Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[Qawsedf234]

So the flow of time in different universes can be very independent while they have the same time axis.

So other than R>F where one is fictionalized in depiction, what would count as an orthogonal timestream if even an independent time flow could be within the same axis?

 

[KLOL506]

Sorry, but so is being like perpendicular only one way of proving higher time axis? And is the like totally separate time flows another? Just to be clear, there are multiple ways?

Yeah. At least, what Reiner's old CRT tackled, anyway.

 

[Georredannea15]

Sorry, but so is being like perpendicular only one way of proving higher time axis? And is the like totally separate time flows another? Just to be clear, there are multiple ways?

For example, if you have a "higher time dimension with higher perpective" or "that every moment(snapshots) is 4-dimensional" or something like that, or if that extra temporal dimension extends across a 5-D/Low 1-C space, then yes you may qualify

 

[TiltedFN]

Yeah. At least, what Reiner's old CRT tackled, anyway.

so is this basically what reiner crt did? I don't understand.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I got permission by @Qawsedf234 to ask this question:

Let say there is a multiverse that has four universes, and each of those universes are described as:

A. A universe where time flows from past to future
B. A universe where time flows from future to past
C. A universe where time does not flow
D. A universe where the past, present, and future happen all at once

Would each of these universes be considered as having a unique and different time axis/direction?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, can we call this true? In other words, the temporal dimension has a different direction and flow from the other.

I hoped in context it's clear that this was meant in the sense of one proven to be in a different direction from the other time dimensions. Apparently, it's not, so we might need to add more clarification.

I can probably propose my own draft at a later time. Like, when it's not 6am where I live.

So other than R>F where one is fictionalized in depiction, what would count as an orthogonal timestream if even an independent time flow could be within the same axis?

Well... anything that has some explanation that is probably supposed to mean 2 time axis exist.
I don't think many fictions will unintentionally stumble into having multiple ones. It's something a fiction probably needs to intend to have so that it gives some explanation about it.

I have a hard time thinking about some kind of feat that would prove that 2 time axis exist without any kind of explanation about the nature of what is going on. I can't say it couldn't happen, but I can't think of an example.

 

[Georredannea15]

I hoped in context it's clear that this was meant in the sense of one proven to be in a different direction from the other time dimensions. Apparently, it's not, so we might need to add more clarification.

I can probably propose my own draft at a later time. Like, when it's not 6am where I live.

Alr, thanks for the answer.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I got permission by @Qawsedf234 to ask this question:

Let say there is a multiverse that has four universes, and each of those universes are described as:

A. A universe where time flows from past to future
B. A universe where time flows from future to past
C. A universe where time does not flow
D. A universe where the past, present, and future happen all at once

Would each of these universes be considered as having a unique and different time axis/direction?

All would be considered to have the same... well, actually not quite.
I imagine C and D might be considered to not have a time axis at all, as only a single moment of time exists. Well, D is debatable. Depending on how you would model that, I guess it might be a time axis with weird physics or something.
But I don't think the multiverse would be considered to have multiple time axis, in any case.

 

[TiltedFN]

I hoped in context it's clear that this was meant in the sense of one proven to be in a different direction from the other time dimensions. Apparently, it's not, so we might need to add more clarification.

I can probably propose my own draft at a later time. Like, when it's not 6am where I live.

Well... anything that has some explanation that is probably supposed to mean 2 time axis exist.
I don't think many fictions will unintentionally stumble into having multiple ones. It's something a fiction probably needs to intend to have so that it gives some explanation about it.

I have a hard time thinking about some kind of feat that would prove that 2 time axis exist without any kind of explanation about the nature of what is going on. I can't say it couldn't happen, but I can't think of an example.

A. Independent time flows, one time flow of a temporal dimension doesn't affect the other.
B. Perpendicular time dimension (like your example)
C. Explicit confirmation of multiple and higher time dimensions?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Seems like I by accident already answered that above.

Thanks for clarifying because a verse there are several verses I know that have multiple timelines that are encompassed by another space where time moves both forward and backwards at the same time, and I wanted to make sure that the encompassing space (time) didn't qualify as an additional temporal direction.

 

[Firestorm808]

Let's say we have this example:

A being exists in an empty realm. This being creates 3 timelines in this realm. It later creates 5. This being is capable of time traveling back to when there were 3 and even no timelines.

Would a higher dimension of time apply here?

 

[Planck69]

All would be considered to have the same... well, actually not quite.
I imagine C and D might be considered to not have a time axis at all, as only a single moment of time exists. Well, D is debatable. Depending on how you would model that, I guess it might be a time axis with weird physics or something.
But I don't think the multiverse would be considered to have multiple time axis, in any case.

Would universes that predate each others existence and such prove to have different temporal axes? Like, time begins in one reality and another has already existed long before that.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A. Independent time flows, one time flow of a temporal dimension doesn't affect the other.
B. Perpendicular time dimension (like your example)
C. Explicit confirmation of multiple and higher time dimensions?

Well, A alone probably doesn't work. As said, time can flow at different rates in different places according to the theory of general relativity, even while only one time dimension exists. So you could locally slow down time in one universe while in the other time flows normal, just like on Earth time flows slower than in deep space.

But B and C, yes.

Let's say we have this example:

A being exists in an empty realm. This being creates 3 timelines in this realm. It later creates 5. This being is capable of time traveling back to when there were 3 and even no timelines.

Would a higher dimension of time apply here?

Depends on context, but possibly yes. Although that hinges on the word time travel.

Like, fundamentally you could say that you have one timeline that spans multiversal space. In the beginning, that space is empty. Then you rewrite the past so that 3 universes already existed in the space (which is the same as creating 3 timelines). So you rewrite the timeline of the multiversal space.
Then you do the same again to add 5 more.

Technically, you could say you only spawned several more multiverse spanning timelines. Like, now a empty multiverse spanning timeline, a multiverse spanning timeline with 3 universes and a multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes exist. The total number of timelines is only 11.
If you are able to travel between multiverse spanning timelines, you would also be able to switch back from the multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes to the one without any universes/timelines.

However, if you do that specifically via time travel, then that could be a good indicator that you are actually dealing with an additional time dimension. Because that indicates that the progression of the creation of timelines is done within a (presumably continuous) flow of time and that time wouldn't be that of the regular past where those universes always existed.

Would universes that predate each others existence and such prove to have different temporal axes? Like, time begins in one reality and another has already existed long before that.

Don't think so.
The timelines would then just look like this:

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
_____________________ |-------------------------------------------------------------------->
Still parallel to each other, going towards the same future with different positions in space.

 

[Planck69]

Don't think so.
The timelines would then just look like this:

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
|-------------------------------------------------------------------->
Still parallel to each other, going towards the same future with different positions in space.

I think I didn't clarify. I meant for the 4-D space-time continuums within that multiverse with the higher time dimension, if them predating each other and such is good support.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think I didn't clarify. I meant for the 4-D space-time continuums within that multiverse with the higher time dimension, if them predating each other and such is good support.

You mean like in Firestorm's latest question, but without the timetravel component?

 

[Planck69]

You mean like in Firestorm's latest question, but without the timetravel component?

Yes, actually.

 

[Reiner04]

If the space spanned by the two time dimensions is 2 dimensional, then one could find two orthogonal axis to span it up. However, I guess it might also be confusing to just talk about orthogonality.
The important thing is that it's clear that different directions are a necessity. If "separate" means something in that sense it's fine. If separate just means separate in space or separate due to one being a subset of the other, then not.

So something like a a cross-time having parallel worlds at every point? Because idk what context can be given or how hyper specific it can go but cross-time is a kind of linear time (different from regular) which has infinite amounts of parallel worlds (each with its own time axis) at every point in Crosstime. All Futures and pasts are a parallel worlds to each other in a crosstime. With both of them being separate spacetime continuum. Although, I don't know how much specific is need to be but yeah, that's all about it.

 

[Firestorm808]

Well, A alone probably doesn't work. As said, time can flow at different rates in different places according to the theory of general relativity, even while only one time dimension exists. So you could locally slow down time in one universe while in the other time flows normal, just like on Earth time flows slower than in deep space.

But B and C, yes.


Depends on context, but possibly yes. Although that hinges on the word time travel.

Like, fundamentally you could say that you have one timeline that spans multiversal space. In the beginning, that space is empty. Then you rewrite the past so that 3 universes already existed in the space (which is the same as creating 3 timelines). So you rewrite the timeline of the multiversal space.
Then you do the same again to add 5 more.

Technically, you could say you only spawned several more multiverse spanning timelines. Like, now a empty multiverse spanning timeline, a multiverse spanning timeline with 3 universes and a multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes exist. The total number of timelines is only 11.
If you are able to travel between multiverse spanning timelines, you would also be able to switch back from the multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes to the one without any universes/timelines.

However, if you do that specifically via time travel, then that could be a good indicator that you are actually dealing with an additional time dimension. Because that indicates that the progression of the creation of timelines is done within a (presumably continuous) flow of time and that time wouldn't be that of the regular past where those universes always existed.

So a similar example based off Loki:

In a realm exists one timeline. Next, the timeline branches into many.

Traveling from after the branching to before the branching would count?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Apparently, it's not, so we might need to add more clarification.

Yeah, since there's a general nebulous idea of what does or doesn't apply ad a second temporal axis.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yes, actually.

Well, as said, I think some indicator of it being a time-like progression, rather than just a few independent versions of the multiverse, would be necessary.
In Firestorm's example that's kinda given by the travel to the prior universes being called time travel. Your example seems to lack something like that.

So something like a a cross-time having parallel worlds at every point? Because idk what context can be given or how hyper specific it can go but cross-time is a kind of linear time (different from regular) which has infinite amounts of parallel worlds (each with its own time axis) at every point in Crosstime. All Futures and pasts are a parallel worlds to each other in a crosstime. With both of them being separate spacetime continuum. Although, I don't know how much specific is need to be but yeah, that's all about it.

I think that sounds about right. Like, there are (uncountably) infinite many timelines because the second time axis has one complete timeline at each of its (uncountably) infinite many points.

So a similar example based off Loki:

In a realm exists one timeline. Next, the timeline branches into many.

Traveling from after the branching to before the branching would count?

Probably not? Like:

Say the red arrow is the time travel. That is traveling to before the timeline branched, but still to the regular past.

 

[Planck69]

Well, as said, I think some indicator of it being a time-like progression, rather than just a few independent versions of the multiverse, would be necessary.
In Firestorm's example that's kinda given by the travel to the prior universes being called time travel. Your example seems to lack something like that.

So, if time travel outright occurs on the scale of this overarching timeline, it'd be adequate? Say, a character travels to when two of these space-time continuums are about to merge and right after they do, for example.

 

[Reiner04]

I think that sounds about right. Like, there are (uncountably) infinite many timelines because the second time axis has one complete timeline at each of its (uncountably) infinite many points.

yeah this is only question I had. Thanks for clearing my doubts.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Probably not? Like:

Say the red arrow is the time travel. That is traveling to before the timeline branched, but still to the regular past.

I am confused. Where does the different direction come into play? All timelines are still going in the same direction.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Got permission from Dereck.

Geor beat me to it, although I was trying to make a comprehensive post on time in general. Here is my draft although it is incomplete, the basics are there. The title of my thread is "How time works"

Based on recent revisions disguised as clarifying a confusing word in the FAQ, a very wrong standard has been passed.
Namely the standard where spaces that contains universes are now said to have 2 axes of time i.e. any space that contains 2 universes can now becomes low 1-C, which is why I am making this thread. So we can clarify on our universe page how time works.


For anyone who would like to know how a universe with 2 dimension of time will be like, they should watch Tenet.

First, what is time?
In physics, the definition of time is simple—time is change, or the interval over which change occurs. the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration. b. : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.
To put it simply, it is the rate at which change is measured.

How does time flow in a universe?
The modern understanding of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. In this view time is a coordinate.
A world line of an object (generally approximated as a point in space, e.g., a particle or observer) is the sequence of spacetime events corresponding to the history of the object. A world line is a time-like curve in spacetime. Each point of a world line is an event that can be labeled with the time and the spatial position of the object at that time.

The world line (yellow path) of an object, which is at location x = 0 at time ct = 0.

One common way to describe it is through the arrow of time, which points from the past to the future of an object. This arrow of time is related to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy/change (disorder) tends to increase over time. In our universe, time is a one-way progression from earlier events to later events for objects in it.

Based on the above explanation, we can see time/timelines of an object is simply a world line. Now a universe world line, is a record of all the changes that has occurred in the universe from the past to the present and into the future, in essence the world line or an object or universe is called the time dimension.

why time is referred to as a coordinate?
Change is an attribute of matter and space. Time helps us point out what change or what state an object is. A popular example used to explain this, is this

X and Y agreed to meet for a cup of coffee. X said to Y, "Walk 5 kms straight from your house(x- oordinate). Take a left and keep on walking for 2 kms(y-coordinate). You'll find a coffee house there. Go to the third floor of the coffee house(z-coordinate). I'll be there." Y did so. But he didn't find X there.
Why?
Because X didn't mention the time when he will be there. He needs to specify the exact time when he will be present at the coffee house else they cant meet. If only he would have told that I'll be there on Friday or any other time, Y would have met him. Time acts as a coordinate which specifies,along with x,y and z, the position of X.

In this way, I hope you get why time is referred to as a coordinate.

Time is regarded as a dimension because it fits the definition of the word dimension perfectly. It is “a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height”.

We do not live in a static universe. While it is true that at this moment, everything that is happening is happening at a location that can be mapped to three spatial coordinates, those coordinates are changing constantly relative to everything else in the universe. The universe is in motion. That makes mapping pointless unless we also account for that movement, which we can measure in units of time.

The time axis or dimension.
the time axis is a used to represent and measure the progression of time. It is typically depicted on a one-dimensional axis (the world line). The time axis is typically drawn from left to right, indicating the past on the left side and the future on the right side. This direction reflects the natural flow of time from earlier events to later events. This order is essential for understanding the sequence of events.
To illustrate it, the time axis is combined with other axes, of the spatial dimensions (x, y, z), to create spacetime diagrams. In these diagrams, events are located at specific coordinates in both space and time.

These space-time illustrations are popularly called the Minkowski diagrams.

To put everything I have said so far simply, time as a dimension is simply the direction in which changes flow and in a 4-D space-time model, it is depicted as a single line direction to illustrate the direction of change or the flow of it.
It means a space can only have time in one direction, i.e. nothing like two time dimensions both flowing forward, that is like having a 3D space comprising of 1 length dimension and 2 width dimensions.

Now for the last part.
Multiple time dimension.
Niels Nielsen answers the question of multiple dimensions of time by saying, in part, "Thank god it's impossible."

What does it mean to have two dimensions of time?
The trivial answer is that it just means "you have two dimensions with inverted sign in your spacetime metric". But the perceptual result of that kind of choice doesn't actually look qualitatively different from our universe.

Consider the 4D case; our 4 dimensional spacetime has a a +,+,+,- metric--according to one convention. If we decide we want two time dimensions, we get +,+,-,-. But, because the choice of which dimensions count as negative and which as positive is in fact purely conventional, this is physically equivalent to a metric with signs -,-,+,+. In other words, physics cannot uniquely distinguish spacelike dimensions from timelike ones. And in fact, Greg Egan wrote a novel in a universe with such a metric (Dichronauts), in which perceptual proper time is still distinctly one dimensional--just as in our universe, time is the length of your (one-dimensional) worldline.

Go the other way and give all dimensions in you metric the same sign, so there are formally zero time dimensions, and you don't get a static universe without time--you get another Greg Egan novel (actually a trilogy, Orthogonal), again with normal one-dimensional proper time as measured along worldlines.

It would seem that actually having two dimensions in a practical perceptual sense would require either

1. Converting proper time into a vector quantity somehow, or
2. Replacing worldlines with worldsheets, such that proper time is proportional to area(2-D).

a question like "when were you born ?" could have an answer like "Dec 1965, January 1831". A question like "which came first ?" might be meaningless and you might need to say "which came first-first ?" or "Which came anytime-last ?".

Multiple time dimensions are theories in physics and not proven, either way some fiction uses it. Here are two major theories of it.

The F-Theory.
F-theory, a branch of modern string theory, describes a 12-dimensional spacetime having two dimensions of time, giving it the metric signature (10,2)

In 1996, Vafa introduced F-theory as a geometric formulation of Type IIB string theory which automatically incorporates the non-trivial profile of the axio-dilaton τ := C0 + igs−1
in the presence of seven-branes [20]. Such a formulation involves necessarily strongly coupled type IIB theory, as the back-reaction of seven-branes generates a holomorphically varying profile of τ which inevitably attains large gs in certain regions. By noting that the axio-dilaton τ in the presence of seven-branes exhibits the same transformation as the complex structure moduli of a torus T2
(or more technically, an elliptic curve), the main idea of such geometric formulation is
to introduce an extra torus T2 attached to each point in the 10D spacetime of type IIB. Its
complex structure moduli τ encodes the axio-dilaton of Type IIB theory. Thus in F-theory,
we have, formally, a 12-dimensional spacetime.10 By allowing the axio-dilaton τ to vary over the type IIB spacetime, such a 12-dimensional spacetime attains the structure of an elliptic fibration, where the torus (or the elliptic curve) plays the role of the fiber. In order to obtain a low-dimensional supersymmetric theory from an F-theory compactification, the elliptic fibration should be an elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau manifold.
However, in some sense, a more accurate description of F-theory should involve M-theory through a T-duality over the fiber T2
together with certain limits. Such duality naturally passes to F/M-theory compactifications. And more importantly, by going to the M-theory side, one can use well-studied tools such as geometric engineering to analyze various aspects of the effective
theories from the compactifications, such as gauge structures, matter spectra and couplings even though F-theory typically involves a regime non-perturbative in the string coupling gs.
Remarkably, such information is almost entirely encoded in the geometry of elliptic fibrations and one can read off this crucial physical information by studying and analyzing these geometries with well-studied tools in the algebraic geometry. As summarized in the table 1.1 in [21], there is a clear dictionary between the physics of F-theory compactifications and the geometries
of elliptic fibrations. By further studies, the lists in this dictionary would be expected to be
refined and extended. Concerning model building, F-theory naturally incorporates exceptional gauge groups in typical regions of its moduli space, while at the same time it inherits beneficial properties of Type IIB theory, including its ingredients to address moduli stabilization, at least in principle. In some sense, F-theory thus inherits both the attractive properties of Heterotic string compactifications and Type II string compactifications.

Tldr: F-theory adopts duality, which is largely due to it 2 time dimensions.
What does this means, it means it can be and not be, not two it can be at the same time.

Max Tegmark Model.
Max Tegmark On the Dimensionality of Spacetime.
He argued that, if there is more than one time dimension, then the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge.

His paper boils down (under gross simplification) to the 4 main areas of the diagram:

• Unpredictable (elliptical)
• Unpredictable (ultrahyperbolic)
• Too simple
• Unstable

The first unpredictable region has a spacetime with elliptical geometry. This mainly means that it is a closed, finite manifold. The unpredictable part comes from the fact that there’s no clear “arrow of time” anywhere: no spatial dimension (unitary base vector) is distinguished as a unidirectional dimension, and therefore there is no clear and unambiguous “before” and “after” under any frame of reference. Without such unambiguous before/after there’s no consistent ability to predict what a system will do given what it has already done.

The second unpredictable region has an “ultrahyperbolic” geometry. This mainly means that it is an open, infinite manifold whose metric grows faster than constant times the measured distance. (Our universe, for instance, has hyperbolic geometry and its metric grows at constant times the measured distance—this constant is Hubble's constant.) This region always has 2 or more “time arrows”, which interact in non-linear ways and which could be swapped via simple rotations: that is, you could freely rotate between time dimensions as easily as you can rotate between space dimensions. This means that you could rotate away from your friend’s time arrow into another time arrow (orthogonal to the first one) and proceed on that one while they keep moving ahead on theirs—in effect, you would have achieved “infinite velocity” with respect to your friends, as you would now be moving in space without moving in their time arrow. Once you have infinite velocities, causality goes (mostly) out the window. Hence the “unpredictable”.

There are then two other unstable regions: the lower unstable one has 4 or more space dimensions, while the upper unstable one has 4 or more time dimensions. The analysis is more complex but boils down to the fact that not even the simple electromagnetic field equations produce results without “blowing up” to infinities every time. (In our universe, for instance, electromagnetism doesn’t “blow up”—it is quite stable since its field equations are at worst quadratic on their first approximation, and their higher-order factors vanish very quickly.) It would be even worse for space-time itself: the universe would expand much faster than gravity would be able to keep it together, diffusing everything away to a random gas long before large gravitational-bound structures could form. Hence the “unstable”.

Finally, the last two regions; or, actually, spots: the “you are here” spot and the “tachyons only” spot. The first spot is obvious: 3 spacelike dimensions plus one timelike dimension—that’s us (as far as we have been able to find out; note that the other dimensions required by string theory, if they exist at all, while space-like, are curled up to macroscopic insignificance).

The “tachyons only” spot corresponds to our universe, with a “speed-limit” and all, but with every particle always moving faster than light—that is, the “speed limit” is not an upper limit, but a lower limit. While such universe could, in principle exist and work, it would be very different from ours in its detailed day-to-day operation—none of its inhabitants (if it has any) would confuse it with our kind of universe, or think that our universe can be made coherent with theirs under some kind of metric/physics conversion. Bradyons (like ourselves and all matter in our universe) would be impossible—or at least “spontaneously non-existent”—in their universe, as much as tachyons are impossible in ours. The only thing in common between the two would be the electromagnetic phenomenon called light: photons would work exactly the same in both universes, except that they would be the slowest particles in theirs, while they are the fastest ones in ours.

TL;DR

Ours might be the only “easily reachable” parameter-space spot where the universe doesn’t dissipate too quickly to sustain any complexity at all before it is diluted to non-interacting bits and pieces; or where the universe doesn’t become so unstable that everything achieves its highest entropy level long before any complexity and structure can self-organize; or where the only way it can even exist is by collapsing to its lowest possible entropy as fast as it can before it “blows up”.

The other “easily reachable” spot would be the “tachyonic universe”—a sort of dual to our own—where what’s spacelike to us is timelike to them, and vice versa. Why our universe is bradyonic and theirs is tachyonic? Can the tachyonic universe actually exist and be self-consistent? Is our kind of universe the only kind that can exist and contain complexity? Nobody knows. Not yet.


Those are two major theories on multiple time dimensions, and they both have some things in common.

1. Time as a dimension can only move in one direction, and for a space to be said to have two different dimensions of time, those two time dimensions must move in two different directions.

2. With two dimensions of time in a single universe, everything becomes unpredictable. To put it simply, I know that if I put my ice cubes out in the open, it will melt due to time passing. I can definitely say without doubt that it will melt, but if it was 2 or more dimensions of time, I cannot say for certain what sort of change would be recorded on the ice cube, hence nothing is predictable in such a universe.

3. You don't get to have normal causality anymore.

Time as a dimension in a multiverse.
We can apply a world line also to a multiverse i.e. time flowing in its direction.
All universe in a multiverse in which all of them flow with one time direction, operates under a single time axis. If different universes have different time directions, then such a multiverse will have multiple world lines and can be said to have multiple temporal dimensions.
Having two dimensions of time in the physical realm would mean that in addition to being able to go forward and backward in time, you could also move sideways in time onto a different world line, then back sideways to join up again with one's original world line or any other world line in any other universe.
This means that one's sudden appearance on a new world line would occur with no history on that world line, and one's disappearance from it would then result in no future on it either. Occupants of those other universes containing those alternate world lines would also be able to pop into and out of our universe as well.

How does all this epistles relates to us in vs wiki? (TL;DR).
We tier fictional verses and what fictional verses do is break physics, but at the same time we try to find a common ground for these things.
I see things like overarching time dimension getting thrown around, there is no such thing as overarching time. It is like saying overarching height, overarching breadth e.t.c. maybe a correct word will be "overarching causality"
Moving on.
Most times in fiction when a space is said to have different time, it is not different time direction but rather time moving or flowing at a different rate or not flowing at all. Time flowing faster or slower does not mean a different time dimension since that time is still flowing in the same direction. In our universe, time flows at different pace for different parts of it, this does not equate to us living in a multi-temporal universe.

Well as usual here is my proposal for how we should treat time on the wiki. Anyone is welcome to make it more grammatically correct so far as it does not lose the original message I am trying to pass across.

1. Time flowing faster or slower in different universes does not qualify for different time dimension. The same goes for spaces said to have different time due to the virtue of their time flows.

2. For a space to be considered to have multiple temporal dimensions, this time dimensions must have different directions.

3. For a space containing multiple universes to qualify for multiple time dimensions, one or more universe in this space must have a different time direction.

 

[Vietthai96]

I already said on this thread that i have permission from @LordGriffin1000

1. Time flowing faster or slower in different universes does not qualify for different time dimension. The same goes for spaces said to have different time due to the virtue of their time flows.

2. For a space to be considered to have multiple temporal dimensions, this time dimensions must have different directions.

3. For a space containing multiple universes to qualify for multiple time dimensions, one or more universe in this space must have a different time direction.

Hmmm, oke then, so i have a question, what is your definition of different time direction and concrete example of it, you have yet to elaborate on that, i keep seeing that term being threw around and definitely, it is a made up term on this site, and you even admit it in your post that this multiple time dimensions thing isn't even real and at best, remain in theory. So like @Firestorm808 have asked the OP, what is the definition, meaning and foundation for this??, edit: and also an example would be nice

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, reading DT's post, I've compiled stuff that he has accepted, he can correct me in case I have misunderstood him or he disagrees.

1. In case if Multiversal temporal dimension exist for separate spacetimes such as one could travel from point A to point B solely by time travel, in case point A consist of x while B consist of y numbers of spacetime continuums (where y ≠ x) due to creation or destruction of whatever number of Universes between those points. Such Multiversal Temporal dimensions will qualify for Hypertimeline. Note that though, they must not be branching Universes/spacetimes but stand alone.
2. different flow of time and even opposite timeflow does not prove existence of new temporal dimension as they can be arranged on a same timeline.
3. A multiversal temporal dimension that spans 4 Dimensional spacetime continuum/continuums itself to the future, in a manner that different Universes at different points on this temporal axis be regarded as parallel worlds/separate spacetime continuums to each other rather than regular past or future self. That had be considered and qualify for Hypertimeline.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I already said on this thread that i have permission from @LordGriffin1000


Hmmm, oke then, so i have a question, what is your definition of different time direction and concrete example of it, you have yet to elaborate on that, i keep seeing that term being threw around and definitely, it is a made up term on this site, and you even admit it in your post that this multiple time dimensions thing isn't even real and at best, remain in theory. So like @Firestorm808 have asked the OP, what is the definition, meaning and foundation for this??

I have a section in my post explaining the foundation of it and how there cannot be two time dimensions flowing in the same direction, which is why it is impossible for there to be multiple temporal dimensions in a practical world, since that would require them flowing in different directions. Namely, backwards. Now it is left to whoever believes otherwise to prove why it can be. Not me proving how it can not be.
Also how can you say different time direction is a made up term here? When I linked major theories that mentions and explains it?
It is not a made up term, it is a physics theory. There is a difference. Now some verses tries to use this theory just like every other physics theory out here, we need them to adhere to the standards of those theories.

Definition and meaning of it.

the time axis is a used to represent and measure the progression of time. It is typically depicted on a one-dimensional axis (the world line). The time axis is typically drawn from left to right, indicating the past on the left side and the future on the right side. This direction reflects the natural flow of time from earlier events to later events. This order is essential for understanding the sequence of events.

If a line of sequence of event is a dimension of time, then if we are to add another dimension of time, it has to be in a different direction.

Consider the 4D case; our 4 dimensional spacetime has a a +,+,+,- metric--according to one convention. If we decide we want two time dimensions, we get +,+,-,-. But, because the choice of which dimensions count as negative and which as positive is in fact purely conventional, this is physically equivalent to a metric with signs -,-,+,+. In other words, physics cannot uniquely distinguish spacelike dimensions from timelike ones. And in fact, Greg Egan wrote a novel in a universe with such a metric (Dichronauts), in which perceptual proper time is still distinctly one dimensional--just as in our universe, time is the length of your (one-dimensional) worldline.

Go the other way and give all dimensions in you metric the same sign, so there are formally zero time dimensions, and you don't get a static universe without time--you get another Greg Egan novel (actually a trilogy, Orthogonal), again with normal one-dimensional proper time as measured along worldlines.

It would seem that actually having two dimensions in a practical perceptual sense would require either

1. Converting proper time into a vector quantity somehow, or
2. Replacing worldlines with worldsheets, such that proper time is proportional to area(2-D).

Same way we cannot have 3D space be made up of geometry axes in the same direction and call it 3D or have a plane made up of 2 lengths instead of length and breadth.


Practical examples?
Backwards, multiple axes(spacekime) and a loop. There may be many more examples out there, but these are the three I can say for certain.

 

[Vietthai96]

Honest, reply on phone is pain but anyway

You arbitrary apply spatial sense of direction to time axis which simply do not work, we draw a line from the left to right to represent time from the past to the future, but it is just a representation of time axis, and in that model, space is presented as 2d slice. The "suppose direction of time" is flow of the consequense of events, and there is only a single direction, it flow ever forward.
This heavily depend on frame of reference, in on frame of reference i could say this time direction is backward, in other frame the other could it move forward. Backward, forward or loop, there is always flow of events, so no matter how "different direction" time take, events must flow

Practical examples?
Backwards, multiple axes(spacekime) and a loop. There may be many more examples out there, but these are the three I can say for certain.

If a line of sequence of event is a dimension of time, then if we are to add another dimension of time, it has to be in a different direction.

Anyway, from this comment of your, isn't this is what we currently do??, you even imply that if there is a different time dimension, it must be different direction, that what exactly @Reiner did in his previous thread, fix the wording to make it no more misleading??

 

[PrinceofPein]

You arbitrary apply spatial sense of direction to time axis which simply do not work, we draw a line from the left to right to represent time from the past to the future, but it is just a representation of time axis, and in that model, space is presented as 2d slice. The "suppose direction of time" is flow of the consequense of events, and there is only a single direction, it flow ever forward.
This heavily depend on frame of reference, in on frame of reference i could say this time direction is backward, in other frame the other could it move forward. Backward, forward or loop, there is always flow of events, so no matter how "different direction" time take, events must flow

And???
What I said, how does this refute different directions of time?

Anyway, from this comment of your, isn't this is what we currently do??, you even imply that if there is a different time dimension, it must be different direction, that what exactly @Reiner did in his previous thread, fix the wording to make it no more misleading?

It was what we do, till Reiner changed it.
He did not make it less misleading he changed it so a space can have two time dimensions even though there is no indication of the directions of the dimensions being orthogonal/different.

 

[Reiner04]

Then ig we have never been treating two "different time axises" if acting on same structure as orthogonal to begin with? Then It's just better to use "orthogonal/anti-parallel time dimensions" than keep using "different time axises" in wording as this is what misleading. Rather i would suggest to even create a note to make it clear that "different time axises don't qualify unless have evidences to be anti-parallel ".

 

[Vietthai96]

And???
What I said, how does this refute different directions of time?

You apply the concept of spatial direction to time, which time and space is inherently different in nature, no matter how you phase the word "direction", time have only one direction

It was what we do, till Reiner changed it.
He did not make it less misleading he changed it so a space can have two time dimensions even though there is no indication of the directions of the dimensions being orthogonal/different.

Are you contradicted yourself??, now assume we follow your definition of direction, first you said different time dimension mean it must be different direction, now you said direction must have indication of orthonogal, different??, also, i'm curious on what you mean orthogonal

Anyway i will be back later, need a shower after work and dinner

 

[PrinceofPein]

You apply the concept of spatial direction to time, which time and space is inherently different in nature, no matter how you phase the word "direction", time have only one direction

Please try to read what I write properly.
In terms of dimensions physics wise, you cannot uniquely distinguish them. I never said space and time are of the same nature. Try drawing a world line of an object and tell me what distinguishes the space and time.
So if you say time only has one direction, what are you arguing for here? Cause at this point me and your conversation is pointless and adds nothing to this discussion.

Are you contradicted yourself??, now assume we follow your definition of direction, first you said different time dimension mean it must be different direction, now you said direction must have indication of orthonogal, different??, also, i'm curious on what you mean orthogonal

I will probably stop replying to you, if you keep putting words and keep misquoting me. What does orthogonal mean? At right angles to each other at the very least.
What does different direction mean?
They mean the same thing, different direction is a broader term.
I said

is no indication of the directions of the dimensions being orthogonal/different.

If the directions are orthogonal, they are different.
I use the word orthogonal cause theoretically I can draw a minowski diagram comprising of multiple temporal dimensions so far as I make them orthogonal to each other.

Then ig we have never been treating two "different time axises" if acting on same structure as orthogonal to begin with? Then It's just better to use "orthogonal/anti-parallel time dimensions" than keep using "different time axises" in wording as this is what misleading. Rather i would suggest to even create a note to make it clear that "different time axises don't qualify unless have evidences to be anti-parallel ".

Essentially, that's what my post is saying.
Also, we would use layman terms so no one can say it is misleading next time.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Nobody’s provided verses that would meet these standards, and that’s the most concerning part to me. We can’t go making standards that damn near nothing qualifies for

 

[Georredannea15]

A multiversal temporal dimension that spans 4 Dimensional spacetime continuum/continuums itself to the future, in a manner that different Universes at different points on this temporal axis be regarded as parallel worlds/separate spacetime continuums to each other rather than regular past or future self. That had be considered and qualify for Hypertimeline.

I understand the other 2 situations you mentioned, but can you explain this a little more? And where exactly did DT say such a thing? I may have missed it

 

[Planck69]

I share Clover's sentiments. Accuracy is all well and good until its basically a nothing standard for the sake of it.

 

[Deagonx]

If nothing else, I appreciate DT taking the time to answer so many questions and hypotheticals here. I strongly share his opinion on the matter

 

[KLOL506]

I share Clover's sentiments. Accuracy is all well and good until its basically a nothing standard for the sake of it.

I am personally inclined to agree with this.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

my last permissioned reply, but I have some concerns with what DT has pronounced and I would like to create a rebuttal that will include some graphs and sources but that will take some time, and will most likely be posted in 12 hours.

 

[Qawsedf234]

At the moment we'll just have to rewrite the FAQ since the current one doesn't properly convey the intended message.

 

[Reiner04]

At the moment we'll just have to rewrite the FAQ since the current one doesn't properly convey the intended message.

Isn't it's better if first this revision is over with proper vote on specific thing? I believe that there's still a disagreement over if perpendicularity/different-direction has to be mentioned.