Special Asymptotic Theory of Time

[Love4All]

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.

Allow me to correct myself here, jbeck43. I stated the event horizon has infinite density. Apparently that’s not accurate. It is the Singularity that has infinite density. According to this site,

hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q3.html

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

The event horizon surrounds the singularity and is the radius beyond which light cannot escape.

In any case, whatever it is that is projected and hypothesized to be the early state of the universe, a couple of things seem to be widely believed. There is at least a mathematical singularity, meaning the equations break down because some values approach infinity, and the farther back in time one goes, one approaches more and more of a physical singularity, meaning all matter condensed into a single point. But if you look at time-lines of the Big Bang, you notice that they use logarithmic time, and the farther and farther back they go to “absolute t=0,” the shorter and shorter the time intervals become and the more events are packed in to them.

My conjecture is the following: suppose a time machine were constructable that would enable us to go back in time to actually witness the early universe. I predict that as one approaches the time t=0, one would begin to experience time dilation. The successive ticks of a physical clock in the outside environment would become stretched out so that subjectively, in our time-ship, we would witness days, years, centuries, eons of time going by (or having gone by) within those first few objective moments.

To further complicate matters (sorry! ), I am also attempting to account for Genesis, in which the universe had a definite beginning on Sunday of Creation Week. So there are actually three “times” all mapped here, somehow. There is physical time, measured by the clicks of an objectively stable clock, in which the time between t=0 and the present comes out to be around 15 billion years or so; there is subjective observer time-ship time, in which those first few instants would be stretched out to infinity; and there is “Witness” time, recorded in the Book of Genesis, in which, in the beginning, God said, “be light made,” and light was made. We don’t know, because we are not told, how much the Witnesses experienced on the First Day, we are only told that it was the creation of light, and the separating of the light from the darkness, that constituted evening followed by morning, the First Day. Since this was before the “fixed times” were established, on the Fourth Day, we really don’t know how “long” the “First Day” was. Since Wisdom was created in Eternity, yet relates the story of Creation in Time, there must be a smooth transition between eternity and time.

My graph shows a smooth transition. Part of my explanation might be understandable and part of it might not be, at present, but God can show many things in His Gift of Understanding that previously were not understood. It is also possible that I haven’t explained things adequately, and it is definitely possible that I’ve got the whole picture fundamentally wrong.

But this is at least an attempt to reconcile the picture given by astrophysicists with the picture given in Genesis, without dismissing either as false or purely speculative or metaphorical only. It is called the “Special” theory because a “General” theory would be more inclusive. But a Special theory is at least a start.

 

[Love4All]

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.

Yes, that was my perception of it also.

 

[Aaron_Creagh]

…I didn’t take calculus.

I took a little physics back in high school but…why the need to try to make everything super complicated?

 

[Aaron_Creagh]

How about the K.I.S.S. theory of all things?

 

[Love4All]

How about the K.I.S.S. theory of all things?

The attempt is, of course, to simplify as much as possible. How much simplification is possible is a legitimate question. To oversimplify or “dumb down” is not desirable, unless what we are seeking is a “quick” and cursory explanation so that we can move on to the “next subject.”

The data we are trying to reconcile are the following:

1. An eternal universe.
2. A temporal universe that came into existence some 15 billion years ago, at which “time” Time itself also came into existence.
3. Creation brought into existence by God, who is eternal, over a series of six stages, in Genesis termed “days.”

The simplest actual reconciliation of those three apparently disparate points of view is the aim here. This aim is either possible or impossible, and if possible, either relatively simple or relatively difficult. If impossible, then let’s all go back to Science and Religion conflict, and cannot be resolved. If possible, this is the simplest explanation I’ve yet seen. (The only explanation I’ve yet seen that attempts to reconcile all three views.)

Your fresh ideas are welcome!!!

 

[Love4All]

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

How is that even possible? Is it not one universe?

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

True, I believe time as we know it serves a dual function, to wit, physical and spiritual. Subjective time is measured in the succession of events rather than the ticks of a metronome.

 

[Love4All]

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.

Thank you. Sadly, this confuses me more. Past the event horizon, space becomes time and time becomes space?

I submit, this idea may stem from an attempt to force the maths to work when the maths has in fact broken down.

In any case, no one we know has ever experienced this or witnessed it, so it is interesting speculation at this point. I would appreciate it more, I’m sure, if I could wrap my head around it.

This brings up another point, an observation if you will, of my perception of modern physics. The right word to describe the way it is usually presented is, “arcane.” I, for one, do recognize that the presuppositions I have acquired in the macro world will not serve me very well in the relativistic world and the quantum world. I am also aware of the dictum, “shut up and calculate!” My background in mathematics and physics both, consists of a high school education (class of 1980) enhanced by my own interest and further study, informally, largely based on information I have been able to find on the internet.

Apart from that I have also studied the properties of Arcana in general, and specifically, esoteric philosophical/religious arcana (there is really not a proper phrase), including but not limited to those normally found in Catholicism. (Though again, my idea of Catholicism is more universal than an entity confined to a sole visible institution.)

What I have experienced, deduced, or inferred is the following:

1. There is indeed a deeper or more arcane explanation for many seemingly ordinary things.
2. Understanding such things is not the province of a special class of human beings, but rather of ordinary human beings who have applied themselves to their study, whether intellectual, experiential, or both.

Thus it is that I am here before you, better versed in physics and mathematics than the average, but still experiencing both as somewhat arcane and still hidden from my understanding. Assuming, Alberti Devoveo, that you really do understand what you are studying and know what you are talking about, and observing also that you are a Catholic, I am very grateful for the opportunity to converse with you on matters such as these.

I hold, along with some others, that in remotest antiquity there was Knowledge. There was a “Golden Age” in the unreachable past, and most of the religions we have in the world today contain echoes of it, while science is rebuilding it from the ground up, as it were. I see this as consistent with Catholicism in that Adam and Eve would certainly have learned much from God while still in the Garden, and done their level best to pass as much as they could on to their children, and failed spectacularly for reasons that ought to be obvious. I believe that Moses received Revelation of some of this Knowledge and committed it to the Torah.

One of my initial questions to you, Alberti, is, as a Catholic and a scientist, are you interested in an accurate reconstruction of what I am asserting as a Primordial Unity of Theology and Physical Science?

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).

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.

I can accept that the ideas I have encountered in the past regarding black holes were less than accurate. What is harder to understand is what happened in the early universe. Stephen Hawking and some others appear convinced that time and space came into existence along with matter and energy. These four entities — the entities that ‘Q’ of Star Trek TNG could control at will — seem to me to define the domain of physics. I understand that the theoretical math breaks down at very high energies, but the figure 13-1/2 or 15 billion (more recently I have heard 15) years was not just pulled out of a hat. Physics might be out of its league speculating what was “before” that, but theology wouldn’t be.

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.

Okay!

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.

But now, as it is, there is no possibility of observing an increase or a decrease in the speed of light, since it is by fiat, the constant from which the other values are derived.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Everyone has heard the adage of time speeding up as they age. A tick of the clock can be pictured as a differential change. We wouldn’t notice the change in time by measurements but we could feel the difference subjectively. What if the flow in time is like an integral of a decreasing function?

This idea intrigues me.

 

[Love4All]

Everyone has heard the adage of time speeding up as they age. A tick of the clock can be pictured as a differential change. We wouldn’t notice the change in time by measurements but we could feel the difference subjectively. What if the flow in time is like an integral of a decreasing function?

This idea intrigues me.

I didn’t even attempt to include in my diagram, the End of Time! It seems to me that possibly, a similar situation exists, in other words that the world will continue forever in physical time, but at the same time, the Judgment and the End of Time will still occur. Don’t ask me how it all works out! Perhaps when each one dies, that one enters eternity (“Real” time on the diagram.)

 

[InJesusItrust]

If you measure the flow of time by the area under the curve, then you want the primitive function to vanish . The physical time can be the t-axis. Then a simple model of this is a function of form f(t) = 1/t^p; p > 1, t > 0.

The end of time can be taken as the fact that the improper integral converges for a lower limit greater than 0, or less and less events are experienced in an interval as the physical time increases.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Thank you. Sadly, this confuses me more. Past the event horizon, space becomes time and time becomes space?

I submit, this idea may stem from an attempt to force the maths to work when the maths has in fact broken down.

Well, space and time are orthogonal components of the space-time manifold, so it makes sense to me–though I readily admit being fairly versed in the geometry of physics.

In any case, no one we know has ever experienced this or witnessed it, so it is interesting speculation at this point. I would appreciate it more, I’m sure, if I could wrap my head around it.

Coincidentally, there was actually a paper posted on the ArXiv this morning (last night?) that posited that we might be able to observe the formation of a black hole due to a peculiarity in the explosion mechanism.

This brings up another point, an observation if you will, of my perception of modern physics. The right word to describe the way it is usually presented is, “arcane.” I, for one, do recognize that the presuppositions I have acquired in the macro world will not serve me very well in the relativistic world and the quantum world. I am also aware of the dictum, “shut up and calculate!” My background in mathematics and physics both, consists of a high school education (class of 1980) enhanced by my own interest and further study, informally, largely based on information I have been able to find on the internet.

Apart from that I have also studied the properties of Arcana in general, and specifically, esoteric philosophical/religious arcana (there is really not a proper phrase), including but not limited to those normally found in Catholicism. (Though again, my idea of Catholicism is more universal than an entity confined to a sole visible institution.)

What I have experienced, deduced, or inferred is the following:

1. There is indeed a deeper or more arcane explanation for many seemingly ordinary things.
2. Understanding such things is not the province of a special class of human beings, but rather of ordinary human beings who have applied themselves to their study, whether intellectual, experiential, or both.

Thus it is that I am here before you, better versed in physics and mathematics than the average, but still experiencing both as somewhat arcane and still hidden from my understanding. Assuming, Alberti Devoveo, that you really do understand what you are studying and know what you are talking about, and observing also that you are a Catholic, I am very grateful for the opportunity to converse with you on matters such as these.

I would concur on both points. There is a logical and mathematical basis to the universe, and physics is the tool that combines the two–the two, when separated, are equally worth-while for studying. I spent 4 years in undergrad, then another 6 in graduate school to get the background for where I am, however a large portion of the extraneous details (i.e., the Catholic understanding of reality) comes from self-learning via books and this forum.

I hold, along with some others, that in remotest antiquity there was Knowledge. There was a “Golden Age” in the unreachable past, and most of the religions we have in the world today contain echoes of it, while science is rebuilding it from the ground up, as it were. I see this as consistent with Catholicism in that Adam and Eve would certainly have learned much from God while still in the Garden, and done their level best to pass as much as they could on to their children, and failed spectacularly for reasons that ought to be obvious. I believe that Moses received Revelation of some of this Knowledge and committed it to the Torah.

One of my initial questions to you, Alberti, is, as a Catholic and a scientist, are you interested in an accurate reconstruction of what I am asserting as a Primordial Unity of Theology and Physical Science?

I am curious to the theory, if you are willing to put forth the idea.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I can accept that the ideas I have encountered in the past regarding black holes were less than accurate. What is harder to understand is what happened in the early universe. Stephen Hawking and some others appear convinced that time and space came into existence along with matter and energy. These four entities — the entities that ‘Q’ of Star Trek TNG could control at will — seem to me to define the domain of physics. I understand that the theoretical math breaks down at very high energies, but the figure 13-1/2 or 15 billion (more recently I have heard 15) years was not just pulled out of a hat. Physics might be out of its league speculating what was “before” that, but theology wouldn’t be.

I believe that Hawking is actually doing a disservice to physics these days with his insistence on “something from nothing.” This “something from nothing” idea stems from a distorted interpretation of the idea of virtual particles. Hawking et al would have you believe that virtual particles are actually created literally from nothing, but this is very far from the truth. Virtual particles are the result in collisions of electromagnetic waves, waves which are physical things.

I believe that the Planck Mission has narrowed the age of the universe to 13.82 billion years. Physics cannot tell what was “before” the big bang because (a) physics models break down when approaching t=0 and (b) time began at the big bang, so ‘before the big bang’ is nonsense.

But now, as it is, there is no possibility of observing an increase or a decrease in the speed of light, since it is by fiat, the constant from which the other values are derived.

I misspoke. The second is actually defined by the number of transitions of a cesium atom (there are 9,192,631,770 transitions of the caesium-133 atom in the SI second). The meter is defined as the distance a photon travels in 1/299,792,458 second (roughly 31 transitions of the cesium atom).

Secondly, we can actually derive the (constant) speed of light from other universal constants, namely the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability. That is, c=1/sqrt(permittivity*permeability).

See also this site.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

How is that even possible? Is it not one universe?

Correct, we have but a single universe. The expansion of space does not mean the expansion of matter.

 

[teeboy]

The first quadrant is plus,plus if I recall correctly.

I think his theory is that of the mind or the conscience or memory. What is the magnitude of the factor in front of time squared and what is the variable? This is what we must know before we take the square root.

Sometimes we just compare it to the mean of the minimized variances, squared of course.