The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime

Not that physics isn’t already too complicated, but a few years ago while studying time, I realized something; Time has 3 dimensions.

It was once thought that time was merely a constant, one dimensional measurement. It was eventually discovered that the measurement of time alters with relative velocity, hence “time is relative”. But it was strange to me that no one seemed to have realized that velocity is a vector, a one dimensional vector. When something travels very fast relative to something else, the time measured will be dependent upon that speed. But the object is only traveling in one dimension. And the time in that dimension will no doubt be measured as different than if it were not moving. But the object is not moving in the other 2 dimensions and thus the time relating to those dimensions cannot change.

In effect, if one were to consider the idea of moving so fast as to reverse time, one would have to realize that time would only be reversed for the one dimension in which the object was traveling. The other 2 dimensions are not affected. Whatever parts of the ship that were traveling toward one side instead of forward, would have a different time concern. If 3 idealized 2-dimensional clocks were on board orthogonally situated, only one would have any reason to flow backwards or even slow down.

The distinction can perhaps be more easily seen if it is presumed that two ships were screaming across space at near light speed. To the outside observer, both ships would seemed to have slower clocks, they would both age less. But between the two ships, if they were traveling parallel, there would be no difference in the clocks or aging between the ships. But what if they were not traveling parallel? What if the two ships were approaching each other at near light speed while also vectoring away from the outside observer at near light speed?

To the outside observer, the two ships are not traveling at the same velocity even though they are traveling at the same speed (different vector). And to each ship, the outside observer is traveling in a different direction from what the other would report. A problem arises when trying to calculate the aging factor, the “time dilation”. As far as each ship is concerned, both the outside observer and the other ship are traveling at the same speed and thus should have the same aging involved. But to the outside observer, both of the ships should have the same aging involved as each other.

Of course, they can’t all be right. Unless the time-vectors involved are considered, the time dilation factor will lead to a conundrum/paradox.

The bottom line is that time must be considered as a 3-dimensional measurement. Each orthogonally vectored dimension has its own time dimension.

Thus Spacetime is actually a 6 dimensional entity (not 4). And for a ship to travel so fast as to stop time or reverse time, it would actually have to travel in all 3 directions simultaneously. I think they call that “Poof”.

So when you see anything go “poof”, perhaps it merely poofed back in time.

It seems you leave out the simple concept of the observer makes the moving objects’s time go slower, relative to the observer. Where excatly is the relative speed factor? Maybe my reading ability isn’t that great anymore.

Would that concern have anything to do with whether time was one dimensional or three dimensional?
To me, it seems like a totally separate issue.

The point is you can’t describe time without, and only suggest that you want to create your own reality.

Science describe time as only 1 dimension, when you wants to have it as multiple dimensions. Let’s say that you are a super genious that can defy even the mighty Einstein, then your work here seems to lack essential features to fully describe time, and jumping to conclusion about time being multiple dimensions isn’t fully suported by facts.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what is being discussed.
Okay. No problem.

Aren’t their 4 dimensions in space time, the time dimension being represented by an imaginary number ie (x,y,z,i) where i can be related to x,y,z on the imaginary axis. What theory are you talking about? In fact where did you get 6 dimensions from?

Yes, it’s very clear what is being discussed, but that doesn’t nessesarily means that there should be agreement, specially when everything you say defies common knowledge about Time and Spacetime.

I guess I didn’t make that as clear as I had hoped.

It is true that “they” have represented time as a single “forward-backward” concern, dimension. That would leave the universe as a 4D entity.

The problem arises when they also applied mathematics to their proposed paradigm. They calculate time dilation based upon velocity. But velocity can only occur in a single dimension of the 3 available. What that means is that time dilation only occurs in that one dimension, just as they proposed the length contraction to be only in the direction of movement.

If the total of time, or the total of all lengths (the size) is to be affected, all 3 dimensions of movement have to be considered. Each dimension adds its own component of time dilation and length contraction. Anything moving along one path necessarily can not have components within it that are moving in the other directions having that same time dilation. Three orthogonally placed 2D clocks, would reveal that the clock perpendicular to the path of travel would have no reason to change or time-dilate.

So the end result of anything in motion, is that all of its inner motions cannot be traveling at the speed of the whole item. The only way to correct for this kind of confused ontology is to allow and declare that time actually has 3 dimensions to go along with its three length dimensions. Once that is done, all of the conundrums resolve.

It is just an issue of consistent ontology and epistemology so that precise measurements can be calculated and understood.

Actually I was talking to the OP. Sorry. I actually agree with what you said up to a point.

I do agree that i = or is related to x,y,z and that i more commonly described as a time component. Where I get fuzzy is only in the idea that that means there are six discreet dimensions, not 3 and 1 related dimension on the imaginary axis. I don’t think you can say that they are discreet in effect because they are intimately related to time as dependant variable to an “independent” one if you see what I mean. ie x,y,z,i are related by time it does not mean x is discreet from y or z as they are intimately dependant and related to time, hence there are still 4 dimensions, 3 of which on their axes have to conform to the dependence on i at time t.

Probably explaining it badly but if x is at a different position than it should be as regards y and z and in accordance with time and space, then it is a mess and has no practical or real association with what actually happens.

The idea of a dimension is that of a measurement that can change without affecting any other dimensional measurement. Something can go only up without going right or forward. But time is also in that same situation because velocity, in only one direction, has affect upon time… in THAT direction. It actually affects time for a reason. It isn’t merely an observation and theory. The reason involves the propagation of changing. The propagation of a change can only go so fast. We call that speed, “the speed of light”. But the propagation of change is 3 dimensional. It propagates in all 3 spatial dimensions. That means that the relative changing that is going on, is happening in all 3 dimensions. that is fine… until we consider the issue of velocity.

Velocity can only happen in one dimension (not affecting the others). Length contraction can only occur in the direction od travel, not affecting the others. And time dilation can only happen in the direction of travel, again not affecting the others.

For the paradigm in Science to be logically consistent and complete, it has to accept that time actually has 3 dimensions. The one dimension that they are calling the 4th dimension is actually a culmination of the 3 dimensions of time.

A difference that comes about from this perspective is that an object traveling at the speed of light cannot actually be an object at all. For something to be an object, it must have 3 dimensional size and thus 3 dimensions of changing (the measure called “time”). The concept of a rigid body is strictly Platonic. Rigid bodies cannot ever exist in the physical universe. So when they use rigid bodies to calculate time concerns, they are ignoring the fact that nothing exists as a rigid body and the relative changing, called time, is different for each direction of motion within every body.

Pioneers who defies the orthodox belives are very importaint for us to progress, not all common knowledge is right and therefore must be imporved, but if ones theories are filled with holes, they are invalid.
[/quote]
Right, so why didn’t you continue arguing the line you started with. Why did you shift from trying to show his hypothesis had holes and mock his as a would be Einstein? He responded to your objection like this…

You did not respond to the specific issue of how this changes if we are dealing with 3 dimensions of time. You did not deal with his suggestion that it is a separate issue. At that point you dismissed his hypothesis and him implicitly.

If you want to demonstrate that there are holes, you need to respond to his responses to your challenges. You did not address the question he raised.

I am sorry I am probably being dense but nothing you said there makes any sense to me at all. Why does there have to be three extra dimensions in 4 space giving us 6? When obviously the 3 space + time Minkowski is related by a dependant and independent system and the calculus works? Seems to me the 3+1 4 space works, and explains experiment, a six space is just completely unnecessary, if it isn’t broke why fix it? You’re widely out there here. What experiment has shown that we need 6 dimensions when the 3 + time show everything consistently within experiment anyway?

I understand that it is not easy to envision, neither was relativity. But you seem to be under the common false impression that all of those experiments have been solidly explained. They haven’t been. And their results don’t calculate out exactly as their theories imply. In this case, it i merely an issue of being MORE precise. This issue doesn’t challenge the foundations of Science or even Quantum Mysticism (unless they choose to make some new fun bemusement out of the thought of it). As they measure relativity, they have always gotten less results than Einstein predicted. The closer to light speed they get, the worse their results and calculation get. I am merely pointing at one of the reasons.

Also realize that we commonly talk about space being 3 dimensions. But space is merely the location data rather than the change data. Why should we accept that location data should have 3 orthogonal dimensions but time, the measure of their relative changing, is to have only one shared among them? Those directions of change are independent, thus their changing can be, and is also independent. It has been inconsistent thinking. And it eventually runs into calculation problems that have to be skirted over without understanding why.

Relativity was easy for me to envision your contentions make no sense at all, so they are not, perhaps that is the difference.

No they do they really do.

No they already are.

None of your issues challenge anything anyway so…

James if that is the case why can’t you prove it to any one but yourself? Surely someone somewhere in the field can understand this or are you just supra genius from a galaxy far afar away? The experimental results are 6 orders of magnitude above Newton and he was damned close, hell they are so close that even you a super being from a galaxy far far away presumably can’t tell the difference no?

No time has one orthogonal component that is related to three dimensional components it’s all it needs. Before you accuse me of being brainwashed by science again, and you will, can you explain this in any form at all experimentally or otherwise using some form of logic that makes sense? Because atm all I am getting is that you really don’t understand the theory, and you’re just throwing out nonsense.

Again trolling, ok its sophisticated but you are trolling. Do you really think no one has noticed what you are atm? Everyone has finally cottoned onto the fact. I would if you are a smarter than the average troll troll, start doing something other than talking nonsense at me please.

All this thread needs is some way to actually do physics with these six dimensions.

What’s that? There is no way? This is just another physics fantasy?

You don’t say.

Oh here we go again with the Sci-religious fanaticism.
“He is challenging the absolute perfection of our lord and master. How dare he add to our holy scripture!”

I said you would do that and you did. Brainwashed by logic and reason and evidence again, I can live with that.

I’m not a physics student or am I likely to go into that area, I do think though that you need to do more than throw out ad homs, and baseless assertions. to convince the real scientists that they are all just cultists, who can’t see your majestic and self evident truths.

Indeed.

I can’t visualize what 3 time dimensions mean. What would it change compared to one dimension? How do you use the concept?

It is merely an issue of the finer details in calculating time dilation concerns. If you are using it in the kitchen, you have issues.

To visualize it, merely imagine a wave traveling along a single dimension. That wave represents a changing along that axis. If there is another changing along that axis, then you have a measure of relative change between them - time.

Now as it turns out, if your wave is traveling inside something that is moving extremely fast compared to that other wave, the relative amount of changing between them will be different than it was - time dilation. The length of the wave that was zipping along at near the speed of light will be shorter, length contraction.

But all of that is merely one dimension of travel, a vector. If that wave wasn’t merely a simple line wave, but a planar wave, involving 2 dimensions, a different concern arises. In the direction that the wave was speeding along, that wave would be shorter. But on the other axis, the length would not change. Th ave isn’t traveling along the other axis, thus there is no length contraction. But that means that there is no time dilation either. Given a 3D wave, only one of the length dimensions would be shorter due to its travel.

Now if you imagine that such a wave was somehow pushed up to the maximum speed, the calculation would reflect that in that direction, your traveling wave would not be changing at all relative to the other wave - time stopped. But it only stopped in that one direction of travel. In the other 2 dimensions, there is no reason for the wave to be shorter or slower. Neither time nor length would be affected concerning the other axes.

Now the reality is that no physical object can be anything but three dimensional and actually have moving components within going on all three directions. How those inner motions relate to some other object with little motions within is what gives us the notion of time = the measure of relative change/motion. So even at the speed of light, not every motion within has stopped relative to any other object. The only relative motion that could stop would be the one relating to the particular direction of the travel.

So if not all relative motion stops, how can you say that time has stopped? At the speed of light, any object would still have relative motion along the other 2 axes. Time would not be zero. This directly relates to the Lorentz transformation for time calculations, because his assumption was that at the speed of light time must go to zero. But in reality, it wouldn’t go to zero, thus his calculation is wrong, but not by much. You eggs will still take 3 minutes to cook.

This is where I disagree. Yes, time is the measure of relative change/motion. As such it operates along the vector of motion. There is no time, expect in this one direction. This is true even for a three dimensional object. At any instant, it can only move in one direction.

If something was moving at c in the x-direction and and v in the y-direction, then there would be a direction where it was moving faster than c… its speed would be=( squareroot(cc+vv)). The maximum speed of an object (if it was moving at c in all three dimensions) would be squareroot(3)c or about 1.73c.