Time Traveler

Subject: Defining the Processing Rate (Phi) – Mathematical Framework and Testable Predictions Following the feedback from @swansont and @studiot, I would like to formalize the "Time as a Processing Rate" framework and move beyond a purely conceptual description. 1. The Mathematical Relation To address the 'go/no-go' critique, I am introducing a functional relationship between Energy Density (rho) and the Vacuum Processing Rate (Phi). If time is emergent from quantum fluctuations, and mass-energy "occupies" the bandwidth of these fluctuations, we can model the local rate of time as: Phi(rho) = Phi_0 * exp(-rho / rho_P) Where: Phi_0 is the base processing rate of the "empty" vacuum (the Planck frequency). rho is the local energy density. rho_P is the Planck density. In this model, the time interval dt is not a fundamental dimension, but the inverse of this rate: dt = 1 / Phi(rho) 2. Response to the "Time vs. Change" Argument (@studiot) The objection that time and change are independent variables is addressed here by defining Quantum Fluctuations as the fundamental change. Even in a "static" macro-system, the vacuum is in a state of constant flux. If these fluctuations were to cease (Phi -> 0), the time interval dt would tend to infinity, effectively "freezing" the system out of the causal universe. Thus, time is the rate at which the vacuum updates its state. 3. Testable Prediction: The CMB "Resolution Limit" A specific prediction of this model concerns the early universe. As rho approaches rho_P, the processing rate Phi drops significantly (a "computational lag" due to extreme density). Prediction: There should be a measurable "cut-off" in the power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) at extremely high multipoles (l). Mechanism: Because the vacuum had a diminished "sampling rate" during the highest density phases, it could not support or "process" fluctuations below a certain spatial scale. Testing: This can be verified by analyzing CMB data for a lack of granularity at scales where General Relativity predicts it should still exist. 4. Why this differs from General Relativity While GR uses the metric tensor to describe curvature, this model suggests that gravity is an emergent effect of bandwidth saturation. Time dilation is not "stretching space," but the local medium "slowing down" its update frequency because it is processing a high density of information (mass-energy). I am curious if this exponential decay of Phi in relation to density offers a viable way to reconcile the FLRW metric with a discrete, computational vacuum. (Note: I’ve used an AI assistant to help formalize the mathematical notation and structure this response based on my core axioms.)

I am presenting this framework to determine if it has any merit or if it should be discarded due to fundamental logical flaws. I am looking for a 'go/no-go' critique based on the following axioms: 1. The Axiom of Time: Time is not a dimension, but a Processing Rate (Φ). Formula: dt=1/Φ In this view, 'time dilation' is a local reduction in the vacuum's update frequency due to high informational density (mass-energy). 2. The Invariance of c: The speed of light is the Maximum Processing Speed of the medium. An observer measures c as constant because the observer's own 'perception cycles' (biological or mechanical) are throttled by the same local Φ. Logic Check: Does this 'internal observer' logic hold up against the Lorentz transformations? 3. Mass-Energy Conservation (The Engineering Link): In a closed computational system, 'double-counting' (redundancy) is impossible. Mass-energy conservation is the conservation of System Bandwidth. Conclusion & Request: If this model contradicts the FLRW metric or the Equivalence Principle in a way that cannot be reconciled, I am prepared to discard it. If not, how can we mathematically define the 'update frequency' of the vacuum to match observed gravitational redshift?"

Thank you both for these profound insights. To the second point: I completely agree that mathematical proofs are the bedrock of any serious theory. My goal isn't to bypass the math, but to find if there's a physical interpretation that remains consistent with it while addressing the 'double-counting' paradox from a logical standpoint. I take to heart the advice about studying statistical mechanics to demystify QM—it’s a bridge I intend to cross. To the first point: The Feynman quote is humbling. I realize that 'common sense' is often just a collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. However, my 'engineering bias' isn't a rejection of modern physics, but rather a drive to find the mechanical 'why' behind the abstract 'how'. If the rules of this universe are counterintuitive, the challenge is to refine our intuition, not to ignore the rules. I am curious: if we treat spacetime not just as a coordinate system but as a dynamic participant in energy conservation, does the 'mathematical vs. physical' gap start to close?

I realize my previous tone may have been sharp, and for that, I apologize. My perspective comes from 37 years of engineering, where mass balance and energy conservation are absolute. While I understand the mathematical models of spacetime, my focus is on the logical impossibility of 'double-counting' atoms in a closed system. I believe we are looking at the same reality from two different angles: one abstract-mathematical, one physical-energetic. Let's agree to disagree on the nature of the 'clock' versus the 'change'.

I agree with you with correction "...regardless of our collective inability.."

I am thinking at volume of space occupied of all atoms from our Universe... there is a center of mass of all atoms

Surface is not volume ...a finite volume has a center ...if I accept to extend my thinking from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional , not 4 dimensional who is a wrong interpretation of our Universe, then You should admit the Zeno paradox is true ....Achilles and the Tortoise ...In a race, the fastest runner can never overtake the slowest, because the pursuer must first reach the point where the pursued started, so the slowest must always have the advantage.

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) + all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum If I am wrong I wait arguments against

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

My point is that we will never observe simultaneity, even if the observed objects are at different distances of 1 Planck length one closer by us .That is why I said that we observe a mixture of different past times and not the same past time. In order to observe the present, the information carrier (light) should have infinite speed, and the transmission speeds from the eye to the brain and the speed of processing and coding of visual information to be infinite. ...and you are right we not need 'more truth' to survive and be observers and discover some nature's secrets. I didn't say our brain make a bad job for survive but our brain don't have capability of discover all nature secrets. About time , we live in present , we perceive a mixture of past different times , our brain makes a "correction" and we perceive the present and simultaneity ( a good trick of our brain) , we remember the past ,and travel into the future 1s/1s.Time is only a measure of changes ...remember all units of time are a fraction of a periodic change of something....Clocks are devices to compare who measure the change like a ruler who measure distances ...1 meter=1 unit from a change in position.With clocks we compare any change who has a speed of change . ( not all changes have a speed of change) . We can't travel in the past : Imagine a rock formed billion years ago who we " send" in the past , millions years ago...that rock will be there twice in same time and same Universe ...absurd Arrow of time is given of causality ...why we need complications with Entropy ...?

If you have arguments put them "on the table"...Sarcasm not give something good for our debate...I like to think here will be a debate ...

Ok ..Finally an argument ....My ridiculous mind tells me that there must be a center of expansion...maybe not in the observable universe

I I am feeling here is not a real intention of finding together the truth ... you want to someone tell you the truth and you only to reject or aprove...a wrong way ...sometime when you have no arguments you use an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument .Sometimes we can't see the forest because of the trees

I am trying to understand ( my humble opinion is that Big Bang theory is a nonsense) if someone smarter than me could explain if our universe was infinite all the time or was finite or wasn't at all 13.8 billions years ago . After that explanation I have other ask

I know nonsenses told of 'great scientists' are accepted of 'community of scientists' and truth told of an unknown is rejected if is not very well argued .I thought that a half-said truth would be completed, not rejected...I was wrong . The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time originated together 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years ago, with a fixed amount of energy and matter that became less dense as the Universe expanded. If something small is extended everywhere then in the Universe is there is a center ...that means we have an absolute coordinate system ... or not is the truth ?