h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Nature of Time - A2896329
Author: Baryonic Being - (Go to U717892 and A2411191!) - U234603

What is time?

Hi-o.
I'm not too concerned with how time flows, as long as it keeps going

I followed this entry Except this part-

"So that could be the reason. We experience time as flowing because of our processing of information."

Are these meant to be one sentence?

I take your point and so I have changed it to 'So the reason that we experience a 'flow' of time could just be because of how we process information.'

Thank you!

This is excellent! I've read numerous articles in New Scientist on many of these topics and never really understood them; this explains the whole lot in one easily-digestible form.

I thought the rubber sheet description of gravity was out of favour now for being misleading? To me it doesn't really *explain* gravity as some kind of gravity is still needed for objects to bend the rubber sheet.
Also, under "Time in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics"-
3rd para from bottom, "on universe" -> "one universe"
Bottom para - "time's being" -> "time as being"

Great stuff

Thank you for your positive comments; I have corrected the mistakes you found. So what is now the favoured analogy for gravity?

BB, Thanks for the link to ‘The Nature of Time’.

Sorry that I cannot provide the currently favoured analogy you seek. I'm not sure that one exists that works for everyone. After all, we process data differently. Some people are visual, aural, or tactile in their preferred method of perception.

I can only do my best to return the favours that you bestowed upon my piece, ‘Time: A Bi-Directional Dimension’.

As always, remember that these are merely suggestions, and their use relies on your choices and preferences.

‘There is not very much to say on this theory since it is the one we are all most familiar with.’ Ends with a preposition. You could change it to ‘…the one with which we are all most familiar.’

‘Humans measure time using many units, some based on real events like the rotation of the Earth, others that are arbitrary.’ The Universe would probably consider the Earth’s rotation to be an arbitrary measure, as well. Perhaps, ‘… others that are even more arbitrary.’

The two statements: ‘The faster we travel through space, the slower we travel through time.’ and ‘Time becomes a fourth dimension, just like the other three dimensions of space that we are used to (height, width and length).’, would seem to contradict. If time is ‘just like’ the other dimensions, than it would not be relative to an observer’s speed unless the others are equally relative. Perhaps you could expand, or explain?

‘ Our vision of the third dimension is a result of perspective and the existence of our peripheral vision.’ Is not precisely correct. Peripheral vision is our ability to notice things not in our direct line of vision. I think you were looking for ‘binocular vision’.

‘If we had three-dimensional retinae, we would be able to see all of an entire room simultaneously - its walls, its floor and its ceiling at the same time! For this reason, it is very difficult, if not totally impossible, for humans to visualise a fourth dimension.’ This part isn’t clear for me. I don’t see what having three-dimensional senses would do toward giving us the ability to ‘visualise a fourth dimension’.

‘So in this case, let us imagine that the universe is shaped like a cuboid,…’ Perhaps you could define cuboid.

‘Then you start moving upwards.’ I think it is ‘upward’.

‘For example, in the early universe there was a 'battle' between matter and anti-matter2, and matter, for a hitherto inexplicable reason, won.’ This should be obvious, that no matter which version of ‘matter’ won, it would be the one we know and the other (once discovered) would be relegated to the status of anti-matter.

‘It is very unlikely that the universe should exist because of how biased it seems to have been towards creating life at the end of it. However, if we see the universe as providing a wide range of 'universes' of different properties, it will come as no surprise if we find one universe that supports life.’ In Newtonian physics, this is not actually necessary, because however the universe was put together, any life that formed would find it would ‘seem to have been tailor-made for life.’

‘Their choice is entirely random, which is why it always seems that the current is split 50:50.’ I’m afraid some electronics explanation would be necessary here. How do you mean ‘… it always seems that the current is split 50:50.

‘It is not time itself that flows. Each IGUS has a different speed for the flow of its information between registers.’ This would seem to imply that the different flow rates are tied to biological IGUS and would fly in the face of the ‘proof’ given us in the atomic clocks experiment. There is no reason that an atomic clock would be fooled in the same fashion. Obviously time is not mere perception. Even the earth ages in one direction, as in erosion.

‘Another possibility is that the universe's arrow of time (as far as thermodynamics is concerned) will naturally reverse itself at a crucial point in the history of the universe. At this point, the universe would start to get smaller and everybody would get younger until there was a big crunch analogous to the big bang. This creates a perfect symmetry to the universe.’ I don’t yet see any reason here that reversing the arrow of time would result in things moving backward, any more than moving the shards of wineglasses back toward each other will make them stick together. Apparently, time is an unusual dimension. But even moving backward in time through our three-dimensional space will not affect any other dimensions, so their effects will still be felt?

Summation:
Great read! Stimulating descriptions and examples!
Looking forward to seeing it polished even further!

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Einstein once said, something like this about time:

Time is there so things do not happen all at once.

HELL

Hello FordsTowel! Thank you for taking the time and trouble to analyse this entry. I have acted upon the general grammatical and factual errors, but there are some points of yours that I don't seem to understand, whether or not this is due to slow reactions, reduced concentration, or the fact that I have just come back from a vacation, I don't know. Anyway, let us once more get stuck into what will probably become another feverish cosmological debate.



"The two statements: ‘The faster we travel through space, the slower we travel through time.’ and ‘Time becomes a fourth dimension, just like the other three dimensions of space that we are used to (height, width and length).’, would seem to contradict. If time is ‘just like’ the other dimensions, than it would not be relative to an observer’s speed unless the others are equally relative. Perhaps you could expand, or explain?"

This is the first point that I fail to see fault with. (As you can see, I also fail to avoid using prepositions at the ends of sentences to from with at). The source of the confusion may be that we perceive the dimension of time in one direction only. If we were constantly moving South inexorably, then it is plain to see that by increasing our speed in a Westerly direction, it will take longer to get the same distance South.


"‘If we had three-dimensional retinae, we would be able to see all of an entire room simultaneously - its walls, its floor and its ceiling at the same time! For this reason, it is very difficult, if not totally impossible, for humans to visualise a fourth dimension.’ This part isn’t clear for me. I don’t see what having three-dimensional senses would do toward giving us the ability to ‘visualise a fourth dimension’."

This is the second point with which I fail to see a fault. (I managed it that time!) The source of the confusion is probably in the word 'visualise'. If we had 3D eyes, we wouldn't just be able to visualise 4D things, we'd be able to see them in actuality.


"In Newtonian physics, this is not actually necessary, because however the universe was put together, any life that formed would find it would ‘seem to have been tailor-made for life.’"

Martin Rees apparently hasn't heard this argument. Neither had I, but I have now, and I see that it is indeed a very sound argument. I would argue in reponse, however, that the fact that 'any life' forming in it actually happens in this particular universe, is the key issue. Indeed, Martians would see the universe as tailor made for them, but generally speaking, the universe 'appears' to be tailor-made for any life, whatever it is, since most things coincidentally appear to have led to its successful provocation, hencely, thuswise and hitherto.

(Naturally, the 'tailor' that tailor-made the universe is hypothetical, but were he to be in existence, it is evident that he has given me as a particular life form the startling ability to talk complete gibberish on the subject).


‘Their choice is entirely random, which is why it always seems that the current is split 50:50.’ I’m afraid some electronics explanation would be necessary here. How do you mean ‘… it always seems that the current is split 50:50.

This is the nth point on which I find fault not forthwith. The source of the confusion is probably in the word 'seems'.


"‘It is not time itself that flows. Each IGUS has a different speed for the flow of its information between registers.’ This would seem to imply that the different flow rates are tied to biological IGUS and would fly in the face of the ‘proof’ given us in the atomic clocks experiment. There is no reason that an atomic clock would be fooled in the same fashion. Obviously time is not mere perception. Even the earth ages in one direction, as in erosion."

Forthwith fault has not been discovered in this the nth point of yours. The source of the confusion is as yet unknown. As far as I see it, there is no reason why the two concepts should contradict each other; please perhaps you could explain your quandary further?


"‘Another possibility is that the universe's arrow of time (as far as thermodynamics is concerned) will naturally reverse itself at a crucial point in the history of the universe. At this point, the universe would start to get smaller and everybody would get younger until there was a big crunch analogous to the big bang. This creates a perfect symmetry to the universe.’ I don’t yet see any reason here that reversing the arrow of time would result in things moving backward, any more than moving the shards of wineglasses back toward each other will make them stick together. Apparently, time is an unusual dimension. But even moving backward in time through our three-dimensional space will not affect any other dimensions, so their effects will still be felt?"

Lawrence Schulman apparently hasn't heard this argument. Neither had I, but I have now, and I see that it is indeed a very sound argument. I would argue in reponse, however, that a response, however argumentative, would probably be the most responsive way to respond.


I am very sorry for the lack of eloquence and the abundance of sheer nonsense that has been incurred in this response; I may take a fresh look at some of your points tomorrow or when I feel in a fresher mood for a philosophical quodlibet.

A Quizzical Quantum Quodlibet. If there's one thing I do like it's a good quizzical quantum quodlibet.


Hell, I have heard that quote but I believe it was not Einstein who said it, but that it was the subject of some graffiti on a rest-room wall in Seattle.

Maybe it's been ascribed to him.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins148878.html

ciao,

HELL

or... http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2309

Quite popular, actually. I only knew it in German, and it was also ascribed to Al. It could be his. He said a lot of funny stuff. Maybe the guy who wrote it on the Seattle rest-room wall just didn't cite it properly

HELL

Good work! I enjoyed reading this entry

Very kind of you to say so.

Hi BB, You're certainly welcome. I enjoy the give and take of ideas, opinions, and sometimes even drivel (but that last is not to be found in your entry).

Feverish Debate, BB? Sounds like a rock band!

"The two statements: ‘The faster we travel through space, the slower we travel through time.’ and ‘Time becomes a fourth dimension, just like the other three dimensions of space that we are used to (height, width and length).’, would seem to contradict. If time is ‘just like’ the other dimensions, than it would not be relative to an observer’s speed unless the others are equally relative. Perhaps you could expand, or explain?"

[* What I meant to question was: if as speed through space increases, we travel slower through time, then it would seem that time is not 'just like the other dimensions of space that we are used to', but somehow counter-proportional in regards to travel speed. *]

This is the first point that I fail to see fault with. (As you can see, I also fail to avoid using prepositions at the ends of sentences to from with at). The source of the confusion may be that we perceive the dimension of time in one direction only. If we were constantly moving South inexorably, then it is plain to see that by increasing our speed in a Westerly direction, it will take longer to get the same distance South.

[* This would be true, only if the velocity were constant, and related simultaneously to both vectors. If you drop a cannon ball, the acceleration toward the earth can be calculated. The precisely identical acceleration takes place if the cannon ball had been shot out of a cannon at the same height. The distance traveled would be longer, but it would hit the ground in the same amount of time. If time is like the other dimensions, then increasing speed in through one dimension would not affect, or be affected by, a change in velocity in another. *]

"‘If we had three-dimensional retinae, we would be able to see all of an entire room simultaneously - its walls, its floor and its ceiling at the same time! For this reason, it is very difficult, if not totally impossible, for humans to visualise a fourth dimension.’ This part isn’t clear for me. I don’t see what having three-dimensional senses would do toward giving us the ability to ‘visualise a fourth dimension’."

This is the second point with which I fail to see a fault. [* Yay! *] (I managed it that time!) The source of the confusion is probably in the word 'visualise'. If we had 3D eyes, we wouldn't just be able to visualise 4D things, we'd be able to see them in actuality.

[* I see. And it may be the word visualise causing my confusion; so let me ask it this way. With our 2D, binocular vision, we can percieve depth and our brain interprets the signals as a three dimensional image. Even so, we are aware (unless we haven't been paying attention) to the 3D dynamics of the entire room we are observing. A monocular equipped individual, and even a blind person (in time) can gather enough information for their brain to interpret it as 3D. So, if the 3D vision equipped individual has been strapped into the 3D environment his/her entire life, without a fourth dimensional reference, why would they be any better equipped to see that fourth dimension?

"In Newtonian physics, this is not actually necessary, because however the universe was put together, any life that formed would find it would ‘seem to have been tailor-made for life.’"

Martin Rees apparently hasn't heard this argument. Neither had I, but I have now, and I see that it is indeed a very sound argument. I would argue in reponse, however, that the fact that 'any life' forming in it actually happens in this particular universe, is the key issue. Indeed, Martians would see the universe as tailor made for them, but generally speaking, the universe 'appears' to be tailor-made for any life, whatever it is, since most things coincidentally appear to have led to its successful provocation, hencely, thuswise and hitherto.

(Naturally, the 'tailor' that tailor-made the universe is hypothetical, but were he to be in existence, it is evident that he has given me as a particular life form the startling ability to talk complete gibberish on the subject).

[* I remember hearing the example of a sentient rain puddle. It would find itself in a depression so totally fitting its form and nature that it may well assume that it's niche was absolutely and intentionally tailor-made for it's comfort and survival (until the sun evaporated it away). It might never occur to the poor pool that it was fitting iteself into the indentation, and not the other way around. *]

‘Their choice is entirely random, which is why it always seems that the current is split 50:50.’ I’m afraid some electronics explanation would be necessary here. How do you mean ‘… it always seems that the current is split 50:50.

This is the nth point on which I find fault not forthwith. The source of the confusion is probably in the word 'seems'.

[* What I am asking is where the other 50% goes? 50 goes where, and the other 50 goes, ... someplace else? *]


"‘It is not time itself that flows. Each IGUS has a different speed for the flow of its information between registers.’ This would seem to imply that the different flow rates are tied to biological IGUS and would fly in the face of the ‘proof’ given us in the atomic clocks experiment. There is no reason that an atomic clock would be fooled in the same fashion. Obviously time is not mere perception. Even the earth ages in one direction, as in erosion."

Forthwith fault has not been discovered in this the nth point of yours. The source of the confusion is as yet unknown. As far as I see it, there is no reason why the two concepts should contradict each other; please perhaps you could explain your quandary further?

[* Boy, some of this will necessitate rereading the entry, and reexamining my questions, and then restating my confusion. My head hurts. I think you mentioned the dependable regularity of atomic clocks, and then seemed to be suggesting that the only valid rate, of the passage of time, is based on biological perceptions? Maybe that is what I got out of it. *]


"‘Another possibility is that the universe's arrow of time (as far as thermodynamics is concerned) will naturally reverse itself at a crucial point in the history of the universe. At this point, the universe would start to get smaller and everybody would get younger until there was a big crunch analogous to the big bang. This creates a perfect symmetry to the universe.’ I don’t yet see any reason here that reversing the arrow of time would result in things moving backward, any more than moving the shards of wineglasses back toward each other will make them stick together. Apparently, time is an unusual dimension. But even moving backward in time through our three-dimensional space will not affect any other dimensions, so their effects will still be felt?"

Lawrence Schulman apparently hasn't heard this argument. Neither had I, but I have now, and I see that it is indeed a very sound argument. I would argue in reponse, however, that a response, however argumentative, would probably be the most responsive way to respond.

[* I think I was asking that (assuming time is a bi-directional dimension), if traveling backward through space does not affect the directional flow of time, how can we assume that traveling backwards in time will affect the directional flow of travel through space? *]

I am very sorry for the lack of eloquence and the abundance of sheer nonsense that has been incurred in this response; I may take a fresh look at some of your points tomorrow or when I feel in a fresher mood for a philosophical quodlibet.

[* I find you quite eloquent, BB. Sometimes my brain needs a bit of freshness to attack these things too! I'll look forward to it! *]

A Quizzical Quantum Quodlibet. If there's one thing I do like it's a good quizzical quantum quodlibet.

Make mine a large one, with ice and one olive please!

One large QQQ with ice and an olive coming up...

Thank you again FordsTowel for your feverish debate, which is taxing my perception of time to the very limits! (And if Feverish Debate were a rock band, who would be the lead singer?)


"This would be true, only if the velocity were constant, and related simultaneously to both vectors."

I don't quite understand this fully. As I see it, increasing velocity in one dimension does decrease velocity in another, whichever dimensions are involved. For example, if you move North at any speed, you are not moving East at any speed, hence your movement Northward has slowed any movement Eastward to a halt. The fact is that we perceive the time dimension as one that we are constantly moving through, and so whenever we move through space we are automatically slowing the movement - perceived or not - through time.

If you can find fault with that argument then I suggest you appeal to a popular physicist who specialises in relativity. Though I should warn you that usually if you even mention the possibility that Einstein was wrong, physicists jump up and down in adamant fury and call security to escort you out of the building.

Wait! Before you go, the dark recesses of my memory have uncovered a mystifying find. Somewhere - don't ask me where - but somewhere I remember reading an interesting sentence about physics that went along the lines of...

'it is this negative symbol that makes the time dimension subtly different from the other three dimensions that we are used to'

[You can tell that this isn't the direct quote because it ends with a preposition!]

The point here is that perhaps time isn't *precisely* like the other spatial dimensions because of some mathematical anomaly that I can't quite remember. Sorry to spoil your visit to the laboratory and all the press coverage (I can see it now - "Einstein Wrong About Time's Dimensionality", "Albert Proved Wrong By H2G2 Researcher", "Towels Re-Write Physics"), but I think it may have been my mistake after all. I'll do some hunting through my physics books and see if I can find out what on Earth I'm talking about.

In other words, stay on the line. Please remember to stay correctly tuned whilst hanging on to the line.


"With our 2D, binocular vision, we can percieve depth and our brain interprets the signals as a three dimensional image. Even so, we are aware (unless we haven't been paying attention) to the 3D dynamics of the entire room we are observing. A monocular equipped individual, and even a blind person (in time) can gather enough information for their brain to interpret it as 3D. So, if the 3D vision equipped individual has been strapped into the 3D environment his/her entire life, without a fourth dimensional reference, why would they be any better equipped to see that fourth dimension?"

OK. Let's take the answer to this question nice and slowly, if indeed there is an answer.

Let me imagine two different people. Oh, and I suppose you might as well imagine them too. The first person is one-dimensional - ie they are a line. I'm going to christen him Linus for simplicity. Linus has a zero-dimensional eye - ie his eye is a point of no dimensions. Using this eye he can experience a one-dimensional universe: just a line.

In the same universe is another little line-creature called Linea (sometimes she gets teased by the other lines because her name isn't even a name). Linea is one-dimensional too, but unlike Linus she has a one-dimensional retina for her eye. This eye takes in information about its surroundings in front of her (like Linus' eye) but also on either side of her. Therefore, she builds up a picture of a universe that is two-dimensional. No other line in her universe understands what the hell she's talking about when she tries explaining the second dimension.

OK, now let's apply Linus and Linea to your original question:

"So, if the 3D vision equipped individual has been strapped into the 3D environment his/her entire life, without a fourth dimensional reference, why would they be any better equipped to see that fourth dimension?"

Which I shall take the liberty of rephrasing as:

"So, if Linea (who is a 1D vision equipped individual) has been strapped into the 2D environment her entire life, without a 2D reference, why would she be any better equipped to see that second dimension?"

The fact is, she does have a 2D reference because she collects light from the second dimension.

I hope that answers your question.


"[* What I am asking is where the other 50% goes? 50 goes where, and the other 50 goes, ... someplace else? *]"

Imagine a parallel circuit. Electrons go from the battery around the circuit but they encounter a choice of paths: either they keep going straight on or they divert down the next path. Virtually all the time, 50% go straight on; 50% take the diversion. And one electron usually ends up going the third way because he thinks its quicker than all the other ways and getting caught in a traffic jam all the way back to junction six.



"[* Boy, some of this will necessitate rereading the entry, and reexamining my questions, and then restating my confusion. My head hurts. I think you mentioned the dependable regularity of atomic clocks, and then seemed to be suggesting that the only valid rate, of the passage of time, is based on biological perceptions? Maybe that is what I got out of it. *]"

Don't forget what I said at the beginning of the entry. The article explores many *different* theories. You may have been thinking of contradictions between two different (and perhaps mutually exclusive) theories.



"[* I think I was asking that (assuming time is a bi-directional dimension), if traveling backward through space does not affect the directional flow of time, how can we assume that traveling backwards in time will affect the directional flow of travel through space? *]"

One theory of time states that we are moving in one direction through the time dimension, hence our experience of a passage of time. In this theory, reversing time reverses our travel through the time dimension and hence we reverse everything we did in our space dimensions. I think this theory contradicts the IGUS theory. Relativity, on the other hand, should not contradict any of the theories, otherwise the theory would never have been proposed in the first place.


"I find you quite eloquent, BB. Sometimes my brain needs a bit of freshness to attack these things too! I'll look forward to it!"

Thank you! But please don't 'attack' my comments!

Sorry, we're fresh out of olives.

WHAT! No Olives? What kind if inebrium are we running here? How archaic, how aboriginal.

Hmmm, I think I'll just number these, this time.
1. Miasma Carey?
2. I can move just North, or I can move just east, but what if I am moving Northeast? If my Northward movement is measurable at 4KPH, and the observer cannot tell that I am also moving Eastward at 3KPH, their observation will miss that I am actually moving Northeast at 5KPH (did I get that right?). In any case, a change in the speed of my Eastward movement may have no effect on my Northward movement, like firing correctional rockets from the side of a spacecraft.
3. Einstein wrong? I'd like to slap some of the physicists who have suggested THAT. (Although, there was that episode that straddled us with the 'cosmological constant'.)
4. Let me know about the 'subtle differences', sounds interesting!!
5. I love the whole Linus/Linea (I think she spells it Linnea, a la Linnea Quigley, one of her favorite actresses.) I see my mistake, I was wrongly intepreting your concept of 3D vision. In the case of Linea, I would have called her retina 'Monocular 1D' if she saw only forward, and 'Binocular 1D' if she had a retina on her behind. What you describe, I would have called 2D retina as she is seeing forward and sideways, and Linus's vision 1D; thus, my mistake.
6: Phew! At least all the current is going the same direction, even if some of them aren't in time for cocktails before dinner.
7. Quite possibly.
8. That explains that, then. I think of time in such ordinary terms, dimensionally, that I've never been able to buy into the concept of 'reversing the flow' of space-time as a whole. An angle, tangent, or vector here or there, but not the whole thing.
I've heard and understood the concept of seeing the whole generally mish-mash as a four-dimensional sausage, with each meager slice representing a point in time; with the understanding that we might be able to work our way back along it's length. Personally, I've always thought that the analogy leaves out too many other dimensions to make it worthwhile.
It would seem, if the analogy were correct, that to go backward in time, we would have to push all the past 'sausage', that had been there, out of the way.
There are some who believe that the whole 'sausage' is always there, unchanging, and that our movement through time merely represents our perception of our point in it, on our passage through it. That to reverse our perception could place us back at another point in the sausage.
I find myself incapable of accepting that point of view, because of another simple analogy. When I move through space-time at 90KPH, say in an automobile, and hit a point where the representation is a very solid brick wall, My perceptions are very likely to cease entirely. If me perceptions are separate from my space-time body, then I should expect them to continue, unabated. The physicality of the event should not be a hindrance.
Certainly, I would have at least wanted to reverse direction before the painful part, however brief.
9. Attack? Never! I only attempt to suggest points that I found to be less clear than I would need them to be in order to understand the discussion.

We have plenty of sausages. We call them parallel sausages - they represent their own time continuum.

1. Never heard of her.

2, 3 and 4. The solution to this issue lies in the 'subtle differences' of which I spoke. I shall commence the Frantic Dig for the information to which I referred as soon as I have done all the other stuff I need to do.

5. Great. Solved.

6. Most of them are in time for coctails, and of those, most of them have time for a savoury snack. This could explain the lack of olives.

7. Quite possibly quite possibly.

8. Good.

9. That's OK then.

Oh Great! Just thank You, BB!

Just when it seemed that we were all well in general agreement, and the remaining differences of opinion marked down to subtleties, you had to go and throw in a major curve!!

1 through 9 are great. Really.

But that first line ?!?!?!?!
I try to be careful, but sometimes I screw up. I try to say things carefully enough that what I know, I say that I know; when I think, I say that I think I know; and when I just believe without proof, I call it a theory.

I'm refering, of course, to:
'We have plenty of sausages. We call them parallel sausages - they represent their own time continuum.'

This is written as if it's fact, not belief or supposition. Are you one of those who believes in 'parallel universes'?

Actually, if you are, you're just the guy I've been want to talk to.

If there are parallel universes, through which dimensions would you think they are parallel through? In the case of Linus and Linnea, they would be additional one-dimensional universes, traveling through our three and through time (possibly).

Actually, since all points in any dimension are part of all dimensions, no matter how many dimensions their peculiar and limited inhabitants may perceive, there can be no additional room for 'universes' that aren't already present in relation to all of the others. Every dimension passes through every point of every reality.

It would seem to me that, just as 15 pool balls on a three-dimensional pooltable are all non-overlapping in a 3D world, separate but equal, they all continue to exist in the identical three dimensions (and normally pass through time at the same rate). Yet, no matter how many dimensions I propose, those balls will each continue to 'take up' the same amount of three dimensional space in all the dimensions that I cannot perceive, as well.

I also wonder how a parallel universe pooltable could exist in parallel to ours, and each individual ball have a parallel equivalent parallel to it, all simultaneously.

Maybe we'd both just better ignore this whole posting.
I'm not sure that I understand the questions well enough to have any chance of understanding a hopefully appropriate answer. And, I'd never know if it actually fit the question!

The arguably controversial parallel sausage sentence was only intended as a joke. I wouldn't say that I 'believe' in parallel universes, but I am not adamantly against their existence either. I have written an entry about how to prove their existence once and for all (A2528444).

"Maybe we'd both just better ignore this whole posting."

No! You can't back out now! The debate has begun and must be settled until both parties are certain that they understand the whole concept.

Unfortunately, this conversation is probably not the best place for the discussion, so if you would like to set up a thread somewhere convenient, or if you would like me to set up a thread somewhere convenient perhaps we could settle the dispute there.

The subject of the conversation should probably be 'Quizzical Quantum Quodlibet: Debut Song of Feverish Debate'.

Lovely. That's the way. "What is time"? This bait will draw fish of every size, shape and colour. I read the contributions with great interest and made a vow not to participate. The question has already spread itself into areas apparently unrelated (although nothing is really unrelated to time). Seems that I'm participating... Ah well, here's my bit.
(1) A point, line or area are representations and do not exist in reality. Only volume is dimension.
(2) Time is continuation of universal existence and cannot be conceived or studied outside of universal totality.
(3) The perception of time is an effect of the extending universe upon all atomic mass. Extension is in turn an expression of primal energy, the Big Bang. Our universe is an energy medium containing one unit of energy.
(4) Total time is the period from the beginning of the universe to the end. Velocity of time is the rate at which this period is passing and is the rate of universal extension.
Finally, the universe is one unit of energy in one unit of energy medium. These are the only constants. I feel that I've said too much already so I'd better pipe down and wait for the barrage

This post is written in two parts, the first of which is written with comical intent only.

* * *

You "made a vow not to participate".

It's your decision of course. You realise that by participating you may end up in a far-reaching debate that crosses the boundary of human experience, pushing science to the very limits; you realise that the arguments may barrage the very barriers that keep the lid on sanity; that we may end up writing books that counter each other; that no comment here is safe without the technical scrutiny in the capacity of h2g2 brains, verbosely and assiduously criticising every aspect of its perpetuation in the realms of cosmology, quantum physics, scientific speculation, philosophy, religion and the nature of reality itself; and that this criticism extends to the very nature of its contribution?

This is your last chance to say 'Please ignore my posting' before the essays start coming off the press and the theses pour in by their millions and Feverish Debate starts playing with their amplifiers at full effect. Please consider your position carefully.

* * *

Hello S_Simon! Thank you for taking such an interest in my entry and I'm glad you liked it! Don't feel afraid to pipe up again; I do make a point of taking all points seriously and in as friendly manner as I can manage.