I have an idea slash thought on time or space time and gravity... require opinions please

Hi,

So I have an idea about space, time, and gravity.

I kind of believe we are living in a simulated reality like on a computer. Therefore everything is information.

The more information there is to compute in a local area, the more time it takes. So just say empty space doesnt have much to compute in its area, a place where there is much to compute in a local area would take more time to process.

We have all heard of space time.

Space and time.

Time slows down the closer you get to a black hole. That i believe is because there is much more information to compute in that local area. The more mass you have the more time slows down aroind that mass due to more information to calculate and process.

The universe is made up of space time. Ever expanding. Which means more space and time is created constantly.

Imagine the universe as a huge lake filled with calm water constantly getting bigger creating space and within that space time as well.

The objects within that lake like planets and the sun and black holes contain mass... mass in information. The more mass the longer to compute that information within its locale.

Imagine mass as a sink hole within the lake of space time.

Sure... that mass takes up space... but it takes up more time within its allocated space to compute.

So time flows out of the space time around that mass and into the sink hole that requires more time to compute.

Could that flow of time into the sink hole of mass be what we experience as gravity?

Or is it the flow of space time... both space and time into the sink hole that we experience as gravity?


Thats why time slows down the closer you get to a black hole or an object with mass because time is flowing into it.

Imagine time is the same everywhere on that flat lake surface of space but it begins flowing away from the space that time currently inhabits the closer it gets to an object of mass as that mass has created a sinkhole in the surface of the lake as that mass requires more time to process that information... and thats why time seems to slow down around an object of mass... and that fall of time into the object of mass is what we experience as gravity...

Could gravity be an emergent force of the amount of time or dare i say space time flowing out of close by areas that have higher computational ability due to their emptiness of information compared with an area that has more information to compute.

a reply to: DaRAGE

I like your idea, I really do. I'm sorry to have to show you this:

cosmosmagazine.com...

Recently it was determined that there are physical processes that are just too complex to simulate, to a high degree of certainty. That is, of course, unless you make the supposition that the hardware of the simulation actually is the matter and energy of the universe. I added that second part, it's not in the article.

a reply to: Zelun

I have already read that. Currently human IQ at 200 would make you a genius. Researchers have said that within 30 years or by 2030... i cant remember which... what the IQ of AI would be 10,000. Also if we are living in a simulation then what we comprehend is based on the limitations of that virtual reality and not the actual reality which could be quite different. Also the reality in which our simulations run could be much more advanced than our current understanding of research and development and they may have found ways or algorithms that can do such things. Also quantum computers only need about 300 or so qubits to process every atom in the universe. And that processing goes up exponentially as well. Not to mention a possible future AI that might actually in thw possible "real" reality have used up all of space time just for computations....

Anyway... i dont hold a lot of stock in that article. But even if what they say is true.... and we are living in a not simulated reality... then the theory still stands and so do the questions...

a reply to: DaRAGE

Yeah, i see your point. Okay so the assertion here that given a unit volume, the resources allocated to compute that volume would be static irrespective of the contents of that volume, and that the time dilation experienced in the proximity of a massive body is due to the increased demand on the resources of that volume. Close so far?

The theory is logically not consistent and is based upon 2nd order observation rather than a fundamental

Suggesting that mass -> number of particles -> more particles = more computations => time dilation, simply doesn't work on the basis of the following.

A 3 solar mass black hole, contains the same amount of mass as a 3 solar mass A class star. In terms of numbers of interactions per second i am not really certain you can even say that in a blackhole that would be higher than in a star. In a star you have compressed plasma, you have fusion occurring, radiation pressure, thermodynamics with a great deal of things occurring.

The difference is the physical space in which it is contained and that in a compact star such as a white dwarf or neutron star, the physics is extreme, though the physical processes are somewhat simplified in terms of what is happening. In general though the number of points interacting are the same. Not only that but, there are algorithms which will scale these things where required in terms of applying computational power that we lowly humans already know of...

on the 300 qubits, its a bit misleading, but really its that the number of different states of the processor can be in, is the same theoretical number of states as there are atoms in the universe... its not the same really as calculating the universe. The people who make this claim do so because it is one of those nice 'wow' statements.

In a blackhole, it is not clear at all what is happening beyond the event horizon. Does it really require that much computation?

The time dilation at the photosphere of a star, will be the same for a blackhole taken at the same distance from the singularity.

a reply to: DaRAGE

I kind of believe we are living in a simulated reality like on a computer. Therefore everything is information.

Except np matter how far we look in space and no matter how far we look into tinier and tinier places all we see is more matter. So far there has been no discovery of a projector or link to a computer apparatus that generates this "simulation".

I'm afraid it is all very real as far as they eye can see in both directions.

Which makes this corny tripe more like a mind meld authored by those that want us to believe that anything and everything is okay, because its 'not real'.

originally posted by: ErosA433

The time dilation at the photosphere of a star, will be the same for a blackhole taken at the same distance from the singularity.

This phrase jumped out at me. This could make sense if the processing nodes used to calculate the goings-on in the star/singularity were indexed at the "center of mass" and are distributed outward as the inverse square of distance? Whether it's a star or a singularity of the same mass this is what you would expect to see.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: DaRAGE

I like your idea, I really do. I'm sorry to have to show you this:

cosmosmagazine.com...

Recently it was determined that there are physical processes that are just too complex to simulate, to a high degree of certainty. That is, of course, unless you make the supposition that the hardware of the simulation actually is the matter and energy of the universe. I added that second part, it's not in the article.

Great article!

If the complexity grew linearly with the number of particles being simulated, then doubling the number of particles would mean doubling the computing power required. If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

The problem with the computer simulation metaphor is the hardware running the simulation has to be faster than reality itself. Experiments in quantum mechanics occurring at the smallest scales of measurement have shown reality is self-referential through observation. So it's not clear to me the abstraction model of time applies since measurement at the lowest level is not discrete but analog.

"Time" is just a mental construct of the human mind so our primitive sense organs can understand the environment.

a reply to: olaru12

Except that the passage of time varies with velocity and gravitational field strength. Sure labels like seconds, days, and months are artificial constructs, but time is a physical property of the universe.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: olaru12

Except that the passage of time varies with velocity and gravitational field strength. Sure labels like seconds, days, and months are artificial constructs, but time is a physical property of the universe.

Ok, then it's possible to save time in a bottle?

Ok. So just say we dismiss the simulation theory at this point.

wikipedia
"The higher the gravitational potential (the farther the clock is from the source of gravitation), the faster time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity."

So the higher the gravitational potentional a mass has the more time passes for the observer the more distant they are from the object of high mass.

The further you are away from the sinkhole the slower the waters of time are and time is flowing muxh more normally for the observer.
However the closer you are to the sinkhole, the more time is flowing away from you and into the sinkhole therefore time is slowing down to you as its flowing away from you faster and down the sinkhole. So time slows down for you compared to an observer farther away than the sinkhole since you're not getting as much time as them.

a reply to: olaru12

no more than you can store distance in a bottle

Doesnt more mass mean more gravity potential?

More gravity potential means the faster time flows as a distant observer than a closer observer. It flows faster for the distant observer than the closer observer as the sinkhole isnt as near and therefore time isnt being sucked out of the space surrounding the distant observer than and observer closer to the sinkhole.

Isnt the pull of gravity the same? Gravity isnt as big a pull the further away from an object you are compared to if you are closer?

Could there not be a correlation between the two?

Mass of the sun
1.9891 × 10^30 kilograms
Gravity of the sun
274 m/s²
28.02g
Sun Escape velocity
617 km/s
Mass of the earth
5.972 × 10^24 kg
Gravity of the earth
9.807 m/s²
1g
Earth Escape velocity
11.2km/s
Speed of light
299792458 m / s


Distant space time equals normal

Earth time is 1,400,000,000 part per distant space
Sun time is 4,700,000,000,000 parts per distant space

space time
" If a spaceship could travel at, say, 99% of the speed of light, a hypothetical observer looking in would see the ship’s clock moving about twice as slow as normal (i.e. coordinate time is moving twice as slow as proper time), and the astronauts inside moving around apparently in slow-motion. At 99.5% of the speed of light, the observer would see the clock moving about 10 times slower than normal. At 99.9% of the speed of light, the factor becomes about 22 times, at 99.99% 224 times, and at 99.9999% 707 times, increasing exponentially. In the largest particle accelerators currently in use we can make time slow down by 100,000 times. At the speed of light itself, were it actually possible to achieve that, time would stop completely."

I know im talking about sinkholes and thats not really accurate at all...

But if in theory time was flowing into an object and away from normal "empty" space... is there not some calculations that could be done to find a correlation between mass, gravitation potential and the flow of time into that mass/gravitational potential and the slow down of time compared to an observer? Or is that pretty much what that space time link i posted above is showing? As i said im a bit drunk atm.

I

a reply to: DaRAGE

There absolutely is a strong correlation. The way Einstein visualized it was that mass warps or curves space time, and it takes more time for light(and presumably matter as well) to traverse regions of strongly curved space time as compared to flatter regions. An observer in a flatter region experiences normal time locally but can observe time moving slower for a second observer in a strongly curved region. The second observer ALSO experiences time ticking by at a normal pace, but can also observe the first observer's time flowing faster. This is because the light emitted from the first observer to the second traverses a flatter region of space time as compared to the second observers local reference frame, thus photons arrive sooner than expected. The return trip works the same way.

EDIT: The return trip works the same way, except in reverse.

a reply to: Zelun

Only within our own universe. As to what could be simulated or projected into our universe from another, possibly higher dimension, that we have no way of saying or measuring. So it does not completely preclude the possibility that our universe may indeed be holographic as other leading-edge mathematics suggests.

Once we are able to realize and measure the individual unit of Planck energy might be able to finally shed some "Light" on the holographic principle with rather more certainty, which may only be a few years distant.

a reply to: Zelun

Ok so quick question and im going to sleep after i ask this. Am i just rehashing everything that Einstein has said? Hahaha i kind of feel like i am. Too many rums for me

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: DaRAGE

I like your idea, I really do. I'm sorry to have to show you this:

cosmosmagazine.com...

Recently it was determined that there are physical processes that are just too complex to simulate, to a high degree of certainty. That is, of course, unless you make the supposition that the hardware of the simulation actually is the matter and energy of the universe. I added that second part, it's not in the article.

Here's a thought experiment to consider (that leads to a paradox):

Let's say our universe is a computer simulation. Some people say it is possible, because they say that it is within the realm of possibility for us to someday have a powerful enough computer to run a simulation -- THEREFORE, it is quite possible that some other intelligent being already has a powerful enough computer, and our universe is the result of that powerful computer + simulation.

So, it is stipulated that it is possible for us (as a simulation) to create our own simulation of our universe in a computer someday.

Therefore -- and bear with me -- that would mean that the simulation we create would be so advanced as to be indistinguishable from being a real universe by the simulated beings within that universe....

...And if that were the case, then in that simulation WE create (and don't forget that in this thought experiment, we ourselves are simulated), the simulated beings would be able to someday create their own powerful computer and simulate their own universe......and so on and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

That is to say, there could be an infinite number of "nested" simulated universes, with each simulated universe running their own simulated universe.

So that would mean that the "prime" simulation (i.e., the simulation being run by the only "real" being in this scenario who created that first simulation) would need to be run on a computer with infinite power and infinite memory if it were to be able to keep all of these infinitely nested simulations running.

The bottom line in this "Paradox of Infinite Simulations" would be that the computer running the prime simulation would need to be infinitely sized to work properly.