Is time itself running out?

[docm]

Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Will Time be Replaced by Another Space Dimension?</b><br /><br />What if time disappeared? Yes, it sounds like a silly question - and if the cosmos sticks to the current laws of physics - it's a question we need never ask beyond this article. Writing this article would in itself be a waste of my time if the cosmos was that simple. But I'm hedging my bets and continuing to type, as I believe we have only just scratched the surface of the universal laws of physics; the universe is anything but simple. There may in fact be something to this crazy notion that the nature of the universe could be turned on its head should the fundamental quantity of time be transformed into another dimension of space. An idea like this falls out of the domain of classical thought, and into the realms of "braneworlds", a view that encapsulates the 4-dimensional universe we know and love with superstrings threaded straight through…<br /><br />Brane theory is a strange idea. In a nutshell, a brane (short for "membrane") can be viewed as a sheet floating in a fifth dimension. As we can only experience three dimensional space along one dimension of time (four dimensional space-time, a.k.a. a Lorentzian universe), we cannot understand what this fifth dimension looks like, but we are fortunate to have mathematics to help us out. Mathematics can be used to describe as many dimensions as we like. Useful, as branes describe the cumulative effect of "strings" threading through many dimensions and the forces interacting to create the universe we observe in boring old three dimensional space. According to the "braneworld" view, our four dimensional cosmos may actually be embedded within a multidimensional universe - our cosmic version only uses four of the many possible dimensions.<br /><br />Theorists contempla</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

It is remarkable the number of wild theories coming out lately, which all seem to have some basis. I read a summary of this work in the latest New Scientist, but this comes relatively soon after the Dec 10 issue that had an article postulating two dimensions of time, hints of which first emerged from M-theory work in 1995. <br /><br />I can't really offer any opinion on these, only that the last year or so has been really interesting for cosmology (what with the renewed interest in Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics as well). Who knows what this year will bring????????<br /><br />And how do we test, i.e. find hard evidence for all these theories? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

When you see a cosmologist look up and say "OH, s**t!!" you'll know one of them has come to pass <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

Yes Everett, Quantum Electro Dynamics & M theory all seem to be pointing at a dimension we can't yet understand, maybe it'll all come together <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[weeman]

Very interesting article. I think that's definitely the main question surrounding this article: What would the universe be like without time?<br /><br />How could the universe even exist without time? I heard a physicist a while back on 'Coast to Coast' saying that if multiverse theory is correct, then it's possible there are other universes that have neither space nor time. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Hogwash. And I suppose time will run out on 12/21/2012, when the Mayan calandar ends? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Not to mention what this would do to Einstein's Theory of Relativity? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[freezian]

At present, time is tied to our existence here. We know things out there move forward and happen. But as to say that it is under the same law governing order? I believe that the Universe is ever progressive. Our calculations may not be 100% accurate,so how can we give an absolute equation? I like to stay open to "Logical" things myself. It's only when we start dismissing things as nonsense, is when we will take steps back, rather than forward? There has to be more dimensions out there surely. And there has to be a reason why we don't really know what that is?

 

[majornature]

You know, I asked myself that question many of times. I even asked why time is so important<br /><br />Yeah! Why is TIME so important?"<br /><br />When did mankind start decoding this code that set the stage for modern mankind usage...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[siarad]

Time maybe so important coz life too may end with it.<br />50 odd years ago I tried to fathom time & life but could only come to the conclusion that they are the opposite of each other.<br />Time wears everything down to a common denominator whereas life continually builds.<br />Still didn't tell me anything about either & I'm still no wiser <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />