# Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

Of course. What you are saying is like saying at l=0, width can't exist. It makes no logical sense.
On my desk I have a pink elephant that existed for a time of zero duration... eh?
You think something existing when there is no time for it to exist is logical?

Look, if I had a universe that existed for zero seconds. Did that universe exist?

On my desk I have a pink elephant that existed for a time of zero duration... eh?
You think something existing when there is no time for it to exist is illogical?

Look, if I have a universe that exists for zero seconds does that universe exist?
You're the only person saying that things exist for 0 duration.

You are taking a mathematical picture of a single instant and claiming that it is the entirety of physics.

The problem here is you.

You're the only person saying that things exist for 0 duration.

You are taking a mathematical picture of a single instant and claiming that it is the entirety of physics.

The problem here is you.
Do you enjoy physics PhysBang?
Do you like seeing how thing s work and understanding the principles behind them.?
Time is fascinating isn't it...?

When you consider that the physical moment as described by the light cones is zero duration it opens up all sorts of issues doesn't it?
or perhaps you aren't interested in physics after all?
You certainly read as if you are totally uninterested in the field... IMO
Me... well i don't take anything for granted. If I see an issue I discuss it...

You probably missed this post, your boredom and ego blinding you perhaps:
Every one else can see it, why can't you?
t=0 duration means that distance = 0
This can be supported empirically by the phenomena of FTL Quantum entanglement as evidence by Quantum Mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

"Spooky action at a distance" ~A.E
It provides a possible theoretical mechanism for this phenomena of zero distance between two half particles...[where "apparent" distance exists but only if t= > 0 duration ]
and the potential of a generally entangled universe.

Do you enjoy physics PhysBang?
Do you like seeing how thing s work and understanding the principles behind them.?
Time is fascinating isn't it...?

When you consider that the physical moment as described by the light cones is zero duration it opens up all sorts of issues doesn't it?
or perhaps you aren't interested in physics after all?
You certainly read as if you are totally uninterested in the field... IMO
Me... well i don't take anything for granted. If I see an issue I discuss it...

You probably missed this post, your boredom and ego blinding you perhaps:
Every one else can see it, why can't you?
You write as if you have never, ever done a physics problem in your life. If you had, then you would realize that many of your questions have nothing at all to do with the foundations of physics; they are merely your willful ignorance.

You're the only person saying that things exist for 0 duration.

You are taking a mathematical picture of a single instant and claiming that it is the entirety of physics.

The problem here is you.

Yep. Sounds like he's trying to express his confusion over infinitesimals.

You write as if you have never, ever done a physics problem in your life. If you had, then you would realize that many of your questions have nothing at all to do with the foundations of physics; they are merely your willful ignorance.

If that is the best you can do then that is the best you can do, thanks for your participation.

Yep. Sounds like he's trying to express his confusion over infinitesimals.
nope. the light cones diagram describe it perfectly....
especially if you wish to discuss photon propagation and how even photons can't exist with out duration of time to exist in.

No infinitesimals in sight!

If I had a universe that existed for zero seconds. Did that universe exist?
then refer to the light cone diagram and ask the same question...

and the obvious answer is no...
beep beep! public announcement
"At precisely 10 am yesterday morning the universe was cancelled, please try again later..."

On my desk I have a pink elephant that existed for a time of zero duration... eh?
You think something existing when there is no time for it to exist is logical?

Look, if I had a universe that existed for zero seconds. Did that universe exist?
That's not what the diagram is about and not what it says. The diagram shows a single instant in the object's unspecified duration of existence.

It is 9:10 here and my alarm went off at 9:00 to wake me up. That event can be put onto a spacetime diagram and has nothing to do with how long I've been awake or how long I have existed.

This is just you assuming your misunderstanding of how physics works is actually a flaw in physics.

You are asking a silly question. So here is your silly answer, if t=0, that is there is no time then there is no space-time and there is no universe. The real point is the diagram you are refering to does not show zero time it shows an instant in time. It is like a photograph this shows an instant in time. How long is that instant, well that is determined by how long the shutter is open. A typical shutter is open about 1/250 of a second. You can go to 1/1000 of a second so you go from t=0.025 to t=0.001 sec. Now at t=0 the shutter never opens you get no picture. This is all sort of obvious so I think you just need to rethink how you are looking a this and physics in general.

nope. the light cones diagram describe it perfectly....
especially if you wish to discuss photon propagation and how even photons can't exist with out duration of time to exist in.

No infinitesimals in sight!

If I had a universe that existed for zero seconds. Did that universe exist?
then refer to the light cone diagram and ask the same question...

and the obvious answer is no...
beep beep! public announcement
"At precisely 10 am yesterday morning the universe was cancelled, please try again later..."

Nice diagram. To bad you can't figure out what it means.

You're the only person saying that things exist for 0 duration.

You are taking a mathematical picture of a single instant and claiming that it is the entirety of physics.

The problem here is you.

If this mathematical thing existed before time and physics, there stands only a single logical solution that this mathematical thing is time and physics if it doesn't exist now and appears illogical.

Especially when the foundation of mathematical principals lies somewhere between probability and statistics and we base our most likely scenarios upon confidence and efficiency.

If that is the best you can do then that is the best you can do, thanks for your participation.
There is nothing I can do to tell you about physics if you never want to learn any physics.

You are saying the equivalent of "How can Hamlet be an entire play when it is only written one letter at a time?"

If this mathematical thing existed before time and physics, there stands only a single logical solution that this mathematical thing is time and physics if it doesn't exist now and appears illogical.
That is not even English.

You are asking a silly question. So here is your silly answer, if t=0, that is there is no time then there is no space-time and there is no universe. The real point is the diagram you are refering to does not show zero time it shows an instant in time. It is like a photograph this shows an instant in time. How long is that instant, well that is determined by how long the shutter is open. A typical shutter is open about 1/250 of a second. You can go to 1/1000 of a second so you go from t=0.025 to t=0.001 sec. Now at t=0 the shutter never opens you get no picture. This is all sort of obvious so I think you just need to rethink how you are looking a this and physics in general.

That is exactly what I meant by failing to understand the concept of an infinitesimal. "Instant" is a better word. But that was a good example. PhysBang is addressing QQ's lack of physics, but this to me looks more like a more fundamental deficiency that needs a course in math, covering limits at least, to even understand what you mean. I think the typical student couldn't make it physics without at least some inkling about what calculus is. That's where QQ is really lost.

There is nothing I can do to tell you about physics if you never want to learn any physics.

You are saying the equivalent of "How can Hamlet be an entire play when it is only written one letter at a time?"

Similarly, how can a line have length when each of its constituent points has zero length. And if they have zero length, how they connect, one to the other to produce a continuum. But your way of saying it overcomes the math deficiency at work here.

Similarly, how can a line have length when each of its constituent points has zero length. And if they have zero length, how they connect, one to the other to produce a continuum.

That little pop you heard was you blowing QQ's mind.

nope. the light cones diagram describe it perfectly....
especially if you wish to discuss photon propagation and how even photons can't exist with out duration of time to exist in.

No infinitesimals in sight!

If I had a universe that existed for zero seconds. Did that universe exist?
then refer to the light cone diagram and ask the same question...

and the obvious answer is no...
beep beep! public announcement
"At precisely 10 am yesterday morning the universe was cancelled, please try again later..."

The hypersurface [plane] is 'now'. The present. Thats the only reference to time needed to use this diagram of the light cone. There is no t=0 so we don't need to play Reiku games when we discuss what this hypersurface means with respect to time. If we want to meter the passage of 'now' to 'now' we use the cosmological FRLW metric which meters the evolution of the observable universe. The timelike component of the 'light cone diagram' includes everything in the observable universe. The spacelike component of the 'light cone diagram' represents the unobservable component of our universe. The lightlike boundary between the timelike and spacelike components represents an event horizon.

Last edited:
The hypersurface [plane] is 'now'. The present. Thats the only reference to time needed to use this diagram of the light cone. There is no t=0 so we don't need to play Reiku games when we discuss what this hypersurface means with respect to time.

who is Reiku? Sorry please don't answer that. I think I recall many years ago a member of that name... how many years ago? Uhm... had a theory about tracheons or the Luxen hypothesis or something like that.
If we want to meter the passage of 'now' to 'now' we use the cosmological FRLW metric which meters the evolution of the observable universe.
If we did then we probably would but I am not that worried about "now to now" in regards to this thread. My concern is how science deals with a HSP that is zero duration:
"At exactly 10 am yesterday the universe was cancelled due to time not having ant time duration"

The timelike component of the 'light cone diagram' includes everything in the observable universe. The spacelike component of the 'light cone diagram' represents the unobservable component of our universe. The lightlike boundary between the timelike and spacelike components represents an event horizon.

ahh finally , thanks Brucep the first reasonable response after 56 posts to this thread.

Brucep you mention three "components"
1. time like
2. spacelike
3. lightlike

and most of all you mention that the light like component represents an event horizon.

ahh! the magical words "Event horizon" of zero duration perhaps...a continuum of movement/change which according to the light cones diagram must be at the rate of 'c'.

My apologies, I should have remembered this key phrase when writing the OP "Event Horizon"

Can you offer a more detailed explanation of those three components?

The question of this thread was to discover how mathematics/ physics can describe this continuous "event horizon" [so we have finally worked out... thanks!]

How does the math describe the t=0 duration of the HSP and the continuum of change, needed for the (observers) universe to exist?

Do you know of the title of theoretics?

Is there a physics or math field for "Describing an Event Horizon"?
The wiki article available just doesn't seem to be relevant other than a preamble (overview):
In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In layman's terms, it is defined as "the point of no return", i.e., the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible. The most common case of an event horizon is that surrounding a black hole. Light emitted from beyond the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. Likewise, any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time.

More specific types of horizon include the related but distinct absolute and apparent horizons found around a black hole. Still other distinct notions include the Cauchy and Killing horizon; the photon spheres and ergospheres of the Kerr solution; particle and cosmological horizons relevant to cosmology; and isolated and dynamical horizons important in current black hole research.
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

Oh and that scientist I referred to incorrectly whose name sounded like"Da Witter" is apparently:

Willem de Sitter 1872-1934

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter
who made many contributions to science regarding event horizons...
De Sitter Space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space
De Sitter Universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_Universe

and a few others...

and whilst he does not directly refer to the issue of a t=0 duration HSP it is mentioned by implication in his thoughts on event horizons for black holes etc...
and I won't pretend to comprehend the math he uses...but I am sure some of it is applicable to this threads OP.

No, no, and no. There's no need to invoke even more complicated ideas to resolve a simple misunderstanding. If you can't even understand light cones, it's ridiculous to go further still and try relating them to quantum entanglement or de Sitter spaces. Your questions about time could be asked of classical Newtonian physics just as easily, and you could raise the exact same illogical objections. The oberver exists over a finite nonzero duration of time, and the light cone represents the points where events occuring at various times can affect them at the present moment or be affected by what they're doing at that moment, given that no information can be carried from one event to another faster than light. Please, no more of this stupid "t=0 duration" crap, that's not what the light cone says.