"Time in a bottle", explanation for fermi paradox and why drake eq..

Recommended Posts

Well yeah, except that.. the speed of light depends highly on the medium it goes through (completely stops on walls), id imagine gravity has a similar effect relative to the observer.

One should be able to calculate the speed of a gravitational wave in non-vacuum backgrounds. As most of space is empty, people usually just think about vacuum backgrounds. As the gravitational interaction is weak, I expect that any deviation for c will in general be small. This is clearly not the case for electromagnetic radiation.

Share on other sites

One should be able to calculate the speed of a gravitational wave in non-vacuum backgrounds. As most of space is empty, people usually just think about vacuum backgrounds. As the gravitational interaction is weak, I expect that any deviation for c will in general be small. This is clearly not the case for electromagnetic radiation.

The initial problem is containing the "space/time" i know that. But *obviously it can be done. My suggestion is really just seeing what we can do or come close to with our current technology and see if we can hold it for any amount of time in electromagnet containment. Similar to what they use for fusion chambers. Go from there.

Share on other sites

I am not sure what you even mean by 'containing the space-time'.

The analogy with electromagnetic containment of charged particles is flawed. One can confine particles (massive say) to a local region using a gravitational well, for example you can think about Lagrangian points. But is this really confining the space-time itself?

You can use energy-momentum to effect the local geometry, but I am not exactly sure what geometry you are looking for. Then one would have to see if the matter/field content is physical.

Share on other sites

Time has a charge, equal but different than electromagnetism. Thats why it flows, my guess is its dependant on the local geometry separate from the universe as a whole. (Alternate dimension)

Share on other sites

Time doesn't have a charge, nor does it have a particle.

Share on other sites

Time doesn't have a charge, nor does it have a particle.

Than explain time flow.

Share on other sites

Time has a charge,

In a sense yes, for systems that are invariant under time translations. In general relativity this is more subtle... the charge you speak of is the energy (or Hamiltonian)

...equal but different than electromagnetism.

No, it is very different to electric charge. The units are different for a start! Just some aspect of the mathematics are similar, in particular symmetries, conservation laws and Noether's theorem.

Thats why it flows, my guess is its dependant on the local geometry separate from the universe as a whole. (Alternate dimension)

You must be careful now not to mix coordinate time and proper time as measured by an observer. Sometime coordinate time can be seen as a proper time for some chosen observers, but not always.

Share on other sites

How can you explain the flow of time without implying a charge? (Past and future), + -

Share on other sites

How can you explain the flow of time without implying a charge? (Past and future), + -

Can you explain the flow of time using a charge?

Share on other sites

Can you explain the flow of time using a charge?

Just its relationship with electromagnetism (not some force but very different cousin)

Time flows through space and makes gravity like electrons going through metals make electromagnetic waves.

Share on other sites

Time flows through space and makes gravity like electrons going through metals make electromagnetic waves.

You want to think of 'time particles' and their current as gravity?

Well, if so you will have to construct a model that has such an interpretation. How does this model sit with general relativity (which is what I thought we were discussing)? If we have 'time particles' what about 'space particles'?

Share on other sites

Ironically i think its one per galaxy or whatever but it goes so fast it hits every "space" within it in our interpretation of the smallest of a second. It being so fast and small is of course why well never find it.

Share on other sites

Ironically i think its one per galaxy or whatever but it goes so fast it hits every "space" within it in our interpretation of the smallest of a second. It being so fast and small is of course why well never find it.

Time to put up or shut up...

What models do you have for this? Can you make predictions of this 'one per galaxy'? Do these models sit well will general relativity and observational cosmology? In short, where is any of this coming from?

Share on other sites

Time to put up or shut up...

What models do you have for this? Can you make predictions of this 'one per galaxy'? Do these models sit well will general relativity and observational cosmology? In short, where is any of this coming from?

i think multiple time particles exist, but.. the chances of them affecting a local area enough to notice are significantly lower than the whole galaxy's flow of time. This possibly explains why some galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light( the relative speed of light's difference between both planes are so different, that it kinda just appears that way)

in other words it seems like such a long distance from galaxy to galaxy because its flow of time is *negligible from our perspective.

it should fit in with relativity, i dont see why not.

Edited by sonjouten05
Share on other sites

i think multiple time particles exist, but..

But why do you think this?

Do you have a model or just some very loose ideas?

Share on other sites

But why do you think this?Do you have a model or just some very loose ideas?

Mostly due to its similarities to electromagnetism, and the fact that time has an "obvious flow" to it. The tricky part but totally cool, gravitational semi conductors, capable of computing literally on a whole nother level.

Edited by sonjouten05
Share on other sites

Mostly due to its similarities to electromagnetism,

There are lots of similarities between electromagnetism and general relativity, on this I agree. Mathematically this is fascinating, but there are important differences, mostly in that the actions are very different. Thus, you cannot simply take what you known in electromagnetism and apply it so directly to general relativity. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't. Anyway, you have to be more careful in how you 'translate results' between the two.

So, the closest analogy that you have stumbled on is the following (which is true)

accelerated electric charges produce electromagnet waves <-> accelerated gravitational charges (ie particles/fields with non-zero energy-momentum) produce gravitational waves.

and the fact that time has an "obvious flow" to ir.

I think you are getting at the arrow of time, which is a question not fully solved. It seems that this arrow is due to thermodynamics and entropy.

The tricky part but totally cool, gravitational semi conductors, capable of computing literally on a whole nother level.

Well, without any proper model it is not clear what you mean by any of this.

Can I assume you actually have little idea of what you are suggesting? That is, you do not have some model for any of this? Nor is any of this based on existing models or any experiments or observations. Meaning that you have just made stuff up?

This is important and you should consult the forum rules once more.