What is "Time" made of?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wormsworth said:
I've thought about time a lot. My theory... time is a result of our universe being trapped in an extra dimensional black hole.

I started thinking about this after reading about multiple dimensions referred to in string theory (see "The elegant universe"). I wondered why we don't see these dimensions. String theory suggests that they are very very small circular dimensions. But I wondered why they couldn't be very large. Maybe we don't "see" these dimensions because they are time-like in nature. That is, we move through them in one direction and therefore we do not have a way to measure them... or in fact we measure them as time.

Then I read that when you enter a black hole (assuming you could), you are drawn to the singularity (center). This motion towards the singularity (center) is inevitable. In fact, this motion (dimensional direction) can be thought of as becoming time, since you are always drawn in one direction. Therefore, if you enter a black hole (past the event horizon), we could think of it as entering a 2-dimension universe. Where the normal 3rd dimension (towards the center) is now a one directional time dimension.

Of course, we don't live in a 2-dimensional universe as I described above. But, if the universe does contain more spatial dimensions (as string theory implies), isn't it possible that our entire universe is actually contained within a giant 4 dimensional black hole? In this case (following the thinking above), 3 dimensions would remain available for us to observe, but we would constantly be pulled in the 4th dimension in one direction. This single directional dimension is what we observe as time.

My actual theory is a bit longer then this. It includes explanations for the expanding universe, the speed of light (speed limit), increase in entropy, time-dilation (special/general relativity). It suggests that time really runs backwards, there is no real motion in the universe. It does not explain: our temporal awareness of time and why we have free choice.

...but I'll save myself the embarrassment of going on.
Click to expand...

WOW. That theory makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

Two things though;

1) won't the blackhole have to be a WHITEhole in order to explain the expansion of the universe? (This isn't really a theory-buster; it's just a suggested improvement.)

3) Doesn't this violate the concept of non-absolute time as put forward by the theory of relativity? In this blackhole-universe, there are no worldlines for any of the particles...

P.S: I don't see why this doesn't explain free will and awareness of time; they can fit easily into your theory.
 
time is made of the same thing movement is made of. because time is a measurement of motion. so i guess time is made of energy.
 
THOU

SHALL

NOT

COMMITETH

THREAD

NECROMANCY!

Thus sayeth the PRINCE.

Seriously: -5 year old thread-.
 
razz said:
Everything thats something is made of techno science psyco hard ta understand stuff..

yes very scientific of me i know... ok so heres my question..

What is "TIME" made of.
Click to expand...

asking what time is made of is like asking what the x coördinate is made of... time is a way for us to measure life cycles and events... we invented it. 'time' just happens IMO
 
sugar and spice, everything nice (just like little girls) - That is why women take so long to get dressed, go to bath room etc. They are made of time.


PS - Ask a dumb question - get a dumb answer.
 
Kron said:
WOW. That theory makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

Two things though;

1) won't the blackhole have to be a WHITEhole in order to explain the expansion of the universe? (This isn't really a theory-buster; it's just a suggested improvement.)

3) Doesn't this violate the concept of non-absolute time as put forward by the theory of relativity? In this blackhole-universe, there are no worldlines for any of the particles...

P.S: I don't see why this doesn't explain free will and awareness of time; they can fit easily into your theory.
Click to expand...

Answer 1) I'm not a huge fan of wormholes. So I can't answer that question. I do not believe the observable universe is closed. I believe there is a much bigger container which holds our universe. So in my opinion, matter captured by a blackhole does not need to appear somewhere else in the universe. This may bother space travel fans and conservation of energyist, but not me.

Answer 2 (3)) No it doesn't violate relativity. First particles entering a black hole do have a worldline. We just can't observe them when observed from outside the event horizon.

The other interesting fact about this idea is that any attempt to stop moving (accelleration in any direction) toward the singularity (center) actually increases the rate at which you reach it. In other words, acceleration = slowed time or forward time travel. Special relativity suggests the same type of effect. I wouldn't know how to calculate if these effects match in scale.

My bloated theory involves a thought game of falling all the way into the black hole. The entire universe is crushed down to the singularity. This point is the begging of time as we know it (big bangish). Then reverse everything to move forward in time. Since we are still under the event horizon, we would not experience the barrier of the event horizon. Instead all light reaching us would have originated from the singularity.

In this backwards world, our future is already written and therefore I can not explain free will. Or the reason we seem to be aware of states of this universe pulling away from the singularity instead of towards it.

Expanding Universe: They say that not only is the universe expanding, but it is accellerating. What the? This thought experiment explains it by showing that the surface area of the universe will expand at an accelerated rate based on a constant increase in the radial distance from the orgin (singularity). For example: I mean that if you continue to increase the radius of a baloon at a constant rate, the surface of the balloon will increase at an accellerated rate.

PS: I wouldn't base my reputation on this theory.
 
Sputnik said:
Time is simply made of a nonspatial one-dimensional continuum, in which events occur in an apparantly irreversible succesion ......

Spacetime takes a little longer to explain, so I will just give you a link :

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Click to expand...

My conjecture gives reason to this, implying that time is a spacial dimension. The reason we observe it as "non-spacial" is that we are pulled in one direction due to a great force (like gravity as passing the event horizon of a black hole).

Following this through (only as an analogy) and then reversing it, we see that we could slice up points along this dimension starting from the singularity and assign this as a time dimension. Then working backwards from the beginning of time (singularity) that slices (time) along this dimension would result in the effects we observe from time. That is: we can only observe, but not effect the past. 2) we can not observe, but have an effect on the future.

Yet, it doesn't begin to explain our temporal observation of time. But then again... what in physics does?
 
Wormsworth said:
Answer 1) I'm not a huge fan of wormholes. So I can't answer that question. I do not believe the observable universe is closed. I believe there is a much bigger container which holds our universe. So in my opinion, matter captured by a blackhole does not need to appear somewhere else in the universe. This may bother space travel fans and conservation of energyist, but not me.

Answer 2 (3)) No it doesn't violate relativity. First particles entering a black hole do have a worldline. We just can't observe them when observed from outside the event horizon.

The other interesting fact about this idea is that any attempt to stop moving (accelleration in any direction) toward the singularity (center) actually increases the rate at which you reach it. In other words, acceleration = slowed time or forward time travel. Special relativity suggests the same type of effect. I wouldn't know how to calculate if these effects match in scale.

My bloated theory involves a thought game of falling all the way into the black hole. The entire universe is crushed down to the singularity. This point is the begging of time as we know it (big bangish). Then reverse everything to move forward in time. Since we are still under the event horizon, we would not experience the barrier of the event horizon. Instead all light reaching us would have originated from the singularity.

In this backwards world, our future is already written and therefore I can not explain free will. Or the reason we seem to be aware of states of this universe pulling away from the singularity instead of towards it.

Expanding Universe: They say that not only is the universe expanding, but it is accellerating. What the? This thought experiment explains it by showing that the surface area of the universe will expand at an accelerated rate based on a constant increase in the radial distance from the orgin (singularity). For example: I mean that if you continue to increase the radius of a baloon at a constant rate, the surface of the balloon will increase at an accellerated rate.

PS: I wouldn't base my reputation on this theory.
Click to expand...

1) I still think worldlines wouldn't exist in your blackhole universe. It's true that wordlines exist in our universe's blackholes, but that's because the space inside the blackhole still has some semblance of time. Your universe EXPLAINS time as an inverse function of some sort of attraction; this means that events are like particles traveling up the time axis without tracing a wordline behind them.

2) If you explain time as an inverse attraction, then I still think that we would have free will. Just like (prior to observation) quantum particles have a superposition of states and paths, every particle in the blackhole-universe would have a superposition of possible FUTURE paths that leads it to it's current state.

Problems or not, I'm still impressed by this universe. It explains time as a fundamental force instead of a dimension; the dimensional theory of time assumes that time is completely separate and non-interchangeable with the spacial dimensions (except in blackholes). This universe is simply a 4D universe with a central point of origin. It's like a polar co-ord conversion of our cartesian model of the universe :D
 
Welcome to these forums. Unlike you, few appreciate how tough it is to accept both physics and the reality of genuine (non- illusionary) free will.
Wormsworth said:
... I can not explain free will. ...
Click to expand...
I published: Reality, Perception, and Simulation: A plausible Theory
in the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest back in 1994.

I have posted a condensed portion of that paper related to how "free will" could be consistent with the laws of chemistry / physic that determine ALL the processes occurring in the brain.

See the computer section forum "Intelligent Machines" / the thread "Can machines know?". It is post # 17 but even condensed, it is still a long read. I do not think I should re-post it here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17
is a direct link. Again I thank Kazakhan for showing me how to make one.
(This post has been edited to remove the prior attempts to direct link.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kron said:
1) I still think worldlines wouldn't exist in your blackhole universe. It's true that wordlines exist in our universe's blackholes, but that's because the space inside the blackhole still has some semblance of time. Your universe EXPLAINS time as an inverse function of some sort of attraction; this means that events are like particles traveling up the time axis without tracing a wordline behind them.

2) If you explain time as an inverse attraction, then I still think that we would have free will. Just like (prior to observation) quantum particles have a superposition of states and paths, every particle in the blackhole-universe would have a superposition of possible FUTURE paths that leads it to it's current state.

Problems or not, I'm still impressed by this universe. It explains time as a fundamental force instead of a dimension; the dimensional theory of time assumes that time is completely separate and non-interchangeable with the spacial dimensions (except in blackholes). This universe is simply a 4D universe with a central point of origin. It's like a polar co-ord conversion of our cartesian model of the universe :D
Click to expand...

Polar coordinates: exactly! I didn't mention that but that is exactly what I am talking about. Polar coordinates is the best way to define anything entering something like a black hole.

For those who don't know polar coordinates, it is a way of defining space with angles and a single distance. We use polar coordinates to define locations on earth, ie: longitude/latitude. Your longitude/latitude is equivelent to the angles of someone pointing at your current location from the center of the earth. Longitude is the amount of east/west angle and latitude is north/south angle. If we just add a length value (radial distance) from this center-earth point we could define any point on the surface or interior of the earth. We could even extend this length out so far as to describe any point in the universe.

An interesting fact about this is that if there was a black hole singularity at the center of the earth and the earth were sucked into it, our angular polar coordinate (long/lat) locations would not change. However, we would notice a change in our relative cartesian coordinates (X,Y,Z values).

In this thought experiment we are describing the 3 spacial dimensions as 3 angular values and time as the radial distance.

2) Not an inverse attraction: I thought this originally too. But it is incorrect. A reverse of gravity is not repulsion. It is still an attractive force in reverse. Gravity is time independent. Forwards or backwards gravity works the same. This thought game doesn't imply that the universe began with an outward force, instead it is the reverse observation of a highly attractive and inevitable force. So even in reverse, the singularity is pulling back on us and slowing our escape. BTW: The proposed "force of time" may or may not be gravity. I just use gravity and black holes as an analogy.

One other consideration: If time began at the singularity within the event horizon of a black hole and nothing can come out of a black hole, then won't everything eventual stop and rush back in? ie: won't time effectly slow and stop and then rush backwards? Not really. Since things can fall into a black hole in forward time (space ship enters and never returns), we can see that in a reverse senario things could come from the singularity and never return.

A new idea: The speed of light is linked to the escape velocity for our current distance from the singularity. That is, our current escape velocity from this 4d black hole is equal to the speed of light. This is why it is impossible to "move" faster then the speed of light. That is anything moving faster then the speed of light would effectively be able to move back towards the singularity and therefore move backwards in time. This also implies that the speed of light is changing over time (assuming the speed of light is always moves at maximum relational speed). In the beginning (big bang time), the escape velocity would have been much higher and therefore light would have a higher speed. As we move farther away (forward in time), the escape velocity decreases and light slows down. So we should be able to see light slowing down in the future, and observe faster then (current) light in the past.

If the speed of light is not attached to the escape velocity and is instead constant, then at some time in the future we will be able to shine light into the past. ie: we will be able to see into the future. A space craft moving near light speed would be able to travel into the past. This doesn't sit well with me. So I instead expect that the speed of light is intrinsically attached to our current escape velocity and thus decreases over time.

It is supported by a theory mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#The_varying_speed_of_light_cosmology

...but this does not cause a problem with causality (as mentioned), since the "time-force" was proportionaly strong back then.
 
Wormsworth said:
Polar coordinates: exactly! I didn't mention that but that is exactly what I am talking about. Polar coordinates is the best way to define anything entering something like a black hole.
Click to expand...

Glad to see we're on the same page :D

Wormsworth said:
2) Not an inverse attraction: I thought this originally too. But it is incorrect. A reverse of gravity is not repulsion. It is still an attractive force in reverse. Gravity is time independent. Forwards or backwards gravity works the same. This thought game doesn't imply that the universe began with an outward force, instead it is the reverse observation of a highly attractive and inevitable force. So even in reverse, the singularity is pulling back on us and slowing our escape. BTW: The proposed "force of time" may or may not be gravity. I just use gravity and black holes as an analogy.
Click to expand...

That's why I used the phrase 'inverse attraction' not 'repulsion'. The force you describe isn't exactly the same as antigravity (and even if it is, it doesn't explain the formation of our blackhole universe anyway without whiteholes...).

Also, it's pretty obvious it's an analogy ;)

But I still think the problem of geodesics isn't adequately solved. Assuming that the particles are PARTICLES flying out of the blackhole violates the non-simultaneousness of General Relativity. Maybe particles can be explained as long strings or something...:confused:
 
Kron said:
Glad to see we're on the same page



That's why I used the phrase 'inverse attraction' not 'repulsion'. The force you describe isn't exactly the same as antigravity (and even if it is, it doesn't explain the formation of our blackhole universe anyway without whiteholes...).

Also, it's pretty obvious it's an analogy ;)

But I still think the problem of geodesics isn't adequately solved. Assuming that the particles are PARTICLES flying out of the blackhole violates the non-simultaneousness of General Relativity. Maybe particles can be explained as long strings or something...:confused:
Click to expand...

Glad you picked that up. I sure didn't get that right away :confused:

I don't know much about geodesics. So I don't understand the problem. If you are referring to the singularity itself with infinites... then I will say that I can't really imagine what happens there. ie: at t=0, big bang, creation, etc. The big bang theory has this problem as well I believe.

I'm only referring to the time from (near) then until now. I'm suggesting that there is a pulling force against our motion through time which is similar to the pull on an object within the even horizon of a black hole. And that from t=0 until now we remain within the event horizon of this force.

As far as I know physics does not break down when passing through/into the event horizon. It is some time later where time/space become highly compressed (or stretched?) that there is an issue. Also, this event horizon would have to be very large to contain the universe.

I would like to hear more if you can explain or reference (simply) how this defies non-simultaneous(ness).

I wouldn't know how to explain exiting the event horizon, because this would imply the end of time as a one directional dimension. Just as I don't know how to explain time before the beginning of time. But I would guess in this theory that we could see what the beginning looks like at the farthest reaches of the universe in all directions. Not only because we are looking back in time across the universe, but also because all light reaching us has been bent from the singularity... just as all light in a black hole eventually will hit the singularity.

Long strings: I have limited knowledge of string theory. Fun to read about, but I really couldn't offer any thought on how this may/not apply. I get some of the relativity formulae, but string theory is a practice in faith (for me).
 
Thanks Kazakhan for linking suggestion. It works great and is easy.

Here is link direct link to the essay on how free will can be consistent with physics which controlls all activity of the brain.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17

As that post was replying to someone, you may want to begin reading at the bold text:
Genuine Free Will is Possible
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I highly doubt genuine free will is possible.

Genuine free will is pretty much a theoretical term. Just like a totaly random process. No totaly random process exists. A totaly random process is one for which there is no number N of processes that can be observed for statistics to predict the next N of processes. Or in other words ANY(small or infinite) number N of processes would always yield a different average result making it impossible to predict the average for the next N of processes.
Such process does not exist and would render any possibility of constant physics rules impossible. Even QM obeys a statistic which probably means there is a way to describe it deterministicaly, we just haven't found it or it lies beyond our perception, beyond what we can observe and measure.
Genuine free will would imply that we sentient beings can come to a decision that completely goes against all physical laws that the decision making mechanism obeys(organs, neurons, cells, electricity, QM).
Something like, if you throw a brick and it suddenly decides it doesnt like earths gravity and "falls" towards the sky instead of the ground.
 
Futhermore, there is no way to prove our will is genuinely free. There is no way to reverse time to prove you could have decided differently and that it was a pure free will choice, not a consequence of brain activity obeying physics rules.
 
vx220 said:
I highly doubt genuine free will is possible.
...Genuine free will would imply that we sentient beings can come to a decision that completely goes against all physical laws that the decision making mechanism obeys(organs, neurons, cells, electricity, QM)...
Click to expand...
I thought what this last sentence states for three decades and gave up on trying to see how genuine free will could exist after a few years of considering the problem off and on. I only found a solution by accident while investigating how the visual system works. I tend still to think genuine free will does NOT exist, but you should read my essay on how it COULD be consistent with physics.

I would welcome your comments after you have read that essay. I admit there is a significant price to pay for the existence of genuine free will - namely you must abandon any concept you may now have which identifies yourself as a physical creature as they are all governed by physical laws; but please from these last remarks do NOT conclude my "solution" to the problem has any resemblence to a "spirt world" "soul" "God" etc as I doubt their existing even more strongly than I doubt that genuine free will exists.

I am only stating it CAN be consistent with physics, not that it exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top