Universe to Expand For Ever

I'm loosing it!!! lol

FM, your driving me nut's!

Depending on the nature of the edge of the universe, your either gonna hit and go boom or your gonna surpass it. It's not hard to understand.

Your theory of time though, look's more like a rework of quantum entanglement though. I see what your trying to convey, but only from that angle. Where your getting time put into all this, I haven't figured out yet.

Let's try something simple. Your a primitive man, no concept of time. You observe the sun and notice an effect it has on the shadow of a stick stuck into the ground. You've observed this strange event for a many moon's now. Suddenly, you realize, you can use this effect to your advantage !!! You draw a circle around the stick and divide it into pie section's and depending where the stick's shadow is, you know to do certain thing's. For example, hunting, fetching water, or simply knowing when to fish, all thanks to the shadow caused by the sun.

Move forward a million years.

Now it's the 21st century, we have digital clock's to simulate that shadow caused by the sun. We've taken advantage of it and have given it more meaning in previouse year's. We now call it time, and have realized, it's something we have little of in our daily live's. Our brightest mind's have tried to measure the our movement around the sun to get more precise time.

Then one day in the near future, some fat lazy man, scratching his arse wins the noble prize for deciphering some antient text written by the guy who discovered time a million years ago....

That, my friend, is my stance on time.

e-nonymous you obviously don't get it...it obviously is TOO hard for you to understand...

Originally posted by e-nonymous
Depending on the nature of the edge of the universe, your either gonna hit and go boom or your gonna surpass it. It's not hard to understand.

These are not the only options.

Xeno's paradox (whatever the dude's name is) is another option.

The universe can have a finite area, definition and such, but you could travel as fast as you want and never reach the end because for all we know, it goes from 0-infinity.

I'm getting time put into this, because I used to think time was just a "cycle" that we can measure to calculate stuff.

Now I think Time is an actual force, entity, or fabric that permeates everything, in fact, it IS everything...because don't you see how many pillars it would shake if physics were to adopt a theory that only one particle exists at any GIVEN point in time?

Can you imagine how much this might mean? This would redefine science as we know it!

To apply Time not as the 4th dimension but as the 3!!!! That is something that has never been thuroughly researched, and might just well be the proper path to take!

Your analogy of a cave-man "discovering time" does not work. What you are talking about there is "Observable time" which is a man made invention. What a physicist is talking about when he mentions time is "Physical time"...time before anything was there to observe it.

Your stance on time is laughable, it is not "infinite" if it were we'd never progress through time.

Time affects all things, you see it in Entropy, in motion, everything. It is not 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, it is SOMETHING...but what?

Well that's what I've attempted to explain with my theory.

Time isn't 1 second 2 seconds...it is a particle's existance in this universe...we already see that with gravity even, that particles only exist at certain points...well perhaps they do not so much exist at certain points in the universe, as they do exist at certain times.

Now measuring when a particle exists and doesn't, is completely impossible for us now, but solving it mathematically, maybe that is possible...and that's what I wish I could get Stephen Hawkings or some super smart dude who already has a great grasp on physics and time in particular, to see, so that maybe they'll turn their eyes to time being quantums of existance, and not so much as cycles of days//weeks and hours.

Which I doubt many physicists would say that that is what time is, but that's what the main-stream people think time is...they think it is a clock on a wall, no it is something far different. Afterall, that clock on the wall is not time, it is just something spinning in a ryhthmic circle, meanwhile time is a divisible constant that can be used to determine positions and such.

And because of my theory, Time could very well be none other than the existance of a particle in "our" universe, because what happens to particles or anything, when you measure it at the singularity of time?

singularity being what I call the "Indivisible incriment of time", being no smaller amount of time than that "sigularity". So a second becomes a millisecond and so on which then becomes this singularity, and this singularity is what we must begin to study, because who is to say particles will be in every interval of this "singularity"?

No I think we would find that a particle exists at only certain intervals (1 interval over a number of intervals for every existing particle, which would make the smallest incriment of time if based on atoms...some 1/10^80th power, and so every atom in the universe only exists at 1 of those 10^80th power intervals. But we must go to the very basic existing particles to truly know what the interval is, not just atoms which are comprised of smaller particles.)

And it would be from that indivisible amount of time, that particles are known by nature to not be the same. Afterall again the question...how does nature know that you have 2 particles A+B and not just one particle in two locations of space?

Sincerely,
no signature

meanwhile time is a divisible constant that can be used to determine positions and such.

Right, a universal rythmic cycle. One that can be measured right down to the atom. Hence atomic clock's. How is it, we know how long an atom 'live's'? Through mathmatic's of what we've already defined time as, which goes back to our first impression's of time. The movement of the sun across the sky.

And it would be from that indivisible amount of time, that particles are known by nature to not be the same. Afterall again the question...how does nature know that you have 2 particles A+B and not just one particle in two locations of space?

An interesting point, but thinking realisticly, not very possible. Sound's like your proposing there is only one particle in the universe ... think about that for a minute. One particle, for you and me. We're both the same, yet so very different. How is that possible? I don't think there is any special physic's that need to be worked out here. It's just not realisticly possible.

There's one particle in the universe at a given point in time, but we exist in a 3rd dimension, which is far from a point, so while the particles are "seperate" because they don't exist together, their "mark" is existing together in the 3rd dimension...

As for atomic clocks, all that does is break our view of time down based on the rhythmic vibrations of an atom.

Has nothing to do with what time IS.

Sincerely,
no signature

If, and this is a huge if, there were only one particle that make's up all matter within this universe, then, by some odd quirk of physics, it would also have to make up anti-matter and dark matter as well. We're talking about one magicle little particle the seem's to defy all the known and established knowledge of mankind and physic's, not to mention every single universal law that we currently know.

As far time being something, I'd have to say no. The universe operate's on simplicity, not complexity. Your theory is way to complex. When did time begin? Well, it began the same time the very first event within this universe began. The very first event that has led a continuos sequence of event's that have been mathmaticly figured out so as to divide these serie's of event's into something more recognizable by our linear thought process's. Time, is something we human's have come up with to better understand the natural occurance's around us ....

NO E-NOMYNOUS! ughhh....how is this so hard to grasp.

There are trillions upon billions 10^1000 particles in the universe.

But only ONE of them exists at any GIVEN point in TIME.

That is how they are distinguishable from eachother, otherwise there would be only ONE particle, of every particle type (quark//up quark//gluons such such) at multiple points in space at any given time...which we doubt is true.

Sincerely,
no signature

Ohhh ... ok ...

Well, in that case, time ISN'T even a factor at all. It's very obvious for very obvious reason's that only ONE particle can exist at any given point at any given time. If two particle's existed at the same point at once, well ... I'm sure you would know the outcome.

Time wouldn't even be needed to 'distinguish' particle A from particle B, simply because if particle A and B tried to occupy the same point, they'd annihalate each other. Can't get more simple than that ....

No you missed it again...not same point same time, different times period nothing else, space isn't a factor, because who's to say that it isn't in both areas? Afterall we can't distinguish between the two experimentally or otherwise.

Sincerely,
no signature

No two particle's can exist at the same time??? Ok, your logic is making my head spin... Everytime I think I've understood what your trying to say, I haven't ...

Explain it as simply as possible ...

Finally you are ready to listen again.

Ok, 2 particles can not be distinguished from eachother, so how does nature distinguish between them?

Because you can't distinguish between them by their locations in space (is it A, is it B? Or is it just A in to places at once?) It has to be through time.

What way can you have a particle being different from any other particle? If it exists only in its own "Quantum" of time...popping up at a constant interval, when the cycle is complete, and that cycle is so immeasureably small that our minds see an entire universe, when really, when you bring time down to an individual point, our whole universe exists one particle at a time.

Then of course as I said elsewhere if you expand time to say the 1st dimension, you have 2 particles, existing not at the same time, but still existing in the same dimension, and so interactions begin...

Sincerely,
no signature

Ok, now let's say you have your quantum temporal atom's making up a human being. Say each and everyone one of these hypotheticle construct's of yours is existing at different quantum temporal rate's from each other...

Could you imaging what might happen?

Because you can't distinguish between them by their locations in space (is it A, is it B? Or is it just A in to places at once?) It has to be through time.

Let's take two atom's and expand them to the size of a pea. I give you one pea labled A, I keep the pea labeled B. We walk away from each other for about 10 mile's. How is it that these two atom's are distinguisable from each other? Simple easy answer that the universe love's ... They are seperate physical entities, just as you and I are. How is it that nature distinguish's you and I from each other? Perhap's time play's a role in this as well?

e-nonymous it just doesn't work that way.

With something like two down quarks you don't have "seperate physical entities" you only have probabilities.

Sincerely,
no signature

Well, then, by your reasoning, our WHOLE universe is STILL nothing more than a possibility AND could possibly, at any moment cease to exist. The quantum wave's of possibilty have already collapsed to form reality. This is why we are still here after 13.7 billion year's. Once those wave's collapse, that's that. They don't uncollapse to fit your views. Atom's ARE seperate entitie's from one another, just as you and I are seperate people out of billion's.

Tell your little "quantum waves collapse" thing to little particles, I don't think they give a $hit about it. And afterall, you can't be made up of "nothingness, and indistinguishable things" and magically be made up of physical distinguishable things.

That's like saying you are made up of massless particles and somehow have mass...which we know to be untrue

Sincerely,
no signature

All I can say here, is BOOM.

You figure out the rest.

Is it safe to assume, that the long silence is an indication that you still have yet to figure it out? Shall I spell it out for you, despite how futile it will be?

No, I simply lost interest in arguing about something you clearly have no clue about.

You want your answer to "BOOM" ask Stephen Hawking, he'll tell you "GOD".

Sincerely,
no signature

Well, if Mr. Hawkin's would say that, then he isn't much of a scientist. Saying it was god is far from being scientific.

As far as me being wrong, no, don't think so. I've tried pointing it out in the most simplest term's possible, yet a simple concept seem's beyond your understanding.

Steven Hawking mad his mind up about God long before he became a cosmologist (I thought most people knew this). He did not develop a belief in God because of his studies, it already existed.

No e-nonymous, you take a very complex and emmense concept, and dumb it down so that it conforms to your misguided view of life.

Sincerely,
no signature