Hey PB,
Iâm with ya, bro. But I would suggest we first entertain moving from a âpointâ idea of the present (now) to a âlineâ representation. This is exactly what my theory of Massive SpaceTime suggests when I claim that âTime is a 3-dimensional vector just like Space.â I believe one can create a direct analogy between Time and Space in the following (arbitrarily selected, but mutually orthogonal) reference frames:
Space Vector â (X, Y, Z)
Time Vector â (Past, Present, Future)
We continue the analogy between these two by realizing we can set up a linear scale for each of the orthogonal dimensions. Specifically, in an X-Y-Z spatial coordinate system we select some arbitrary reference point in space and call it (0,0,0). From this arbitrary origin we can track â+â and â-â displacements (in X, Y, and Z directions) relative to that common reference point.
I maintain the same is true of âextant Timeâ (which is different than the human-perceived 1-dimensional notion of Time). Therefore, what we call ânowâ in terms of a âpoint in Timeâ is really nothing more than our arbitrary reference (0-point) on the subdimension of Time we call the Present. So if we now consider that âPresentâ is really more like a line, than a single point, that means we can have âtime displacementsâ in the â+â and â-â directions from our personal reference point in our âPresentâ. But what would be the physical significance to us of a â+â or â-â displacement of time relative to our perceived âNowâ? I would suggest the physical significance has a direct relationship to quantum probabilities in the QM wave equation model. Our reference point for âNowâ simply pegs our individual (measured) perception as a single, realized measurement in a probability field. If you think in terms of the standard Gaussian distribution (bell-shaped curve), then our (Now=0) point represents the peak of the curve (x-bar, for those familiar with statistics nomenclature). That would mean the physical significance of the â+â and â-â time displacments from (Now=0) represent probabalistic displacements from the mean (x-bar) on the Gaussian curve. Interestingly enough, such a model could well explain (in a quantifiable manner) why it is that two people may perceive a single event differently⌠each person has their own unique reference point for (Now=0) and each person will perceive the event with certain biases which will put them at different points on the Gaussian curve. In essence, this model physically permits two different people to observe two different events in what we would normally consider a âshared presentâ.
Of course, this same analogy would apply to the subdimensions of Time we know as Past and Future. Both of these are anchored with arbitrary, but relative, reference points (Past=0, Future=0), and each has â+â and â-â displacments away from these reference points. And yes, there is a physical significance to each of these concepts which can be explained in terms of the human imagination (i.e. ability to imagine something that never happened on our existing timeline). But more importantly, one should consider that a 3-D âreference frame of Timeâ can be set up for each individual that âfixesâ their location in the larger 3-D Time field. Just like I can say that, in a spatial reference frame, I designate my current position on the earth (and in space) as being the (0,0,0) point⌠I can do the same thing with Time. Specifically, I can nominate points in my personal timeline of my life as being reference points for Past, Present, and Future. This would allow us to speak of âdistances in Timeâ just as we speak of âdistances in Spaceâ between any two bodies (or any two people).
I think it is a highly useful extension of the concept of Time. And the best part about it is that one need not invent ANY new mathematics, for the existing mathematics already applies. All one needs to do is extend Time from being a 1-D scalar concept to a 3-D vector concept.
RMT
iscovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time)
(this took place in 2004)