[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao the theory (quantized space and continuous space) that I'm working on requires at least two directions of time (2 degrees of freedom). For brevity, let's call them the forward and backward direction of time. In this sense, time remains one dimensional because two-dimensional time necessarily implies infinite degrees of freedom.

do you say by this, that also two-dimensional espace and upwards, necessarily impllies infinite degrees of freedom?

although If you say that there is only one time dimension, what happens if I go backwards and kill my grandfather? and then I go back. I would have already killed him, so, I would have never built my machine. This and many other paradoxes of time are solved with a second time dimension which when you move in the first one, and change something, then a branch of the infinite is created.

[zeroca]

When/if didn’t exist anything before big bang, i.e. existed only nothing, no need was in time. Time itself “didn’t realize” it, because it didn’t exist; even it doesn’t realize now for what it exists, but it for sure exists to characterize, to describe a motion, which itself presents change. Change implies existence of difference, existence at least of two different spatial points, or two different conditions of these points. The space is needed to describe the existence of two different “positions”, but time - not only different positions, but two different conditions, time is succession of two different conditions, or two different positions; so two directions are enough for “fulfilling its task”: forward –to the future, and back – in the past.
The most interesting is that only “one point” existed before big bang, and today, two eternally distant different points are the same one point, (both of them) so what is the meaning of speed?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by quanta07 ... This view implies time is NOT linear but MULTI-DIMENSIONAL when viewed with its inseparable natural spatial property. ... CONCLUSION: TIME is not linear, but multi-dimensional ...

First, with string theory postulating 10 or 11 dimensions, would a multi-dimensional time use up some of these additional dimensions? Are you stating that time is multi-dimensional, or are you stating that time is multi-dimensional AND that it has a dimensional factor similar to our 3 spatial dimensions? In other words, do you imply that there are 3 time dimensions? If so, then we may have 6 dimensions possibly accounted for out of the 10 or 11 string dimensions. Some folks hope that the universe holds an "immaterial" or spiritual element. If this, too, were multi-dimensional - perhaps being 3-dimensional, we would be up to 9 dimensions, just one or two shy of the 10 or 11 postulated in string theory.

Next, multi-dimensional time reminds me of a college paper I wrote many years ago. Based upon how science fiction writers portray time travel, inadvertently, they portray time as multi-dimensional. For example, looking a H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, the main character goes into the future, plays with the Eloi and Morlocks, returns to the turn of the 19th-20th century, and then returns into the future. What is not explained is the main character's chronological sequence of memories. The same is true of the Back to the Future trilogy, Somewhere in Time, and other time traveling adventures. Though the body of a character zips to and fro throughout time, the memories (and the body!) always retain the exact chronological sequence of what happened. In other words, the mind/body was following a DIFFERENT time dimension for memory storage which was undisturbed by movement along the "physical" spatial dimension as we know it.

If we take 10-dimensional string theory, allocate 6 dimensions (3 spatial and 3 time) for the universe we all know and love so well. Allocate 3 of the 4 remaining for some sort of spiritual/mental time-travel realm (and make the sci-fi and woo folks happy), then we may have accounted for 9 of the dimensions. In numerology, 10 is a "God" number. Perhaps the last dimension would be the creative force underneath all of the other dimensions - a spiritual God (to please the woo) or an immutable law and cornerstone of TOE (to please the scientists)?

... Gee, I guess that about wraps it up for string theory. Let's go have a beer

Seriously, who's our "string theory" wizard? What is the current agreed number of dimensions? Any speculation on what these dimensions hold? Would multi-dimensional time eat up some more of the postulated 10 (or 11)? Could the remaining dimensions possibly provide a ray of hope for the spiritual seekers? (Be careful with your answer. Government funding is sometimes born of religious fervor. I smell grant money.) Or is string theory just magimatical formulae with no current "hooks" into reality?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by JAK Seriously, who's our "string theory" wizard? What is the current agreed number of dimensions? Any speculation on what these dimensions hold? Would multi-dimensional time eat up some more of the postulated 10 (or 11)? Could the remaining dimensions possibly provide a ray of hope for the spiritual seekers? (Be careful with your answer. Government funding is sometimes born of religious fervor. I smell grant money.) Or is string theory just magimatical formulae with no current "hooks" into reality?

I hope this is early enough and you didn't have your beer yet.

First, this is a time concerning forum, there IS a string theory forum, but I will give the answers.

Many of the present people here, most of them, just call string theory a "bunch of speculations and hypothesis", although maybe not in that words. Well, to start, I do believe much more in a well-based and well-defined and well-organised speculation that makes logicall sense in describing the universe, than in a theory of an amateur pseudoscientist that has too much free time and decides to work out these concepts like "Einstein was wrong!" or "force is another dimension!" and other things, claiming in a precipitate way (tipical...) being smarter than Einstein..............

About string theory, it was called superstring theory in the 1990s, so this name is getting a bit old already... It is called M-theory and F-theory. m-thoery has 11 dimensions. one of time and ten spatial. the dimenisons we don't live in, are squashed dimensions that didn't grow (still not knwon why). F-theory has 2 time dimensions and ten spatial. what do you mean with "what do multi-dimensions hold?"? actually, just for you to know, multi means mroe than one, so even the normal euclid geometry is multi-dimensional. There is a thread about "should the TOE affect religion?" and please, if you want to post questions about these things, do them where they are supposed to be done and you will get an answer. But no, for me (as a defender of string theory) it doesn't deny god yet, although it still doesn't explain the very begining of the universe. I'm looking up this information in the internet to talk about it in the next chat session.

I'll tell you something regarding the very last question.....As you try to deny mathematics (as most pseudoscientists do, mainly because it denies their theories....) of interfeering in reality, here there is a demostration..... Look at your shoes, what can you say about them? they are white and grey, they are aerodinamic, they are this, they are that.............but can you tell me ythe size? no. can you tell be how many shoes you are wearing? no. because you deny mathematics from reality (physical world) so no, no, no, no,. you can't. It's a shame you just thinking in math as magic. actually believing is nerer to magic, mcuh more, than math.


And I would say that your "theory of mind" (whicih should actually be called "hypothesis of mind") is much more of "Harry Potter" than string theory.

[JAK]

First, I believe I may have stepped on "sensitive toes." Forgive my clumsiness if that is true. Some levity is beneficial in serious discussions, but I seem to have crossed a line I did not see.

Originally Posted by <<>> ... I'll tell you something regarding the very last question.....As you try to deny mathematics (as most pseudoscientists do, mainly because it denies their theories....) of interfeering in reality,

I do not deny the strengths of mathematics. I strongly believe in its merits. Further, none of the ideas I present in my own theoretical works are hindered by math. They are only strengthened by it. I embrace mathematics heartily and fervently. In fact, the point of my theoretical work is to bring psychology closer to the strengths of physics (thermodynamics) where the ideas are firmly grounded in a "hard" science built upon mathematics.

... It's a shame you just thinking in math as magic. actually believing is nerer to magic, mcuh more, than math.

It is unfortunate that you interpreted my remarks in this manner. In my realm (IT), we often use "automagic" as a euphemistic term for various complex processes which would take too long to describe. Similarly, many facets of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and other areas of physics are grounded in complex mathematics. My term, "magimatical," was not intended to insult anyone or demean mathematics. To me, it only highlighted the likelihood of difficult and complex math in string theory which would be too detailed to include. (Mathematical inclusions for D-branes, Heterotic strings, manifold Lie groups, differential forms, etc. would seem too cumbersome for this forum.)

And I would say that your "theory of mind" (whicih should actually be called "hypothesis of mind") is much more of "Harry Potter" than string theory.

As for my "theory of mind" being much more of Harry Potter, I find your analysis intriguing. If you belittle an idea, it would be nice to substantiate your conclusions with specifics. I would be VERY HAPPY to discuss any of the points you may have found counter-intuitive or objectionable. What, specifically, brought you to your conclusion?

Yet, as you pointed out, this would be a digression from the subject of this thread - Time. If we have been sidetracked into string theory, it is only because, as you yourself noted, it is one of the dimensions of M-theory and F-theory. To speak of "time" and exclude string theory seems to be too narrow of a discussion.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marketa I agree with Salazar and want to add some more information. Time is like space - it's simply a dimension. Photons DO experience time - don't forget it's RELATIVE, so for photon the universe is flying... That's how photons can react, change (in time) etc.

true, but there is the fact that the life of a photon is infinite (although it can be created and destroyed).

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE do you say by this, that also two-dimensional espace and upwards, necessarily impllies infinite degrees of freedom?

Yes. I do. That is why my quantized space (H) is one dimensional. and continuous space (S) is two dimensional and energy (E) is three dimensional and matter (m) is four dimensional. So that S-E-m all have infinite degrees of freedom but H has 2 degrees of freedom.

[Guille]

ok. but this contradicts string theory:

in string theory strings are one dimensional but can or have freedom to move or vibrate in nine dimensions. so, what is the case of freedom for strings???

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE in string theory strings are one dimensional but can or have freedom to move or vibrate in nine dimensions. so, what is the case of freedom for strings???

string vibrations are just mathematical and not verifiable by experiments. Anyway, i dont follow the logic given by string theorists since i'm making my own theory of quantized space, which is also 1-dimensional but mine are closed linked loops using Moebius strips as topological spaces.

[Guille]

"closed link loops"

what does this mean?

is it link between some?

or only between itself?