RainmanTime
Super Moderator
ruthless,
In my theory, it is really quite simple (and also highly symmetrical). We are aware of the 3 dimensions of the fundamental measure we call SPACE, right? Let's call those dimensions X, Y, and Z.
We are also aware that, according to our current model of the atom, all atoms are comprised of three "dimensions" of mass: Electron, Proton, Neutron. Right? So far, we are up to 6 dimensions (each fundamental measure...MASS and SPACE... have 3 subdimensions).
This leave us to ask the question of how would the fundamental measure of TIME be subdivided into "orthogonal dimensions"? It would seem to me that this would be: Past, Present, Future.
Nine dimensions... that form a 3x3 matrix.
Decay (at least radioactive decay) is the time rate of change of the mass of a radioactive body. In the development of my theory I maintain a fundamental distinction between MASS and MATTER. MASS is the (incorrect) view that an object is static and unchanging. We know this is incorrect because all matter vibrates. What I call MATTER I define as "the time rate of change of MASS". In much the same way that we define velocity (motion) as "the time rate of change of position (distance...SPACE)." So when I talk about TIME being derived from MATTER in MOTION, I am saying that any solid object (your body, for instance) is NEVER static, and is ALWAYS changing. IOW, it is made of MATTER, not MASS.
If this happened, the entire universe would be at absolute zero temperature. It is theorized that all motion would stop (certainly all internal motion would stop, because this is the definition of absolute zero). Since TIME is measured via MATTER in MOTION, and if all MOTION were to stop, then how would one measure TIME? If all vibration stopped, we could certainly say that all sentient life that we know of would cease, and hence without an observer to note the passage of TIME, would TIME as we know it still exist? Likely not.
Space already does not "exist" as a separate thing. That is what the original post in this thread was trying to lay out. It is erroneous (but still useful to human comprehension) to talk about SPACE without talking about TIME. The "reality" is that SPACE-TIME is an integrated manifold.
Without changing its atomic number (i.e. without losing/gaining electrons)? Good question though, but I do not believe we have any evidence that says an atom can "expand". But a group of atoms can change their vibrations...and that changes chemical properties.
According to current physics, no. There is a fundamental difference in physics as the micro (atomic) and macro (galactic & beyond) levels. This is precisely the problem that science is having in trying to "unify" Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity accurately (as accurate as anything we know) describes macroscopic motion of objects on a cosmic scale. However, QM accurately (statistically) describes motion on the atomic (and below) scale.
As always, you ask good questions ruthless!!
RMT
In my theory, it is really quite simple (and also highly symmetrical). We are aware of the 3 dimensions of the fundamental measure we call SPACE, right? Let's call those dimensions X, Y, and Z.
We are also aware that, according to our current model of the atom, all atoms are comprised of three "dimensions" of mass: Electron, Proton, Neutron. Right? So far, we are up to 6 dimensions (each fundamental measure...MASS and SPACE... have 3 subdimensions).
This leave us to ask the question of how would the fundamental measure of TIME be subdivided into "orthogonal dimensions"? It would seem to me that this would be: Past, Present, Future.
Nine dimensions... that form a 3x3 matrix.
Decay (at least radioactive decay) is the time rate of change of the mass of a radioactive body. In the development of my theory I maintain a fundamental distinction between MASS and MATTER. MASS is the (incorrect) view that an object is static and unchanging. We know this is incorrect because all matter vibrates. What I call MATTER I define as "the time rate of change of MASS". In much the same way that we define velocity (motion) as "the time rate of change of position (distance...SPACE)." So when I talk about TIME being derived from MATTER in MOTION, I am saying that any solid object (your body, for instance) is NEVER static, and is ALWAYS changing. IOW, it is made of MATTER, not MASS.
If this happened, the entire universe would be at absolute zero temperature. It is theorized that all motion would stop (certainly all internal motion would stop, because this is the definition of absolute zero). Since TIME is measured via MATTER in MOTION, and if all MOTION were to stop, then how would one measure TIME? If all vibration stopped, we could certainly say that all sentient life that we know of would cease, and hence without an observer to note the passage of TIME, would TIME as we know it still exist? Likely not.
Space already does not "exist" as a separate thing. That is what the original post in this thread was trying to lay out. It is erroneous (but still useful to human comprehension) to talk about SPACE without talking about TIME. The "reality" is that SPACE-TIME is an integrated manifold.
Without changing its atomic number (i.e. without losing/gaining electrons)? Good question though, but I do not believe we have any evidence that says an atom can "expand". But a group of atoms can change their vibrations...and that changes chemical properties.
According to current physics, no. There is a fundamental difference in physics as the micro (atomic) and macro (galactic & beyond) levels. This is precisely the problem that science is having in trying to "unify" Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity accurately (as accurate as anything we know) describes macroscopic motion of objects on a cosmic scale. However, QM accurately (statistically) describes motion on the atomic (and below) scale.
As always, you ask good questions ruthless!!
RMT
)
