Jump to content

Space is what time looks like


Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

Maybe I am missing the obvious, but it seems space and gravity are going in opposite directions; out and in, up and down. Gravity is the emergent principle of matter. What if space is the emergent principle of time? If gravity is what matter feels like, then space is what time looks like.

 

A lot of things fall into place for me by looking at it this way.

 

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Eli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of things fall into place for me by looking at it this way.

 

 

"Fall" into place. Very good. :)

 

So, here's the thing. There is an extremely powerful theory that treats space and time as dimensions, and gravity as a result of the geometry of space-time. The theory has been repeatedly tested and makes very accurate predictions.

 

I'm not quite sure what your (rather vague) description adds to that.

 

 

 

space and gravity are going in opposite directions; out and in, up and down.

 

I'm not sure what that means. Neither space nor gravity are going anywhere.

 

 

 

Gravity is the emergent principle of matter.

 

Gravity is how we perceive curved space-time. Matter (more accurately, mass) can cause this curvature, as can energy.

 

 

 

What if space is the emergent principle of time?

 

Space and time are equal components of space-time. They might both be emergent from some lower-level theory of quantum gravity, but currently they seem to be, pretty much, on an equal footing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good. Time and space are equal. Time appears linear; there's more of it than when it began. There must be more space too. Is it possible that in every instance of time a new space field is created for the one that preceded it? Is this inflation, what we perceive as the increase in distance between objects over time?

 

I think we agree Thanks for the feedback! Apologies for not making sense. It's probably because I'm an English major :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Maybe I am missing the obvious, but it seems space and gravity are going in opposite directions; out and in, up and down. Gravity is the emergent principle of matter. What if space is the emergent principle of time? If gravity is what matter feels like, then space is what time looks like.

 

A lot of things fall into place for me by looking at it this way.

 

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Eli

"space is what time looks like" I like that. Unfortunately I am not a reference.

Yes I think that what we see all around and call "space" is (also) time. Unfortunately (again) once pronounced, the statement is difficult to resist the attacks.

but it seems space and gravity are going in opposite directions; out and in, up and down

 

I almost understand and then no, I don't. What I like to say is that Time has an outward direction. What you observe far from you lies in the past. What you observe close to you lies in the present, and what is on the opposite of far away (what is that??) lies in the future. You cannot observe the future.

What I call "far from you and lies in the past" is what we call "space".

What I call "close to you lies in the present" is also called "space"

What is "on the opposite of far away" is negative space. It does not exist and negative time doesn't exist either.

Edited by michel123456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the comments and perspective.

 

I believe there is room in accepted science for this idea and others. Because no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time every quantum particle occupies one space field. Yet matter is finite, so time continues to produce vacant space fields. A space field occupied by a particle is two fields in the next instance (one occupied, one vacant), four fields in the next instance (one occupied, three vacant), etc. Maybe we see that as both historical inflation and current metric expansion.

 

I expect this will be the quantum contribution. Everything comes in indivisible units; matter, gravity, time, space, light, etc. Less than that doesn't exist in this universe.

Edited by CarbonBasedOverlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time every quantum particle occupies one space field.

We have Bose-Einstein condensates. And what is a space field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know too! To me, a space field is an area of our universe with at least one Planck length dimension. Space fields are created within a Planck time.

 

A low-energy BEC may lose sufficient mass to allow two particles to share a space field, or one particle to slip from its field and disappear from space. It would be interesting to know.

 

Sometimes matter disappears from space and time altogether in one of Wheeler's mini-micro black holes. Perhaps a collider will produce matter smaller than the Schwarzchild radius with the density of a black hole able to slip through the fabric of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space as an emergent property of time seems to make a lot of sense. We aren't separated from the nearest star by three light years but simply by three years. I've been playing around with the concept of gravity as a property of matter for some time now. Then all we really need is a link between matter and time. A tiny amount of matter would equal a great amount of time.

 

I don't believe modern science can address this directly because it lies far outside our metaphysics. Space exists axiomatically in three dimensions. Our formulae are based on this perspective.

 

I might be able to find a link to an Australian metaphysician who has proposed something very similar to your work.


You'll probably find this pretty interesting.

 

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/the-philosophy-of-the-bloody-obvious-by-johann-de-jong/

Edited by cladking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long.

Space as an emergent property of time seems to make a lot of sense. We aren't separated from the nearest star by three light years but simply by three years. I've been playing around with the concept of gravity as a property of matter for some time now. Then all we really need is a link between matter and time. A tiny amount of matter would equal a great amount of time.

 

I don't believe modern science can address this directly because it lies far outside our metaphysics. Space exists axiomatically in three dimensions. Our formulae are based on this perspective.

I think it is possible to directly link time and gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know too! To me, a space field is an area of our universe with at least one Planck length dimension. Space fields are created within a Planck time.

So, once again this section has become the 'make any cr*p up' section. :(

 

 

 

I think it is possible to directly link time and gravity.

General relativity does that... unless you meant something else?

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is room in accepted science for this idea and others.

 

 

Only if you have a mathematical model that you can test against observation. It does;t sound like you do, so it isn't science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is room in accepted science for this idea and others.

 

Until you can match the criteria that other ideas match in order to become "accepted" science, then your idea doesn't deserve the room. Nothing personal, but this is not rigorous methodology.

 

Over the years I've tried to say this many ways, but if you're interested in "accepted science" then you should study it formally, not in dribs and drabs of popular science articles on the internet. That's a horrible way to study science.

 

Those articles are supposed to be followed up by research into the basics you don't understand. Instead, too many people get lazy and fill in the gaps in their knowledge by just making up whatever they need to force an explanation to make sense to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you enjoy people boasting about their profound ignorance, maybe.

 

Damn - that is one bad article. Dunning and Kruger have found themselves a Champion! I particularly like the idea of putting quotations around a phrase that is hugely changed from the most common formulation - furthermore the provenance of which is actually disputed and was probably attributed only through spite. Is actually reading your sources unfashionable and too much like hard work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, once again this section has become the 'make any cr*p up' section. :(

 

 

 

 

General relativity does that... unless you meant something else?

In my understanding GR shows how gravity affects time. I don't even know if the reverse stands.

I meant something more profound: that if you have time you must have gravity and reversely. You cannot have the one without the other. Does GR say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my understanding GR shows how gravity affects time. I don't even know if the reverse stands.

I meant something more profound: that if you have time you must have gravity and reversely. You cannot have the one without the other. Does GR say that?

 

 

Gravity is not a separate thing that affects time.

 

Space-time becomes curved in the presence of mass (or energy). One consequence of this is that different observers will see different amounts of time pass. Another consequence of this is the effect we call "gravity".

 

Gravity is space and time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my understanding GR shows how gravity affects time. I don't even know if the reverse stands.

I meant something more profound: that if you have time you must have gravity and reversely. You cannot have the one without the other. Does GR say that?

Like what Strange says...

 

The two are not so easy to separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly as I expected; No one offers an obvious reason not to consider space the emergent principle of time, the biggest complaint being the idea occurred to someone with imagination and a library card instead of someone who had memorized a lot of math. Success! "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." Kierkegaard

 

I've referred to space field creation as explanation for inflation an expansion.

 

This model would interpret the anticipated release of radiation at the LHC collision as Hawking Radiation.

 

This model predicts an explanation of the relationship between time and the effects of gravity. In areas of the universe where matter (and gravity/curved space) are scare, one would expect time to travel more quickly and could be measured by an increased rate of inflation in these areas. As inflation weakens the ability of gravity/curved space to slow time the duration of the smallest instance of time decreases and the pace of space field creation increases. This period of hyper-inflation continues until instances in time approach a duration of zero and time effectively stops. Observers from time still under the influence of gravity will observe time stopping with the sudden cessation of inflation and its reversal in vacant regions of space marked by a blue shift in light from the stars beyond the vacant region.

 

"Everything must be based on a simple idea. Once we have finally discovered it, [it] will be so compelling, so beautiful, that we will say to one another, yes, how could it have been any different." John Wheeler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly as I expected; No one offers an obvious reason not to consider space the emergent principle of time, the biggest complaint being the idea occurred to someone with imagination and a library card instead of someone who had memorized a lot of math. Success!

 

"You need supportive evidence" is NOT "Oh, your great big intuitive imagination saved the day and made all the eggheads look bad". That's your imagination in overdrive, and some serious justification for falling asleep in physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okidoki. Time stops and light shifts from red to blue in areas of the universe devoid of matter greater than 4 billion light years in diameter.

 

I based this testable prediction on a Q&A session I attended with the guy at Hanford who has detected 2 gravitational waves. One of the waves is from a cosmic event (2 black holes coalescing) 1.8 billion light years away and was registered with an impact equivalent to one proton striking the surface of the Earth... Now, I was in the back of the room with imperfect hearing, so the figures may be off, and I didn't ask the question, but I would suspect the gravitational wave would dwindle further to nothing. That said, gravitational waves are not created equally, and no doubt the distance from a gravitational source necessary for time to stop varies, but this is a good place to start. If a location for the cosmic event 1.8b light years away can be concluded, that's where I would look to observe the shift from red to blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okidoki. Time stops and light shifts from red to blue in areas of the universe devoid of matter greater than 4 billion light years in diameter.

 

 

The largest "supervoid" so far found is about 1.8 billion light years across. Also, voids are not empty, they just contain slightly less matter than other areas. So your suggestions is not really testable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11550868/Giant-mysterious-empty-hole-found-in-universe.html

 

 

 

I based this testable prediction on a Q&A session I attended with the guy at Hanford who has detected 2 gravitational waves. One of the waves is from a cosmic event (2 black holes coalescing) 1.8 billion light years away and was registered with an impact equivalent to one proton striking the surface of the Earth...

 

The two events detected so far were 1.3 and 1.4 billion light years away (just a detail).

 

But I don't see why you think the detection of black holes colliding is relevant to your idea. Can you explain that?

 

 

 

that's where I would look to observe the shift from red to blue.

 

There is a very close correlation between distance and increasing red-shift. The only place where we see blue shift is where local galaxies (e.g. Andromeda) are moving towards us.

 

So it sounds like your (vague) prediction fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This model ....

 

This model predicts ...

If you actually have a model that show that 'space is an emergent principle of time', then why didn't you say so ? Lets see it please.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravity is not a separate thing that affects time.

 

Space-time becomes curved in the presence of mass (or energy). One consequence of this is that different observers will see different amounts of time pass. Another consequence of this is the effect we call "gravity".

 

Gravity is space and time.

Oh. I thought gravity was a property of mass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.