-
is reality a shadow of timeImagine this thesis:Voted for by PoeticPasture.
If a person stands up on a sunny day, the sun's rays hit the man's body and behind it the absence of light forms a shadow. The shadow is two-dimensional, it has a length and width, but no depth. When the sun's rays cease to hit the person, the shadow disappears.
Subsequently, could reality be a 'shadow' of time? Could we be but an outline of a superordinate dimension above us?
Light hits a 3d object, a shadow forms.
In theory then, something must cause a 4-D object (time) to form a 3-D object, what could this be?
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
NoeL-
November 25, 2009
1) As you said, shadows are an absence of light, not a tangible thing. Nothing is created. The only difference between a shadow and a non-shadow is that there aren't as many photons coming out of the shade.
2) You find one special condition where a 3D object creates an (illusionary) 2D object and extrapolate that ALL nD objects create n-1D objects. Does a 2D image cast a 1D "shadow"?
3) The question isn't worded very well
4) Space and time are not separate, but parts of the same fabric called "spacetime". Go and read up on Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It's kind of hard to understand, but we figured out the universe isn't 3D + time as Newton imagined 100 years ago.
I like your thinking, and it's good philosophising... just a little weak on the science
Xelgaroth
November 25, 2009
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
November 25, 2009
2) Think more along the lines of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, he's trying to bring attention to the idea that perhaps time is indeed just another dimension to traverse (and potentially manipulate).
3) The point is that time isn't necessarily part of objective reality. We just assume that time exists at every frame of reference in reality, but perhaps this assumption isn't justified.
4) He never mentioned space... he mentioned time as an object which exists on a dimension above the entire time-space arena.
He's pondering whether there's something more to reality than what we are directly experiencing. I'm not exactly sure why you think science somehow negates this? Quantum physics certainly takes a dive into this kind of subject matter from time to time (pardon the pun).
NoeL-
November 25, 2009
Where? Or do you just mean that the laws of relativity fall apart at the quantum level?
"The point is that time isn't necessarily part of objective reality. We just assume that time exists at every frame of reference in reality, but perhaps this assumption isn't justified."
Well, it doesn't exist for waves travelling at light speed, but anything slower than light experiences the flow of time.
In fact, EVERYTHING moves at EXACTLY the speed of light, just in different dimensions. A stationary object is moving at the speed of light through time, a light wave moves at the speed of light through space, and something moving slower than light moves in both dimensions.
If you can imagine holding a pool cue vertically on a number plane, where the vertical axis is "time" and the horizontal axis is a dimension of space. When an object is at rest, the cue is directly vertical. The position of the tip is 0 (at the x axis) and 1 (at the y axis). It is moving at a speed of 0c through space, and 1c through time. As you rotate the cue, the tip moves further along the x axis and lower along the y, so the object is moving more through space and less through time. As you rotate the cue towards horizontal, the tip approaches 1 on the x axis and 0 on the y. A horizontal cue would represent light waves - they move at 1c through space and 0c though time. You'll notice that as x gets larger, y gets smaller. This means that the faster you go, the slower time passes. This is what's known as "time dilation".
Molzahn
November 26, 2009
"Well, it doesn't exist for waves travelling at light speed, but anything slower than light experiences the flow of time."
Another thing is we don't even know if waves can travel true light speed. We just assume that photons travel the fastest possible speed because they are the fastest thing we can manipulate and measure. Consider the expansion of the universe. The speed of darkness (ironically) is faster than the speed of light.
Another interesting puzzle is trying to assess the big bang on the basis of time (prior to the few seconds after initiation). Are you so certain that time is a necessary element to the function of reality? ...I mean, really?
Xelgaroth
December 16, 2009
No. It is believed that they travel the fastest possible speed because they have no mass; any object WITH mass would travel more slowly than one without, hence photons are the fastest particles, because in order for any object to travel faster than it, it would have to have LESS than no mass, which is not possible. Therefore, photons are the fastest particles in three-dimensional space.
"The speed of darkness (ironically) is faster than the speed of light)."
Erm... the speed of darkness? Darkness is the absence of light. It is not a "thing" in and of itself. Therefore it cannot have "speed". Even if it did have a speed, it would only be equal to that of light, not faster, because it can only travel as fast as light leaves a location in space.
Molzahn
December 19, 2009
Mass is inversely proportional to speed, that much is true. But there is no way to qualify that photons have absolutely zero mass. There would be no way to test it. The most we can say is that they have the lowest mass (and fastest speed) of anything we can measure.
"Erm... the speed of darkness? Darkness is the absence of light. It is not a "thing" in and of itself."
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, which is why we can talk about a euphemistic speed of darkness.
Xelgaroth
December 19, 2009
Edit | Reply
It should be understood that photons are thought to have no REST mass; but they do have relativistic mass, which is why they are affected by gravity, and is the source of gravitational lensing, which can be observed in space. It is noted that force acting parallel to the motion of a photon does affect its frequency, but it does not affect its speed at all. It is not merely that physicists said, "Wow, that's the fastest thing we've ever seen; it must not have mass". Not at all. Photons behave entirely differently from conventional particles, and have been determined to have no mass. Certain "Massive Photon" theories exist, but the commonly accepted theory is that photons have zero invariant mass, which would indeed make them the fastest particles in three-dimensional space. The only other massless particles currently confirmed to exist are gluons, though these are very different from photons. It was formerly thought that neutrinos were massless as well, though this is no longer felt to be true. In theoretical physics, the graviton particle would, if it indeed exists, have to be massless as well, though further research is necessary to confirm its existence.
"The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, which is why we can talk about a euphemistic speed of darkness."
Very well, if you wish to euphemise.
In any case, the universe is not unique, theoretically speaking, in its achievement of superluminal speed. Quantum particles, in theoretical physics, move essentially instantaneously, when considering the concept of "quantum teleportation" (not to be confused with literal teleportation in its conventional sense). A quantum tunneling particle, for another example, has a delay time independent of the thickness of a given barrier encountered. This is called the Hartman effect, and would entail particles moving faster than light.
But bottom line, no massive particle can achieve speeds faster than the speed of light, because it would expand exponentially until it collapsed into a singularity (a black hole). Travelling at the speed of light itself, you would have to be infinitely light-- i.e. have no mass-- and would be independent of time for the duration of your lightspeed travel. Upon your return, however, hundreds of thousands to millions of years may have gone by, depending on how long you travelled.
December 21, 2009
Edit | Reply
Space and time are a continuum I know, but if you watch this video, it suggests that time is the fourth dimension to reality:
http://www.videosift.com/video/imagining-the-10th-dimension
It wasn't so much scientifically aimed, it was just a speculation, thinking out loud
December 21, 2009
Edit | Reply
I am fully aware of relativity theory & how a shadow is formed.
Having marveled at the above video, it made me think of the interconnection between these dimensions.
Pardon my science.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!