How do we know what is and isn't real?

Also from my own thoughts, the subatomic particle, the neutrino which was the particle that exhibited this is limited mostly to weak force interactions. So I am unsure how this can apply to beings like us which are effected more by the other forces but maybe it's just the principle of particles travelings faster than the speed of light.

 

The Special Theory of Relativity allows for tachyons---particles that move faster than the speed of light. If they are real they would move backwards in time, and would increase in velocity as inertia is increased (normal particels slow in velocity as inertia is increased).

Neutrinos are not tachyons however, so they would defy the laws of physics if they moved faster than the speed of light. However if you apply the moment of Now to these particles than we could argue that it is illusion that they are moving faster then the speed of light, when in fact they are simply moving in the fourht dimension----in the same Now. This however is not as clean of an explanation as in the case of particle entaglement.

On the other hand some recent research has called into question whether neutrinos actually act that way or not.

 

I saw a video one time that explained how time can be treated as multidimensional I.e. 3 dimensional time. the evolution of time, it is a quite long video tho. I can't find a good video that explains it well right now unfortunately.

 

Do all those correspond with dimensions of space or is the theory that time somehow has dimensions independent of space?

 

My own concept, which is not uncommon, is that time is a non-physical dimension of space (the idea behind my 2nd principle)--but that does not mean that it is not tied directly to space----as in space-time----I think that if we shorten the space dimensions through higher velocities that it has a correlated shortening of the time dimension---a shotening of the Now-----which explains the slowing of time at higher velocities. As you may recall, I also believe that mind is of a higher dimension.

 

they are dimesions of time seperate from the dimensions of space. I.e you can move through time at various angles instead of just forward or backward so that at different angles the length of the line can change.

http://youtu.be/BGh2NGOtCP0

http://youtu.be/NUYaM6B-gjw

 

Maybe it's just the skeptic part of my mind which doesn't fully grasp these concepts but it appears to me that there is a fundamental disconnect with this theory and the one you posted a couple weeks ago of a neuroscientist lecture, which suggested that our perception of now is illusory, as our 'now' requires the brain to stagger it's responses to incoming stimuli, as they travel at different rates for different senses.

So as I understand the point in this video, the moments of time and 'now' are contigent on the speed we are moving through space as well as objects we are located near. However we may look at a psychological condition such as akinestopia where individuals have lapses in their processing of time even with all other variables similar to one who may be present. (For instance they more overpour a glass of beer because they don't see it filling up even while constantly looking at it) I'm not sure it follows that they are in a different dimension of time, particularly one that is separate from space.

 

Fascinating concepts though and I enjoyed the video.

 

the difference between the two perspectives is that the one I poseted to day is how time relates to physics, and the other one dealt with time and neurology; how time is perceived by the mind.

time exists apart from perception, but the we we perceive time passing from one moment to the next is somewhat illusory or maybe distorted i.e. time passes slowly when your bored. the thing to keep in. I don't about this though is that two people can experience the same period in time and one having a good time and the other not so much may report different estimates on the amount of time they feel has passed even though their clocks will agree with each other that in fact the same amount of time has passed. this is subjective time dilation and anyone who's done psychedelics will know that 30 mins can feel like 2 hours even tho the clock will show only 30 minutes has passed.

relativistic time dilation and contraction on the other hand is a real physical effect existing apart from subjective perception and in this case different clocks in different reference frames WILL NOT agree. there will be an actual difference in time on the two clocks and observers in each reference frame will experience the passage of time normally even though if brought into the same locality where the clocks can be compared there will be a difference. even though they show that time has passed at different rates for each of them this is not actually the case, time passed the same in each of their reference frames. relative to each other time was either dilated or contracted. the NOW that they each experience isn't exactly the same place in time, one has moved at a different angle or across different dimensions of time so that the two observers are not actually Shari g the same locality exactly that they were before even tho it seems they are. and that's about all im gonna try and say about that right now before I comoletely both the concept.

there a video on YouTube that I posted in another thread one time called "The Evolution of Time" that explains this pretty well, but it is three hours. the part that talks about 3d time though is at the beginning iirc, the latter part deals with quantum mechanics and very nicely ties all of these different things together (general relativity, quantum mechanics, time, and gravity) but it is pretty heavy on math. it goes pretty fast but I think if you can get the equations just a little it makes a whole lot of sense cuz the explanations go a long way.

wth, I guess I'll post it here just in case anyone's interested.

http://youtu.be/V7bbYNCdqak

if ur gonna watch this you'd probably want to watch it in chunks.

 

Thank you for the videos Ace_k

 

Interesting perspective. I will have to play around with that for a bit. My first thought on reading this was that photons, at the speed of light, from their perspective are standing still---while the whole universe is in motion around it.

Time as a 4th dimension was introduced because something was missing from Einstein's equations----therefore it was added, intially as a mathematical convenience-----but a funny thing about such mathematical or formulaic conveniences----they tend to actually be. Case in point is the photon--light as a particle. At the end of the 1800's light was believed to be only a wave. But questions arose around the photoelectric effect and black body radiation that didn't make sense if light was a wave----therefore as a mathematical convenience, it was treated as a particle----which scientists later realized was actually the case---it is both wave and particle.

Is treating time as a dimension a mathematical convenience or a reality?

On the other hand, if time is the 4th dimension, we would not be able to separate the three physical dimensions from that of time---because time is of a higher than the physical dimensions. Time surrounds the physical dimensions in all directions. I also consider time as a seperate dimension because it is a dimension of light, which within our physical dimensions is a zero----zero mass, zero time...

 

In superconductors photons do exhibit rest mass.

 

Well we hear about the ones that work... Many fail such as MOND, steady state theory, Bohr model, Newton's theory of Gravity.

I'm not sure what to make of the half dozen or so Theoretical Physics theories all parading as a "Grand Unified Theory" either.

 

It's all an illusion (borrowed that from J.D. Salinger). But what ultimately decided the issue for me was the suicide of the American poet Sylvia Plath. She took her life in 1963, yet her husband, two children, mother, and rival (the woman Ted Hughes had abandoned Sylvia and his two children for) continued to exist for a decade or two or three. Now all are gone. Only Sylvia's daughter lives on. All became food for the worms. Only the great poetry remains.

P.S. DEAD POETS SOCIETY is another source that had a strong impact on me. Very fine film, and the lead actor (Robin Williams) would ultimately take his own life. It is all an illusion...

 

If the great poetry remains then it is not all illusion. All the books go in the garbage but the words taken to heart are written in the gene. We are real living creatures.

 

'I think therefore I am ' is not a true statement.

 

Why?

Give us your argument against it.