Is 3D time science or junk?

[Skiltch]

http://www.specularium.org/

I freely admit that I'm not familiar enough with the physics to know if this guy has anything or if he's just using fancy words. Could someone help please?

[Wowbagger]

I am no expert in String Theory, but it appears to me that the paper at this link http://www.specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=50 (linked from the URL you provided) is describing some of the extra dimensions required for String Theory to work as a unification of quantum theory and gravity. But I could be wrong.

At least they have the decency to call it a hypothesis, and not some "ultimate truth" about the Universe. So, I wouldn't get too rough with them.

But, as far as I can remember, the extra dimensions were spatial dimensions, not time dimensions, although there might not really be a difference in the two, from the String Theory perspective.

[TV's Frank]

Wow, I'm way too tired to start challenging the zillions of pages of his BS. I need to stop reading the forums late at night.

But to answer your question: fancy words.

[Soapy Sam]

Can't answer for the physics.
One has to ask why he is posting in his own website instead of submitting to a peer reviewed journal. Usually a bad sign.
He seems to have an alternate theory for lots of other things too, which seems odd- I can understand someone having one marvellous insight, even two or three, like Einstein, but so many?
I looked at just one page "The Sea Plough". The idea is lifted pretty straight from Arthur C. Clarke (The Deep Range 1957), so maybe the rest are not totally original either?

[Tez]

Looks like typical crackpottery to me, though I'm not about to waste my time doing more than skimming his headings.

It always amazes me that these people can ex post facto account for many esoteric features of modern physics, and yet they cannot derive the many simple consequences and new predictions their theory must yield.

[Hellbound]

I agree with Tez.

Besides, do they mention which string theory they are discussing? There's more than one. Off the top of my head they include Heterotic A and B, EO8 Supersymmetry (if I've go tthat right), 11d supergravity, and others. They may include from 7 to 20-something extra dimensions, and some do include extra time dimensions (or at least don't rule them out).

Similar to the quantum mechanics "where's your math?" rebuttal, I've found the "which string theory is that?" rebuttal works pretty well, too :)

[Psi Baba]

Brian Greene discusses the concept of "imaginary time" in The Elegant Universe, which, put simply, is a timeline that is perpendicular to the timeline we are familiar with. It is one important element in making (one of the) string theories work out. I don't know if this guy's "3-D time" is the same thing or if he is just talking s***.

Huntsman, to your question, I would just answer, "M-Theory." That way I'm covered. :p

[Hellbound]

Brian Greene discusses the concept of "imaginary time" in The Elegant Universe, which, put simply, is a timeline that is perpendicular to the timeline we are familiar with. It is one important element in making (one of the) string theories work out. I don't know if this guy's "3-D time" is the same thing or if he is just talking s***.

Huntsman, to your question, I would just answer, "M-Theory." That way I'm covered. :p

Yeah, but M-theory isn't a string theory, it's a brane theory :P

So you're worng anyway :D

[Psi Baba]

Yeah, but M-theory isn't a string theory, it's a brane theory :P

So you're worng anyway :D
Nuh-uh! Edward Witten devised M-Theory as a combination/unification of the five string theories. So there!

[Hellbound]

Nuh-uh! Edward Witten devised M-Theory as a combination/unification of the five string theories (and 11d supergravity). So there!

Completed the statement :p

Yes, this is true...

...but the base particles in M-theory are not strings, but p-branes.

[CaveDave]

Can't answer for the physics.
One has to ask why he is posting in his own website instead of submitting to a peer reviewed journal. Usually a bad sign.
He seems to have an alternate theory for lots of other things too, which seems odd- I can understand someone having one marvellous insight, even two or three, like Einstein, but so many?
I looked at just one page "The Sea Plough". The idea is lifted pretty straight from Arthur C. Clarke (The Deep Range 1957), so maybe the rest are not totally original either?

Robert A. Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" was based on a six dimensional universe, three of them being aspects of time.

HTH

Dave

[valis]

Wow, I'm way too tired to start challenging the zillions of pages of his BS. I need to stop reading the forums late at night.


Well then push the button Frank.