Special Asymptotic Theory of Time

[jbeck43]

Thanks for your responses, and please know that in my disagreements, I really appreciate your kind demeanor.* It comes through in your posts, and I hope I project the same.*

I guess my uneasiness comes from your use of the phrase, eternal time.* To me, it suggests a contradiction in terms.* If something exists in time, then it is changeable–since time is how change is measured.* But.to God, who does not change, time is irrelevant.* Eternal time, it seems, is unnecessary.* I think the reason why you’re suggesting it is because to us, time is necessary for everything we do.* So our conception of God creating the universe in our imagination has God “doing” something too, like tinkering in a toy shop, or working under the hood of an imaginary car.* But the metaphysics goes deeper than our imaginations sometimes initially takes us.*

First, God is described by great theologians.like Thomas Aquinas as being ontologically simple.* What this means is that God has no “moving part“.* Let me explain. In my previous post, I mentioned that for anything to move from potential to actual, an outside substance that is actual must act upon it.* Here’s an example that Doctor Edward Feser uses in his excellent book on the metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas:* if you take a rubber ball, you see that it has two states or substances, the actual form of a rubber ball, and the potential form of a pile of goo when it’s melted in an oven.* But in order for it to actually become a pile of goo, an actual substance namely heat, must act upon the ball to move it from being only potential goo, to actual goo.* Something actual (heat), causes something potential (goo), to move from its potentiality to its actuality.*

And so this is the great domino-like construction that Aquinas builds his universe upon.* The epiphany here is that if all the universe and everything in it runs from its potential to its actual substance only when an actual substance “moves" it there–that every substance is helpless so to speak to do so on its own, then there must be a prime mover, an initial “actual“ that at every turn and every moment causes each potential substance to move from its potentiality to its actuality.* Something must initiate it all. And that something must, once again be actual.* The first domino has to be pushed over.* To Aquinas, that “pusher” is God.* And God therefore must be purely actual, with no “moving” parts (because movement implies potentiality, not actuality–since movement from one place to another would show that God lacks omnipresence.* And since God lacks nothing, He must be omnipresent, and therefore doesn’t need to "move“). God then, acts upon every moment of existence, moving every potential form to its actual form, without Himself moving, since as God, every actual perfection is realized, and no potential perfection is absent, so therefore God need not move toward anything, even in the act of creation.* It is certainly a mystery to be sure, but this circles around to my problem with eternal time.*

Time implies movement.* It is the measuring stick of change.* If God, who is the unmoved mover, exists in time/eternal time, then He becomes the “moved” mover as it were, and this misrepresents the ontological nature of God as being simple, all actual, and with no moving parts.* God is reduced, I’m afraid, to the mundane tinkerer, working in the toy shop, building a universe with his hands until at some time it is finished.*

God is greater than this.* And His creation is more profound.* (One note here:* when God therefore is said to create the world in six days and rested on the seventh, this is an anthropomorphism–a construct of “humanness,” if you will, to understand the actions of a God that has no human antecedent.* God strictly speaking, needs no rest, because he doesn’t have a body to get tired.)

You have opened up a very interesting discussion, and I’m glad you introduced your supposition.* Thanks again for a lively and kind exchange.* Best regards.

 

[jbeck43]

Physicists already treat black holes as infinitely dense. So it doesn’t seem there is anything illogical about a point of infinite density. We have such points in our universe, they are black holes.

This is quite untrue.** Please see a book length explanation of this in the black hole war by Leonard Susskind, where he challenges the one and only Stephen Hawking again as to whether information is lost when it enters a black hole.* Stephen eventually surrenders the point to Susskind that in fact information is not lost, thereby showing that black holes cannot be infinitely dense.* It is also metaphysically incoherent, because the only thing that can be infinitely dense is a point that is also infinitely small,* and since black holes are not infinitely small, they therefore are not infinitely dense. They are only exceedingly dense, because they are very small.

 

[Love4All]

Thanks for your responses, and please know that in my disagreements, I really appreciate your kind demeanor.* It comes through in your posts, and I hope I project the same.*

I guess my uneasiness comes from your use of the phrase, eternal time.* To me, it suggests a contradiction in terms.* If something exists in time, then it is changeable–since time is how change is measured.* But.to God, who does not change, time is irrelevant.* Eternal time, it seems, is unnecessary.* I think the reason why you’re suggesting it is because to us, time is necessary for everything we do.* So our conception of God creating the universe in our imagination has God “doing” something too, like tinkering in a toy shop, or working under the hood of an imaginary car.* But the metaphysics goes deeper than our imaginations sometimes initially takes us.*

First, God is described by great theologians.like Thomas Aquinas as being ontologically simple.* What this means is that God has no “moving part“.* Let me explain. In my previous post, I mentioned that for anything to move from potential to actual, an outside substance that is actual must act upon it.* Here’s an example that Doctor Edward Feser uses in his excellent book on the metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas:* if you take a rubber ball, you see that it has two states or substances, the actual form of a rubber ball, and the potential form of a pile of goo when it’s melted in an oven.* But in order for it to actually become a pile of goo, an actual substance namely heat, must act upon the ball to move it from being only potential goo, to actual goo.* Something actual (heat), causes something potential (goo), to move from its potentiality to its actuality.*

And so this is the great domino-like construction that Aquinas builds his universe upon.* The epiphany here is that if all the universe and everything in it runs from its potential to its actual substance only when an actual substance “moves" it there–that every substance is helpless so to speak to do so on its own, then there must be a prime mover, an initial “actual“ that at every turn and every moment causes each potential substance to move from its potentiality to its actuality.* Something must initiate it all. And that something must, once again be actual.* The first domino has to be pushed over.* To Aquinas, that “pusher” is God.* And God therefore must be purely actual, with no “moving” parts (because movement implies potentiality, not actuality–since movement from one place to another would show that God lacks omnipresence.* And since God lacks nothing, He must be omnipresent, and therefore doesn’t need to "move“). God then, acts upon every moment of existence, moving every potential form to its actual form, without Himself moving, since as God, every actual perfection is realized, and no potential perfection is absent, so therefore God need not move toward anything, even in the act of creation.* It is certainly a mystery to be sure, but this circles around to my problem with eternal time.*

Time implies movement.* It is the measuring stick of change.* If God, who is the unmoved mover, exists in time/eternal time, then He becomes the “moved” mover as it were, and this misrepresents the ontological nature of God as being simple, all actual, and with no moving parts.* God is reduced, I’m afraid, to the mundane tinkerer, working in the toy shop, building a universe with his hands until at some time it is finished.*

God is greater than this.* And His creation is more profound.* (One note here:* when God therefore is said to create the world in six days and rested on the seventh, this is an anthropomorphism–a construct of “humanness,” if you will, to understand the actions of a God that has no human antecedent.* God strictly speaking, needs no rest, because he doesn’t have a body to get tired.)

You have opened up a very interesting discussion, and I’m glad you introduced your supposition.* Thanks again for a lively and kind exchange.* Best regards.

Hmm, it seems you posted the same thing twice.

I understand your objection to the phrase, “eternal time,” but consider: Heaven is eternity, and there are more in Heaven than only God. If subjective time is, as it seems it should be, the succession of interior states, then it seems certain that those in Heaven experience time in that sense. Now, for God, all times are present, so there is no succession of interior states in God per se. But the Son of God took upon Him our human nature, and it certainly seems true that Jesus experienced a succession of interior states. Otherwise, He would be lacking a fundamental experience of being human, and our Church teaches that He is fully human as well as fully Divine. In Jesus, eternity and time meet, so it seems that possibly, the phrase, “eternal time,” has some value after all.

Scientists who propose the Big Bang cram more and more events into less and less time, the closer they get to the Singularity. And they never actually “get to” the Singularity, rather, they freely admit that their speculative knowledge only extends back to a hot, dense state, prior to which a Singularity is presumed, rather than inferred. My thesis is that there is a lot of detailed activity going on that scientists have no way of even speculating about, but that the Witnesses experienced as they watched God create His Creation. Scripture says that “with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years, as a day.” I am simply stating that there is a lot of time crammed into the “First Day,” or the First Week. We cannot assume it is “merely” a way of conveying the information to human beings. It is the Word of God. It is an account of Creation, as the Witnesses witnessed it.

 

[Love4All]

This is quite untrue.** Please see a book length explanation of this in the black hole war by Leonard Susskind, where he challenges the one and only Stephen Hawking again as to whether information is lost when it enters a black hole.* Stephen eventually surrenders the point to Susskind that in fact information is not lost, thereby showing that black holes cannot be infinitely dense.* It is also metaphysically incoherent, because the only thing that can be infinitely dense is a point that is also infinitely small,* and since black holes are not infinitely small, they therefore are not infinitely dense. They are only exceedingly dense, because they are very small.

The event horizon of a black hole has no spatial extension.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html

 

[jbeck43]

QUOTE=Love4All;10579087]The event horizon of a black hole has no spatial extension.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html

It doesn’t matter. Let me put it another way. The only way something can be infinitely dense in a spacial universe is either if it also a point of infinite smallness or a point of infinite largeness. Since black holes are somewhere in between, the density must necessarily be finite. Huge, but not infinite.

 

[Love4All]

QUOTE=Love4All;10579087]The event horizon of a black hole has no spatial extension.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html

It doesn’t matter. Let me put it another way. The only way something can be infinitely dense in a spacial universe is either if it also a point of infinite smallness or a point of infinite largeness. Since black holes are somewhere in between, the density must necessarily be finite. Huge, but not infinite.

Zero spatial extension means precisely a point. That is “infinite smallness.” Otherwise, it would not be a black hole.

 

[Love4All]

Very nice!

What does the negative branch of the curve represent?

It seems to me it is mere reflection. Similar to the way the two sides of the complex plane, imaginaries and negative imaginaries are mirror images.

One could imagine, I think, that that part of the graph represents God’s thought of the universe beforehand. He started from the End of Time, His final masterpiece, and then logically traced back the entire expanse of Time, backwards, logically arriving at Himself as the First Cause at t=0, and then the universe followed simply from Himself.

 

[jbeck43]

You mentioned that a point with zero spacial extent is precisely a point of infinite smallness.* True, but the article you cited never actually says that the collapse of a black hole ever reaches that point.* It simply says that it moves towards it.

The problem with black holes is that they cannot be directly observed.* They can only be indirectly observed by deducing their existence from the information around the area believed to contain them.*

So here’s what we do know.* Black holes have mass, and that mass and the forces they exert on other things varies based on the amount of matter black holes contain.** If even that much is true, then black holes cannot be infinitely dense.* Why?* Because if a dust speck was compressed to a size infinitely smaller than itself, the density of that point would be infinite.* This would also be true if the entire universe were compressed to an infinitely small space.* Since both points then would be equal in density (infinite), the forces they exert should be equal too, since the masses they contain are irrelevant.* But they are not equal, as the more massive black holes exert greater force.* We can then infer that black holes are not points of infinite density.

So here’s my problem.* When physicists use infinity as an answer to anything regarding the physical universe, they are essentially admitting that they don’t have enough information to make a qualified judgement.* That’s the bottom line.

The term 'singularity´ is itself just a place holder for saying, I don’t know.* Infinite smallness is a perfect example.* What can we know about anything that is infinitely small? Just one thing, it doesn’t really exist.* A point of infinite smallness, is just a concept and nothing more, because something infinitely small has a diameter equal to absolute zero.* That just means there’s nothing there.

So saying that the quantum singularity that resulted in the universe, was both infinitely small and infinitely dense, is essentially admitting we simply don’t know much of anything about that point.* Infinite density is just arbitrary mass while infinite smallness is nothing at all.*

And you can’t make a graph based on that.

It’s a fun discussion, and I appreciate your taking the time to propose it.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I have also come to believe that time is in a sense non uniform. That is why I doubt the different equations that assume that time in the past is same as time in the present.

 

[Love4All]

You mentioned that a point with zero spacial extent is precisely a point of infinite smallness.* True, but the article you cited never actually says that the collapse of a black hole ever reaches that point.* It simply says that it moves towards it.

The problem with black holes is that they cannot be directly observed.* They can only be indirectly observed by deducing their existence from the information around the area believed to contain them.*

So here’s what we do know.* Black holes have mass, and that mass and the forces they exert on other things varies based on the amount of matter black holes contain.** If even that much is true, then black holes cannot be infinitely dense.* Why?* Because if a dust speck was compressed to a size infinitely smaller than itself, the density of that point would be infinite.* This would also be true if the entire universe were compressed to an infinitely small space.* Since both points then would be equal in density (infinite), the forces they exert should be equal too, since the masses they contain are irrelevant.*

That isn’t true. The forces they exert are due to mass, not density. In fact, it is possible to treat any massive object as a point, being its center of gravity, and all equations involving the force such an object exerts come out perfectly well.

Density is in fact mass divided by volume, and it is because the volume of a black hole is zero that its density is infinite. The mass is not lost, that is why it is a black hole and not Nothing.

But they are not equal, as the more massive black holes exert greater force.* We can then infer that black holes are not points of infinite density.

Or we can infer that you wrongly attributed gravity to density when in reality gravity is a function of mass.

So here’s my problem.* When physicists use infinity as an answer to anything regarding the physical universe, they are essentially admitting that they don’t have enough information to make a qualified judgement.* That’s the bottom line.

Not exactly. Under certain conditions, the values of certain measurements approach infinity, and thus cannot any more be calculated. It isn’t lack of information, it is the breakdown of the descriptive math.

The term 'singularity´ is itself just a place holder for saying, I don’t know.*

No, what it means is that the values are not calculable because certain parameters have escaped to infinity. While it is true that that means some things cannot be known, it is not simply a shrug of the shoulders. It is an observation of a physical effect.

Infinite smallness is a perfect example.* What can we know about anything that is infinitely small? Just one thing, it doesn’t really exist.*

That isn’t true, spatial extension is not a requirement for existence, and the black hole has mass, that has a measurable effect on the surrounding space.

A point of infinite smallness, is just a concept and nothing more, because something infinitely small has a diameter equal to absolute zero.* That just means there’s nothing there.

Your lack of adequate conceptualization does not in fact make black holes go away.

So saying that the quantum singularity that resulted in the universe, was both infinitely small and infinitely dense, is essentially admitting we simply don’t know much of anything about that point.* Infinite density is just arbitrary mass while infinite smallness is nothing at all.*

Wrong. Mass is a definite property. It is the one thing that doesn’t go away at all in a black hole. Also lack of spatial extension is not equivalent to nonexistence.

It seems to me you are simply trying to hand-wave away the best explanations we have for some real phenomena. If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s fine, but it seems you’d rather assert that there is nothing real to talk about, and that is dismissive.

I freely admit that I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, but I do know that they are not just talking about Nothing.

And you can’t make a graph based on that.

It’s a fun discussion, and I appreciate your taking the time to propose it.

My graph is based on a reconciliation of six days with 13-1/2 billion years, and of an eternal universe with a created universe. Those are concepts that it seems to me I have successfully graphed. Thanks for participating!

 

[Love4All]

I have also come to believe that time is in a sense non uniform. That is why I doubt the different equations that assume that time in the past is same as time in the present.

Indeed, time is just what God decides it is, at any given moment. That is part of the meaning of, “with the Lord is day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.”

 

[teeboy]

How can time be represented on more than one axis?

Remember, God doesn’t exist in time.

 

[Love4All]

How can time be represented on more than one axis?

Remember, God doesn’t exist in time.

If time is complex, then it exists on more than one axis. Before the present “laws of physics” came into existence — and scientists believe that they did come into existence at some time after the Big Bang — time was not necessarily the same as it is now for us. That part of the curve is where it extends towards y = ∞. The idea is that it mattered less in “those days” or “that day,” the passing of days and years the way we experience it now. The Witnesses to Creation would not have experienced the very earliest time similarly to the way they and we experience it now. I suppose. And to be clear, all of this is just me supposing.

I disagree that God does not exist in time. It is in time, now, and God exists, now.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That isn’t true. The forces they exert are due to mass, not density. In fact, it is possible to treat any massive object as a point, being its center of gravity, and all equations involving the force such an object exerts come out perfectly well.

It is also true that Newton’s laws work out perfectly well in terms of mass densities.

Density is in fact mass divided by volume, and it is because the volume of a black hole is zero that its density is infinite. The mass is not lost, that is why it is a black hole and not Nothing.

Um, what? Something physical cannot have a zero volume, it is a contradiction. Do a Google search of “Schwarzschild radius.”

Not exactly. Under certain conditions, the values of certain measurements approach infinity, and thus cannot any more be calculated. It isn’t lack of information, it is the breakdown of the descriptive math.

How is that not the same as, they are essentially admitting that they don’t have enough information to make a qualified judgement (which is what he said)??

That isn’t true, spatial extension is not a requirement for existence, and the black hole has mass, that has a measurable effect on the surrounding space.

Name a physical object that has no spatial extension.

I freely admit that I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, but I do know that they are not just talking about Nothing.

Fortunately I am, and I can indeed correct you on some things here!

My graph is based on a reconciliation of six days with 13-1/2 billion years, and of an eternal universe with a created universe. Those are concepts that it seems to me I have successfully graphed. Thanks for participating!

What I do not like about your graph, or perhaps your explanation of it, is that necessarily, time intervals decrease as we move backwards in time due to contraction of the space-time manifold. Currently, the space-time manifold is expanding, acceleratingly at that, and we have a constant speed of light in vacuo which means a constant time interval. Could you comment on this inconsistency?

 

[Love4All]

It is also true that Newton’s laws work out perfectly well in terms of mass densities.

Um, what? Something physical cannot have a zero volume, it is a contradiction. Do a Google search of “Schwarzschild radius.”

I did, and I also googled “black hole.” One site I found was this one:

hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q3.html

"
How big is a black hole?

All matter in a black hole is squeezed into a region of infinitely small volume, called the central singularity.
"

Is this a crackpot site? Initially it appears pretty authoritative.

How is that not the same as, they are essentially admitting that they don’t have enough information to make a qualified judgement (which is what he said)??

The sense I get from that is that they tried to find out, couldn’t find out, sort of threw their hands up in the air and invented a word, “singularity” to disguise the fact that they had no clue. I don’t think it was quite like that. I think “singularity” names an actual physical phenomenon, where certain parameters are not measurable because their values approach infinity. I thought density was one of them.

Name a physical object that has no spatial extension.

Well, a black hole, I thought, and the hubble site seems to support this notion.

Fortunately I am, and I can indeed correct you on some things here!

Are you a mathematician or a physicist?

What I do not like about your graph, or perhaps your explanation of it, is that necessarily, time intervals decrease as we move backwards in time due to contraction of the space-time manifold. Currently, the space-time manifold is expanding, acceleratingly at that, and we have a constant speed of light in vacuo which means a constant time interval. Could you comment on this inconsistency?

I don’t yet have enough background to understand the question, sorry. I will attempt to further educate myself and get back to you on this!

Isn’t the constancy of the speed of light a defined parameter? Are not our values for the meter and the second derived from the speed of light, and not the other way around?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers (denoted by the lower case “I”) to achieve this result. By using imaginary numbers, it allows him to smooth a concrete starting point in time to a cone-shaped geometry, thereby avoiding a concrete starting point. No physicists believe that it actually describes physical reality without significant problems, including I believe Hawking himself. At Hawking’s 65th birthday party, Alan Guth presented his paper refuting Hawkings, which has not been significantly challenged in the scientific community. Happy Birthday, Steve…

Hawking seemed to jump the gun on this one.

Scientists need to stop doing that for the sake of some dopey social benefit.

 

[InJesusItrust]

If space is expanding, and if time also changes, why can’t velocities change in such a way that they are approximately constant? Velocity depends on both dimensions.

As I age there seems an ability to be less and less thing in the same amounts of time. Although time might measure the same physically, we are not just physical creatures. The bible says something about the days being shortened to preserve the elect. Changing flow of time might also explain how Adam lived to about a thousand years.

 

[InJesusItrust]

As for the negative half of the curve, it is probably an artifact of the curve, just like how hyperbolic orbits have only one half of the curve.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I did, and I also googled “black hole.” One site I found was this one:

hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q3.html

"
How big is a black hole?

All matter in a black hole is squeezed into a region of infinitely small volume, called the central singularity.
"

Is this a crackpot site? Initially it appears pretty authoritative.

Check out NASA’s response to the question of the black hole volume: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970808.html.

I would not dub the site ‘crackpot’ just because it is incorrect.

The sense I get from that is that they tried to find out, couldn’t find out, sort of threw their hands up in the air and invented a word, “singularity” to disguise the fact that they had no clue. I don’t think it was quite like that. I think “singularity” names an actual physical phenomenon, where certain parameters are not measurable because their values approach infinity. I thought density was one of them.

Your intuition on the statement is somewhat correct. A singularity is not a physical phenomenon, but a mathematical infinity when using the (limited) physics model we currently have. As a scientist, I view the term singularity as meaning “We do not know, but we are working on the right answer.”

Note also that we cannot actually measure the density of the black hole, we can only infer its mass (and not very accurately at that).

Well, a black hole, I thought, and the hubble site seems to support this notion.

It is nonsense to say that something physical has no spatial extent, much like it is nonsense to say a square circle or a 5-sided triangle.

Are you a mathematician or a physicist?

BS, MS, & PhD in physics. I got a math minor in the BS, but that is completely irrelevant these days as I spend more time writing programs than doing integrals.

I don’t yet have enough background to understand the question, sorry. I will attempt to further educate myself and get back to you on this!

Okay!

Isn’t the constancy of the speed of light a defined parameter? Are not our values for the meter and the second derived from the speed of light, and not the other way around?

The meter and the second were defined first, the speed of light later. It was only after the constancy of the speed of light was determined that we decided to invert the relationship.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

If space is expanding, and if time also changes, why can’t velocities change in such a way that they are approximately constant? Velocity depends on both dimensions.

Because space is not changing locally (and by locally, I mean within our local group (the nearest galaxies)), only on a universal scale.

As I age there seems an ability to be less and less thing in the same amounts of time. Although time might measure the same physically, we are not just physical creatures. The bible says something about the days being shortened to preserve the elect. Changing flow of time might also explain how Adam lived to about a thousand years.

Perception of time passed is not necessarily the same as actual time passed.