If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
QUOTE (1.618+Jan 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum", which can be altered by matter. Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space. You can even measure distance in it (Although it's a bit different than cm and km, in special relativity you have a "space - time interval", which is measured by s²=c² Δt² - Δr² ) However, as it is 4 - dimensional, we cannot visualize it. So as far as I know, it can exist without matter. But I'm not sure.
- Gehn
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum", which can be altered by matter. Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space. You can even measure distance in it (Although it's a bit different than cm and km, in special relativity you have a "space - time interval", which is measured by s²=c² Δt² - Δr² ) However, as it is 4 - dimensional, we cannot visualize it. So as far as I know, it can exist without matter. But I'm not sure.
- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Jan 15 2008, 01:09 PM)
Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum", which can be altered by matter. Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space. You can even measure distance in it (Although it's a bit different than cm and km, in special relativity you have a "space - time interval", which is measured by s²=c² Δt² - Δr² ) However, as it is 4 - dimensional, we cannot visualize it. So as far as I know, it can exist without matter. But I'm not sure.
- Gehn
And people say the FM don't post physics...
- Gehn
And people say the FM don't post physics...
QUOTE (1.618+Jan 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
A better question would be whether or not we could detect matter without time. Time is ultimately constructed by changing information that conveys perceptions of velocity and mass.
So you have a system in which forces convey information that is simultaineously interpreted as changing elements that describe time, as well as unchanging fingerprints extracted from it that represent the properties of mass and laws of physics.
If you want a good analogy then consider a touch tone phone where individual cycles of a wave create the time over which a note extends and the specific repetitive, wave component of a note represents the properties of the mass.
In this case, the time and mass are inseperable, though we might consider 'noise' to still be representative of change, but not possess specific tonal features and hence could be assumed to be chaotic and like the Big Bang, formly and highly energetic.
But consider again, that any such noise we can describe or conceive of is not formless but has non-random and predictable components associated with it. Pure unpredictable randomness would have no predictable form and possess no correlation from one instant to the next and at most could provide experience without memory or comprehension.
Also notice that any typical 'uniform' source of noise we consider is bounded in some aspect and actually, when looked at close enough, does contain transient tonal features, which possess their own equivalent of logic rules by which they must interact, so ultimately there's no way to separate time and information they convey each other and are the same and information, when interpreted, follows logical rules associated with that interpretation and hence inherits the equivalence of a subjective set of laws or rules by which units of them are associated together.
The only other possibility beyond this would appear to be the existance of possible irrational attributes to existance for which logic doesn't apply, in which case everyone might have an opinion but noone can tell you the answer, as it would be up to you to interprete the information and take a subjective measure of it.
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
A better question would be whether or not we could detect matter without time. Time is ultimately constructed by changing information that conveys perceptions of velocity and mass.
So you have a system in which forces convey information that is simultaineously interpreted as changing elements that describe time, as well as unchanging fingerprints extracted from it that represent the properties of mass and laws of physics.
If you want a good analogy then consider a touch tone phone where individual cycles of a wave create the time over which a note extends and the specific repetitive, wave component of a note represents the properties of the mass.
In this case, the time and mass are inseperable, though we might consider 'noise' to still be representative of change, but not possess specific tonal features and hence could be assumed to be chaotic and like the Big Bang, formly and highly energetic.
But consider again, that any such noise we can describe or conceive of is not formless but has non-random and predictable components associated with it. Pure unpredictable randomness would have no predictable form and possess no correlation from one instant to the next and at most could provide experience without memory or comprehension.
Also notice that any typical 'uniform' source of noise we consider is bounded in some aspect and actually, when looked at close enough, does contain transient tonal features, which possess their own equivalent of logic rules by which they must interact, so ultimately there's no way to separate time and information they convey each other and are the same and information, when interpreted, follows logical rules associated with that interpretation and hence inherits the equivalence of a subjective set of laws or rules by which units of them are associated together.
The only other possibility beyond this would appear to be the existance of possible irrational attributes to existance for which logic doesn't apply, in which case everyone might have an opinion but noone can tell you the answer, as it would be up to you to interprete the information and take a subjective measure of it.
If I understand BB there was a "time" when there was no matter, from 10^-43 till 10^-37.
So it looks like you could have time in a universe without matter. ( you didn't say for how long)
And If you try to go back before the BB they say "there was no before". So here you would have a universe with no time or matter.
So it looks like you could have time in a universe without matter. ( you didn't say for how long)
And If you try to go back before the BB they say "there was no before". So here you would have a universe with no time or matter.
QUOTE
Gehn Posted on Today at 4:09 AM Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum", which can be altered by matter. Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space.
relational theory can be used to show that space and matter can exist without time and it is only by changing the relative position of matter that the dimension of time can be defined. if you do not need the dimension of time to describe a system does it mean time exists and is just not needed or that time is "generated" by motion ? i consider it to mean that space and time are not the same thing, as space and matter can exist without time. i have read* that einsteins field equations can be solved without the need of the variable time (and i know that not all solutions to equations have to be physically possible), but GR can describe space and matter without time.
* i say read as i do not know how to solve einsteins field equations. if a forum member (who knows what they are talking about) could elaborate on the point of solving the equations without needing time, it would be greatly beneficial to this thread and the forum.
Cant really see the point in quoting SR in response to this question. Only raises the issue of whether SR has any relevance or applicability in a universe devoid of matter.
QUOTE (kjw+Jan 15 2008, 08:39 PM)
relational theory can be used to show that space and matter can exist without time and it is only by changing the relative position of matter that the dimension of time can be defined. if you do not need the dimension of time to describe a system does it mean time exists and is just not needed or that time is "generated" by motion ? i consider it to mean that space and time are not the same thing, as space and matter can exist without time. i have read* that einsteins field equations can be solved without the need of the variable time (and i know that not all solutions to equations have to be physically possible), but GR can describe space and matter without time.
I'm talking about space - time as a physical entity. I'm just using SR as an example of how it could exist. I'm no expert, though, so it would be better to pose this question to someone who knows more about this.
- Gehn
I'm talking about space - time as a physical entity. I'm just using SR as an example of how it could exist. I'm no expert, though, so it would be better to pose this question to someone who knows more about this.
- Gehn
Hi Gehn,
I just wanna polish some parts which you wrote:
I just wanna polish some parts which you wrote:
QUOTE (Gehn+Jan 15 2008, 06:09 PM)
Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum",
Space time is a product(yes, multiplication) of 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. There's no way in hell that Einstein could have worked out the full geometry of space time, from it's original parts or dimensions, so a work around is used to lock it in product. The thing is, space time has an extremely complicated geometry and I don't think anyones cracked it so far.
The interesting thing is, to solve the 4d classical EM differential wave equation, one assumes the solutions must contain a product of 4 dimensions , i.e., (x,y,z and t).
Then there's the question of separation constant K, which is K^2(math proof exists)
Working through this produces four second order(single dimension) differential equations (the first derivative=zero which essentially means, no wave energy dissipation takes place and hence EM radiation energy is conserved.
Note, the EM wave equation was worked out at least 50 years prior to 1905.
And StevenA said:
A better question would be whether or not we could detect matter without time.
An even better question would be if StevenA has a time switch located in his near vicinity enabling him to switch time on/off at will? Otherwise Dumbo, how are we to perform your experiment,eh?
Time is ultimately constructed by changing information that conveys perceptions of velocity and mass.
Pure gibberish, the finest I've ever seen.
Cheers
Darren
Space time is a product(yes, multiplication) of 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. There's no way in hell that Einstein could have worked out the full geometry of space time, from it's original parts or dimensions, so a work around is used to lock it in product. The thing is, space time has an extremely complicated geometry and I don't think anyones cracked it so far.
The interesting thing is, to solve the 4d classical EM differential wave equation, one assumes the solutions must contain a product of 4 dimensions , i.e., (x,y,z and t).
Then there's the question of separation constant K, which is K^2(math proof exists)
Working through this produces four second order(single dimension) differential equations (the first derivative=zero which essentially means, no wave energy dissipation takes place and hence EM radiation energy is conserved.
Note, the EM wave equation was worked out at least 50 years prior to 1905.
And StevenA said:
QUOTE (StevenA+)
A better question would be whether or not we could detect matter without time.
An even better question would be if StevenA has a time switch located in his near vicinity enabling him to switch time on/off at will? Otherwise Dumbo, how are we to perform your experiment,eh?
QUOTE (StevenA+)
Time is ultimately constructed by changing information that conveys perceptions of velocity and mass.
Pure gibberish, the finest I've ever seen.
Cheers
Darren
Just an addition to the above, taking into account the E and B field energies, a total of eight second order differential equations are generated to make up E-M wave complete.
However, it is perfectly legitimate to exclude the y and z dimensions by using just x and t, which then gives just 4 equations for both E and B field energies.
Cheers
Darren
However, it is perfectly legitimate to exclude the y and z dimensions by using just x and t, which then gives just 4 equations for both E and B field energies.
Cheers
Darren
QUOTE (Darren+Jan 16 2008, 03:33 AM)
An even better question would be if StevenA has a time switch located in his near vicinity enabling him to switch time on/off at will? Otherwise Dumbo, how are we to perform your experiment,eh?
Precisely the point.
In fact, more specifically, how can mass be detected without time to do so?, which is exactly what I said so you're simply repeating my comment.
Precisely the point.
In fact, more specifically, how can mass be detected without time to do so?, which is exactly what I said so you're simply repeating my comment.
QUOTE (Darren+)
QUOTE (StevenA+)
Time is ultimately constructed by changing information that conveys perceptions of velocity and mass.
Pure gibberish, the finest I've ever seen.
Cheers
Darren
Are you at all familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? More specifically, are you familiar with information theory regarding the context of ascribing information as representing, in this specific context, a specific quantity of mass or ascribing it to repetitions of the same mass over a distant of space?
If you have x units of information, you can apply these units to either describing and object or the properties of that class of object.
In this case, matter is not detectable without forces interacting between them. The more information you assign to describing a mass, the less information you have regarding the specific properties of that mass and this can be seen in many contexts.
In my tone analogy, there is an identical property to fourier transforms in that we can either determine the frequency of a tone more accurately by widening the window over which we measure the timing of the cycles, or we can tradeoff information and blur our ability to distinguish between specific tones by instead looking at less wide temporal windows of information and gain an ability to determine more accurately when a sound occured.
You're simply getting your feet wet, and don't have a broad understanding of technology and hence you assume my comments are gibberish, though at least you recognize it to be some of the finest (thank you)
If you need a more accurate description, then we can define some observation as having occured over a period of x units of information and that:
x=m*n
(x=# sampled bits of information over time, presented as groups of m bits for n windows.)
Then at any moment of time we're looking at m bits describing the properties of that moment over a window of n moments.
In this case we can describe 2^m possible objects at each windowed moment of time and we can locate this class of object to a precision of n units of time.
The finer we make m, the fewer number of possible fundamental objects we can describe, though we can isolate these to finer periods of time, whereas when we make m large we can describe more objects but can't localize them in time (or in terms of spacial location) as finely.
Notice that the fundamental unit input here is x though, and that truly m is a function of x and n:
m=x/n
So if x=0, and we have no information over time, then we can't construct windows of time to creating masses and/or spacial positions etc.
Time is defined by information. No time = no information, and matter can't exist without information, hence matter is inseparable from time.
The only other question would be whether or not information can be conveyed in non-material forms and for purposes of a physical science discussion, this is irrelevant as physical sciences use matter to convey information.
Pure gibberish, the finest I've ever seen.
Cheers
Darren
Are you at all familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? More specifically, are you familiar with information theory regarding the context of ascribing information as representing, in this specific context, a specific quantity of mass or ascribing it to repetitions of the same mass over a distant of space?
If you have x units of information, you can apply these units to either describing and object or the properties of that class of object.
In this case, matter is not detectable without forces interacting between them. The more information you assign to describing a mass, the less information you have regarding the specific properties of that mass and this can be seen in many contexts.
In my tone analogy, there is an identical property to fourier transforms in that we can either determine the frequency of a tone more accurately by widening the window over which we measure the timing of the cycles, or we can tradeoff information and blur our ability to distinguish between specific tones by instead looking at less wide temporal windows of information and gain an ability to determine more accurately when a sound occured.
You're simply getting your feet wet, and don't have a broad understanding of technology and hence you assume my comments are gibberish, though at least you recognize it to be some of the finest (thank you)
If you need a more accurate description, then we can define some observation as having occured over a period of x units of information and that:
x=m*n
(x=# sampled bits of information over time, presented as groups of m bits for n windows.)
Then at any moment of time we're looking at m bits describing the properties of that moment over a window of n moments.
In this case we can describe 2^m possible objects at each windowed moment of time and we can locate this class of object to a precision of n units of time.
The finer we make m, the fewer number of possible fundamental objects we can describe, though we can isolate these to finer periods of time, whereas when we make m large we can describe more objects but can't localize them in time (or in terms of spacial location) as finely.
Notice that the fundamental unit input here is x though, and that truly m is a function of x and n:
m=x/n
So if x=0, and we have no information over time, then we can't construct windows of time to creating masses and/or spacial positions etc.
Time is defined by information. No time = no information, and matter can't exist without information, hence matter is inseparable from time.
The only other question would be whether or not information can be conveyed in non-material forms and for purposes of a physical science discussion, this is irrelevant as physical sciences use matter to convey information.
I don't think that time is bound to the existence of matter. If I am correct, time is a dimension, and our universe happens to be moving through it. I do believe that a universe can exist but not be moving through the dimension of time.
QUOTE (1.618+Jan 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
In whose mind would it exist?
Time is activity, comparing of events.
Just think about how you record events.
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
QUOTE
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
In whose mind would it exist?
Time is activity, comparing of events.
Just think about how you record events.
the energy is generated by the spacetime or the spacetime is the generator of the
universal energy? the matter is just representation of the spacetime and energy in
motion.
universal energy? the matter is just representation of the spacetime and energy in
motion.
the STR could be describe in a void universe,with hyperbolic curved spacetime geometry.the geometry already contain all the topological structures and pre-metric.
Hello 1.618
Yes time would still exist without matter but it would click along at a much faster rate. Just think about the expansion rate just after the Big Bang. No mass but a lot of energy. (I favor the idea of colliding non-planer M-branes as the cause of the Big Bang, but this may change).
Yes time would still exist without matter but it would click along at a much faster rate. Just think about the expansion rate just after the Big Bang. No mass but a lot of energy. (I favor the idea of colliding non-planer M-branes as the cause of the Big Bang, but this may change).
e=mc^2
Time is as real as Plato's numbers. It's a relation, a means of understanding; a pre-condition or form under which reality is necessarily subjected by a mind, to be thought of at all.
Time is as real as Plato's numbers. It's a relation, a means of understanding; a pre-condition or form under which reality is necessarily subjected by a mind, to be thought of at all.
Hi All,
It is my "considered" opinion that time cannot get along without matter. I assume we are speaking of an entirely photonic existence here since matter and space prevent everything from happening all together. There is no volumetric space without mass.... Well outside of Religious Paradigms anyway.
Cheers
It is my "considered" opinion that time cannot get along without matter. I assume we are speaking of an entirely photonic existence here since matter and space prevent everything from happening all together. There is no volumetric space without mass.... Well outside of Religious Paradigms anyway.
Cheers
but we could to think that the spacetime geometry of GTR generate virtual particles
through the distortion of the curved spacetime.Then the primordial spacetime and the primordial vacuum would be equivalents.the distortion produced in nthe spacetime in it topological structure,is energy,and the energy modify the metric
of the curvatures of spacetime.then one actue on the other.
then both must exist togethers
through the distortion of the curved spacetime.Then the primordial spacetime and the primordial vacuum would be equivalents.the distortion produced in nthe spacetime in it topological structure,is energy,and the energy modify the metric
of the curvatures of spacetime.then one actue on the other.
then both must exist togethers
EM is strictly a classical theory, and is based on the assumption that there are both kinetic and potential energy (matter and light). This question refers to a universe that does not contain one of the axioms of EM theory (the existence of matter) and thus refers to a universe that does not include EM theory. Therefore we cannot use EM arguments here.
You cannot detect a photon without absorbing it. So photons must have a source and a destination. They must be emitted and absorbed. Therefore photons are simply interactions between material objects. Since you cannot have photons without matter, you cannot have a universe comprised only of photons.
You cannot detect a photon without absorbing it. So photons must have a source and a destination. They must be emitted and absorbed. Therefore photons are simply interactions between material objects. Since you cannot have photons without matter, you cannot have a universe comprised only of photons.
Hi All... especially fleem and mott.carl, 
I thought I would vary my "salutations" this time to show "times can change"...
I thought I would vary my "salutations" this time to show "times can change"...
QUOTE (fleem+)
You cannot detect a photon without absorbing it. So photons must have a source and a destination. They must be emitted and absorbed. Therefore photons are simply interactions between material objects. Since you cannot have photons without matter, you cannot have a universe comprised only of photons.
Nobody has said there "must" be an observer. I think that photons are energy exhibiting spatial properties which we can experience as "frequency" and "wavelength". If there is a point in which there is no Universe the energy in the Universe (post creation) must come from somewhere else. It just so happens it is going nowhere... that is all. There is no "purpose" for such a universe in our minds but that is because we want to see purpose in everything. If there are no observers then a knowledge of events would simply be "unnecessary". The creation event separates the universe of the "before" from the "after". However there is nothing to suggest inevitably that any after process is going to occur. And the definition of a Universe would still be a problem... it would not be a Universe like ours. I do not believe that we can reverse the concept that photons always have a source and a destination. It seems to have one in our Universe. This may be some happy chance happening that affected the Physics of just our Universe.
The photons can exist in single states which fill what is available and no more. These are the resonant states of cavities. If what is available has no volume then that is still fine. From the point of view of a single photon traveling at the speed of light it is undergoing the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction. Space and time are non-existent from that point of view and since the photons can never "know" of any existence none of us can ever know it's wavelength or it's frequency. This is the most primitive state of "superposition". This state of "superposition" also occurs in our Universe right up to when the event occurs when a frequency and wavelength must be finally settled on (just like Schrodinger's Cat). So there are similarities to our "fully blown" Universe but this "place" is truly different. That outcome could only be determined by "measurement" or in this state without intelligent observers the collapse of the wavefunction. There is absolutely no time for any measurement in that unique state. So all that light must exist without wavelength and frequency and must "wait" until time and space appear for any events to be possible in which these "properties" appear. How can there be time if every event in that space is "incomplete"? As Fleem states... Wheeler-Feynman Theory suggests there is no total collapse... it is simply a change in the state and the event continues beyond the temporal boundaries and may re-emerge somewhere else.
Yet this situation is happening all the time for photons in our "real Universe" so I suppose this is also a common occurrence in this "Gedanken Universe" where there is no space, no time and no mass. The role of the observer in our Universe "seems to be" one in which it's relative velocity to light is always "zero". Every inertial frame is a "rest frame". Yet this "ensemble" of "rest frames" have limits... the closer to the edge of this ensemble of rest frames we go we will find that it is bounded (on the upper side) by a rest frame in which there can be no time and no space into which we cannot go because of our assumed preexistent mass. These are "walls" to a prison that we cannot "touch". That frame can only contain "light" (also and coincidently this is the only frame that can contain light since it is always traveling at that speed). Our Universe and other Universes will all have these boundaries. This is despite the fact that many other things seem to be in relative motion in our normal Universe. ... we always measure our own velocity to that of light as "stationary"... everyone except those who are accelerating. Acceleration to be a finite quantity requires the property of mass otherwise we too would end up accelerated by any force to the speed of light and we know that it does not spontaneously happen. Light is all we have as an absolute measure since all other frames are relative only to each other with light the only "absolute". I can say we do not seem to be going at the speed of light and the velocity is always the same no matter what I seem to do to change it.
Is it possible to envision a Universe "on the edge of time" that never happened in which light flooded in but never produced particles and antiparticles because the laws of that Universe were so different that they just could not form. The way I see it is these photons go nowhere in space and they exist in the original state they started and do not evolve in time... they represent a frozen instant (as all photons do). Without time no dynamic process would happen. Without a dynamic process, where energy of these photons can progress from state to state, there can be no outcomes. This means no "great expansion" since that would involve this time. Without an observer nobody will ever know that this "place" existed. Does that really matter? Why should that matter?
You would need to be the kind of egotistical being that insists that everything in "creation" is there for us to behold. Well there are things we can never behold and there are places we can never go. This is not usually accepted by some theological arguments. I can only say that as a physical fact these things are true and we should expect there are Universes out there in which there are no observers (or ever will be). The only way you could know they exist is from the perspective of the Universe from where they have come (for example our own Universe). Take a "Black Hole" for instance... energy goes into the Black Hole and never seems to come out. Somewhere inside the Black Hole it is assumed there is a "singularity". Any "singularity" would mean that time and space had been crushed out of existence. This "loss" would signal that something funny is happening ... you may conjecture that a Universe is forming "somewhere". This may not be the only process in which Universes form.
This special "infinitely compact" Universe, if you can call it that, has an initial event but nothing happens after that at that "singularity". On "our side of it"... time still exists, space still exists and so on. We know of it... and we are "real observers". We can't go there without losing observer status. This would be just like a photon that is never absorbed. I can think that it may exist, of course it may not. Many photons exist in the one state (... that is the way bosons are... sharing Bose-Einstein Statistics).
There is no accounting for volume before there is space so the idea of wavelength is not yet "realizable" before distances have formed. Light is simply pure energy in such a state and these "pre-photons" all exist in the one state. From this "Gedanken Logic" it seems inescapable that light's purest state is without wavelength and frequency since these "need" space and time. It has always been assumed that light and events exist in wavelet superposition... why not admit there may be an unobserved state in which there is no wavelength and frequency and this is the primal state of all photons? To me this is the way light propagates as resonant energy and not as waves. The waves we think are electromagnetic are templates from the cavity's mass and these guide the energy to the destination through resonance. After an event the energy that was once stored on one cavity is now stored in another cavity (elastically).
Alternatively here is another argument... The idea of matter existing requires that the energy that was "traveling" as light became quasi-stationary as a particle... and the particle requires that it is localized in some region of the space of the Universe that is not the whole Universe. This insists that spacetime is curved to separate one of the spaces from another. This portion of the Universe now has more or less energy than the remaining space in this Universe. This implies that there is more space than absolutely necessary to contain the single particle. Space requires time to cross and time for events to happen. Run this argument in reverse and the Universe completely disappears.
Cheers
The photons can exist in single states which fill what is available and no more. These are the resonant states of cavities. If what is available has no volume then that is still fine. From the point of view of a single photon traveling at the speed of light it is undergoing the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction. Space and time are non-existent from that point of view and since the photons can never "know" of any existence none of us can ever know it's wavelength or it's frequency. This is the most primitive state of "superposition". This state of "superposition" also occurs in our Universe right up to when the event occurs when a frequency and wavelength must be finally settled on (just like Schrodinger's Cat). So there are similarities to our "fully blown" Universe but this "place" is truly different. That outcome could only be determined by "measurement" or in this state without intelligent observers the collapse of the wavefunction. There is absolutely no time for any measurement in that unique state. So all that light must exist without wavelength and frequency and must "wait" until time and space appear for any events to be possible in which these "properties" appear. How can there be time if every event in that space is "incomplete"? As Fleem states... Wheeler-Feynman Theory suggests there is no total collapse... it is simply a change in the state and the event continues beyond the temporal boundaries and may re-emerge somewhere else.
Yet this situation is happening all the time for photons in our "real Universe" so I suppose this is also a common occurrence in this "Gedanken Universe" where there is no space, no time and no mass. The role of the observer in our Universe "seems to be" one in which it's relative velocity to light is always "zero". Every inertial frame is a "rest frame". Yet this "ensemble" of "rest frames" have limits... the closer to the edge of this ensemble of rest frames we go we will find that it is bounded (on the upper side) by a rest frame in which there can be no time and no space into which we cannot go because of our assumed preexistent mass. These are "walls" to a prison that we cannot "touch". That frame can only contain "light" (also and coincidently this is the only frame that can contain light since it is always traveling at that speed). Our Universe and other Universes will all have these boundaries. This is despite the fact that many other things seem to be in relative motion in our normal Universe. ... we always measure our own velocity to that of light as "stationary"... everyone except those who are accelerating. Acceleration to be a finite quantity requires the property of mass otherwise we too would end up accelerated by any force to the speed of light and we know that it does not spontaneously happen. Light is all we have as an absolute measure since all other frames are relative only to each other with light the only "absolute". I can say we do not seem to be going at the speed of light and the velocity is always the same no matter what I seem to do to change it.
Is it possible to envision a Universe "on the edge of time" that never happened in which light flooded in but never produced particles and antiparticles because the laws of that Universe were so different that they just could not form. The way I see it is these photons go nowhere in space and they exist in the original state they started and do not evolve in time... they represent a frozen instant (as all photons do). Without time no dynamic process would happen. Without a dynamic process, where energy of these photons can progress from state to state, there can be no outcomes. This means no "great expansion" since that would involve this time. Without an observer nobody will ever know that this "place" existed. Does that really matter? Why should that matter?
You would need to be the kind of egotistical being that insists that everything in "creation" is there for us to behold. Well there are things we can never behold and there are places we can never go. This is not usually accepted by some theological arguments. I can only say that as a physical fact these things are true and we should expect there are Universes out there in which there are no observers (or ever will be). The only way you could know they exist is from the perspective of the Universe from where they have come (for example our own Universe). Take a "Black Hole" for instance... energy goes into the Black Hole and never seems to come out. Somewhere inside the Black Hole it is assumed there is a "singularity". Any "singularity" would mean that time and space had been crushed out of existence. This "loss" would signal that something funny is happening ... you may conjecture that a Universe is forming "somewhere". This may not be the only process in which Universes form.
This special "infinitely compact" Universe, if you can call it that, has an initial event but nothing happens after that at that "singularity". On "our side of it"... time still exists, space still exists and so on. We know of it... and we are "real observers". We can't go there without losing observer status. This would be just like a photon that is never absorbed. I can think that it may exist, of course it may not. Many photons exist in the one state (... that is the way bosons are... sharing Bose-Einstein Statistics).
There is no accounting for volume before there is space so the idea of wavelength is not yet "realizable" before distances have formed. Light is simply pure energy in such a state and these "pre-photons" all exist in the one state. From this "Gedanken Logic" it seems inescapable that light's purest state is without wavelength and frequency since these "need" space and time. It has always been assumed that light and events exist in wavelet superposition... why not admit there may be an unobserved state in which there is no wavelength and frequency and this is the primal state of all photons? To me this is the way light propagates as resonant energy and not as waves. The waves we think are electromagnetic are templates from the cavity's mass and these guide the energy to the destination through resonance. After an event the energy that was once stored on one cavity is now stored in another cavity (elastically).
Alternatively here is another argument... The idea of matter existing requires that the energy that was "traveling" as light became quasi-stationary as a particle... and the particle requires that it is localized in some region of the space of the Universe that is not the whole Universe. This insists that spacetime is curved to separate one of the spaces from another. This portion of the Universe now has more or less energy than the remaining space in this Universe. This implies that there is more space than absolutely necessary to contain the single particle. Space requires time to cross and time for events to happen. Run this argument in reverse and the Universe completely disappears.
Cheers
Hi everyone,
I would like to add my two cents worth because i have a slightly different way to look at time and space. But I will stick to time, mostly.
Simple put, I believe time is a verb. Time is the measure of a process, of change or degree of change.
I believe it is the change of one state of three dimensional matter to another state of three dimensional matter or a change to a decreasing demensional state of matter.
Fixing or pinpointing Time is taking the snapshot of the process. It is the process of matter decaying into a wave and the relationships of wave frequency that govern relative time. To me Time is a rate of frequency of an underlying wave process.
So to me the amount of matter changing per given distance, decaying into a wave as the ultimate process as a byproduct of the other forces, specifically EM radiation, is time. So matter change per distance is time. Space and time are related to matter decay into a wave.
So I have worked through 4 dimensions and space-time and replaced it with time and space as verbs. Relative actions of a process. with out the process, there is no time.
I would like to add my two cents worth because i have a slightly different way to look at time and space. But I will stick to time, mostly.
Simple put, I believe time is a verb. Time is the measure of a process, of change or degree of change.
I believe it is the change of one state of three dimensional matter to another state of three dimensional matter or a change to a decreasing demensional state of matter.
Fixing or pinpointing Time is taking the snapshot of the process. It is the process of matter decaying into a wave and the relationships of wave frequency that govern relative time. To me Time is a rate of frequency of an underlying wave process.
So to me the amount of matter changing per given distance, decaying into a wave as the ultimate process as a byproduct of the other forces, specifically EM radiation, is time. So matter change per distance is time. Space and time are related to matter decay into a wave.
So I have worked through 4 dimensions and space-time and replaced it with time and space as verbs. Relative actions of a process. with out the process, there is no time.
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until *observed*, and that it's the act of *observation* that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state."
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
Hi wcelliott,
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until *observed*, and that it's the act of *observation* that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state."
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
Yes... but no. In the literal sense there were no observers (other than "Religious Entities") soon after the big bang... at least not in this Universe anyway. "Stuff" happened back there (at least I believe it), I am convinced we "evolved" from primitive matter to the semi-sentient beings we have today. Nobody's "imagination" has created this present situation but now that it is here certain aspects of it are starting to become the kind of observer you are describing. The idea that you must have an "intelligent designer" is not on for me. This is also the majority opinion of Scientists (not that majorities matter).
It is quite plausible that we may be wrong about the Copenhagen Interpretation. A lot of the Copenhagen Interpretation is due to the personal intervention of Bohr and his "strong will". Cowardice is also a factor in the History of Science. Some people would nnot stand up and be counted at the time they were needed. It is unfortunate that though Science is supposed to be about the Universe revealing itself to us through experiment the interpretations of the paradigms is in advance of what we really know. There are many possible interpretations of Quantum Theory and none of them can be proven absolutely. This discussion is and has been on other threads. There are also many "good" reasons why Bohr may have been wrong. I am a firm believer that every Theory in Physics is only "right" for a certain length of time until "we grow up" and then we move on to more sophisticated ideas.
Cheers
It is quite plausible that we may be wrong about the Copenhagen Interpretation. A lot of the Copenhagen Interpretation is due to the personal intervention of Bohr and his "strong will". Cowardice is also a factor in the History of Science. Some people would nnot stand up and be counted at the time they were needed. It is unfortunate that though Science is supposed to be about the Universe revealing itself to us through experiment the interpretations of the paradigms is in advance of what we really know. There are many possible interpretations of Quantum Theory and none of them can be proven absolutely. This discussion is and has been on other threads. There are also many "good" reasons why Bohr may have been wrong. I am a firm believer that every Theory in Physics is only "right" for a certain length of time until "we grow up" and then we move on to more sophisticated ideas.
Cheers
QUOTE (1.618 Jan 15 2008+ 12:55 PM)
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
From what I understand, time (like space, dark matter, dark energy, etc) is another form of matter, so I believe that, time & matter whether before the Big-Bang, or after will always exist.
Entropy affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter itself.
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
From what I understand, time (like space, dark matter, dark energy, etc) is another form of matter, so I believe that, time & matter whether before the Big-Bang, or after will always exist.
Entropy affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter itself.
the proper nonlinearity of the einstein's equations to the GTR in itself implies the existence of energy in the vacuum,dirtorted by the curvatures of spacetimes,that go whether deforming topologically,and producing new metrics,that are connecteds
by the presence of "densities of energies" dfferents,that does appear the deformations of space and time,curveds,depending of the sources of generations of the connection of spaces and times,with the degrees of curvatures,that go whether twisting,in the rates of the encurving of the spacetime.This is,the strongest curves,produced in the connections of spacetimes.these connections are generated by density of matter.then the time,space there are without the matter.
by the presence of "densities of energies" dfferents,that does appear the deformations of space and time,curveds,depending of the sources of generations of the connection of spaces and times,with the degrees of curvatures,that go whether twisting,in the rates of the encurving of the spacetime.This is,the strongest curves,produced in the connections of spacetimes.these connections are generated by density of matter.then the time,space there are without the matter.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 26 2008, 10:01 PM)
Hi wcelliott,
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until *observed*, and that it's the act of *observation* that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state."
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
One of the scientists who aren't in this majority is Steven Hawking, who recently said that he believed that the "Big Bang" was in a superposition of all possible states because we haven't been able to observe the universe that far back in time.
It would seem to me that the implication is that time cannot exist without *observers*.
Only conscious entities can *observe*, which implies that we conscious entities play a crucial role in the universe.
It's all imaginary until we experience it.
Yes... but no. In the literal sense there were no observers (other than "Religious Entities") soon after the big bang... at least not in this Universe anyway. "Stuff" happened back there (at least I believe it), I am convinced we "evolved" from primitive matter to the semi-sentient beings we have today. Nobody's "imagination" has created this present situation but now that it is here certain aspects of it are starting to become the kind of observer you are describing. The idea that you must have an "intelligent designer" is not on for me. This is also the majority opinion of Scientists (not that majorities matter).
It is quite plausible that we may be wrong about the Copenhagen Interpretation. A lot of the Copenhagen Interpretation is due to the personal intervention of Bohr and his "strong will". Cowardice is also a factor in the History of Science. Some people would nnot stand up and be counted at the time they were needed. It is unfortunate that though Science is supposed to be about the Universe revealing itself to us through experiment the interpretations of the paradigms is in advance of what we really know. There are many possible interpretations of Quantum Theory and none of them can be proven absolutely. This discussion is and has been on other threads. There are also many "good" reasons why Bohr may have been wrong. I am a firm believer that every Theory in Physics is only "right" for a certain length of time until "we grow up" and then we move on to more sophisticated ideas.
Cheers
The point is surely missed if one considers it as suggesting that 'imagination' has created reality. Kant stopped short of metaphysical idealism (which has no place in this discussion), and I believe his ideas are relevant in wcelliots point. Reality as it is must of necessity, to be known to us, conform to pre-existing conditions of the mind, given how it processes sense impressions prior to consciousness. The act of thought itself and of acquiring knowledge presupposes certain relations as necessary to that purpose. We presuppose time, cause and effect, by neccesity. Our minds must process reality not as that reality is in itself but within the context of our mental design. When we observe a quantum effect, the collapsing of the wave function, ... we are in effect causing reality to conform to conditions of the mind in order to make the observation. Kant called these 'built in' relations, a priori synthetic propositions,.. as required in addtion to synthetic (induction) and analytic (deduction) propositions. It is no coincidence that the study of scientific method lead directly to considerations of epistemology; Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant.
It is quite plausible that we may be wrong about the Copenhagen Interpretation. A lot of the Copenhagen Interpretation is due to the personal intervention of Bohr and his "strong will". Cowardice is also a factor in the History of Science. Some people would nnot stand up and be counted at the time they were needed. It is unfortunate that though Science is supposed to be about the Universe revealing itself to us through experiment the interpretations of the paradigms is in advance of what we really know. There are many possible interpretations of Quantum Theory and none of them can be proven absolutely. This discussion is and has been on other threads. There are also many "good" reasons why Bohr may have been wrong. I am a firm believer that every Theory in Physics is only "right" for a certain length of time until "we grow up" and then we move on to more sophisticated ideas.
Cheers
The point is surely missed if one considers it as suggesting that 'imagination' has created reality. Kant stopped short of metaphysical idealism (which has no place in this discussion), and I believe his ideas are relevant in wcelliots point. Reality as it is must of necessity, to be known to us, conform to pre-existing conditions of the mind, given how it processes sense impressions prior to consciousness. The act of thought itself and of acquiring knowledge presupposes certain relations as necessary to that purpose. We presuppose time, cause and effect, by neccesity. Our minds must process reality not as that reality is in itself but within the context of our mental design. When we observe a quantum effect, the collapsing of the wave function, ... we are in effect causing reality to conform to conditions of the mind in order to make the observation. Kant called these 'built in' relations, a priori synthetic propositions,.. as required in addtion to synthetic (induction) and analytic (deduction) propositions. It is no coincidence that the study of scientific method lead directly to considerations of epistemology; Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant.
QUOTE
This is also the majority opinion of Scientists (not that majorities matter).
One of the scientists who aren't in this majority is Steven Hawking, who recently said that he believed that the "Big Bang" was in a superposition of all possible states because we haven't been able to observe the universe that far back in time.
Hi wcelliot,
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The idea that you must have an "intelligent designer" is not on for me. This is also the majority opinion of Scientists (not that majorities matter).
One of the scientists who aren't in this majority is Steven Hawking, who recently said that he believed that the "Big Bang" was in a superposition of all possible states because we haven't been able to observe the universe that far back in time.
A superposition of states might be interpreted in many ways. For instance at the instant of the Big Bang which must have existed in a singularity... all the "soon to exist photons" would be in a pre-photonic state without a fixed wavelength or frequency or perhaps even an agreed value of the constants of C and h. Without time, and spatial dimensions in which to exist a particular photon's frequency would not be in existence but totally indeterminate. I think in the frame of the photon this is ever the case. In the free photon space and time do not exist because they all suffer from the most extreme case of length contraction and time dilation.... No time and no space in the photon's own rest frame. That is a lot like how this Universe seemed to come into existence in the first place and is suggestive of a "creation" mechanism..
Since the Big Bang (that even Stephen Hawking admits existed)... how he came to that conclusion about it's existence I do not know if he takes the position that the events since then did not exist until there was an observer.... unfortunately what you are apparently referring to I do not have a copy. If there were no existing states "back there" around t=0 and states did not exist until we (or somebody) observed them how would any intelligence like us form in the first place (to observe these states) made up of "real atoms" and fully fledged photons with time inching forward so we can "observe"? I do not know how we can know there was a "Big Bang" for sure other than from our measurements. My view is this "observer" that collapsed the states of phenomena just after t = 0 is not an "intelligent" observer... it is a natural process.
We know about the "Big Bang" because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We can extrapolate this echo of the Big Bang back to that initial event that formed our Universe (or at least close to that point in time), I am sure countless other intelligent civilizations have done the same thing and we are not the first to wonder about our Cosmos. Unless you believe that we are entirely alone in this Universe then you will need to admit that it would be some other civilization capable of witnessing the CMBR that formed our Universe from the formless state. That means we have no role to play at all (just a back up system). This is too dumb for me to admit. I am sure that Steven Hawking may have had another interpretation in his mind.
I suppose one way to ensure that the big bang existed "back in time" from observers "forward in time" is if time way completely symmetric and Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory counter causally "put it all back into place" by selecting from the possible outcomes we observe through unseen "transactions" observers unwittingly make with the past... even way way back at the "Big Bang". Then you could equally say we have no choice but to observe ... we are slaves of this Universe since without the "Big Bang" we cannot exist anyway to make the observation. Oops!... there I go back up my own fundamental orifice.
If I were Stephen Hawking and I was lecturing to a group of Southern Baptists ... one way I could avoid being lynched is to tell them what they want to hear since it makes no difference anyway.
Cheers
Since the Big Bang (that even Stephen Hawking admits existed)... how he came to that conclusion about it's existence I do not know if he takes the position that the events since then did not exist until there was an observer.... unfortunately what you are apparently referring to I do not have a copy. If there were no existing states "back there" around t=0 and states did not exist until we (or somebody) observed them how would any intelligence like us form in the first place (to observe these states) made up of "real atoms" and fully fledged photons with time inching forward so we can "observe"? I do not know how we can know there was a "Big Bang" for sure other than from our measurements. My view is this "observer" that collapsed the states of phenomena just after t = 0 is not an "intelligent" observer... it is a natural process.
We know about the "Big Bang" because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We can extrapolate this echo of the Big Bang back to that initial event that formed our Universe (or at least close to that point in time), I am sure countless other intelligent civilizations have done the same thing and we are not the first to wonder about our Cosmos. Unless you believe that we are entirely alone in this Universe then you will need to admit that it would be some other civilization capable of witnessing the CMBR that formed our Universe from the formless state. That means we have no role to play at all (just a back up system). This is too dumb for me to admit. I am sure that Steven Hawking may have had another interpretation in his mind.
I suppose one way to ensure that the big bang existed "back in time" from observers "forward in time" is if time way completely symmetric and Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory counter causally "put it all back into place" by selecting from the possible outcomes we observe through unseen "transactions" observers unwittingly make with the past... even way way back at the "Big Bang". Then you could equally say we have no choice but to observe ... we are slaves of this Universe since without the "Big Bang" we cannot exist anyway to make the observation. Oops!... there I go back up my own fundamental orifice.
If I were Stephen Hawking and I was lecturing to a group of Southern Baptists ... one way I could avoid being lynched is to tell them what they want to hear since it makes no difference anyway.
Cheers
time exists independently but is experienced relatively.
GOOD ELF the spacetime continuos cangenerate the configuration of the matter,as functions
of the shapes of spacetime,that can go modlling the matter,through the motion,that
being so,is relative,so as the form of matter.then the curvatures of spacetime in
a semi-riemannian manifold is equivalent to the gravitational field.the interrelations
of both,generate the matter.that are distortions produced in the texture of the spacetime
of the shapes of spacetime,that can go modlling the matter,through the motion,that
being so,is relative,so as the form of matter.then the curvatures of spacetime in
a semi-riemannian manifold is equivalent to the gravitational field.the interrelations
of both,generate the matter.that are distortions produced in the texture of the spacetime
Hi mott.carl,
QUOTE (mott.carl+)
GOOD ELF the spacetime continuos cangenerate the configuration of the matter,as functions of the shapes of spacetime,that can go modlling the matter,through the motion,that being so,is relative,so as the form of matter.then the curvatures of spacetime in a semi-riemannian manifold is equivalent to the gravitational field.the interrelations of both,generate the matter.that are distortions produced in the texture of the spacetime
Hmm... I agree with a lot of that (from my point of view). Matter waves to me are the expression of a continuum. The semi-static nature of this "ripple" is the only expression of matter (mass). This "standing wave" combines with the standing wave of all the other particles in the Universe to produce an expression of the "spatial interferences" at each and every frequency. Naturally this ripple obeys the inverse square law we all understand with the added character of the de Broglie Wavelengths at very low velocity. Since spacetime curvature is directly equated to mass then this is what we identify as a particle. Ignoring the effects of thermal agitation the particle will "fill" the available space. To actually understand these matter waves a truly Complex (with Complex Number Treatment) description is necessary which is not admitted in standard theory of mass or gravity. This complicates the problem but also adds a great insight into the basic properties of mass and gravity.
These interferences extend themselves through complex space in cavities satisfying solutions to the eigenstates of the cavity at each and every particular matter wave frequency. We illuminate these cavities with light "filling these cavities" and revealing the arrangements of matter. Aside from the emission and absorption of photons in the "shells" the matter particles are "dark" and we can illuminate them with the light almost passively with coherent light... the objects in a room at a particular wavelength and coming from a very specific direction are the interferences experienced "filling the cavity" from every possible quasi-static path... These are the Feynman Many Paths QED "mechanism".
Exposing a "thick" photographic plate anywhere in that "otherwise" dark and stationary room leads to these holograms and they are simply "thick sections" of the specific interference at that physical location in the room being absorbed "differentially" into the emulsion. Each place in the room has its own interferences but all represent the same room "holographically" and these determine the way in which photons propagate in the space to the plates by the process of "Least Action". This is not always the shortest path but can be if the interferences are right coming from more distant reaches of the cavity.
Of course Holograms are actually "negatives" when developed but for most purposes this does not make much difference. The only way a positive could be made (since a hologram is recorded in depth) is by computer simulation of by possibly having some chemical "in depth" reversal process that as far as I know has not been invented yet.
There are also possible other ways as yet to be discovered I will bet.
The other "printing problem" with holograms is their natural double image which is an artifact produced by aliasing of the photon optical signal with the spatial matter waves producing that characteristic double image. This point still "bothers me a little". Of course these are only "optical problems"... matter waves themselves are not actually optical phenomena but due to matter (mass) and they have different eigen solutions at each and every frequency and is actually a Complex spatial function... only the photons are optical processes and "guided by these spatial "undulations and micro cavities".
Thanks carl it seems that you are thinking along the same lines in some ways. IMHO The extra bit of information is the matter waves are the external expression in that manifold of mass and their interferences "away from the sources" while the photons are cavity excitation "inside" of a cavity. This is like the inside and the outside descriptions of the one thing. A poor analogy is the inside and outside of a balloon. The photons propagate around the inside surface of the balloon while the gravitational effect of this is felt on the outside as its mass. They live in reciprocal environments of negative and positive curvatures of the "one space defining thing" ... a manifold. A photon confined to a cavity is "like" a particle on the outside of that cavity because it is "confined to a region of space "harmonically" as would a photon propagating resonantly in a internal cavity "like a standing wave". Externally this particle like state for the photon resulting from some "internal" spatial curvature on the "outside" is the "mass" because all "mass" is... is spacetime positive curvature. The first represents "the massless source of mass" and the latter is the primary "stuff" propagating through a compact dimensional space without mass. Anomalous "cavity" properties of electrons for instance lead to seeming massive increases in the total mass property of some confined systems.
Rutgers physicists show how electrons 'gain weight' in metal compounds near absolute zero
This is similar to Carver Mead's concepts of how electrons "fill" the available space in cavities as resonant Hall States of tiny quanta where 2πr = nλ for the cavity.
Cheers
These interferences extend themselves through complex space in cavities satisfying solutions to the eigenstates of the cavity at each and every particular matter wave frequency. We illuminate these cavities with light "filling these cavities" and revealing the arrangements of matter. Aside from the emission and absorption of photons in the "shells" the matter particles are "dark" and we can illuminate them with the light almost passively with coherent light... the objects in a room at a particular wavelength and coming from a very specific direction are the interferences experienced "filling the cavity" from every possible quasi-static path... These are the Feynman Many Paths QED "mechanism".
Exposing a "thick" photographic plate anywhere in that "otherwise" dark and stationary room leads to these holograms and they are simply "thick sections" of the specific interference at that physical location in the room being absorbed "differentially" into the emulsion. Each place in the room has its own interferences but all represent the same room "holographically" and these determine the way in which photons propagate in the space to the plates by the process of "Least Action". This is not always the shortest path but can be if the interferences are right coming from more distant reaches of the cavity.
Of course Holograms are actually "negatives" when developed but for most purposes this does not make much difference. The only way a positive could be made (since a hologram is recorded in depth) is by computer simulation of by possibly having some chemical "in depth" reversal process that as far as I know has not been invented yet.
There are also possible other ways as yet to be discovered I will bet.The other "printing problem" with holograms is their natural double image which is an artifact produced by aliasing of the photon optical signal with the spatial matter waves producing that characteristic double image. This point still "bothers me a little". Of course these are only "optical problems"... matter waves themselves are not actually optical phenomena but due to matter (mass) and they have different eigen solutions at each and every frequency and is actually a Complex spatial function... only the photons are optical processes and "guided by these spatial "undulations and micro cavities".
Thanks carl it seems that you are thinking along the same lines in some ways.
IMHO The extra bit of information is the matter waves are the external expression in that manifold of mass and their interferences "away from the sources" while the photons are cavity excitation "inside" of a cavity. This is like the inside and the outside descriptions of the one thing. A poor analogy is the inside and outside of a balloon. The photons propagate around the inside surface of the balloon while the gravitational effect of this is felt on the outside as its mass. They live in reciprocal environments of negative and positive curvatures of the "one space defining thing" ... a manifold. A photon confined to a cavity is "like" a particle on the outside of that cavity because it is "confined to a region of space "harmonically" as would a photon propagating resonantly in a internal cavity "like a standing wave". Externally this particle like state for the photon resulting from some "internal" spatial curvature on the "outside" is the "mass" because all "mass" is... is spacetime positive curvature. The first represents "the massless source of mass" and the latter is the primary "stuff" propagating through a compact dimensional space without mass. Anomalous "cavity" properties of electrons for instance lead to seeming massive increases in the total mass property of some confined systems.Rutgers physicists show how electrons 'gain weight' in metal compounds near absolute zero
This is similar to Carver Mead's concepts of how electrons "fill" the available space in cavities as resonant Hall States of tiny quanta where 2πr = nλ for the cavity.
Cheers
PHYSICS exist in the complete void?
Hi carl,
QUOTE (mott.carl+)
PHYSICS exist in the complete void?
Can you be a little more specific ... that is a little too "Zen" for me.
Cheers
Cheers
why the universe was selected to there is 4-dimensions,same as funtion holographic,and not in 5,or 6-dimensions,already that the higher dimension are curled up ?
Hi Carl,
QUOTE (mott.carl+)
why the universe was selected to there is 4-dimensions,same as funtion holographic,and not in 5,or 6-dimensions,already that the higher dimension are curled up ?
Well they are "compact" relative to us anyway. It is "interesting" that our universe has a superficial preference for those 4 dimensions. Holographically it is important that this grouping is separated off so that there are connections to other more compact "reciprocal" dimensions "embedded" in our Universe in a way analogous to the added dimensions found by Alice in her "Looking Glass"... only this is a "Matter Wave Looking Glass" not an "Optical Looking Glass".
QUOTE (William Blake+)
“To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower Hold infinity in the palms of your hand and eternity in an hour.”
Auguries of Innocence
Cheers
Auguries of Innocence
Cheers
...and can matter exist without time?
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Feb 3 2008, 03:59 PM)
...and can matter exist without time?
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
Time is a measure of the universe's story unfolding. A story, in which few know, that has a beginning, middle, and end.... Time measures the progression, the degree of change.
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
Time is a measure of the universe's story unfolding. A story, in which few know, that has a beginning, middle, and end.... Time measures the progression, the degree of change.
Hi insight, mott.carl et al,
QUOTE (insight+)
QUOTE (mott.carl @ Feb 3 2008+ 03:59 PM)
...and can matter exist without time?
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
the matter is energy in motion,and depending the degrees( velocities ) could obtain more or less,the object with more or less inertia.then the mass or particles depend of the vibration of energy systems.but if the relative motion,then the mass of one object,as well as the space and time are dependent of the observers?
Time is a measure of the universe's story unfolding. A story, in which few know, that has a beginning, middle, and end.... Time measures the progression, the degree of change.
Lets not forget that time is relative... Einstein.
QUOTE (mott.carl+)
...and can matter exist without time?
I really do not think so.. time and matter appeared simultaneously or time may have appeared first since time is not essential for photons to exist but matter needs pre-existing photons for pair production and time is required before that happens. There may be a few hairs being split here but what cannot happen is the appearance of matter anywhere in the Universe prior to the passage of time no matter how small. This is because for the matter to exist we have preexisting "events" and for even one event we must have time.... Don't need much... even a teeny bit will be enough
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf Jan 27 2008+ 10:38 PM)
CMBR that "formed our Universe" from the formless state.
You're wrong.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" formed our universe, which I know & can prove is 100% incorrect.
But to be fair (to you) & impartial (to your statement) I want you to thoroughly, competently & coherently explain why you said that.... (of-course) if you can?
You're wrong.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" formed our universe, which I know & can prove is 100% incorrect.
But to be fair (to you) & impartial (to your statement) I want you to thoroughly, competently & coherently explain why you said that.... (of-course) if you can?
Hi SHEOL,
I did make that statement but you have taken a one line out of context...
I did make that statement but you have taken a one line out of context...
QUOTE (SHEOL+)
You're wrong.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" formed our universe, which I know & can prove is 100% incorrect.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" formed our universe, which I know & can prove is 100% incorrect.
No... the Universe came from"light"... CMB is simply the echo of the big bang... what is left over... A thermal signature. A lot happened between "firstlight" and the CMB including the formation of all the present matter. Of course you can prove that statement incorrect ... it wasn't mine it was yours.
What I also said was...
What I also said was...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
We know about the "Big Bang" because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We can extrapolate this echo of the Big Bang back to that initial event that formed our Universe (or at least close to that point in time), I am sure countless other intelligent civilizations have done the same thing and we are not the first to wonder about our Cosmos. Unless you believe that we are entirely alone in this Universe then you will need to admit that it would be some other civilization capable of witnessing the CMBR that formed our Universe from the formless state.
You "shoot loose and from below the hip". If you are so careless with these details you may be careless with others. Your ability to incorrectly interpret "technical descriptions" could be an impediment to your ability to understand me. You need to be able to read in context.
For me to be "wrong" you will need to be "right"... You have what I have said "exactly" and in context... and that is what you will need to quote. The intention of that was to say other possible "hypothetical" races in the Universe will witness the CMBR and only they will be capable of making the same extrapolations we have made but "earlier" while we made them "later". The "smoking gun" is enough for me to show evidence of the Big Bang. What is your evidence to the contrary?
Cheers
For me to be "wrong" you will need to be "right"... You have what I have said "exactly" and in context... and that is what you will need to quote. The intention of that was to say other possible "hypothetical" races in the Universe will witness the CMBR and only they will be capable of making the same extrapolations we have made but "earlier" while we made them "later". The "smoking gun" is enough for me to show evidence of the Big Bang. What is your evidence to the contrary?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf Jan 27 2008+ 10:38 PM)
CMBR that "formed our Universe" from the formless state.
Oh, so now you're lying.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation formed our universe from the formless state", but now you're saying that, you've never said that?
Perhaps you've not noticed, that's your statement that I (only) quoted & came from your own mind & mouth.... not mine, it's your quote & not mine.
Oh, so now you're lying.
You said that..... "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation formed our universe from the formless state", but now you're saying that, you've never said that? Perhaps you've not noticed, that's your statement that I (only) quoted & came from your own mind & mouth.... not mine, it's your quote & not mine.
•SHEOL•
You will need to read my whole statement. I do mine in bits and you will need to stop calling people "liars". It is the civilization that witnessed the CMBR that will understand the Universe came from a formless state. The context is taken from the whole not from isolated "word bytes". Perhaps you can't get the entire concept in two sentences and you need to think about it some more. I hope this helps...
I notice you have little technical details to your interpretations other than calling people liars... time for you to show us what makes your ideas "shine". Tell us all your alternative concept!... With your "gedanken" proofs.
You will need to read my whole statement. I do mine in bits and you will need to stop calling people "liars". It is the civilization that witnessed the CMBR that will understand the Universe came from a formless state. The context is taken from the whole not from isolated "word bytes". Perhaps you can't get the entire concept in two sentences and you need to think about it some more. I hope this helps...
I notice you have little technical details to your interpretations other than calling people liars... time for you to show us what makes your ideas "shine". Tell us all your alternative concept!... With your "gedanken" proofs.
QUOTE (Good Elf Today at 5:33 AM+)
•SHEOL•
You will need to read my whole statement. I do mine in bits and you will need to stop calling people "liars".
I notice you have little technical details to your interpretations other than calling people liars... time for you to show us what makes your ideas "shine". Tell us all your alternative concept!
If you're going to talk about "hypothetical" races (ET, UFOs, etc), or religion(s) (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) I don't mind, but (for the sake of science) I would appreciate it if you separated the two.
The most lightest & abundant (atomic) element in the universe is Helium & Hydrogen, which will lead into the nuclear fusion(s).
The power that fuels our sun & the other stars is nuclear fusion(s), in a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium & tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium & a neutron.
You will need to read my whole statement. I do mine in bits and you will need to stop calling people "liars".
I notice you have little technical details to your interpretations other than calling people liars... time for you to show us what makes your ideas "shine". Tell us all your alternative concept!
If you're going to talk about "hypothetical" races (ET, UFOs, etc), or religion(s) (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) I don't mind, but (for the sake of science) I would appreciate it if you separated the two.
The most lightest & abundant (atomic) element in the universe is Helium & Hydrogen, which will lead into the nuclear fusion(s).
The power that fuels our sun & the other stars is nuclear fusion(s), in a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium & tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium & a neutron.
Hi •SHEOL,
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
In your opinion? Any scientific data to base this opinion on?
This medium through which all matter moves, what is it made of? Where could it have come from?
How durable is this medium? Are you suggesting that time is a physical thing?
According to reason, "knowledge of the state of the system is absent until observed, and then there is light."
NO !..... with or without matter time is an artifact of action..... it does not exist !
Maybe you should be asking
Can action exist without an actor ?
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
If you're going to talk about "hypothetical" races (ET, UFOs, etc), or religion(s) (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) I don't mind, but (for the sake of science) I would appreciate it if you separated the two.
The most lightest & abundant (atomic) element in the universe is Helium & Hydrogen, which will lead into the nuclear fusion(s).
The power that fuels our sun & the other stars is nuclear fusion(s), in a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium & tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium & a neutron.
The most lightest & abundant (atomic) element in the universe is Helium & Hydrogen, which will lead into the nuclear fusion(s).
The power that fuels our sun & the other stars is nuclear fusion(s), in a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium & tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium & a neutron.
Hmm... You actually thought that I was speaking about "real" aliens and not "hypothetical" ones? You are quite "unusual" in the way you envision all this "stuff". You are a "deconstructionist" rather than a person of more complex thoughts and ideas... a "structuralist". Pulling apart other peoples ideas will lead to the same procedural problems some children have pulling apart pocket watches (only more complex).
I "know" that those religions actually exist but I am "indifferent" about the "aliens"... does this help you understand where I am coming from? I still think that there is a greater probability that "aliens" exist than a "humanoid God"... as you know people will worship anything... either way. In either case "they" probably never visit the Earth. On the basis of probability we are not the first or the last "intelligent race" in the Universe... It's a pretty big Universe. We may be the most difficult to get along with according to my current experience eh? You mention these things in the context of nuclear weaponry, seems you are basically a "pessimist"... Good for you!
Stars do not use nuclear weapons so you see some significance in this process to the formation of the Universe?... You have not elaborated.. I see these fusion processes coming "a significant period of time after the initial Big Bang". Things were quite different nearer to the Big Bang when different forms of matter existed in an unstable state. I would not begin to try and work out what stuff existed just around about then... the guys and gals at CERN will be working on that for us. That later story of nucleosynthesis is not important in my "story" which is "earlier". The "Big Bang" in my mind is not a story about the formation of stars which we can still see happening to this day.
Your statement above contains a couple of glaring mistakes... maybe you would like to edit it?... Or maybe that is just the point you want to place here before us all?
Wikipedia: Stellar nucleosynthesis
Aside from the fact that these particles of matter are abundant in the Universe today and only one of those was abundant in the short period sometime after the Big Bang... what is the significance of this to your proposal? What have nuclear weapons to do with the "exact sequence" of how stars work? Why is the stellar life cycle got anything to do with the "Big Bang"?
Thanks for being "more civil"... I like that in a colleague.
Cheers
I "know" that those religions actually exist but I am "indifferent" about the "aliens"... does this help you understand where I am coming from? I still think that there is a greater probability that "aliens" exist than a "humanoid God"... as you know people will worship anything... either way. In either case "they" probably never visit the Earth. On the basis of probability we are not the first or the last "intelligent race" in the Universe... It's a pretty big Universe. We may be the most difficult to get along with according to my current experience eh? You mention these things in the context of nuclear weaponry, seems you are basically a "pessimist"... Good for you!
Stars do not use nuclear weapons so you see some significance in this process to the formation of the Universe?... You have not elaborated.. I see these fusion processes coming "a significant period of time after the initial Big Bang". Things were quite different nearer to the Big Bang when different forms of matter existed in an unstable state. I would not begin to try and work out what stuff existed just around about then... the guys and gals at CERN will be working on that for us. That later story of nucleosynthesis is not important in my "story" which is "earlier". The "Big Bang" in my mind is not a story about the formation of stars which we can still see happening to this day.
Your statement above contains a couple of glaring mistakes... maybe you would like to edit it?... Or maybe that is just the point you want to place here before us all?
Wikipedia: Stellar nucleosynthesis
Aside from the fact that these particles of matter are abundant in the Universe today and only one of those was abundant in the short period sometime after the Big Bang... what is the significance of this to your proposal? What have nuclear weapons to do with the "exact sequence" of how stars work? Why is the stellar life cycle got anything to do with the "Big Bang"?
Thanks for being "more civil"... I like that in a colleague.
Cheers
Can Time Exist Without Matter?
Yes, but then we call it ETERNITY.
Question:
How from the Eternity the Time is born….?
========…
Yes, but then we call it ETERNITY.
Question:
How from the Eternity the Time is born….?
========…
there are two times,one that could measure the motion or vibration of one a particles,through waves( lenght and period) and others that measure the oscillations of neuronal networks,that is the human conscouness ?
time can not exist without matter
no matter no motion, no material change
so where in space is no matter duration of events can not be measured and so time does not and can not exist
time is duration of events that run into a-temporal space (ether...eternity, call as you want)
even more is real: for time to exist matter is not enough
man must be there to measure it
no man to measure duration of events.....no time can exist
no matter no motion, no material change
so where in space is no matter duration of events can not be measured and so time does not and can not exist
time is duration of events that run into a-temporal space (ether...eternity, call as you want)
even more is real: for time to exist matter is not enough
man must be there to measure it
no man to measure duration of events.....no time can exist
Sorry if this is slightly O/T or already been covered. I come across this thread out of interest. Here is my views which some of you might of already thought about.
Is natural time travel possible?
Having a very philosophical mind, under normal circumstances of logic the answer is 'No'. This is only because logic
is the governed perception of 'reality' here on earth. The frequent ratio of manipulation and change of matter within this 'reality' determines whether it is possible or not. Logic is no more than a set of conditions in which we know no difference between what we have learnt, and what else actually exists beyond the tip of the iceberg. We are introduced into a world of numerous logical 'conditions' and circumstances. It's hardly surprising that time becomes just another condition that we can't technically reason with. Time is a universal rule in which we perceive a barrier in the evolution of our own intelligence. The human mind and all matter cannot reason with time and consequently cannot normally move past the barrier either way. Therefore we occur now, in the instant with the intelligence of the past, present and possibility of the future.
I'm going to explain what I believe to be the biggest problem preventing natural time travel as an ability. The biggest problem appears not to be time itself, but the fact that matter is constantly changing in that time. Matter and perception never stay the same within this 'logical' rule of time. Matter is instantly changing and forming making it impossible to naturally travel back in time. To 'naturally' travel back in time or go back to the past would require matter to remain in the same identical state as to what it was in that certain event of time. It would require every single particle, sub atom, every electron under the universal rule of time in your perception and logic to act and behave in exactly the same way. It would require logic to reset itself. If you follow the number combination of life, then every combination for every half second (for example) would be different. You could stand infront of a window looking out onto the street, then again an hour later. It wouldn't be the same as it was an hour ago, though. This is because the ratio of changing matter and event is paving the way for a new perception. So even if you was copying your previous actions, the previous combination would have already changed. A red car possibly passed this time, where as last time it was a blue car. That is not good enough. You want an identical state of accuracy. If not much has changed in your visual perception, cells inside your body have. This makes you a different state as to what you was an hour ago. So we are all changing and morphing solid matter all of the time. Nothing stays the same. It requires a total' reset' to find accuracy.
People often assume that time does not exist in the energetic spiritual world. These people are absolutely right, and why? Because there 'is no' solid matter to change or manipulate in the spirit world. I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand that it is only matter holding us down to this 'logical perception of reality' - and stopping us from discovering millions of other possibilities. Strangely, though (there isn't much to matter!) So sometimes mind over matter is a true saying.
The closest way to simultaneously travel back to and manipulate the past (here on earth and naturally), would be to modify the futures past (this instant). That requires making decisions and preventing outcome now which would of occured then, but 10 years ago.
Space travel to the past is possible providing you find a way to defy the ratio that matter can change in. It would also require the complete void of anything and everything logic.
Just my thoughts.
Is natural time travel possible?
Having a very philosophical mind, under normal circumstances of logic the answer is 'No'. This is only because logic
is the governed perception of 'reality' here on earth. The frequent ratio of manipulation and change of matter within this 'reality' determines whether it is possible or not. Logic is no more than a set of conditions in which we know no difference between what we have learnt, and what else actually exists beyond the tip of the iceberg. We are introduced into a world of numerous logical 'conditions' and circumstances. It's hardly surprising that time becomes just another condition that we can't technically reason with. Time is a universal rule in which we perceive a barrier in the evolution of our own intelligence. The human mind and all matter cannot reason with time and consequently cannot normally move past the barrier either way. Therefore we occur now, in the instant with the intelligence of the past, present and possibility of the future.
I'm going to explain what I believe to be the biggest problem preventing natural time travel as an ability. The biggest problem appears not to be time itself, but the fact that matter is constantly changing in that time. Matter and perception never stay the same within this 'logical' rule of time. Matter is instantly changing and forming making it impossible to naturally travel back in time. To 'naturally' travel back in time or go back to the past would require matter to remain in the same identical state as to what it was in that certain event of time. It would require every single particle, sub atom, every electron under the universal rule of time in your perception and logic to act and behave in exactly the same way. It would require logic to reset itself. If you follow the number combination of life, then every combination for every half second (for example) would be different. You could stand infront of a window looking out onto the street, then again an hour later. It wouldn't be the same as it was an hour ago, though. This is because the ratio of changing matter and event is paving the way for a new perception. So even if you was copying your previous actions, the previous combination would have already changed. A red car possibly passed this time, where as last time it was a blue car. That is not good enough. You want an identical state of accuracy. If not much has changed in your visual perception, cells inside your body have. This makes you a different state as to what you was an hour ago. So we are all changing and morphing solid matter all of the time. Nothing stays the same. It requires a total' reset' to find accuracy.
People often assume that time does not exist in the energetic spiritual world. These people are absolutely right, and why? Because there 'is no' solid matter to change or manipulate in the spirit world. I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand that it is only matter holding us down to this 'logical perception of reality' - and stopping us from discovering millions of other possibilities. Strangely, though (there isn't much to matter!) So sometimes mind over matter is a true saying.
The closest way to simultaneously travel back to and manipulate the past (here on earth and naturally), would be to modify the futures past (this instant). That requires making decisions and preventing outcome now which would of occured then, but 10 years ago.
Space travel to the past is possible providing you find a way to defy the ratio that matter can change in. It would also require the complete void of anything and everything logic.
Just my thoughts.
I believe the simple answer to the question is as follows:
Space exists independent of matter. There is space out there where matter is void.
Time seems to go faster in some molecules than other, depending on the matter's speed. Time has never been able to be tested where there is a void of matter.
All of the calculations that we have come up with so far seem to make the concept of time work around the speed of matter. For example, we take time into consideration on Earth. If we fly an airplane around the earth, there is a slightly slower time, where as time moves a bit slower. In something traveling really fast, time moves far slower. From all of this, we may be able to determine an absolute time, where we could step outside of our solar system and the milkey way, where we are not moving at all compared to event the milkey way that has a spin. Time would seem to pass by faster. From here we may be able to conclude that time is dependant on the existence of mass.
The exception to this rule may be with light. As light travels from one point of space to another, it appears as though there is still a time that exists for the light to get to the second point. This may lead us to believe that time still exists even though there is no mass.
Hmmm....
I guess it is interesting, you can see both points of view where mass seems to have to exist, but light can still travel on a set time course with no mass involved.
Space exists independent of matter. There is space out there where matter is void.
Time seems to go faster in some molecules than other, depending on the matter's speed. Time has never been able to be tested where there is a void of matter.
All of the calculations that we have come up with so far seem to make the concept of time work around the speed of matter. For example, we take time into consideration on Earth. If we fly an airplane around the earth, there is a slightly slower time, where as time moves a bit slower. In something traveling really fast, time moves far slower. From all of this, we may be able to determine an absolute time, where we could step outside of our solar system and the milkey way, where we are not moving at all compared to event the milkey way that has a spin. Time would seem to pass by faster. From here we may be able to conclude that time is dependant on the existence of mass.
The exception to this rule may be with light. As light travels from one point of space to another, it appears as though there is still a time that exists for the light to get to the second point. This may lead us to believe that time still exists even though there is no mass.
Hmmm....
I guess it is interesting, you can see both points of view where mass seems to have to exist, but light can still travel on a set time course with no mass involved.
Very true, dwaynefries!
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. For the most part, we only know time in the most logical sense. We find it easier to measure time with matter due to the constant changing of that matter, and this process is happening within logics. If you look at it like that, you can safely say that time is nothing but calculation and measurement. The same theory applies to the void, only here there is obviously nothing to measure or calculate apart from the possibility which could emerge. Thus it remains in the same constant state - which also explains why it would be ideal to time travel when logic is voided.
Another interesting point is that way back thousands of years, the ancients used the sun to measure time correctly and calculate that based on it's cycle. Yet, the sun itself is matter as is everything that orbit it......
It's an amazing subject.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. For the most part, we only know time in the most logical sense. We find it easier to measure time with matter due to the constant changing of that matter, and this process is happening within logics. If you look at it like that, you can safely say that time is nothing but calculation and measurement. The same theory applies to the void, only here there is obviously nothing to measure or calculate apart from the possibility which could emerge. Thus it remains in the same constant state - which also explains why it would be ideal to time travel when logic is voided.
Another interesting point is that way back thousands of years, the ancients used the sun to measure time correctly and calculate that based on it's cycle. Yet, the sun itself is matter as is everything that orbit it......
It's an amazing subject.
you can travel only in space and not in time
time is duration of travel into space
time is duration of travel into space
QUOTE (1.618+Jan 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
If the universe were void of matter, could the universe still exist as time?
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
Its hard for a layman to think of a universe without mass. At the start of the big bang space must have "expanded" faster than the speed of light but seeing that light did not exist that would be easy . From what i have read early particles have yet to be identifed . So if there were no photons no light .!!! . And god said "let there be light" but when? . If threre was light at the beginning then after 1 second the universe should have been 186000 miles across !!!!! .Also if the distant galaxies are expanding at the speed of light then the universe is enlarging at 186000 miles every second AM I on the right track.
I was just sort of doing a thinking experiment and thought of a scenario where matter is not needed for the existence of a universe. Im sure someone has thought of this before me, I just have never read up on it.
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
Couldnt time even exist without needing a universe to be in?
If any of you have read any articles or books on this train of though I would appreciate to have them recommended to me. I am intrigued by this possibility.
Its hard for a layman to think of a universe without mass. At the start of the big bang space must have "expanded" faster than the speed of light but seeing that light did not exist that would be easy . From what i have read early particles have yet to be identifed . So if there were no photons no light .!!! . And god said "let there be light" but when? . If threre was light at the beginning then after 1 second the universe should have been 186000 miles across !!!!! .Also if the distant galaxies are expanding at the speed of light then the universe is enlarging at 186000 miles every second AM I on the right track.
Time is more than mere activity. It must be a viable dimension in and of itself, otherwise there would only be two velocities: 0 and 1.
The definition of velocity and the definition of acceleration assumes time to be a viable dimension in itself.
velocity = distance/time i.e. m/s, km/h, etc.(multiplied by unit vector)
acceleration = dV/dT = distance/Time^2, i.e. m/s^2 (multiplied by unit vector)
By this we see that a "second" is literally a "distance" in the time dimension!
Time continues to pass even if no changes are taking place in matter, energy or "space".
If two balls in a closed, isolated system attract one another until they collide, time does not stop simply because no changes can yet occur. Time continues, even though nothing else will ever happen.
Now itmay not make much difference. "End of Time because there is no change" and "Infinite time with no change" look identical in this closed, isolated system, but only one of the two explainations makes sense. Time continues, even if change does not, because time does not happen in the event, the event happens in time.
The definition of velocity and the definition of acceleration assumes time to be a viable dimension in itself.
velocity = distance/time i.e. m/s, km/h, etc.(multiplied by unit vector)
acceleration = dV/dT = distance/Time^2, i.e. m/s^2 (multiplied by unit vector)
By this we see that a "second" is literally a "distance" in the time dimension!
Time continues to pass even if no changes are taking place in matter, energy or "space".
If two balls in a closed, isolated system attract one another until they collide, time does not stop simply because no changes can yet occur. Time continues, even though nothing else will ever happen.
Now itmay not make much difference. "End of Time because there is no change" and "Infinite time with no change" look identical in this closed, isolated system, but only one of the two explainations makes sense. Time continues, even if change does not, because time does not happen in the event, the event happens in time.
the time infinite can to be reduced by the "now",that is something that belongs not
to the 'past' or 'future'.then is as a "hole".given by transcendental or irrational
entity,;being that past and future there are as continuity-this is the infinite=space-and the discontinuty that is time generating the sets in the space.then here have
non-flat spacetime.these changes are velocities-that thence have the hyperbolic curved spacetime,being the variations of these curvatures,the acceleration
to the 'past' or 'future'.then is as a "hole".given by transcendental or irrational
entity,;being that past and future there are as continuity-this is the infinite=space-and the discontinuty that is time generating the sets in the space.then here have
non-flat spacetime.these changes are velocities-that thence have the hyperbolic curved spacetime,being the variations of these curvatures,the acceleration
QUOTE (mott.carl+Feb 7 2008, 03:38 PM)
there are two times,one that could measure the motion or vibration of one a particles,through waves( lenght and period) and others that measure the oscillations of neuronal networks,that is the human conscouness ?
There are two times,
one is individual / personal time,
another is common / historical time.
Two different physical theories explain this situation.
There are two times,
one is individual / personal time,
another is common / historical time.
Two different physical theories explain this situation.
QUOTE (amrit+Feb 7 2008, 05:42 PM)
time can not exist without matter
no matter no motion, no material change
so where in space is no matter duration of events can not be measured and so time does not and can not exist
time is duration of events that run into a-temporal space (ether...eternity, call as you want)
even more is real: for time to exist matter is not enough
man must be there to measure it
no man to measure duration of events.....no time can exist
time can not exist without matter....
.............
There are two kinds of matter,
one is material matter , another is " virtual " matter.
Time depends from esch of these matter.
no matter no motion, no material change
so where in space is no matter duration of events can not be measured and so time does not and can not exist
time is duration of events that run into a-temporal space (ether...eternity, call as you want)
even more is real: for time to exist matter is not enough
man must be there to measure it
no man to measure duration of events.....no time can exist
time can not exist without matter....
.............
There are two kinds of matter,
one is material matter , another is " virtual " matter.
Time depends from esch of these matter.
Sorry but how would any observation of a universe ever be made without time?
The question is a catch 22:)
Still time seem to be connected to matter/mass/acceleration/motion, you know, all those things that make up our universe.
So even without 'observing', I don't believe it possible.
The question is a catch 22:)
Still time seem to be connected to matter/mass/acceleration/motion, you know, all those things that make up our universe.
So even without 'observing', I don't believe it possible.
QUOTE (1.618+Jan 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
In my opinion, time is simply the medium through which all matter moves. Time can not move forward or backward. Instead, it just always is. And if it just always is, couldnt there be a universe with no matter and only time?
In your opinion? Any scientific data to base this opinion on?
This medium through which all matter moves, what is it made of? Where could it have come from?
How durable is this medium? Are you suggesting that time is a physical thing?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Feb 7 2008, 03:38 PM)
there are two times,one that could measure the motion or vibration of one a particles,through waves( lenght and period) and others that measure the oscillations of neuronal networks,that is the human conscouness ?
Two times? Based on what reference?
Two times? Based on what reference?
QUOTE (Gehn+Jan 15 2008, 06:09 PM)
Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space.
If time and space are physical, please state in what way these two concepts are real physical things.
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects. Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
If time and space are physical, please state in what way these two concepts are real physical things.
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects. Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
QUOTE (Montec+Jan 21 2008, 07:07 PM)
Hello 1.618
Yes time would still exist without matter but it would click along at a much faster rate. Just think about the expansion rate just after the Big Bang.
Are you saying that mass is impeding the motion (flow) of this thing called time?
Yes time would still exist without matter but it would click along at a much faster rate. Just think about the expansion rate just after the Big Bang.
Are you saying that mass is impeding the motion (flow) of this thing called time?
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, and that it's the act of observation that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state."
From this, it would seem that time results from the interaction between an observer and the observed. It wouldn't seem that time advances (anything does anything) until/unless there's an observer present.
From this, it would seem that time results from the interaction between an observer and the observed. It wouldn't seem that time advances (anything does anything) until/unless there's an observer present.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 19 2008, 05:02 PM)
Time is more than mere activity. It must be a viable dimension in and of itself, otherwise there would only be two velocities: 0 and 1.
The definition of velocity and the definition of acceleration assumes time to be a viable dimension in itself.
velocity = distance/time i.e. m/s, km/h, etc.(multiplied by unit vector)
acceleration = dV/dT = distance/Time^2, i.e. m/s^2 (multiplied by unit vector)
By this we see that a "second" is literally a "distance" in the time dimension!
Time continues to pass even if no changes are taking place in matter, energy or "space".
If two balls in a closed, isolated system attract one another until they collide, time does not stop simply because no changes can yet occur. Time continues, even though nothing else will ever happen.
Now itmay not make much difference. "End of Time because there is no change" and "Infinite time with no change" look identical in this closed, isolated system, but only one of the two explainations makes sense. Time continues, even if change does not, because time does not happen in the event, the event happens in time.
But the way you speak about time is of a relative one. You say that time is a distance in space through velocity and acceleration but a distance between what? This would be assuming point A and point B truly exist. But without them, what are the measurements? a pulse of a distance is what? Nothing is nothing and there is obviously no such thing as "nothingness" since even black holes have residues and reactions when completely annihilating matter as we know it. Or so they appear anyway.
I think it's safe to say that there is never nothing anywhere. Would you agree?
And what about time being relative, as in you travel one direction and I travel another, if our speed is great enough, we may never know the other exists or if even only one of us is fast enough, the same holds true. So how do you measure time which is relative to two different motions when obviously time is different for each.
This would make it seem that time is not real but only a physical observation by the observer, important only TO the observer.
In my opinion, we have developed chemical reactors which actually manipulate energy into matter - both plant and animal - to create life. Amazing things happen in the womb where energy is combined with matter that has been transformed from energy into mass and is mixed again to form even more mass.
In that theory it seems affordable that we actually control matter and its creation, but what about the matter that exists outside life, such as inanimate objects like rocks.....how are they born?
Well, if you imagine that the same processes that we use to born ourselves are also used by the universe. I'll again say I imagine that energy is not even what everything exists from but is a mere catalyst in all things that exist.
In other words, an egg falls and breaks, why cant it revert in time and be whole again? Because it has no chemical processor to manipulate energy into matter and heal itself. Our bodies do it until the brain dies. Why do we age? Do wear do the chemicals become weakened or changed??
(Enter Bjork video "Nature is Ancient" here)
I would say that time is truly not real....except to us. Time is the reversion of matter by external forces put by dark energy. Whats to say that matter is not vibrated apart by small plasma-like reactions which we interpret as time? Again, what is the opposite reaction of plasma ignition? I'm so bent on plasma because its a common reaction and occurs on so many scales of applicability - large and small.
Its safe to say that all things that exist, even energy have some form of consumption and expenditure. I believe the process of energy consumption is through extreme heat which creates a route with no resistance to flow through measurement. My questions lay with how does energy react with it own self to create its alternate states? Or does it?? Perhaps we need to look for something more, some that all things can exist from other than energy.....
Perhaps there is more.
Perhaps there is some "product" that exists that uses energy ..oh wait, God? Does God use energy to create? I don't know......I need proof.......
I think I have a book called "The God Particle" but I never read it, perhaps this is what its about......
Honestly, I think about energy being applied and changing the states of matter and in my mind that makes energy a catalyst, not a factor.
Here its easy to imagine how everything can repeat itself.....matter, energy applied, turns to matter, energy applied turns to matter, and so on.........but thats silly....and pointless.....
I think the physics community should regroup on a global scale and revisit previous information. What we think we know, we often misinterpret or we overlook. It's time to revisit what information we do have on a collective level and reconsider these variables with the information we have today.......something will be realized on a much easier and faster method if this is done. A step backwards will make a leap forward.
Whats above energy? It cant be a particle.....
Maybe its time to realize that there is something out there we didn't realize before. I think energy is a chemical.....and chemicals are elementary.......we need tp think deeper and more open minded.
Right now we only know what we have experienced. So many things we have not experienced.
I'm going to think about this.......
as far as time is concerned, like gravity, I have no longer even really think about it because I realized it didnt matter. Its a self-imposed concern for control over what we know....and I believe that time is relative to molecular vibration and unless we learn to manipulate that I dont believe we will ever travel through space. I don;t believe time travel will ever be possible because molecules are borrowed and are not eternally existing, times come and go. Time CHANGE theory is very hard to discard, that is, can the change of one event effect the development of another time? Of course but is time truly linear?
I'll use an example from my previous blogs......I use a cell phone as an example. Lets say a call is placed....where was the call before it was made? Did it exist somewhere until someone placed it into action or did the action born the call? As the call was being made, there was no other phone to receive so where does the call go? Does it wait to be received when another phone is created? does it cease to exist? If so why?? Simply because its considered to no longer exist?
That call thereby creates other states which did not exist previously to its own motion of being. (When I think about reality, I think about the motions of it all, rather than the materialistic views)
The call possibly exists in several ways at once, as it invokes emotions, ideas, future plans and events, new creations through the actions of other particles......and so on.
I feel in a lot of ways, time is like that call....it is always and it can be at any time to exist in a new state or multiple states at once, but how the reactions are set into motion, what the original existence consists of, who or what receives those reactions and the results thereafter are all mind boggling.
With that said, I feel time is never linear but rather like a spiderweb. Just because some particle does not exist in one form, does not mean it doesn't exist in another form, nor that it will never exist at all. It seems the possibilities are as vast as we can imagine them to be and at any point.
Do you believe that time only exists when there is someone, some thing to call it into existence....???
I think time is more like a state of mind..
~Samantha
The definition of velocity and the definition of acceleration assumes time to be a viable dimension in itself.
velocity = distance/time i.e. m/s, km/h, etc.(multiplied by unit vector)
acceleration = dV/dT = distance/Time^2, i.e. m/s^2 (multiplied by unit vector)
By this we see that a "second" is literally a "distance" in the time dimension!
Time continues to pass even if no changes are taking place in matter, energy or "space".
If two balls in a closed, isolated system attract one another until they collide, time does not stop simply because no changes can yet occur. Time continues, even though nothing else will ever happen.
Now itmay not make much difference. "End of Time because there is no change" and "Infinite time with no change" look identical in this closed, isolated system, but only one of the two explainations makes sense. Time continues, even if change does not, because time does not happen in the event, the event happens in time.
But the way you speak about time is of a relative one. You say that time is a distance in space through velocity and acceleration but a distance between what? This would be assuming point A and point B truly exist. But without them, what are the measurements? a pulse of a distance is what? Nothing is nothing and there is obviously no such thing as "nothingness" since even black holes have residues and reactions when completely annihilating matter as we know it. Or so they appear anyway.
I think it's safe to say that there is never nothing anywhere. Would you agree?
And what about time being relative, as in you travel one direction and I travel another, if our speed is great enough, we may never know the other exists or if even only one of us is fast enough, the same holds true. So how do you measure time which is relative to two different motions when obviously time is different for each.
This would make it seem that time is not real but only a physical observation by the observer, important only TO the observer.
In my opinion, we have developed chemical reactors which actually manipulate energy into matter - both plant and animal - to create life. Amazing things happen in the womb where energy is combined with matter that has been transformed from energy into mass and is mixed again to form even more mass.
In that theory it seems affordable that we actually control matter and its creation, but what about the matter that exists outside life, such as inanimate objects like rocks.....how are they born?
Well, if you imagine that the same processes that we use to born ourselves are also used by the universe. I'll again say I imagine that energy is not even what everything exists from but is a mere catalyst in all things that exist.
In other words, an egg falls and breaks, why cant it revert in time and be whole again? Because it has no chemical processor to manipulate energy into matter and heal itself. Our bodies do it until the brain dies. Why do we age? Do wear do the chemicals become weakened or changed??
(Enter Bjork video "Nature is Ancient" here)
I would say that time is truly not real....except to us. Time is the reversion of matter by external forces put by dark energy. Whats to say that matter is not vibrated apart by small plasma-like reactions which we interpret as time? Again, what is the opposite reaction of plasma ignition? I'm so bent on plasma because its a common reaction and occurs on so many scales of applicability - large and small.
Its safe to say that all things that exist, even energy have some form of consumption and expenditure. I believe the process of energy consumption is through extreme heat which creates a route with no resistance to flow through measurement. My questions lay with how does energy react with it own self to create its alternate states? Or does it?? Perhaps we need to look for something more, some that all things can exist from other than energy.....
Perhaps there is more.
Perhaps there is some "product" that exists that uses energy ..oh wait, God? Does God use energy to create? I don't know......I need proof.......
I think I have a book called "The God Particle" but I never read it, perhaps this is what its about......
Honestly, I think about energy being applied and changing the states of matter and in my mind that makes energy a catalyst, not a factor.
Here its easy to imagine how everything can repeat itself.....matter, energy applied, turns to matter, energy applied turns to matter, and so on.........but thats silly....and pointless.....
I think the physics community should regroup on a global scale and revisit previous information. What we think we know, we often misinterpret or we overlook. It's time to revisit what information we do have on a collective level and reconsider these variables with the information we have today.......something will be realized on a much easier and faster method if this is done. A step backwards will make a leap forward.
Whats above energy? It cant be a particle.....
Maybe its time to realize that there is something out there we didn't realize before. I think energy is a chemical.....and chemicals are elementary.......we need tp think deeper and more open minded.
Right now we only know what we have experienced. So many things we have not experienced.
I'm going to think about this.......
as far as time is concerned, like gravity, I have no longer even really think about it because I realized it didnt matter. Its a self-imposed concern for control over what we know....and I believe that time is relative to molecular vibration and unless we learn to manipulate that I dont believe we will ever travel through space. I don;t believe time travel will ever be possible because molecules are borrowed and are not eternally existing, times come and go. Time CHANGE theory is very hard to discard, that is, can the change of one event effect the development of another time? Of course but is time truly linear?
I'll use an example from my previous blogs......I use a cell phone as an example. Lets say a call is placed....where was the call before it was made? Did it exist somewhere until someone placed it into action or did the action born the call? As the call was being made, there was no other phone to receive so where does the call go? Does it wait to be received when another phone is created? does it cease to exist? If so why?? Simply because its considered to no longer exist?
That call thereby creates other states which did not exist previously to its own motion of being. (When I think about reality, I think about the motions of it all, rather than the materialistic views)
The call possibly exists in several ways at once, as it invokes emotions, ideas, future plans and events, new creations through the actions of other particles......and so on.
I feel in a lot of ways, time is like that call....it is always and it can be at any time to exist in a new state or multiple states at once, but how the reactions are set into motion, what the original existence consists of, who or what receives those reactions and the results thereafter are all mind boggling.
With that said, I feel time is never linear but rather like a spiderweb. Just because some particle does not exist in one form, does not mean it doesn't exist in another form, nor that it will never exist at all. It seems the possibilities are as vast as we can imagine them to be and at any point.
Do you believe that time only exists when there is someone, some thing to call it into existence....???
I think time is more like a state of mind..
~Samantha
Hello heretic
Yes, I am saying that mass impedes the rate of time. This is something that can be measured and used in everyday life. Time is just a rate function that depends on the amount of mass and/or the positive relative speed of that mass.
Yes, I am saying that mass impedes the rate of time. This is something that can be measured and used in everyday life. Time is just a rate function that depends on the amount of mass and/or the positive relative speed of that mass.
QUOTE (heretic+Feb 27 2008, 02:34 AM)
If time and space are physical, please state in what way these two concepts are real physical things.
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects. Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
If time and space are physical,
please state in what way these two concepts are real physical things. ( !!! )
===============
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects.
There are two areas:
1. Mincowski 4-D negetive space
2. Space made with gravitation force.
==================
Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
Whith energy?
Whith matter?
=============
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects. Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
If time and space are physical,
please state in what way these two concepts are real physical things. ( !!! )
===============
Space is just our term given to that area of nothing between objects.
There are two areas:
1. Mincowski 4-D negetive space
2. Space made with gravitation force.
==================
Time is just the concept that is derived from the motion of energy and matter.
Whith energy?
Whith matter?
=============
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
In the last post, by s0cratus,
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
I would like to propose the following. In a black hole, light, or any other mass, enters a black hole's event horozion. When this occurs, our math indicates that the physics is entering a realm where time does not exist. It also says that the mass is infinite. If this were truely infinite, the gravity would inevidably consume everything from a single black hole. This infact does not happen.
Further, from the math, matter entering a black hole would stop functioning as a function of time. This also does not happen. From a more real perspective, time is affected and the matter entering the event horizon does age far slower. Despite the fact that the matter is aging slower, the black hole continues to function, converting material into X-Ray radiation, just as our sun continues nuclear fusion of converting hydrogen to helium.
There are of course small time dialations with our own star, the Sun.
Time does in fact exist even in such a case of a black hole, within the event horizon. The functionality is simply far different than what we would be accustomed to.
It is kind of like a math problem that I have heard before. If a runner has to run a hundred meters, he must run half of the distance first. Then, when he does get to the mid point, he will have another distance that he will have to run half of that distance. Along this journey, there exists an infinite amount of half distances like this that the runner would have to complete in order to finnish the race. Since a runner cannot run an infinite amount of distance, the runner should never be able to run a hundred meters.
We know that a runner does run a hundred meters though. While this problem was actually in a college class I took even recently, it has been considered a very old unsolved problem.
In reality, the solution comes down to expressing the probem as an equation that is exponential in nature. Since the equation is convergent in nature, completing the run is possible.
I would imagine that someone completing the math of a black hole would have great success if the math were made in such a way that it was expressed in the form of a exponential function that were convergent in nature. Einstein did not believe a singularity would exist, though he completed a great deal of math behind them. Someone else used his equations to predict their existance. He discarded the idea by explaining some of the properties behind it well. Several years after his death, they were infact discovered.
While time can stretch or bend, I believe it is far more accurate to say that even in such conditions as an alternate universe, time would infact exist. While the properties may be significantly different, possible even very slow, time may even be a weak force acting in some strange cases, it is still necessary to function in some ways.
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
I would like to propose the following. In a black hole, light, or any other mass, enters a black hole's event horozion. When this occurs, our math indicates that the physics is entering a realm where time does not exist. It also says that the mass is infinite. If this were truely infinite, the gravity would inevidably consume everything from a single black hole. This infact does not happen.
Further, from the math, matter entering a black hole would stop functioning as a function of time. This also does not happen. From a more real perspective, time is affected and the matter entering the event horizon does age far slower. Despite the fact that the matter is aging slower, the black hole continues to function, converting material into X-Ray radiation, just as our sun continues nuclear fusion of converting hydrogen to helium.
There are of course small time dialations with our own star, the Sun.
Time does in fact exist even in such a case of a black hole, within the event horizon. The functionality is simply far different than what we would be accustomed to.
It is kind of like a math problem that I have heard before. If a runner has to run a hundred meters, he must run half of the distance first. Then, when he does get to the mid point, he will have another distance that he will have to run half of that distance. Along this journey, there exists an infinite amount of half distances like this that the runner would have to complete in order to finnish the race. Since a runner cannot run an infinite amount of distance, the runner should never be able to run a hundred meters.
We know that a runner does run a hundred meters though. While this problem was actually in a college class I took even recently, it has been considered a very old unsolved problem.
In reality, the solution comes down to expressing the probem as an equation that is exponential in nature. Since the equation is convergent in nature, completing the run is possible.
I would imagine that someone completing the math of a black hole would have great success if the math were made in such a way that it was expressed in the form of a exponential function that were convergent in nature. Einstein did not believe a singularity would exist, though he completed a great deal of math behind them. Someone else used his equations to predict their existance. He discarded the idea by explaining some of the properties behind it well. Several years after his death, they were infact discovered.
While time can stretch or bend, I believe it is far more accurate to say that even in such conditions as an alternate universe, time would infact exist. While the properties may be significantly different, possible even very slow, time may even be a weak force acting in some strange cases, it is still necessary to function in some ways.
Time is at its simplest 'events'
Those 'events' put together is time.
As for a universe without time.
What's the use of it?
We live in time as fishes live in water.
To say it doesn't exist?
Probably fishes would say the same about water:)
With as much reason.
Those 'events' put together is time.
As for a universe without time.
What's the use of it?
We live in time as fishes live in water.
To say it doesn't exist?
Probably fishes would say the same about water:)
With as much reason.
QUOTE (dwaynefries+Mar 4 2008, 02:42 PM)
In the last post, by s0cratus,
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
I would like to propose the following. In a black hole, light, or any other mass, enters a black hole's event horozion. When this occurs, our math indicates that the physics is entering a realm where time does not exist. It also says that the mass is infinite. If this were truely infinite, the gravity would inevidably consume everything from a single black hole. This infact does not happen.
Further, from the math, matter entering a black hole would stop functioning as a function of time. This also does not happen. From a more real perspective, time is affected and the matter entering the event horizon does age far slower. Despite the fact that the matter is aging slower, the black hole continues to function, converting material into X-Ray radiation, just as our sun continues nuclear fusion of converting hydrogen to helium.
There are of course small time dialations with our own star, the Sun.
Time does in fact exist even in such a case of a black hole, within the event horizon. The functionality is simply far different than what we would be accustomed to.
It is kind of like a math problem that I have heard before. If a runner has to run a hundred meters, he must run half of the distance first. Then, when he does get to the mid point, he will have another distance that he will have to run half of that distance. Along this journey, there exists an infinite amount of half distances like this that the runner would have to complete in order to finnish the race. Since a runner cannot run an infinite amount of distance, the runner should never be able to run a hundred meters.
We know that a runner does run a hundred meters though. While this problem was actually in a college class I took even recently, it has been considered a very old unsolved problem.
In reality, the solution comes down to expressing the probem as an equation that is exponential in nature. Since the equation is convergent in nature, completing the run is possible.
I would imagine that someone completing the math of a black hole would have great success if the math were made in such a way that it was expressed in the form of a exponential function that were convergent in nature. Einstein did not believe a singularity would exist, though he completed a great deal of math behind them. Someone else used his equations to predict their existance. He discarded the idea by explaining some of the properties behind it well. Several years after his death, they were infact discovered.
While time can stretch or bend, I believe it is far more accurate to say that even in such conditions as an alternate universe, time would infact exist. While the properties may be significantly different, possible even very slow, time may even be a weak force acting in some strange cases, it is still necessary to function in some ways.
Congratulation.
You know very much about interaction Light Quantum with black hole.
And that about interaction L/Q with our world........?
==============
1.
For my opinion the interaction L/Q ( speed c=1)
with atom gives no result. Why? Because we have two
different systems:
one - c=1 - the time is eternal,infinity,
another - atom - with different time.
2.
For my opinion the speed of L/Q (c=1 ) must change
[the eternal system must broken and time will apear ]
when L/Q interect with atom.
In this situation we have one system with time and
it is possible to explain process of our world,s evolution.
For Ligth quantum moving with speed c=1 time not exist.
Light quantum is real particle.
How does the time begin exist for it ?
I would like to propose the following. In a black hole, light, or any other mass, enters a black hole's event horozion. When this occurs, our math indicates that the physics is entering a realm where time does not exist. It also says that the mass is infinite. If this were truely infinite, the gravity would inevidably consume everything from a single black hole. This infact does not happen.
Further, from the math, matter entering a black hole would stop functioning as a function of time. This also does not happen. From a more real perspective, time is affected and the matter entering the event horizon does age far slower. Despite the fact that the matter is aging slower, the black hole continues to function, converting material into X-Ray radiation, just as our sun continues nuclear fusion of converting hydrogen to helium.
There are of course small time dialations with our own star, the Sun.
Time does in fact exist even in such a case of a black hole, within the event horizon. The functionality is simply far different than what we would be accustomed to.
It is kind of like a math problem that I have heard before. If a runner has to run a hundred meters, he must run half of the distance first. Then, when he does get to the mid point, he will have another distance that he will have to run half of that distance. Along this journey, there exists an infinite amount of half distances like this that the runner would have to complete in order to finnish the race. Since a runner cannot run an infinite amount of distance, the runner should never be able to run a hundred meters.
We know that a runner does run a hundred meters though. While this problem was actually in a college class I took even recently, it has been considered a very old unsolved problem.
In reality, the solution comes down to expressing the probem as an equation that is exponential in nature. Since the equation is convergent in nature, completing the run is possible.
I would imagine that someone completing the math of a black hole would have great success if the math were made in such a way that it was expressed in the form of a exponential function that were convergent in nature. Einstein did not believe a singularity would exist, though he completed a great deal of math behind them. Someone else used his equations to predict their existance. He discarded the idea by explaining some of the properties behind it well. Several years after his death, they were infact discovered.
While time can stretch or bend, I believe it is far more accurate to say that even in such conditions as an alternate universe, time would infact exist. While the properties may be significantly different, possible even very slow, time may even be a weak force acting in some strange cases, it is still necessary to function in some ways.
Congratulation.
You know very much about interaction Light Quantum with black hole.
And that about interaction L/Q with our world........?
==============
1.
For my opinion the interaction L/Q ( speed c=1)
with atom gives no result. Why? Because we have two
different systems:
one - c=1 - the time is eternal,infinity,
another - atom - with different time.
2.
For my opinion the speed of L/Q (c=1 ) must change
[the eternal system must broken and time will apear ]
when L/Q interect with atom.
In this situation we have one system with time and
it is possible to explain process of our world,s evolution.
Time and dimensions. When I was in grade school, I was taught that all solid objects were three-dimensional, they had length, width and depth. If you have a box, and you're not sure of it's size, you use a ruler to measure it. If you measure a 12 inch length, a 12 inch width, and a 12 inch depth, you now know that this box is 1 cubic foot. The box is there, on the table now. The box was not there yesterday. The box may not be there tomorrow. Does that make time a dimension? No, it makes time a tool just like a ruler, but it measures when the box is where and not the size of the box. Time is not a dimension, a ruler is not a dimension.
Take a pair of twin sisters, one on Earth, and one on a spaceship. Let's adjust the engines a bit so that this spaceship travels at light wave speed going in a circular trajectory. The spaceship leaves the Earth on January 1, 2008, and travels for one year at the speed of a light wave, in a circular trajectory, and returns to Earth on January 1, 2009. The twin sister on the spaceship aged one year, and the twin sister left on Earth, also aged one year. The twin sister on the spaceship went very far, very fast, but aged the same as the twin sister left on Earth. Time is a tool and time is constant, tick-tock.
If you have no matter in the Universe, there is nothing to measure. If you have no humans, time is meaningless.
Take a pair of twin sisters, one on Earth, and one on a spaceship. Let's adjust the engines a bit so that this spaceship travels at light wave speed going in a circular trajectory. The spaceship leaves the Earth on January 1, 2008, and travels for one year at the speed of a light wave, in a circular trajectory, and returns to Earth on January 1, 2009. The twin sister on the spaceship aged one year, and the twin sister left on Earth, also aged one year. The twin sister on the spaceship went very far, very fast, but aged the same as the twin sister left on Earth. Time is a tool and time is constant, tick-tock.
If you have no matter in the Universe, there is nothing to measure. If you have no humans, time is meaningless.
Would there be people to ponder this pointless question if no matter were present?
No
No
Maybe someone will interest in a question:
" How can L/Q change its eternal, infinite time? "
On my opinion Einstein's SRT gives an answer on this question.
====================
" How can L/Q change its eternal, infinite time? "
On my opinion Einstein's SRT gives an answer on this question.
====================
QUOTE
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, and that it's the act of observation that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state."
According to reason, "knowledge of the state of the system is absent until observed, and then there is light."
Is it not our perception/knowledge of the system that exists in a superposition of states, rather than than the actual system itself? And I know that somebody will respond that you cannot separate the perception from the system - I don´t buy that - it´s a mystic hijacking of Copenhagen.
And, if it is the system that is in a superposition of states, how did the observers ever evolve?
And, if it is the system that is in a superposition of states, how did the observers ever evolve?
Time exists, I don't believe it can exist on its own though.
It's a property, dependent upon our universe.
So time on its own is a nono.
A universe on its own?
How would that come too?
Where would it be perceived without time?
Both are nono:s
It's a property, dependent upon our universe.
So time on its own is a nono.
A universe on its own?
How would that come too?
Where would it be perceived without time?
Both are nono:s
QUOTE
Can Time Exist
NO !..... with or without matter time is an artifact of action..... it does not exist !
Maybe you should be asking
Can action exist without an actor ?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.