Posts Tagged ‘Time’

Time precedes existence

August 4, 2017
While Ilya Prigogine (Nobel prize in 1977 for nonequilibrium thermodynamics) claimed that time precedes existence, Einstein, Newton, and others held a symmetric view of time where time and existence occur simultaneously.
I am inclined to Prigogine’s view.
Causality, time, entropy, heat transfer, plastic deformation and spontaneous chemical reactions are all examples of irreversible processes.
I note that even in the statement “I think, therefore I am”, a “before” and an “after” is implied.
In fact, even the statement “I exist” implies that I exist “in time”.
Real time precedes the Big Bang.
Thereafter we have perceived time.
Time is causal.
It is not just past events which cause future events, past time causes future time.
Time precedes existence.

Advertisements

The speed of light may have been faster

May 4, 2017

I have speculated before that the rate at which time dissipates may not be constant (The Magical Speed of an Inconstant time).

Now come suggestions that the speed of light may have been faster at the time of the Big Bang. That is perfectly consistent with the speed of time being slower at the time of the Big Bang.

In 2015, scientists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) confirmed evidence of gravitational waves. These ripples in space-time, formed by the merger of two supermassive black holes, were exactly what Einstein had described with his theory of general relativity. But physicists studying the LIGO data found evidence of “echoes” that seem to contradict the predictions made by general relativity.

“Theoretical physicists Jahed Abedi, Hannah Dykaar, and Niayesh Afshordi, published a new paper explaining that the group believes they have detected the first evidence of gravitational effects not explained by general relativity in the data,” reported Inverse in the wake of the LIGO announcement. In this way, Einstein’s vindication could also prove his theory’s undoing. And this isn’t the only evidence that could disrupt the theory of relativity.

Physicists studying the early origins of the universe hypothesize that light has not always traveled at the same speed. This directly challenges special relativity.

“João Magueijo from Imperial College London and Niayesh Afshordi of the Perimeter Institute in Canada proposed a new experiment proving Einstein wrong and demonstrating that the speed of light actually isn’t a constant,” Inverse reported in November 2016. “The pair thinks light may have moved faster in the past, around the time of Big Bang, and that it’s actually slowed down since.”

They suspect that the lumpy density of the early universe caused light to behave differently. As the universe expanded and smoothed out, these lumpy areas disappeared. But there still may be some areas at the edge of the universe where the lumpiness persists, and in these areas, faster-than-light travel could be possible.

That’s why Einstein’s theory of relativity, which provides the foundation of most of modern physics, may soon be proven wrong as advanced technologies enable us to peer farther into the expanding universe than we ever have before: Once we finally peer into a black hole, we might find that Einstein was wrong about general relativity.


My speculations about time had to resort to magic:

And so I distinguish between perceived time and eal time. eal time, of course is magical. It is only by definition that we take the passage of time to be constant. Of course this is just perceived time. And we perceive time only as a consequence of change. But eal time does not have to elapse at a constant rate.

The Big Bang does not, apparently, mathematically permit of a time older than 13.8 billion years. Magical eal time, of course, goes back to infinitely long ago. All can be resolved merely by accepting that ℜeal time elapsed at zero rate at the Big Bang and then gradually built up to the rate of elapse we are subject to now. ……

At the Big Bang, even change had to get started. All change, all motion, all vibrations, all oscillations and all radiation had to start from zero. The atoms and the elements had to come into being. Cesium had to have come much later. These cycles of these oscillations of even the very first atoms may be regular now. But they would all have had to start somewhere (somewhen) and start from zero. The speed of oscillation had to build up from nothing (implying an infinite period) to that applying today. Which means that close to the Big Bang as atoms were ratcheting up their oscillations, the period between cycles would have been longer, starting infinitely long and reducing rapidly (in apparent time) to what is observed today. Closer to the Big Bang, eal time, as opposed to apparent time, would have elapsed more slowly and the period between cycles of all radiation would have had to start from infinity. The very speed of time would have been slower.

At the Big Bang, the speed of eal time would have been zero. A perceived picosecond of elapsed time would actually have been after the elapse of many, many trillions of eal time years. The perceived age of the universe of 13.8 billion years of perceived time would have been infinitely long ago in eal time.

Ultimately physics is just magic.


 

Back to the future

April 2, 2017


 

The consumption of time

September 7, 2016

No change without the passage of time.

No passage of time without change.

That is almost trivial. It does not help to tell us what or why time is.

Or perhaps it does.

Perhaps time is a consumable. It is the fuel that is needed for and is consumed by change. Quantum of change per unit of time taken as miles traversed per gallon of fuel. It follows that we can stop the passage of time if we can stop change – down to the motion of the elementary particles. Time does not just pass – perhaps it has to be consumed.

Perhaps the single great mystery is gravitation. Then gravitation (or gravitational energy) is manifested as the passage of time. The speed of the passage of time then varies with the gravitational field. One real second per perceived second now, but perhaps zero at the Big Bang.

The magical speed of an inconstant time

speed of time

No time without gravity.

And no change without time being consumed.

So, no change without gravity and time is just the medium of change.


 

Before time began

March 5, 2015

In the what, when there was no when,

It was the where before time began,

Nothing pre, nothing post, no before nor after,

Without any forces, or any slower or faster.

 

All matter in space hung still in the firmament,

And each particle stayed fixed within its own element,

Nothing went up so there was no coming down,

With nowhere to fall, nothing could go around.

 

In that what, when there was no when,

Nothing was stirring not even the zen.

Nothing could change not even a thought,

He was as bored as could be, with what He had wrought.

 

And so in that where, before time began,

His mind exploded in a mighty Big Bang.

 

And the rest is history.

No black holes, no Big Bang would leave the universe without a beginning

September 30, 2014

There is now a mathematical proof that black holes cannot exist. Event horizons and singularities then also cannot exist. Without singularities being possible there could have been no Big Bang. And without a Big Bang, the “age” of the universe has no meaning. Where does that leave time? and space-time?

(And without a Big Bang I will have to revisit my view of stasis since my own little speculation is that while time periods – Δt – can be conceived of, time itself – t- is nothing other than an axis of change connecting states of stasis.)

Black Hole star eater – National Geographic

If the mathematics holds up then not only science but also science fiction will have to look for new concepts of space and space-time and pathways to different universes and worm-holes and warp-speeds.

PhysOrg: … By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe. ……

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an . The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

….. Many physicists and astronomers believe that our originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

Winter time is here again – but “cyclical isn’t a scientific term”!

October 27, 2013

We put the clocks back by an hour last night – as we did a year ago.

I shall change to winter tyres tomorrow  – as I did a year ago.

Tomorrow will be another day – as it is every 24 hours.

Christmas day will come again – whether it is scientific or not.

We are surrounded and dominated by cycles. Without periodicity and cycles we would have no concept of time.

Daily cycles, monthly cycles, annual cycles, solar cycles every 11 years, the earth’s precession cycle with a period of 26,000 years, the earth’s axial tilt cycle of about 41,000 years and the Milankovitch cycles of about 100,000 years, are just some of the cycles that surround us.

Whether everything derives from the vibrations within the most fundamental particles and then are manifested by the periodic motion of bodies in our cosmos or whether the motion in the cosmos is the origin of everything else, periodicity and cyclic behaviour is ingrained within us and our world.

There are many more cyclic effects that we are continuously discovering (from the eons of slow cosmic cycles to multi-decadal ocean cycles to multi -hour cycles within living cells to the periodicity of the incredibly fast vibrations of atoms).

The only man-made repeating period that seems to have no corresponding cycle in the natural world is the weekly 7-day cycle.

Almost every cycle we discover seems to impact our weather and our climate.

But Nebraska “climate scientists” don’t believe that natural cycles are worth studying. In fact only studies which start with the assumption that global warming is man-made get any funding.

For one thing, “cyclical” isn’t a scientific term, said Barbara Mayes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

Oh Dear!

The only response to Barbara Mayes and climate scientists in Nebraska must be (with apologies to Lerner and Lowe)

There’ll be spring every year without you
England still will be here without you
There’ll be fruit on the tree
And a shore by the sea
There’ll be crumpets and tea without you

Without your pulling it the tide comes in
Without your twirling it, the Earth can spin
Without your pushing them, the clouds roll by
If they can do without you, ducky so can I

Idle thoughts: On time and change and states of stasis

October 13, 2012

Idle thoughts:

The riddle of whether change and time are interrelated or independent. And which comes first? Within our cosmos perhaps we have many different states of stasis with paths by which these states can be connected. Our universe could then just be one specific change journey, on one particular path between two states of stasis along an axis of change. Perhaps time begins after change gets going. Where the change journey started with the Big Bang and where the end will be in another state of stasis at the end of time – and the end of change.  

Time and change and states of stasis (pdf)

The Cosmos

Are numbers discrete and time continuous? or is it the other way around?

October 6, 2012

Idle thoughts and unanswerable questions on a Saturday morning:

The Number System seems to be continuous and infinite but every number seems to be discrete. But if any number is also  infinitely divisible  it must also be continuous. So are numbers simultaneously both discrete and continuous?

Or is a number just a label? Perhaps a number – if  just a label and representing a singularity – is discrete and the divisibility of a number is actually undefined. It is number difference – not a number –  which is infinitely divisible. So – for example –  the number 10, as a label, is not divisible — it is the number difference between 10 and some reference number (10-0) which is. So is our Number System then a discrete thing and made up of an infinite and continuous quantity of  number differences  with each number difference being discrete? It would then be rational for there to be an infinity of discrete Number Systems.

So perhaps numbers don’t exist.  Only number differences do and the numbers are their labels.

(more…)


%d bloggers like this: