|The Science and Philosophy Forum|
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 15th, 2012, 12:54 am ]|
|Blog Subject:||Quantum Gravity Part 2|
An expanding universe must expand in four dimensions, not three, because there can be no external frame of reference for time. This throws up some rather bewildering observer effects. The universe is expanding through its own temporal frame of reference. It is making its own time. This is the dimension in which entropy drives the expanding universe so we regard the universe as existing only at this temporal boundary. If we return to our balloon analogy then the skin of the balloon represents the time dimension and this is where the universe actually is. The three-dimensional space which the skin of the balloon encloses is the universe that we perceive. Therefore space is made by expanding time and has no independent existence. Although the universe is a finite entity it can have no spatial boundary, since it is everything that exists. However it must have a temporal boundary or reality could not proceed in an orderly fashion. The temporal boundary of the universe is the present quantum moment. This is defined as the smallest possible unit of time in which anything, anywhere in the universe, can actually physically happen. Because space and time are a single continuum we also need to define a quantum unit of space. We define this as the smallest possible volume of space within which something can actually physically happen. Thus the universe has a cellular structure like mini bubble-wrap. The fundamental mechanism of physical reality is thus analogous to a binary logic gate. Time exists to stop everything in the universe from happening at once and orderly reality requires that only one thing can happen in one place at one time.
At the temporal boundary of the universe, the present quantum moment, only one thing can be happening in any particular quantum cell of space. It either loses a photon or receives a photon. This is happening in every quantum moment in every quantum cell of space-time. We need to get some sense of scale here. The Planck time is defined already in quantum theory, but Max Planck didn’t realise, either, that the universe was expanding.
Quantum physics is oblivious to the time dimension and therefore makes no sense, but quantum principles are eminently logical when we consider the nature of infinity. If the universe is finite it can contain no infinite entity and no aspect of reality can be infinitely divisible. The buck must stop somewhere and in this model fundamental reality is completely determined by the configuration of energy densities at these fundamental logic gates. The physical world we perceive is the emergent consequence. The reality we observe is always separated from the present moment being enacted by a finite number of quantum moments. We observe the wake of time. The present moment is always beyond our perception but we see the information that the moments leave behind. We live in this hologram because we are contained within the reality we are observing. The observer is also expanding into the time dimension, but not necessarily at the same speed as the observation, hence the weird observer effects. There is a third player in this story of temporal expansion, namely gravity.
The Planck moment has been calculated and comes in as a spectacularly brief instant of time. 5.4 x 1044 of these quantum moments occur every second of our lives, according to Max, and this might not be far off the mark in inter-galactic space, where gravitational effects are tiny, but it has long been well known that time slows down near large cosmic objects with mass. The clock in the orbiting satellite runs faster than the clock on the ground, as does the one on the mountain-top. The clock on top of your head runs faster than the one at your feet if clocks could only measure that fast. Gravity and time are interwoven and determine the rate of expansion of the universe. Our balloon analogy is still valid but our balloon has a very strange shape.
We now abandon the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit and substitute it with the speed of time, since this is the dimension into which the universe is expanding. It is thus also the dimension within which light propagates itself throughout the universe. Relative to us light does not move at all and thus is perceived as a constant. The three-dimensional universe of our perceptions is the informational representation of this expansion process occurring at the temporal boundary and being projected to our senses backwards in time. If distances in space and time are equivalent then the speed of light must be a relativistic quantity determined by the speed of time. In absolute terms the speed of light cannot be a constant. Light cannot travel faster than time. It travels at exactly the speed of time and the speed of time is determined by the other player in the fundamental dance of reality, the graviton. He is the time boson that determines exactly how long the quantum moment exists and thus he is always a moment ahead of the present. Since this offers us the geometry of four-dimensional space-time we are obliged to enlarge our continuum to include gravity and arrive at the clumsy handle of space-grav-time. It is not necessary to regard gravity as a fifth dimension because it is an emergent property of events taking place at the binary logic gates, where fundamental reality is coming into existence. Thus the universe makes its own time and is self-causal. It shapes itself by the laws of physics according to its own programming. It is a Universal Turing Machine. It is a computational entity executing a programme which then programmes its own input. Our cosmos is an eternal reality maker.
More in Part 3.....
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 15th, 2012, 1:22 am ]|
The general theory (GR) is indeed covariant. However a particular SOLUTION to the GR equation need NOT be covariant. It can have a preferred time.
What we call the "expanding universe" is a particular solution or class of solutions, technically called Friedmann or FRW. The expansion process breaks covariance and determines a preferred time. Sometimes this is called "Friedmann time", or "universe time"
|Author:||BurtJordaan [ December 15th, 2012, 6:53 am ]|
The balloon analogy of cosmology is a standard one and it does not mean what you try to present it to be. The skin of the balloon represents all of 3-dimensional space and the inside represents nothing physical. By using the same name for your analogy may cause major confusion.
Speed is defined as change in distance divided by the time it took for the change in distance to happen. How would you define the "speed of time"?
So you reckon that when I send you a photon, that photon has not moved to get to you?
Leo, can you understand that we as scientists have an obligation to point it out to readers of forums when someone writes questionable stuff like this? Only that if someone's treatise contains too much of that, we tend to start ignoring it.
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 15th, 2012, 10:11 am ]|
I declared myself willing to address all questions and on this occasion this will be a straightforward matter because I merely need to paraphrase what I have already written. I concede that this is not an easy concept to get one's head around, it took me decades.
I am perfectly well aware of the standard balloon analogy in cosmology and this analogy is quite different as you point out. We cannot visualise a 4-dimensional balloon so we regard the skin of the balloon as the time dimension only. The universe exists only on the skin of the balloon and thus the universe expands in only one dimension. It expands at the speed of time. This is defined as the rate at which quantum moments emerge and is determined by gravity. Except in very high gravitational fields quantum moments emerge at a re-assuringly similar rate but not at a constant rate. We already know this. Clocks run at different speeds in different gravitational environments. If we hypothesise a series of clocks capable of measuring time on the Planck scale and placed them at different heights above the floor then none of them would be synchronised. The one nearest the ceiling would be the fastest and the one on the floor would be the slowest. Surely this is not a controversial statement. This is mainstream physics. This is the sense in which time and gravity are interwoven. Time and space are interwoven quite differently because in my version of the balloon analogy the past and the future do not exist. Only the present moment exists and it exists only on the skin of the balloon. Forget the standard balloon analogy of cosmology because that model describes the universe as a 3-dimensional entity only. Time is ignored. In my model the inside of the balloon is the 3-dimensional universe we perceive. We never see the skin. I am not the first to suggest that perceived reality is a holographic projection from the boundary of the universe. However this is not a spatial boundary, it is a temporal boundary because the innards of the balloon are confined within the skin of the balloon, which is the dimension of expanding time. In this way the skin of the balloon provides the temporal frame of reference within which we perceive the 3-dimensional world. The speed of light is exactly equivalent to the speed of time in every darkest corner of the cosmos. Thus the universe is expanding at the speed of light, not in space, which is merely an observer effect, but in time. The speed of light is always perceived as a constant because our measuring equipment is likewise affected by gravity and is necessarily contained within the observation. The speed of light in intergalactic space, for instance, will always be measured as identical to the speed of light on planet earth. 300 million m/sec or thereabouts. But a second on planet earth is not the same interval of time as a second out yonder. Our seconds are fractionally longer so light has a bit more time up its sleeve to traverse its 300 million metres. The speed of light is a relativistic quantity. In our remote frame of reference light might take 2 seconds to complete its journey on a neutron star and a week for all I know on the surface of a black hole. I have no idea how to work these numbers out but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of mathematicians out there who would regard this problem as a matter of simple arithmetic. On the surface of the black hole light still travels at 300 million m/sec in its own temporal frame of reference. But we are watching it from light years away and we see that a second in this hellish place takes a week to pass.
I doubt if I can clarify the speed of time any better than that. At the risk of repeating myself quantum gravity is all about frame of reference issues so when you graciously sent me my photon I received it at the speed of light as cosmic law dictates. But the photon travelled through time at a speed which is non-constant in absolute terms. It certainly moved to get to me, the observer, but I was moving through time at the non-constant speed of light myself. We are contained within our own frame of reference.
One last comment on the quantum moment. The definition is clear enough. It is the smallest possible unit of time in which something can actually happen. Quantum moments will be calculable in my model, although not by me. I scraped through undergraduate maths some decades ago and was delighted to leave it behind me. Since quantum moments emerge at the speed of light in the dimension of time we can never perceive the one happening right now. All we ever see is the past. The further away an object is the further into the past we look. If we are stationary relative to our observation we are travelling through time at the same speed as it. This is the sense in which space and time are equivalent. We can say that the sun is 8 minutes away from us or we can say that it is 93 million miles away from us. We are saying exactly the same thing in a physical sense. But to grasp quantum gravity in a conceptual sense we must disregard the miles and focus only on the minutes. The miles are an emergent consequence of the temporal expansion. Time made the space, if you like. We are looking at the universe from inside it and are thus bound by the same physical laws as that which we observe.
I have successfully managed to explain these concepts to a number of my nerdy mates but not without some difficulty I confess. We hurtle through time like a cosmic missile but are oblivious to it because our entire frame of reference is moving. Galileo had the same problem convincing people that our planet was hurtling around the sun at 2 million miles a day.
What do you reckon they might have said to Galileo?
Pull the other one, mate.
I seem to be suffering the same fate but luckily the Holy Roman Inquisition has disbanded. I do not propose to give up and will get to work on a clarifying thought experiment. I hope I don't need it.
|Author:||BurtJordaan [ December 15th, 2012, 4:42 pm ]|
Let me rephrase one of the questions (you wrote: "It certainly moved to get to me, the observer, but I was moving through time at the non-constant speed of light myself. We are contained within our own frame of reference.")
So when you send a photon to me, does the photon move relative to you?
None of the rest makes much sense to me, so I'll leave it at that.
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 16th, 2012, 2:29 am ]|
I have covered this point before. Jorrrie. Neither you nor I nor the photon nor anything else moves in space at all. Motion is a temporal phenomenon. The 3-dimensional space we observe is a hologram, or a projection, if you prefer. This notion was first developed by Stephen Hawking. It sounded convincing but I didn't get where he was coming from when he referred to the boundary of the universe. I am a persistent sort of bloke and kept at it until it all made sense. It makes perfect sense if we regard the boundary of the universe as the present moment.
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 20th, 2012, 3:06 am ]|
The space that is generated by the event and which contains the light expands outward until it intersects the space in which the events that currently manifest as Burt Jordan are situated. You, the light, and Burt Jordan have not moved, only space has been generated which carries the light between you. Is this correct?
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 20th, 2012, 12:28 pm ]|
"It is not necessary to regard gravity as a fifth dimension because it is an emergent property of events taking place at the binary logic gates, where fundamental reality is coming into existence."
And yet this concept of existence makes the three dimensions of space an emergent property of events. Gravity appears to be necessary to maintain the coherence of "substance", and therefore of event. This does not explain what it is, nor how it functions. It appears to be in opposition to the flow of time, and I would speculate that both are directly proportional to mass. If we can define time as successive event occurring in Planck moments, how do we define gravity? My background is biology, and very limited in boolean logic, so I find I cannot visualize it in terms of binary logic gates.
|Author:||Anonymous [ December 20th, 2012, 12:44 pm ]|
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ok, I've got it. We are part of the earth which is producing space at an unimaginable rate in all directions. The opposite reaction is gravity. Simple. We are being compacted by the expansion of space.
|Author:||Anonymous [ April 5th, 2013, 3:40 am ]|
Before you write about time in the style you have chosen, following your belief in common sense, you must assign dimensions to that which you call, "the speed of time."
Let us label one spatial dimension as "x" and the time dimension as "t," following convention. Speed or velocity is expressed in terms of two dimensions, as "x/t" representing distance divided by time. If you hark back to Calculus 101, you will recall the more elegant definition, that velocity is the rate of change of distance with respect to time, or that velocity is the first time derivative of space.
How would you mathematically express the velocity of time?
Speed or velocity represents change. Change is always relative, irrespective of Big Al's theories. Change is measured with respect to a previous condition, or with respect to something that does not change.
Against what constant or previous condition do you propose that a "speed of time" can be measured?
Finally, note that unless you can assign units to a physical event, it is not a physical event. It cannot be described in mathematical statements that might relate it to other physical events. Without units, all you have is a meaningless string of words that cannot be related to any concept.
Imagine asking someone for the score to a baseball game and receiving "3 to 7" as an answer. You are doing the same kind of thing.
I hate to discourage anyone who is doing creative thinking because I empathize with the difficulties involved, especially the disagreement. The path to my current ideas has taken many wrong turns, and I would still be on one of those dead-end roads without the introduction of a different perspective from someone with whom I was in disagreement.
To that end, have you considered the possibility that time does not exist? Suppose that the universe is an asynchronous state-machine in which "events" are defined as changes of state, and that "time" is merely a convenient mathematical construct that allows us to compare various state-change sequences to one another?
Compare the universe to a digital computer, which is a synchronous state-machine. Within the computer, "time" is entirely relative. It has nothing to do with the outside world, and is determined entirely by an internal clock. If the speed of that clock changes, so does the rate at which computations are made, but the logic circuits will not know about it unless they have access to a "real-world clock" for comparison.
|All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]|
Powered by phpBB © 2002, 2006 phpBB Group
Blogs powered by User Blog Mod © EXreaction