A Two-Time Universe? Physicist Explores How Second Dimension of Time Could Unify Physics Laws
Bars thinks one of the missing pieces is a hidden dimension of time.
Bizarre is not a powerful enough word to describe this idea, but it is a powerful idea nevertheless. With two times, Bars believes, many of the mysteries of today’s laws of physics may disappear.
Of course, it’s not as simple as that. An extra dimension of time is not enough. You also need an additional dimension of space.
It sounds like a new episode of “The Twilight Zone,” but it’s a familiar idea to most physicists. In fact, extra dimensions of space have become a popular way of making gravity and quantum theory more compatible
Bars’ math suggests that the familiar world of four dimensions — three of space, one of time — is merely a shadow of a richer six-dimensional reality. In this view the ordinary world is like a two-dimensional wall displaying shadows of the objects in a three-dimensional room.
On a grander level, two-time physics may assist in the quest to merge quantum theory with Einstein’s relativity in a single unified theory. The most popular approach to that problem today, superstring theory, also invokes extra dimensions of space, but only a single dimension of time. Many believe that a variant on string theory, known as M theory, will be the ultimate winner in the quantum-relativity unification game, and M theory requires 10 dimensions of space and one of time.
D: so 3 space and 1 time dimension should not be considered givens.
For everyday use, of course, we don't use Einstein. We use Newton. And it works fine.
We'd stick to 3D plus time for common use.
But for extremes and theoretical accuracy, we might need more dimensions.
Decimese can plan for this. Right now, I have decimal-based number names based on consonants.
We have 12. I assumed the first for zero, and the last for ??? Infinity? Eternity/void, in time/space terms.
We can add an infix to denote time and space respectively.
So in theory, we could have 10 space and 10 time dimensions built into the decimal-based number naming convention.
I'd be embarrassed to design myself into a corner.
Look what happened to our electron. I grew up thinking the electron was the most basic of particles, with a charge of negative ONE.
Turns out we were wrong.
Types: 6 (up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom)
Electric charge: +2⁄3 e, −1⁄3 e
It turns out we should have assigned an electron a charge of negative THREE.
That would make the um ? quarks have a charge of ONE.
My point is that a naming convention that more closely reflected nature would have been handy. And elegant.
If some nutty unified-theory candidate wishes to have 5 space and 3 time dimensions ( a total of 8), well, I suppose Decimese is up to the task. 1-5, dimension-related vowel, space indicator. 1-3, ditto time.
Take our words for the 3 spatial dimensions we use to navigate with, which are perhaps shorthand for some theoretical approach that is more complex.
Long, wide, deep. Short, narrow, ... narrow?
Having only the concept of long with the # concept and dimension concept 1-2-3 attached is neater.
It also anchors the physics (space time properties) more clearly to the math basis.
Nature does not deal in fractions, except as ratios of whole numbers.
Maybe imaginary numbers should be called absurd, even 'human numbers'.
Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons,
D: Hmm. Atom-molecule relationship, but on a different scale. Scale, a theme that is endlessly repeated in decimese.
Sometimes I feel like I am dealing exclusively in fractals...
For that matter, the bewildering and very unhelpful names for quarks could use some cleaning up.