# Entertaining thought

1. Oct 26, 2006

### Jonny_trigonometry

General Relativity concludes that clocks tick slower when near a mass than far away from a mass. Also, a meter stick is shorter near a mass than far away. So as you move toward a mass, your time rate decreases, and lengths decrease. So in comparison to a meter and a second far from the mass, the second close to the mass can't "fit inside" the second far from the mass (since its duration is longer), and the meter close to the mass can "fit inside" the meter far away with room to spare (because it is shorter). Divert your attention now to the idea of a source and a sink. A source is a point where stuff comes from, and a sink is a point where stuff sinks into. Now, if your second is shorter in duration further from the mass, and in theory zero in duration infinately far away from the mass, and infinately long at the point where the mass is (if the mass has no radius), then what you have is sort of a "time source". Meaning, if no time passes infinately far from the mass, then there is no time there, and if an infinate amount of time passes at the center, there is an infinate amount of time there, and everywhere in between is the bridge between the two. So you could say that time radiates from a point mass. Similarly, if a meter is infinately long far from a mass, and infinately short at the location of the point mass, then we can say that there is no length at the location of the point mass, and infinate length infinately far from the mass, thus a point mass is also a "length sink". Since length is affected equally in all directions in a sufficiently small differential element (locally flat space) at some invariant distance from the point mass, we can simply call the "length sink" a "space sink". So now putting this together, we can say that a point mass is the superposition of a "time source" and a "space sink". In Quantum Mechanics, particles are treated as point masses (delta functions), so in theory, all particles have a radius of zero, and therefore there is a point close enough to them where space-time is curved so much that light can't escape from thier local curvature, hence, all particles are micro black holes, so they are infinately small, and therefore at thier center, a second has infinate duration, and a meter has no length, so we can think of all particles as sources of time, and devourers of space. On the flip side, the big bang is the opposite of a black hole, so we can then think of it as a source of space and a sink of time, so at the point (singularity) of the big bang, a second has no duration, and a meter has infinate length. So, putting this together with what particles are, we can say that time flows from particles towards the big bang, and space flows from the big bang into particles. In a sense, everything is connected together spacially and temporally. As Einstein said, there is no such thing as seperate things, everything is one (or something like that). Now, how we describe this geometrically is far beyond me.

2. Oct 27, 2006

### lightarrow

My compliments to you for this idea, Jonny_trigonometry!
I don't know how much of it could be converted into real physics, but, anyway, it's really terrific!

3. Oct 27, 2006

### Mortimer

Your entertaining story contains some small mistakes. I'll pick out the sentences:
The duration of the second never gets zero in infinity. It is asymptotic to a fixed value, but that value does depend on the location of the observer who does the measurement. For an observer at infinity it is "1". For an observer closer to the mass it gets smaller.
This is not true for the point where the mass is but it is theoretically true for a point at the Schwarzschild radius.
See above...
Same story. The length never gets infinitely long far away from the mass.
Again, the length at the location of the point mass is undefined. The radial length at the Schwarzschild radius is theoretically zero.
The radial length and the tangential length behave differently. Radial length tends to zero close to the Schwarzschild radius but tangential length does not. This follows from the Schwarzschild metric.

Next to all this I think it is not fully correct to compare time passing (which reflects kind of a "speed") with spatial lengths. The correct comparison is relative time duration with relative spatial length. This is probably what you have in mind anyway but the text is not consistent everywhere.

This is where I finally agree with you.

Perhaps you could re-think your idea with these corrections in mind? Your basic idea about the source and sink is not that bad after all.

Last edited: Oct 27, 2006
4. Oct 27, 2006

### Jonny_trigonometry

hmm... what about when theoretically viewed at the same point as the mass?

5. Oct 27, 2006

### Jonny_trigonometry

interesting stuff mortimer. I've been trying to understand some of the beginning basics of general relativity the past couple days, and oh my... I'll just take your word for it hehe.