Is our physics really missing extra dimensions of time?

Nothing would surprise me, and I doubt that we will ever stop finding new things about the universe that astonish us. Personally, I hope we never reach the end of new discoveries.

1

Grrr, why do I have to do prepatory work every time you post a question with a link?

I have studied string theory quite a bit. For example, I am on my 15th re-reading of the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. The first half of the book is simply amazing, but the second half tends to cause cranial drip from my ears. I mean, “space tearing flop transitions” — come ON Mr. Greene, WHAT are you smoking and can I have some?

Neverthless, any string theorist will tell you that they don’t care so much if superstring theory is proven right, they find the math so beautiful it is an art form to them. Moreover, string theory brings about some VERY interesting concepts. One is that size doesn’t matter (you guys paying attention? lol). That the physics of a reciprocal size of the universe (1/13.7 billion LY) will yield the same results. And that there doesn’t have to be an actual “beginning” when you parse time down to as small a sliver as the Planck “Era.” Many wonderful ideas come out of hyperdimensional space, and I agree, they are beautiful concepts even if I don’t understand the math, which is an understatement to say the least. Amazing stuff. But then, we are not “missing” the extra dimensions. They are curled up very small, smaller than the Planck length (Google it please, I can’t do exponential notation with this crummy wordprocessing software that Yahoo

✅ Answers

proffers). What made our 3 physical dimensions unfurl along with the 4th dimension of time is an amazing theoretical treatise. I would recommend The Elegant Universe and the sequel, The Fabric of the Cosmos, to anybody that thinks humans are limited to accept that goddiddit.

I’m intrigued by the apparently multidimensional nature of time, both in the sense of internal and external perceptions. [The philosophical and scientific viewpoints, if you like.]

There’s the age-old questions about ‘deja vu” and what seem to be undeniable psychic abilities in some individuals. TV’s “Psychic Detectives” can be particularly surprising — including to the police who you see become ‘converts’ in some of the episodes.

On the other hand, my present ‘Dada’ about physics is this apparent paradox that I’ve talked about before. I’m no Stephen Hawking, that’s for sure, and ideas about 26 different, or “Folded Dimensions” — both are beyond my ken.

But still, just as Galileo was able through simple observation to postulate that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun (which led to dire consequences for him!), today’s observational data in astronomy point to a radical departure about how I should think about Time/Space.

Looking toward the limits of the ever-expanding Universe, we look back in time. The earliest events, monstrous Quasars and so on are close to that time when we observe the beginning of the Universe itself. But what is beyond? Modern theory is in practical unison about the Big Bang — and that unanimity is something that almost always points to the maturity of any given science, once generalized superstition is past. The point is that the ‘Singularity’ is an integral part of the Big Bang hypothesis. If such an event occurred – it (the Singularity) is what we will eventually see if we look far enough into space — far enough back in time. A tiny (perhaps even “dimension-less”) and incredibly dense object; it is at limit of Time as we know it.

The intriguing thing that occurs to me is that we look “toward” this same ‘event’, or infinitely small object — NO MATTER WHICH DIRECTION WE LOOK FROM THE EARTH. This implies to me a generalized curvature of Space/Time, just as did Columbus’ assumption that he could reach India by sailing West, rather than East. We are dealing with a curvature of 3-dimensional space here, though, and a dismissal of what our perception of even local Space/Time is, in the same way that Columbus’s assumption eliminated the generally accepted belief that the Earth was flat.

I think then, that our conceptions of Space/Time (including Einstein’s!), are in great part founded on empirical experience and perception only — and are perhaps not “True” at all in a larger sense, no matter how useful our measurements may be locally or in our immediate vicinity. It’s pretty easy to see how gravity necessitates at least 4 Euclidean dimensions. After all, gravity does not just work “Down” in space, does it? So 4-D Hyperspheres (gravitational fields around any body in space) are an everyday reality, even if we have no way of seeing them.

It’s interesting, too, to consider that if a “graviton” exists (as some say it does), then the transfer of this particle from one body to another apparently ignores Einstein’s “Universal Speed Limit” of 186,0 miles/sec. For instance, if the Sun were to somehow move 1 miles to one side relative to the Earth, I doubt it would take 8 seconds for the effect of that to be felt here! On a less catastrophic scale, it seems to me that the “missing” element of the Unified Theory — the (Relatively!) tiny force of gravity — may hold the key to defeating the apparently insurmountable problem of interstellar travel — and perhaps to travel across Time itself.

Perhaps the eventual perfect marriage of science and philosophy will prove to be as mysterious and fulfilling as that between man and woman. You might even say that our proud philosophy has reached the stage where it is almost willing to humbly go down on one knee and propose. Imagine the children they would have!

Source(s): http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/290219/sc_afp/scienc…

This theory has been developing for a while now. Time 1 (T1) is an extra-dimensional object that contains all possible permutations of time – an eternal “now”. Time 2 (T2) is where consciousness intersects with T1. This generates our sense of time being linear. One element that troubles many physicists is that such theories suggest consciousness must be taken as a fundamental aspect of reality. I happen to find that implication appealing, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

I can usually think of a number of things to say, but none here add much to the conversation other than a simply “wow”.

Whatever the outcome, like so many other wonderful ideas….”wow”.