coordinates?

That is what it means to talk about dimensions.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Concerning God

In response to my comment,
which is how God perceives the universe. .

Celestial Mechanic asked
Finally, please don't drag the deity of your choice into this. It adds nothing to your argument and only serves as a distraction that might send this thread veering off course. .

Thank you for your concern.

Adding the “eye of God” perspective is important to the development of my theory. If everything is uniformly expanded and everything remains proportionally the same, how is it possible to describe the expansion? If we adopt an “eye of God” perspective that is outside of this expansion, it is possible to imagine or perceive what is physically happening.


After looking at my last sentence, I can see how some may object, heck, there are people who want to remove “in God we trust” from our money. It is hoped that some tolerance of my personal perspective is allowed. I will be tolerant of those who do not see the necessity of a God in Physics.

Snowflake

Heck, I'm one of those. I am a supporter of freedom of (and from) religion, for everyone. That's why that motto doesn't belong on our money. It only wound up there due to certain periods of hysteria during our country's history, such as the Civil War and the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.

Per the U. S Treasury,

Here's more on the subject.

Religion doesn't belong in science. Physics by definition functions (and does so quite well) without the influence or invocation of any kind of deity. There's a good reason they're called the "natural sciences".

Let's leave religion out of this. Otherwise, it ain't science.


PS: Please read the FAQs which contain the board rules, especially #12.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

I see that we agree that spatial dimensions are unique and not just parameterizations, and note that geometric reasoning is used. (In your case you cited rungs on a ladder).

You asked several questions and I am sorry but it is way past my bet time (2 am). I will try to give a few more examples of the necessity of two dimensions of time. I thought my previous descriptions were sufficient from an epistemological perspective but I think I should give some examples with calculations in which one dimension of time will not be able to describe physical properties.

Thank you
Snowflake

The thing is, according to what you are saying you can tell how much absolute time has passed by measuring the percieved time, and vice versus, assuming you know how the two have differed throughout the history of the universe. This means they are not two different dimensions, they are simply two ways of describing the same direction. If you know the relative time since the universe has started, you also know the absolute time. They are not independent variables, once can be defined based on the other. However, for instance if you know your x-position in on a 3D axis, you do not automatically know your y and z-positions. These are independent variables, you cannot define one based on the other..

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Physics without God is like a fish without a bicycle.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Black Cat

Thank you for your response.

You said,
The thing is, according to what you are saying you can tell how much absolute time has passed by measuring the percieved time, and vice versus, assuming you know how the two have differed throughout the history of the universe.”

Yes, thank you for actually reading and understanding what I wrote.

You then stated,
“This means they are not two different dimensions, they are simply two ways of describing the same direction. If you know the relative time since the universe has started, you also know the absolute time. They are not independent variables, once can be defined based on the other. However, for instance if you know your x-position in on a 3D axis, you do not automatically know your y and z-positions. These are independent variables, you cannot define one based on the other.”

The test for “uniqueness” of a particular dimension is not established by the interchangeability of the dimensional relationships because the relationships are conformant to a dimensional structure. Lets say I am at the bottom of hill at a ski resort and I know that the slope of the hill is 5 feet of rise for every 10 feet of run. The “reality” of the hill is conformant to a particular geometric dimensional relationship. Given this structure, by knowing the relative vertical displacement it is possible to determine the relative horizontal displacement. Two-dimensional measures are described by one dimension and I can “define one based on the other”; if I know that the vertical displacement was 200 feet, the horizontal displacement is 400 feet.

Thank you,
Snowflake

Hi Celestial Mechanic

I will be soon presenting some specific examples in which two dimensions of time are necessary to describe fundamental characteristics of nature, but I wanted to first thank you for your critiques. You are one of the few “posters” in this forum that know general relativity and the depth of knowledge you bring is appreciated.

Respectfully yours,
John M. Kulick
AKA snowflake

It's been awhile since I've been in a classroom, but wasn't this called Pythagorean theorem? :-)

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

According to special relativity theory, there is no absolute time. Only relative time. There is no privileged frame of reference. Could you please provide definitions of what you consider to be absolute time and relative time? Also why do you describe these as being two dimensions of time?



edited for typo

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I would think that in order to prove the existence of another time dimension one would have to measure the pecking order of decay rates of particles within one reference frame of time differing from the arrangement in another reference frame of time. For example, neutrons in another time dimension than the one we measure might decay at a much longer half life than proton decay, the converse of what we experience.

Spacetime in another time dimension might ignore the principle of maximal aging that exists in this one. Kepler's laws would not likely function in another time dimension.

But you know this only because you know that there is a hill and what its slope is.
The number of coordinates necessary to find a position on the hill is reduced, because you already know that the point is on the hill.
Your two-dimensional measure is described by one-dimension, because the second number you need is the slope.
Instead of (hor. displ., vert. displ.) you use (hor. displ., slope) to find a point: you still need two numbers.
Without knowing the slope, you would not be able to find the vertical displacement from the horizontal displacement.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

In your example, the two dimensions would NOT be independent for exactly the reason you describe. If you know one you by definition know the other. For instance if you look at a parabola on a 2d plot Y is a function of X, and vice versus. That is why Y is called the dependent variable and X is called the independent variable (although the selection of which is which is arbitrary in this case). They are not independent variables specifically because you can determine one based on the other. It is the same thing with your hill example, and your two types of time.

On the other hand, if you simple have a coordinate axis with no curves you are mathematically required to follow, or in space with no objects restricting your motion, motion in one dimension is completely independent of motion in any other dimension. From my reading of your description, such a situation cannot be achieved with your two dimensions of time, they are always dependent on one another.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Hi Gzhpcu

Thank you for your comments

You asked
"Could you please provide definitions of what you consider to be absolute time and relative time? .”

Relative time is the time interval between points. Relative time is local and is the measure of time used for special and general relativity. All local measures of time, or clock rates, keep their relative measure.

Absolute time describes a point’s location historically. The moment of Creation, (Big Bang if you prefer), marks the beginning of time.

Second question
"Also why do you describe these as being two dimensions of time?"

It takes both measures of time to accurately describe the location of a point. In my response to Celestial Mechanic, I gave a epistemological argument that in order to describe the location of one point to another, not only are the x,y, and z spatial measures needed, and the temporal separation between the points needed, it is necessary to also describe WHEN this relationship between the two points is being described.

Another reason for two dimensions of time is that it allows the description of the geometric relationship that the two dimensions of time have to each other. When the universe was 1/2 it’s historical or absolute age, all relative measures of time or “clock rates”. would “tick” twice as fast as they do now.

If local clock rates are always slowing down but are also keeping their relative measure, some other “absolute clock” has to be established to describe the change in intervals of time. One key concept involved in mathematically describing the relationship of the two dimensions of time is that the temporal location of “now” is common and identical for both Absolute and Relative measures of time. This allows the creation of an “absolute reference clock”, using the measure of intervals of time of “now” as a “fixed” measure for comparison purposes.

Snowflake

Hi blueshift

You stated that
“in order to prove the existence of another time dimension one would have to measure the pecking order of decay rates of particles within one reference frame of time differing from the arrangement in another reference frame of time.”

Your argument is essentially that there must be observational proof of the effect. Since I propose that clock rates were faster in the past, there should be observational verification of physical processes occurring more quickly in the past. I posted an example of this effect in my explanation of the energy output of quasars without resorting to matter falling into “super massive black holes” Quasars without super massive black holes

You also stated that
Kepler's laws would not likely function in another time dimension.

Actually if spacetime expands at the geometric rate described by absolute time, all relative measures of time are preserved, Kepler’s law’s are produced, the inverse square law becomes a property of spacetime and the principles of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum become geometrically established. Also if the expansion of space-time occurs a small quantum “piece” at a time, a probabilistic description of reality will result at the quantum scale of observation. This means that the same physical process for quantum physics result in gravitational relationships. This is the basis for the long sought for Unified Field Theory.

I presented the mathematical development of this theory at . My (Discovered) Unified Field Theory You will see Kepler’s laws derived and the development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac).
The application of the relationships to relative measures of time is at My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied

Snowflake

Time is special, but it is just another spatial dimension.
Maxwell's equations work in 4 dimensions.

Hi papageno
You noted in my example,
“But you know this only because you know that there is a hill and what its slope is. The number of coordinates necessary to find a position on the hill is reduced, because you already know that the point is on the hill.”

Similarly, since spacetime is conformant to a particular geometric structure it is possible to use one dimension of time to describe the measure of another dimension of time. The question was whether or not two dimensions of time were necessary since it is possible to translate one to the other. My answer is yes there are two dimensions of time and because they are geometrical related one to the other it is possible to describe one by the other. I assume you would also say “yes” to the two dimensions of time since for the hill example you cite that as evidence of two spatial dimensions, not one.

Snowflake

HI BlackCat

Hopefully my reply to Papageno reguarding the uniqueness and interdependence of dimensions is answered in relation to the parabola example you give but you also bring out another point,

You said,
"On the other hand, if you simple have a coordinate axis with no curves you are mathematically required to follow, or in space with no objects restricting your motion, motion in one dimension is completely independent of motion in any other dimension. From my reading of your description, such a situation cannot be achieved with your two dimensions of time, they are always dependent on one another."

If you believe in Special and General Relativitity (which I do), there is no independent motion, space and time are interrelated. Move and your “clock rate” slows. Distance and time are already interdependent yet unique dimensional measures.
Snowflake

Hi Blob

You mentioned that
Time is special, but it is just another spatial dimension.
Maxwell's equations work in 4 dimensions.

You are right to say that time can be translated to a spatial dimension because of the geometric relationship between distance and time. This distinction becomes important in applying principles of general relativity.

You are also right to say Maxwell’s equations work in 4 dimensions, however an additional dimension of time is needed to describe how Maxwell’s equations will vary with the passage of absolute time.

Snowflake.

HI Snowflake,
I still have difficulty following you (it could just be me), but a time interval between two points, according to special relativity is different depending on the frame of reference used (where the observer happens to be). There exists no privileged frame of reference in special relativity, so there is no standard, absolute time. What does your definition of absolute time base itself on? Also, is your definition of relative time, different to the definition used by special relativity? And since special relativity says there is no absolute time, how can you state that you believe in special relativity?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

No it doesn't. One dimension that can be determined solely based on knowledge of the other dimension are not really seperate dimensions. I do not know how many other ways to say this.

Yes, one dimension has an effect on the other. However, you can not solely determine your position in space based on knowledge of time, and vice versus. They may impact one another, but they do not determine one another. That is not the same thing as with you two dimensions of time.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

I feel that several issues have become entangled here, which it might be useful to disentangle. (1) The notion of a "Gods-eye" view versus the notion of a "creatures-eye" view. (2) The notion of different parametrisations of time versus the notion of different dimensions of time. (3) The idea that relativity makes space and time interchangeable.

(1). The idea of a "Gods-eye" view does not, of course, imply belief in the existence of God, much less the God of any particular religion. It is what philosophers call "sub specie aeternitatis" or "under the aspect of eternity."

The following comparison may clarify this. If we compare the history of the universe to a Walt Disney motion picture, where Donald Duck is building a shed, then Mickey Mouse (who exists inside the picture) will perceive this under a different aspect from Walt Disney himself. Mickey will come upon Donald in his garden, and see him hammering away, at a half-completed shed. But Disney can unroll the entire reel and see all the frames simultaneously. Of course Disney is himself in time, but his time is completely separate from the time in the motion picture. From Mickey's point of view, Disney inhabits a timeless moment of eternity.

To use this image, we need not imply that Disney actually exists, or that he has made the film, just that the entirety of the film exists as a mathematical object in "superspace".

(2) If we continue with the same comparison, we might assume that the frames grow narrower towards the beginning of the reel, so that an infinite number of frames can inhabit the first few inches. A time interval in the film may now be measured as a number of frames or as a number of inches. These are different parametrisations of time. A parametrisation by frames would seem more natural for an inhabitant of the film, but a parametrisation by inches might be more natural for an outsider. Mickey might truthfully say that his past is infinitely deep, while Disney might truthfully say that the reel has a finite length.

However, this is not the same as having different dimensions of time. To have two-dimensional time, the frames must not be ordered in a line (like the frames in a reel), but in a plane. Presumably, the frames hit by any line in this frame would constitute a meaningful motion picture.

(3) In relativity, time and space are not fully interchangeable. It is true that different viewpoints (inertial systems) are related to each other by a kind of "rotation" of a fourdimensional "spacetime". But this is not a true or "circular" rotation where (after a rotation of ninety degrees) two coördinates can be fully interchanged. It is a "hyperbolic" rotation, where one can rotate infinitely far without interchanging the time axis with a spatial axis. (They just come to lie ever closer to each other.)

What is absent in relativity is the notion of simultaneity. If this notion were valid, we might liken the history of the universe to an appartment building where every layer of apartments must be completed before the next (the "later") layer can be built. What remains valid, however is the notion of causality. Here we have an appartment building where an appartment can be built as soon as there are at least some appartments underneath. Whether two appartments are on the same floor depends on ones viewpoint, but whether one appartment is supporting another one is true or false whatever one's viewpoint.

I hope this may help to clarify matters.

Could it not be that there is not really anything called "motion" in the universe, only the fundamental transfer of energy?

I imagine that every point in space is made up of multiple "curled up" dimensions that can transform from being `nothing` to `something` thus giving the illusion that something is moving.

This would require only spatial dimensions.

Relmuis:

Excellent post!

About point (1), I can accept "god's eye view" as a metaphor, and maybe I should not have jumped on snowflakeuniverse so quickly (those pesky jerking knees of mine!), but that was not the phrase he used in his first post, which was "how God perceives the universe". But I do agree with your points (1) and (2) and I think they are well-written. I especially hope that snowflakeuniverse will understand the notion of a planar arrangement of frames and of independent movies in (2).

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

No, all you have to do is replace epsilon_0 and mu_0 (the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum) with functions of time. No need to fool around with some unobservable "absolute" time.

Of course, this isn't all of the story, it is probably necessary to add other compensating terms, but the germ of the idea is clear: when we say that something has been measured at time t, it has been measured at time t. There isn't any need of some separate "absolute" time.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Indeed,
The `now` moments are not snapshots of the entire universe at one moment in time.
However, it is possible that each brick that makes up the apartment has its own snapshot.
To the timeline of a particular brick there is no overlapping of apartment layers.
Each brick is the star in its own film.

But your relative and absolute time dimensions do not follow your hill analogy.
What you seem to be doing, is using timescales from two different frames of reference.
Your absolute dimensions seem to be simply your personally preferred frame of reference, but have not given any physically meaningful argument to support that that frame is absolute.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)