Talk:Spacetime/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The Phenomenon of Time Dilation

I changed the words,"…later experiments revealed that time slowed down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame…" to "…later experiments revealed that time appeared to slow down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame…." Paine Ellsworth reverted my change. Since scientists admit that they are observing phenomena [appearances], I would like to know how anyone can possibly know that the time dilation occurs apart from an observer's measurement. It is a mutually relational phenomenon in which any observer always measures no change in himself but measures change in the moving external object, regardless of which is the observer. Lestrade (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, you are right, but it is a clumsy sentence that could be reworded anyway. I suggest changing "experiments revealed" to "experiments observed". Wouldn't that make your point that we are only talking about observations? Roger (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Figure

I don't quite understand this. The article makes no mention of these things:

1. How can you have 0 dimensions of space or time? If there are 0 dimensions of space, you just have a point universe moving in time; if there are 0 dimensions of time, your universe is necessarily forever static. What's with the "unpredictable (elliptic)"?
2. What is "ultrahyperbolic"?
3. How exactly is N = 1, T = 2 too simple?
4. Why is N = 1, T > 3 unstable?
5. Do we have a source that N = 1, T = 3 would have only tachyons?

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an easy graph to understand. Your questions are answered in the paper written by Max Tegmark. That can be downloaded from that webpage in postscript (.ps) or Adobe (.pdf) format. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions 1, 2 and 5 got answered all right there. Still don't understand 3 and 4. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could be more helpful, but frankly, much of this is way over my head and not all that interesting to me. The answers you seek may have something to do with symmetry and/or the fact that anything outside the (n,m) = (3,1) is extremely difficult if not impossible in terms of predictability. For a more in-depth read, you might try Barrow and Tipler's material that's mentioned in the References section. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This graph is stupid--- 3 time and 1 space dimensions is indistinguishable from 1 time and three space dimensions. It should be symmetric about the diagonal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.238.161 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true, time dimensions are monotonic whereas spacial dimensions are non-monotonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.115.76 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Query

can any one explain theory of relativity to a 15 yr old please???????

The best place to look would be the article Introduction to special relativity which is written in a more accessible way. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

NEW Discovery

Hi. I'm not really an editor on here nor do I know much about physics past high school. I was wondering if this page should be edited to include new information that NASA's released about their Epic Space-Time experiment. Maybe someone could make a new page about it or something? Just an idea. 124.168.140.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

lost paragraph

Some recent vandalism was "repaired" by hand rather than reverting, and this paragraph was lost:

Philo noted that time is a result of space (universe/world) and that God created space which resulted in time also being created either simultaneously with space or immediately thereafter.<ref>The Works of Philo, Trans. C.D.Yonge, Hendrickson Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-943575-93-1, On the Creation (26–30), On The Unchangeableness of God (23–32)</ref>

I can't tell for sure whether the omission is accidental or intentional. —Tamfang (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it might happen because Philo only hinted at a possible link between space and time, but had not formulated the whole mature concept of an unified spacetime. Incas did. Raoul NK (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor question

"World line" or "worldline" or even "world-line"? shouldn't it be consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Forrest Ivie (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong way round?

"There exists a reference frame such that the two events are observed to occur in the same spatial location, but there is no reference frame in which the two events can occur at the same time." Surely this should be vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewthomas10 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~)? Thanks.

For time-like intervals this is correct, since one person can be present at both events and directly measure the (non-zero) proper time between the events. For space-like intervals it is the other way around. See article and literature. - DVdm (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

WE say that time is dirrerent when we go to outer space.Can the flow of tme can change?Does the constant time frame of Einstein hold only to earth?cant it be that in outer space the velocity of events have changed or the distance has been changed(phenomenon of space warp continuously occuring)/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.84.7 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

This place is for discussing the article, not the subject. Your questions might be answered at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Privileged nature of 3s+1t

Tegmark (1997) is a non-peer reviewed letter to the editor. Is there any evidence that its claims about ultrahyperbolicity of multiple time dimensions are reliable? This article should not rely on it as if it were a peer reviewed source. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links

Is the following appropriate for an entry as an external link? If not, what can be changed to make it appropriate?

User:Qesdunn/sandbox "functioned Quantum Entangled Systems" by James Dunn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qesdunn (talk • contribs)

Probably not per wp:ELNO #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."

So, to make it appropriate, the author should first become a recognized authority in the field. - DVdm (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "the time" ?

Time is a derivative expansion of the universe.

In the universe, we know that all galaxies are moving away from each other. Far distant galaxies are faster than the ones that are close. With the expansion of the universe while galaxies move away from each other, due to the gravitational forces galaxies do not disintegrated. Like constant particles, on a balloon which is getting inflated. Now we choose two particles on the surface of the balloon. Let's call (a) for the distance between two points on (1,2) surface and (a') (wormhole) for inner virtual distance of these two points.

With swelling of the balloon these two points will move away. Let's call these distances b= (a+c) and b’=(a’+c’).

(b-a=c) This difference is the amount of these two positions in a determined amount of time interval while moving away from each other.

I have no explanation for the difference of wormholes (b'-a’=c’). But it may be related to time. (To measure them, we have to know the distance from center of universe and fixed angle of these points. )

Let’s change perspective a little bit.

Imagine an observer fixed in space at the point of “2”. At the same time the observer is traveling to a different point (1') by time during the expansion of the universe although he is not moving in space.

This movement (2-1) gives us the current time for observer. Of course, time is not just a line as shown here. (Imagine this point as any point in the universe. Then imagine an expansion takes place in all directions where the first point moves to a different point. )

The first three coordinates of the observer will be same in space when traveling from point of "2" to point of (1). [(x, y, z)=(x', y', z')]

Only coordinate of (2) changed to (1). Therefore, time is irreversible.

After all this summary, I can brief my assumption.

Time is not a scalar but a vectorial quantity.

Einstein makes a law for all the movements with special relativity: The resultant velocity of all objects in space and time is always equal to the speed of light. Compound movements of the object always complement each other in space and time. A portion of the movement in time of the object at the speed of light is transferred to move in space, so that the resultant movement remains constant. This is slowing down of the movement of the object in time.

Now we consider an object fixed in space. This object coordinates (x,y,z) are still constant, although it is in the expanding space.

However, there is a difference between the first the second places.(2-1). And it has a constant speed to travel this difference.

If the mass is low, it moves easily in the elastic tissue. Its speed is high. If mass is zero then it moves completely with the texture of space-time at the speed of light.

If it has mass, space-time texture will resist while it is moving in. (Higgs field) If we succeed to rise its velocity, its speed will be closer to the speed of time wave. But it will never be faster than time wave.

Like a surfer on waves. The maximum velocity of surfer can only be the speed of wave. Otherwise, surfer can not be faster, unless s/he leaves the wave.

If space-time was not expanding at the speed of light like a wave, the photons could neither act like a particle nor like a wave. Photons look like the particles moving with the wave. The time is the force which pressures the space for expanding. “Time” might be the dark energy.

Imagine a liquid balloon which is expanding with its full texture. Its density is homogeneous and containing particles with constant rate. The particles will be away from each other while expanding.

Let’s try to imagine the movements of these particles. While the ballon is expanding, the particles will be away from each other at lower speed than expanding speed of outside, the periphery of the balloon.

The particles moves in vectorial direction. However their three coordinates (x,y,z) are still same according to balloon. They have an unnoticeable speeds which enable these movements. The particles gain a steady momentum. This gives them mass. Masses of particles do not increase anymore. But they maintain constant mass while they are surfing with the expanding balloon.

(BURTAYM (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Finally found

In the "Basic concepts" section, it is claimed that "spacetime is independent of any observer." In this way, it is an object that is without a subject, something known that is without a knower. Such an unknown known entity had been sought for many centuries.Lestrade (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

If N=3, then 3-1=2

If N = 3, then 3-dimensional solid objects have surface areas proportional to the square of their size in any selected spatial dimension.

I don't understand this sentence. How is "if N = 3" compatible with "in any selected spatial dimension"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of it as "in any selected number of dimensions", whereas the intent is evidently "of any selected one-dimensional measurement of the object". Consider rewording the article so that this misinterpretation is excluded more clearly. — Quondum 10:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)