It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
To actually claim that time is the 4th dimension of space is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
Maybe that's because you don't understand the actual concept?
This isn't to say there is some 4th dimension that is merely time.
we live in 3 dimensions.
Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth
Time as a 4th dimension merely changes that to this:
Up / down = height
Left / right = width
Front / Back = depth
When = time
I'm thinking you might have dimensions and universes/realities confused.
Originally posted by polit
the 4th dimension of 4d space would not be equivalent to a bunch of 3d universes strung together in a row.
Originally posted by polit
a good exercise in trying to get somebody to visualize 4 dimensions of space
You're supposed to use external tags or EX tags, not quote tags, for external sources.
Originally posted by polit
To actually claim that time is the 4th dimension of space is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Now, it may be a good exercise in trying to get somebody to visualize 4 dimensions of space, but even that is flawed...
Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
2. The last paragraph of the article you quoted about time being psychological.
Regarding #2, while there is no doubt that there are psychological aspects to human perception of time ("a watched pot never boils" is an expression that reflects one such psychological aspect), we have plenty of measuring instruments that are free of any such psychological bias. So it seems like a non-sequitur to make any conclusions about the real nature of time in relation to human perception of it.
Regarding #1, the article explains what the authors think the 4th dimension isn't. They say it's not time. But they don't do a very good job of explaining what it is. If it's just another dimension like height, length, and width, the 3 spatial dimensions we normally think of, then what do we call the 4th dimension?
It's easy to add a 4th spatial dimension mathematically. It's much harder to visualize it. How do you visualize it?
I haven't read the papers yet but when I do it will be with the George Box quote in mind that "All models are wrong, some are useful". If the new model is useful I will find it interesting, but I can't comment on how useful it is yet. And I don't really understand how they deal with time after they've replaced 3D+T with 4D. Where does the T go? Does it still exist?