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

Nagging Doubts just won't go away(song)

  1. ya sayers

    8 vote(s)
  2. na sayers

    0 vote(s)
  1. Feb 19, 2010 #1
    I think time is seriously flawed. I can't get my head around time as a real dimension and curving of time by gravity quantifies things for us, but in a limiting way.
    What if we look at it this way:
    a) we are not actually seeing into the past when we observe light from afar, we are just simply observing photons that had to travel a great distance, at a limited speed
    b) bending of time near a large, dense object, or say an event horizon, mere trickery of light or other waves/particles we are observing

    I think time IS distance in space. Nothing in the universe is static, and everything is moving away from each other, and acceleration. "Time" is unidirectional, it only moves "forward"

    I think in the very near future, a lot of theories (and even some science) are going to need a re-write.

    Einsteins biggest blunder might actually be in his conceptualizing of time in relativity.

    Relating this to the crazy (11 now?) multi-dimensional world of string theories, What if you (applying my model of GPV (gravitational perfect vacuum)) remove the speed limit of photons (for very small wave/particle thingies -strings i guess), and conceptualize anything BEYOND the universe as absolute ∞ and 0 at the same instance (sorry for the time reference lol) In this GPV state, wave/particle duality rules applying, what would stop these little guys from moving through space, into GPV and coming back again, passing through GPV instantaneously? [We sorta think most quarks disappeared shortly after the ripple or inflation or whatever you want to call it. I can't recall ever knowing where the energy went, is it accounted for? any help here...] Anyway a particle. now it has something of incongruency (for lack of a better word) in relation to GPV. I will not dare to say mass, size, etc. This "particle" is able slip through the disruption of material space, hits GPV where it becomes a true wave, and transfers energy to another part of "space" where it becomes material again. Seemingly breaking the speed barrier. I am not really talking about wormholes, as this is absolutely and always will be science-fiction. I am saying the there are these tiny holes everywhere, you just have to be miniscule enough to fall through them if your mass approaches 0 or ∞ close enough, you start to leak, sort of like diffusion of like- things. A

    As the ripple of the universe travels, it is flattening out. Entropy occurs, and with it, things become uniformly disordered. Everything breaks down more and more, and with it, the resistance become less and less, kinda like a superfluid, but not really as this gets closer to any given co-ordinate has 0 mass, and having near infinite acceleration (kiss the speed of light goodby here!) Its starts to leak more and more until ZAP! Its all one big perfect GPV or pre-universe state again.
    I don't see the need for 11 dimensions as proposed in M theory. This tunnelling doesn't require a dimension at all, and in a pre-universe state like GPV, there are no dimensions at all, or they are united -however you want to look at it.

    None of this explains what caused the ripple that got us here in the first place, and although we seem to have memory of the past, like all energy/matter/space does (giving us the deep insight we seem to have inside) we don't (i don't at least) have that instinctual feeling for what brought this into being. I would almost say god blew on a puddle of water... What if the smallest things, are actually the largest things? Its all upside-down topsy-turvy again once I look a bit deeper.

    Wish I had more TIME to edit/expand/revise, but i have work to do! (Whadda hypocrite you say! lol)
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2010 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You do, of course, agree that you are seeing light from the past, right? As long as we're clear on that, it's just two different ways to look at the same issue. It doesn't really have any bearing on whether time is a dimension or not.
    Well, no. You can actually measure it with a pair of clocks, if the clocks are accurate enough. It can't be a trick/illusion.
    I think you need to take another look at the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to come up with accurate descriptions of how the universe works. So all we can ask of a theory is that it is internally consistent and makes testable and accurate predictions. Relativity does that. What it predicts is what is seen. Therefore it meets the requirements of a good scientific theory.
  4. Feb 19, 2010 #3
    "Well, no. You can actually measure it with a pair of clocks, if the clocks are accurate enough. It can't be a trick/illusion. "

    Ok. Im not saying that it IS a trick per say, I just wonder if we applied a (theoretical) model other than light as a reference. If you were able to measure the two clocks at the same instance, and you could tx/rx the data absolutely instantaneously, would the clocks not tick in perfect unison still?

    I don't recall exactly, but I remember something about 2 waves travelling apart but in unison, or something (faint memory of reading this somewhere) communicating (or remaining sync'd) over vast distance...

    I know the rules, I am just saying if we change the rules, to see if any other outcomes make sense... Perhaps what we see right now is wrong, and its wrong because of how we perceive it.

    What if the "end" of this universe is an inverse of the beginning, but not like in a cyclic model way. What if the ultimate expansion lead to the same result as the pre-universe state? I know it doesn't really make sense, but it poses debate, makes you twist your head around a little, and no harm can come of that. I love Einstein dearly, but I don't think he would have opposed challenge, not matter how far fetched...

    Its one way new things are discovered, progress is made, etc. Start with a lame brain like myself, and get the ball rolling.

    But you are entirely absolutely right! (And I do have a grasp of how time/space converge at a singularity...)

    I know I am throwing darts in the wind, but just remember that there are likely more possible connects in the human mind than base elements in the universe.... If we can start to bend our heads around these kinds of concepts, we might realize things like the way we measure can never truly define the reality of things, because even the tool is going to change the outcome/impose limits. In my thinking, this builds a nice foundation, until we reach the limit of the material tool. When we try to observe something with this tool that is beyond its ability, we are obviously going to have flawed results (like the experiment where we measure twice with a ruler...) Once we know the limit of the tool, we are poking in the dark after that, (like trying to see a small virus with a light microscope) which is exactly what we are doing right now in discussing things like a pre-universe state, or gravity...

    We don't know exactly what something like gravity is (at least i don't).We measure the effects of it... But what if gravity leaks? What if gravity is an inverse displacement?

    People like me need people like you to set them straight, else it would be a pretty crazy looking world!

    Sorry, I forgot to add. I don't think delving into things such as a pre-universe state is science per say, as we have now way to measure it. I guess this is more the realm of philosophy, but it sparks the science -I don't in anyway call myself a scientist (except I do the weather lol) I am just a little rabbit...
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2010
  5. Feb 19, 2010 #4
    I should explain this GPV. a little. A state of things where x,y,z don't really relate. Co-ordinates all exist simultaneously, yet not at all space is ∞, density is ∞... everything is ∞ and 0 at the same time. There is no memory. There is no progression time.
  6. Feb 20, 2010 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, they wouldn't. Since the tick rate is different, time dilation is an accumulated effect. If you put clocks at the top and bottom of a tower, and look at them tomorrow, you might find them 5 nanoseconds apart (for example). Look at them a week from now and you would find them 35 nanoseconds apart. Look at them a month from now and you'd find them 350 nanoseconds apart.

    Clearly, that has nothing to do with the trasmission delay, as the distance is fixed.
    We didn't write the rules. Whether they were written by God or just Are, we are not at liberty to change them. We can only attempt to understand them.

    None of the rest of your post has anything to do with time dilation.
  7. Feb 20, 2010 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's gibberish, but more importantly, this forum is a place for gaining and understanding of physics, not for making it up as you go along. We do not explore unverified personal theories here.
  8. Feb 20, 2010 #7
    1. Physics isn't done through idle speculation.
    2. Personal theories are against the rules of this forum.
    3. If they were allowed, you still haven't made any attempt at a mathematical formulation of your ideas, addressed any evidence for your ideas, shown that they are self consistent, shown that they are consistent with current ideas of physics etc.
    4. I grow very very tired of reading threads like this. Your question is not about your nagging doubts, it's a presentation of a crackpot idea that you just cooked up. The reason there are so many armchair physicists and so few real physicists, is because you actually have to dedicate many years of your life to understanding what is already known, before you can even begin to consider ideas of your own.
  9. Feb 24, 2010 #8
    I apologize for this post, I should have read the rules and understood what I was posting TO. It was inappropriate and had no place in this forum.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook