Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Limit of time

  1. Nov 12, 2006 #1
    Hi, I'm new here but have been working in the physics field for years.

    Most assume time to be infinite. But there appears to be a natural limit on the expansion of time.

    In the beginning, there was nothing and no possibility of change. How long this state lasted is a misleading question for without the possibility of change there can be no time, since time implies both 'before' and 'after'. Since there was no possibility of change, nothing can, or did happen.

    Finally the possibility of change occured. This allowed time to begin. The only alternate to 'nothing' is 'something' and so all of the 'energy of activation' appeared at a single point in the first moment of time, t0.

    While time began, space had not. All of the 'energy of activation' was in one spot. At the next moment in time t1, that energy began to rotate. This led to the three spatial dimensions, x, y, and z. But the spatial dimensions lagged the time dimension. So while the index of time was 1 (t1) the indices of x, y, and z is 0! This is why time, of all the dimensions, has a direction. We can move freely in both directions in any of the x, y, and z axes but can only move forward in time. This is because time was the predicate dimension and leads with x, y, and z following in it's wake.

    Max Planck derived the 'Planck minima' for the least amount of energy required to create a quantuum state.

    h = 6.626 x 10-34 J x s

    While this is an incredibly small amount of energy, it is most definately not zero. By the same token, the 'energy of activation' (ea —the total energy in the universe) is quite large, it is also most definately not infinite.

    Since each quantum state created requires a 'Planck Minima' of energy and that value is small but not zero, then if we divide the total amount of energy in the universe, ea, which is large but not infinite, then the result:

    ea / h

    will be a very large, but not infinite number. This number represents the maximum possible number of quantuum states that can be created. When no more states can be created (since there is no more energy left) time itself, must stop.

    Thus we can see that quantuum physics itself limits the amount of time in the universe and that time is not 'infinte' as most presume, but has a natural limit. This limit of time, shows us the end state of the universe — a state where all quantuum states are equivalent, each with a 'Planck Minima' of energy, h.

    One interesting aspect of this view is that both the moment of creation (all energy in a single point) and the moment of entinguishment (all energy spread uniformly with one h's worth per quantuum state) are both states of 'Grand Symmetery'. That is to say that the universe as a whole is symmetrical. In the first case by having all the energy in a single point of no dimensionality and the second by having the energy spread absolutely uniformly.

    Once the universe has acheived this 'Grand Symmetery', it is free to 'wrap around' from one state of 'Grand Symmetery' to the other and thus the universe again explodes in yet another 'big bang' creating the next universe from the ashes of the prior.
    Do you think there is any merit to this view or have I been smoking the expensive imported blend for too many years?
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    An interesting proposal. I have read in other sources that, beyond certain limits within the hyperdimensional folded shapes known as Calabi-Yau manifolds, expansion and contraction cannot be distinguished from one another. This sounds a lot like the "wrap around" of which you speak.
  4. Nov 12, 2006 #3
    The 'contraction' of the cold universe back into a point happens outside of time so it takes no time to occur.

    If you view it as a co-ordinate transformation the two end points are equivalent.
  5. Nov 12, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your timeless coordinate system includes circular logic.
  6. Nov 13, 2006 #5
    How? Time has a granularity given by the Planck minima for time. Conservation must be observed as time increments at each successive state. Once time has stopped the question "how long did it take?" no longer has meaning. So the transition from all states uniform to a single collapsed state effectively occurs at a discontinuity. Same way the tangent function swings from +infinity to -infinity.

    The reversal from +infinity to -infinity closes the number line into a circle. The transform involves multiplying by i (sqr(-1)) and effectively is a co-ordinate transformation. This is routine in electronics in the tranformation of an electrical signal into a radio wave. The energy travels down a wire, goes thru an i transform into the complex axis and radiates out.

    In the same way electricity 'rotates' into the complex plane, the quantuum states fold back upon itself to collapse back to a point.

    Quantuum entanglement seems to imply FTL communications because the leftward photon reacts to the resolution of the rightward photon. However in a quantuum state tanscends dimensionality. While it appears to be spread out in our space from a quantuum state it is effectively a point. No time needed for one 'side' of the state to 'feel' an interation at the other 'side' of the state no matter how large the quantuum state appears to be.
  7. Dec 15, 2006 #6
  8. Dec 15, 2006 #7
    "So it is answered as it is continually conserved to create what we know, from one point to the next." - Yes. each quantuum state can only interact with those states adjacent to it in quantuum space. A quantuum state can have significant dimensions in x/y/z, but no time is consumed when it changes. Thus quantuum entanglement can operate at a distance in "our" space and not violate c because of the adjacency in 'quantuum space'.

    "It takes three intersecting dimensions to make a point and time allows us the vantage to see it."

    Change requires time. For change to occur, time must be 'flowing' since change implies both 'before' and 'after'. Thus time is the predicate dimension. Time's index is always n+1 relative to the index of x/y/z. So time drags dimension in it's wake and from the perspective of someone (us) living in the x/y/z time is always moving 'ahead'.

    Since all quantuum states at the end are equivalent, there is no change left to occur and when the possibility of change stops, so does time.
  9. Dec 15, 2006 #8
    Clearing questions of the space between the quanta, thank you.

    Allow me to change my use of the word 'violent' to 'dynamic'. If by chance two universes do physically, dynamically interact then grand symmetry is still possible.

    So, I dont understand if the premise implies the state of grand symmetry, happening once in the start and end, is a change that takes place in no time or not.

    That is, the state of grand symmetry is a point in time where the 'bang' happens and it happens in our concept of size so the energy must contract relative to us.

    If this is not the case; grand symmetry being a state, or point, where birth of a universe is marked, then time needn't stop. So without time stopping, from our perspective, our universe begins anew, but on a much larger scale.

    Thus comes into thought the non importance of spatial relativity of quantum entaglement.

    So which is it? I saw it either contraction to start or a realtive start.

    So the vantage of time really is described as being a predicate. nice.

    Allow me room to explore improvements in our definition of D=RT. TR=D where T=1 or 0: 1 being 'normal' time and 0 being no time. Time exists or it doesn't. We apply definition to change time from a 'quantity' to represent an 'existance', simply by dividing through by T, thus maintaining the equality.

    In the form D=RT: if Time stops, Distance is negligent; if Distance stops, Rate and/or Time become zero. Ah, so Distance and Rate may be zero and Time 1. Remember simply, 1 for Time represents time present here. I am still thinking the implications if Rate is zero.

    This is melding with the idea of time being disjunct. Ya, 'flowing' time is a natural thought, as we are, but in the instance it stops we would not percieve unless able to record where it had not stopped some distance away.

    I dont think time so grand it stops and starts everywhere at once and besides what in the world determines times' harmony - just doesnt make sense; at least not in our asymmetrical existance. Guess we need think outside of our existance/dimension.

    So, if we determine the equation to other forms: D/R=T, D/T=R and 1=(RT)/D we find the state of time/being not defined when D, R or T is zero. Naturally we think of this state as not possbibly existing, so the solutions are entangled or the state of non existance is not a factor. (this is blending - perhaps division by zero can factor as part of a quantum behaviour, ie entanglement or in one form 'it' exists and in another form 'it' does not exist; 'it' being the same thing).

    Why would time leading dimension matter? And time does slow down and speed up, relative to us. I was implying time to existance, I think, mmmm...
  10. Dec 16, 2006 #9
    Of course putting the thought to paper reveal flaws of thought - or is it paper flaws?

    In attempting to change the definitoin of d=rt to one more useful in understaning time not as quantity, but an imfernece to time's existance (1) or non existance (0), I overlooked a simple idea; if time is non existant we can not divide by zero.

    Using our rational definition of division by zero is undefined and therefore cannot be done in existance, then time must always exist as long as d=rt.

    Is there any other place you can think where time does not exist? I mean totally not exist. I have not come to terms with the notion matter and anti-matter acoustically() cancel in no time and leave no trace or a trace (as Hawkings radiation)

    That said, then the premise of grand symmetry acting in no time, is not possible. Unless, at some point d=rt does not exist; meaning movement (energy, interia, force, change) does not take place.

    I calculate the statement of no time more towards as close to no time as possible. hmmmm.... if slowing down from c causes expansion, what is on the flip side? speeding up from zero causes contraction.. not sure that helps.

    Thinking where d=rt may not exist. I think relative to entanglement, time always exists because we don't really count what is between the quanti as distance. Correct? (quanti - i made that up!)

    But in a black hole, i am thinking d=rt holds true. It is just distance takes a different form as we on the outside observe; relativity of time changes --- time for more thoughts of where time may not exist...
  11. Dec 17, 2006 #10

    You are assuming that a quantum of energy is used by each
    quantum sae transition. In fact, state transisitions can both absorb
    and realease eneergy, and energy is a conserved quantity. Therefore there is
    no inference from a finite availability of energy to a finite
    number of state transitions.
  12. Dec 20, 2006 #11
    :confused: How can we know this, or even think this more likely than the statement "There was no beginning" ? Does not your OP question fall apart if we start from this alternative premise ?
  13. Dec 21, 2006 #12
    Nothing from Nothing

    I agree with you, Rade. It is a semantic imperative that in the beginning there was something. Nothing is nothing and nothing comes from nothing. Zero equals Zero and will never equal anything else. Anyone care to discuss the difference between zero and nothing or the difference between empty space and nothing? We will never achieve any understanding of reality if we do not understand the difference between nothing and something.
  14. Jan 7, 2007 #13
    nothing is something in it;s own state. Call it space or whatever. If nothing is there it is constant and present it's self until something occupies it and we call it something. Just anther way too look at nothing? Maybe, maybe not?
  15. Jan 8, 2007 #14
    'nothing is a word'

    NOTHING is a word, NOTHING is a concept, but the essence of nothing is NO THING. I believe it is the same as the concept of the 'thought' of empty space. Empirical nothing, however, is very different. It is that which we cannot perceive or that which lies beyond our senses. It is, and will always be, impossible to verify that empirical nothing is the same as conceptual nothing.

    Empirical nothing is a different concept than nothing. It is unfortunate that there is not a unique word for this concept. If anyone knows of such a word, I would like to be made aware of it. Perhaps it exists in some other language?

    To say "nothing is something" is to change the definition of nothing to something. If nothing is something, then it is no longer nothing. If you begin a sentence by saying ZERO equals ONE, then ZERO no longer equals ZERO.

    The language of mathematics is very precise. We should endeavor to make the written word equally precise, at least for some discussions.
  16. Jan 8, 2007 #15
    I'm also new here and I just had to register to reply to the OP. It's just too much.

    "In the beginning, there was nothing and no possibility of change. [...] Finally the possibility of change occured. This allowed time to begin."

    What the what now? None of this mean anything. In the beginning of what? What does the word even mean if there is no time? What does "finally" mean without the concept of time. If there was no possibility of change then how did "nothing" change from no possibility of change to the possibility of change? It's a change after all, but how can it be so if there is no possibility of change?

    The only intelligible part is "all of the energy of activation appeared at a single point in the first moment of time" by virtue of the law of conservation of energy. No explanation of its origin though, it only sets an arbitrary T0 marker. Except that energy (or work) requires space and matter (and time) but you state that space had not began yet, so this is not meaningful either.

    Ignoring all that, let's get to the part where energy is rotating. Huh?!?

    Ok, say energy is able to rotate. It rotates at T1, leading to 3 dimensions. Great. So energy at T1 had to be in a different position than at T0 otherwise it would not have rotated at all. Oh but wait, we didn't have space at T0 so how could energy be at any position at all? It could not, so you must mean that it rotated from T1 to T2. But wait, at T1 we didn't have space either since energy had not rotated yet. Humm, we're in a pickle.

    I should stop and just go read the Bible. It's a marvel of logic in comparison.
  17. Jan 9, 2007 #16
    Yeah. Probably.

    Your whole confusion starts with assuming an absolute seperatedness of nothing and something (or in other terms: of being and nonbeing), and you make the falicious assertion of stating that 'there was once nothing'. If there was once (when that was is also rather miraculous ,since not even time had begun!) nothing, then nothing is not nothing, but already something. And especially if this nothing can become something, then even more it is not nothing.

    To help overcome such tremendous errors in thought, it would be most advisable you read this outstanding ellaboration about Being in the Science of Logic of Hegel, in which he explains how this begin is incomprehensible.


    Instead of an absolute seperadness of being and nonbeing, Hegel urges us to unify these opposites in their unity, which is becoming. Becoming is already supposing a being and a fading away of the nonbeing (of something).
  18. Jan 10, 2007 #17
    splunshh for nothing

    Uncertainly, nothing is something.

    To prove a smaller number exists we divide a number by .5.

    To think we can divide something in half and recursively continue to divide part of the leftover in half is huh?

    Ya'd think we'd hit nothing. If nothing exists in the smallest state, then nothing may also exist in a relatively large state.

    Or is it meant all is full of something. Then something is infinite. And the only infinite I can think is God or an archaic abstraction called math.

    The monks of old said God, Math and Music are perfect.

    I was thinking grand symmetry of several universes in different times occupying the same space, perhaps their energy combining at some point into the same time once the universes each slow to where the difference in time dimensions is not significant to each's reality of difference in time dimension. Combining for the minima energy thicken enough to collapse and sprout again in continous cycles and creating dimension in doing so. And time is created as a change in grand symmetry state of something that has accelerated from almost no speed (maybe nothing).

    But if universes in different time do combine when slowed enough, then this state of combing would have to be continous flow and would cause the whole system to be of a certain amount of energy. But once certainty is found the possibility of nothing exists or can be calculated. And if we can calculate it...

    spplllunnsshhh im my mind for nothing to exist we lead to god.... or go crazy questioning it!!!

    Maybe a topic "we actually have not created anything (such egoists), but reflect and magnify what exists at the smallest level." But where is questioning represented acoustically?
  19. Jan 10, 2007 #18
    So if we are merely a reflection of what exists we find we are finite and nothing exists. The large generates the small and the small combines to be the large. And much more we can find.

    We will never understand (know) nothing unless our reflection changes.
  20. Jan 10, 2007 #19
    a question can be represented by a comparison, which is division, or two differing resonances.
  21. Jan 17, 2007 #20
    Is it true that Hegel once said "only one man understands me, and even he does not."?
  22. Jan 18, 2007 #21
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2007
  23. Jan 19, 2007 #22
    So, if Hegel is "already supposing a being", he must hold no beginning to existence and thus time (note I do not say our universe), which makes sense to me. And I view this dialectic argument of Hegel a very good reason to hold as the first axiom of philosophy the concept "existence exists"--it is from this statement that the unity of metaphysics and knowledge derives--would you not agree ?
  24. Jan 19, 2007 #23
    Being and nonbeing are not the same as something and nothing. Being and nonbeing are more complex words and interchanging them obfuscates the arguement whether something can originate from nothing.

    There are many enlightened philosophers so why whould anyone quote the master of the obscure and benighted?
  25. Jan 20, 2007 #24
    In talking of being, becoming and existence, are we assuming the objective existence of Time?
  26. Jun 10, 2007 #25
    Time is defintely infinite in my book.... here's why...

    Even if you say time must have stopped or freezed at the begining and end of the universe but, there had to have been some energy and if you look at the atomic view of things than you'd see time. There has to be some activity in the atoms to create vast amounts of energy and time would also be part of it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook