1 We regard time here as an added fourth dimension
to three space. Time is an imaginary space dimension of Minkowski's
spacetime triangle. Time is also a real time dimension of his
spacetime triangle. (Sort of complementary alteregos!) Space
is a real space dimension of our spacetime triangle. Space is
also an imaginary time dimension of our spacetime triangle. You
can think, using this spacetime triangle in two modes:
timelike or spacelike. For reasonably thorough
coverage of time in its classical, relative, and quantum flavors
see our QELR of
time. Doug - 4Mar2008
If you think timelike (say to calculate an age of a traveler
as perceived by self or an observer) time's dimension is real
and space's dimension is imaginary. Timelike separated events
appear earlier or later in real time for all observers. Earlier/later
relations for timelike events are preserved.
If you think spacelike (say to calculate a distance traveled
as perceived by self or an observer) space's dimension is real
and time's dimension is imaginary.
Einstein's relativity theory limits itself to four dimensions.
Note how quantum science has no limits on space dimensions and
uses Hilbert space as a tool. Doug (12Dec1996).
|
Space-time distance calculation rules:
- td = Dt•c (time
distance is t difference•light speed;
km )
- td2 = td•td
(square distance for time, t; km2)
- sd2 = sd•sd
(distance in space squared; km2)
- D2 = sd2 - td2
(Yes, subtract! space-time distance squared; km2)
- space-time distance =
 D2
(km)
|
Please be aware that Minkowski's spacetime concepts
shown above
are classical. His mindset when he developed this idea
was classical. So was Einstein's. Both are essential SOMites.
In Quantonics, we are amazed that Einstein was able
to unify space and time,
and show their identity. We are amazed because he did not perceive
their underlying
deeper structure, i.e., flux. We choose to believe Einstein's
Classical Thing-king
Methods (CTMs) put blinders on him. Had he perceived flux as
their deeper structure,
we think he would have seen flux as deeper structure for both
mass and gravity too!
But Einstein thought quantum science was:
Absurd! Unreasonable! Incomplete! Contradictory!
PARADOXICAL!
J
Now we know Einstein was wrong (i.e., incomplete in his thing-king).
But then one must ask,
"What else did he perceive wrongly/incompletely? And why?"
His model of time was classical.
He failed to see time and space as spawn of flux.
He perceived reality as a formal, deterministic, analytic function
of homogeneous time.
He saw all real, substantial objects
as y = f(t)!
Einstein told us, "No thing
can travel faster than light speed."
Einstein denied as patently absurd quantum
superluminal action at a distance.
Yet recent advances in quantum science demonstrate
faster than light (FTL)
tunneling of quantons. See, among others, our brief on Raymond
Chiao's FTL work nearby.
In that review, I did not say so, but it is worth your while
to note that Chiao's
quantons travel superluminally through his barrier. The number
he quotes of 1.7
times light speed will go up as he increases his barrier
thickness! Why?
Because a quanton spends less time traveling in actuality.
It travels a further actual distance (increased barrier
thickness)
in nonactuality at a superluminal rate.
Also note: Gisin and Zeilinger,
among others, demonstrated superluminal spin correlation
twixt two quantons separated at least 10 kilometers. Superluminal
means
no latency. Correlations are instantaneous!
(Search on Nicolas Gisin and Anton Zeilinger to learn more.)
On our classical diagram above we show an example
where classicists assume
"you/we are just standing still." Physicists call this
"zero momentum." This is a faux pas.
This is one of classicists' greatest failures of thought: that
reality can "stand still," is "stoppable."
Quantum realihty issi abs¤lute
flux. Thus realihty cann¤t
st¤p. I(ht)-y¤u(wæ)
cann¤t stand stihll.
Another classical faux pas arises from Einstein's
silly space-time identity.
Einstein assumes that space is a proxy for time, that time is
essentially  space/space.
This mandate for space-time identity is a classical naïvety.
Why? Classical notions of 'space' can "stand still"
due space's classical analyticity.
But if you think about it (do n¤t thingk
about it),
you may see that time is non-classically analytic: time
is unstoppable!
In our Quantonics efforts to fathom time's quantum depths,
we have found that time is not just another spatial dimension.
Rather, in Quantonics, tihmæ issi
heter¤gene¤us,
anihmatæ,
EIMA, quantum fluxings.
Einstein treated space as geometrical.
Extremely foolishly, Einstein, via his space-time 'identity,'
treated time too as geometrical. Why? It was his only means of
retaining any classical 'objectivity' in his theory(ies) of relativity.
Elsewhere Don Howard (Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, South
Bend, Indiana, USA) tells us that Einstein used Leibnitz' notions
of 3D and 1T. But where Leibnitz had already concluded absence
of objectivity (see subject, subjectiv and subjective
below), Einstein bastardized Leibnitz by imposing a classical
notion of invariant 'geometrical interval,'
to achieve his own last bastion of objectivity. See Howard's
paper titled, 'Holism and Separability,' Philosophical Consequences
of Quantum Theory, UND Press, 1989.
In quantum reality
there is n¤, can be n¤, memeo
of invariance,
n¤ invariant
any 'kind of actuality.'
See our recent 2005 QELRs
(and updates) of duration,
intelligence,
judge, logic
(also see coquecigrues),
measure, monitor,
negation, positive,
probability, science, simultaneity,
subject, subjectiv,
subjective, time, truth,
uncertainty,
etc.
Quantum timings are at least heterogeneous
and REIMAR~coobsfectively
n¤nlinear quantonic interrelationshipings.
Most adepts today, as of 2005, say that Einstein's
beliefs should be referred as, "naïve and local realism."
What Einstein believed was mostly just bogus SOMitic
HyperBoole.
|
Why do classicists have this incredible problem understanding
time?
First of all, try to ponder what time is yourself. It is, in
physial reality, one of,
if not the most difficult memes to understand. We think
our difficulties understanding
time are a large part of our difficulties understanding quantum
reality.
But why do classicists appear to not understand time? Irving
Stein answered it best in our view:
classicists "have no coherent description of change,"
thus saying essentially that classicists refuse
to accept change as a quantum meme of heterogeneous emergence.
Instead, they insist that
change must be objective, unicontextual (OGC),
and unilogical (OGT) in a subject-object metaphysics (SOM).
For more on stoppability, see our recent Zeno's
Paradice.
Also see our What Is
Wrong with SOM's Logic.
Thank you for reading,
Doug.
|
