Oh no, it's the time cube all over again!

/s. I can't pretend I understand any of it, but certainly sounds pretty cool.

I'll need to reread this a few times to grasp it.

If you could step onto that sideways path and remain in the same moment of "regular time," you might find that things could be slightly different—perhaps a different version of the same day. Moving along this perpendicular second path could let you explore different outcomes of that day without going backward or forward in time as we know it.

The existence of those different outcomes is the second dimension of time. The means to transition from one outcome to another is the third dimension.

This doesn't make sense to me. Time as we know it t1, time sideways t2, but why is the transition along t2 all of a sudden a third dimension? Wat?

I got excited that the paper makes concrete predictions for particle masses - the electron, muon, and tau, the quarks, and the neutrinos. For the moment, particle masses are free parameters in the Standard Model that you need to plug arbitrary experimentally-derived numbers into. A theory that can calculate them directly would be a great theory, even if it were as weird as having 3 time dimensions.

Buuut... this paper doesn't actually explain how it calculates all its amazing predictions. It just starts with something like "what if Schrödinger equation, but instead of exp(it) we had exp(it1 + it2 + it3)!" And I agree: yes! Let's! What if! We should explore all possibilities, no matter how weird, if they lead to better understanding of the world. But then it immediately goes to say "let α and γ be some [unspecified] constants. Therefore the mass of the muon is 105.6583745 MeV". Like... how?

I thought maybe this is a paper just to announce the theory, and all the laborious calculations are in the supplemental materials, but at the very bottom it specifically writes "Data Availability: The theoretical predictions and numerical calculations presented in this paper are fully described within the text." **Frodo mode:** Fine, keep you secrets!

Until the author shows the actual theory and the calculations outputting all these amazing predictions, they are no more useful than that LinkedIn post that said "what if e = mc2 but e = mc2 + AI"

The Time Cube guy was right all along!

How reliable is this website ? I see clickbaity headlines from it all the time around here and the Wikipedia page is mostly empty

He writes that his mathematical framework for three-dimensional time improves on others' proposals by making testable reproductions of known particle masses and other physical properties.

Awesome. Test results or GTFO.

I know this is wrong, but when I think about time and dimensions, I think of the fourth dimension being like our physical first dimension, and the fifth like our second and the sixth like our third.

So the moment now that you are in would be the sum of all of your first, second, and third dimensions currently in the fourth dimension, and then the fifth dimension would be the sum of everything you are from the moment you are born to the moment you die, all of your fourth dimension movements making like a wibbly wobbly, timey, wimey thing, and then the sixth dimension would be all the potential times of all of the lives and experiences that ever exist.

Like I said, I know this is wrong, but this is what I enjoy thinking about.

I've been waiting to see if anyone picks up on this, one way or the other. Much like Wolfram's theories it's a really neat concept. Time will tell if it's able to actually be verifiable in our dimension.

I appreciate the Editors Note at the end. This sounds interesting enough to get some peer reviews, regardless where it got posted.

I think it's tge other way around; time as secondary effect.

I can understand using a different system that could simplify some calculations and concepts in particular cases, but I dont understand how it's reducing 4D space-time to just 3D time.

The phys.org article has absolutely no information. At least it links the worldscientific article.

low-quality crackpottery. the idea is not even new and they show zero calculation leading to the predictions they claim to make

phys.org has fallen far

This is a remarkably short paper for the big claims it makes. For me it has the feel of starting at the answer and then working backwards to find the original question. Which is a perfectly valid approach, as long as there is at least some constraint or indication that was indeed the original question asked.

We've seen time and again in physics where people can create awesome mathematical frameworks that try to explain it all. Then every time the model disagrees with reality, the model or it's parameters are slightly tweaked so it's in line again. For me this isn't very useful, as we would like to use the model to make real predictions. Not just chase our tails.