The polarity of time, and the expansion of the universe.

Let me start by saying that I am not a physicist, nor a religious scholar, but merely an IT professional who takes great interest in both of these topics. Recently, I’ve been very interested in some of the unsolved problems of modern physics, and in particular, the riddle that is ‘dark energy’. In pondering this topic, I believe I stumbled onto something of some significance. Keep in mind however, I’ve done this merely with thought experiments, and not any of that fancy physics math - so these are merely ideas which are now out there for proving (if anyone is so inclined).

First, a quick explanation, in general terms, of the big question in physics known commonly as ‘dark energy’.

In the 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that more distant galaxies appeared to be more “redshifted” than others. Specifically, the grouping of spectral lines, which are apparent in all stars and have a consistent relative distance from one another, were shifted to the left on the spectrum of light. His interpretation, which took hold and remains the dominant view, is that this is the result of the Doppler effect - an idea that was consistent with Einstein’s predictions. This Doppler effect would indicate that the more distant galaxies are moving away from our galaxy fast enough to cause observable changes in the wavelength of the light that they emit. (Incidentally, there is a very good write up on this effect published this week on physorg.com.)

The fact that more distant galaxies seemed to be moving away from our galaxy, and to a more significant degree than closer galaxies, implies an outward growth from a single point of origin. This was the first verification of a theory that had been proposed just a couple of years prior - what is now know as the Big Bang theory.

As time went on, this theory set in, along with various models and predictions of how the universe formed, and what the future of the universe might look like. There were two major competing conceptions for how the universe might proceed from this point - either the expansion would slow over time, or the expansion would stop and then gravity would cause a reversal, a universal contraction. However, in 1998 researchers determined that neither of these were true, and in fact, a completely unpredicted phenomenon is occurring - the universe’s expansion is speeding up, accelerating. That is, that the more distant galaxies were getting redder at an accelerating pace.

This was such a surprise, that even today, 12 years later, it is generally accepted that there is no really good explanation for this phenomenon. The phenomenon is so significant, that if interpreted as a force pushing galaxies apart, it would account for about 74% of all the mass and energy in the universe. Yet, we have no clue what this 74% is. This is “dark energy”. “Dark energy” is really nothing - it’s just a variable. There are some guesses, but nothing even close to an understanding at this point, and there is little to no agreement within any of the relevant fields.

Continued...

reply to post by timepolarity


What else could cause a galaxy to redshift over time?

There is one other possibility for why an object in space can be shifted to the red-end of the spectrum - gravity. This is a phenomenon called gravitational redshfit, and was predicted by Einstein and others. Gravity creates a frame of reference with a constant acceleration, so light escaping the gravity of a large body will become more red, proportionate to the mass of the object. You can think of it as the light going “uphill”, out of the gravity well of a large body in space, and along the way losing its energy, shifting toward the lower-energy red end of the light spectrum.

Now, if you’ve been following along, this would seem like a rather curious thing to bring up, considering that recent observations indicated that the distant galaxies are becoming more and more red - and if this red-shifting was caused by gravity, wouldn’t that mean their gravity would be increasing over time? Well, the answer to that is both a yes, and a no. Yes, in order for this explanation to hold, it would mean that gravity is speeding up - unless the speed of light was speeding up instead.

Wouldn’t we observe changes in the speed of light?

Yes, we would, and I believe we are - we just call it “dark energy”. Imagine that there is no overall, common trajectory for galaxies moving outward from a central point, and instead that the galaxies are more or less stationary in a large field of galaxies. This is not to say that galaxies do not move about and collide, but rather that there is no general trend outward. When we observe the “expansion of space,” I believe we are actually seeing the galaxies and other bodies shrink relative to the space that’s around them.

For this to make any kind of sense, consider that the speed of light is not just some property reserved for light, but merely that light is mass-less (and so rather swift) and can’t seem to get past this barrier. This speed, which I will call “c” for the remainder of this explanation, is a universal constant. In fact, c is one of a relatively small set of values which do not seem to change, no matter what frame of reference it is observed. This is the foundation of the theory of relativity, where time and space bend to support the constancy of c.

So, c is really a wall of sorts, a barrier which we can observe and calculate, but do not really understand. This constant barrier is a very important part of the universe, believed to determine the relationship between time and space, mass and energy, and the speed of gravity. For instance, the familiar equation E=mc^2 describes the relationship of mass to energy, and this relationship is governed by the square of this value.

If c were increasing over time, it would be very difficult to observe at smaller scales - the yardstick we use to measure the distance would shrink, and the seconds we use to calculate the time would become shorter. All dependent properties would still stay in a proper relative arrangement, so things would appear to be remaining the same even though they would all be experiencing dramatic changes in exact proportion to one another. I believe the ability to observe this affect would require extremely large distances, or extremely large changes in c over a brief period.

reply to post by timepolarity


Before I go into how this might be observed, first let me explain why I believe this would be happening.

One of the more puzzling aspects of physics is the so-called “arrow of time”. It’s a pretty simple concept for humans to understand, since our consciousness is so dependent upon events occurring causally, and in a sequential order. Time flows in essentially one direction, toward the future. You can slow down or speed up time, perhaps even bring it to nearly a halt, but you cannot reverse its direction. To do so would violate causality, and create paradoxes that are seemingly unresolvable. This has troubled physicists for a while because almost every other aspect of our universe operates with some sort of symmetry.

I believe that time only appears asymmetric, and instead has a distinct polarity. Given this, the flow of time is really the flow from a negative pole to a positive pole, from a beginning to an end. The flow can happen at varying speeds, but because this is the flow of space itself, it cannot be reversed. In addition to the perception of the passage of time, I believe this polarity of space/time manifests itself as gravity, which also has an arrow of sorts, pointing toward mass.

Now this is where I get into a very conceptual part of this discussion (as if this wasn’t conceptual enough): in this model, the universe is really performing a task - the separation of mass from energy. Because we are massive objects, our polarity draws us to more massive objects - this is gravity. Consider that to escape gravity, we have to apply a force, or energy, in the direction of the massive object which we are drawn to. This literally puts space between us and the other object. I believe this condition illustrates this idea - that space and energy are one and the same. Think of space as a very voluminous but low density form of energy - this idea is perhaps observed experimentally in the form of vacuum energy.

So this process (the flow of which we call time) is taking some very tightly wound, spooled up energy, and unraveling it. As we unravel it, there’s piles of loose string, and a slowly shrinking spool. The piles of string are the unraveled, low density energy we call space. The shrinking spool is mass. At the end of the spool, is nothing - it was only present as the wound-up form of energy. In this sense, mass is the edge of space.

If you start to think of mass as the edges or frontiers of space, you can start to see a trend - the dominance of mass in shaping the universe, a growing horizon.

In very massive objects, energy is constantly ejected - for instance, light and other forms of radiation that’s emitted by stars. If a massive body had enough mass, when enough of the energy has been depleted it becomes a black hole - which is essentially already understood to be a literal hole in the fabric of space.

For the past decade or so, it’s become a generally accepted idea that at the center of each galaxy is a supermassive black hole. Not only that, but it’s believed that these black holes are the very glue that creates the spiral formation of galaxies, or the formations of galaxies at all.

Beyond just the casual similarities of atomic structures to cosmological ones, if you consider that an incredibly massive object lies at the center of the form of a galaxy, it’s very easy and simple to draw a parallel with the massive nucleus of an atom, with the essentially mass-less electron(s) which orbit it in these little clouds. I have not explored in-depth the atomic scale continuation of this idea, but it at least appears consistent - with the forces of polarity on this scale being essentially the same, but corresponding to the smaller masses.

reply to post by timepolarity


Black holes themselves, despite having enough gravity to swallow mass-less objects (such as light), don’t seem to like it. Some of the more interesting and still not fully understood properties of black holes are the incredible x-ray jets and gamma bursts which they produce under various conditions. These are without question the most incredible ejections of extremely high-energy material ever observed, the pinnacle of which is the quasar. Black holes also have this curious property of hiding their information - very little can be observed about a black hole because information cannot be retrieved from beyond its event horizon. I believe that within them, you would find the most extreme unraveling of energy (and therefore, creation of space) in the universe.

So why is the expansion of space, and shrinking of massive objects accelerating?

I think the answer to this is pretty simple - we’re running out of time. If time operates under this polarity, then as the underlying current of this unraveling of energy from mass nears completion, the unraveling speeds up - much like a magnet accelerates to it’s polar opposite, or you accelerate as you fall to the earth.

Fortunately for this concept of the universe, if we really are nearing a literal end of time, then we could start to observe it. If light is speeding up faster and faster, at some point, light will start to behave differently even at short distances. I believe we would see increased redshift in this manner:

First, the most distant and massive galaxies would appear redder - we would see the difference in wavelength because of the billions of years of change light has made in closer galaxies.

Second, the most massive nearby galaxies would appear redder - the higher overall gravity of the system would produce more noticeable effects.

Third, the most distant and most massive stars in our galaxy would appear redder.

Fourth, all stars would appear redder.

Fifth, the sun, the planets, the moons would appear redder.

Unfortunately for this concept, if these predictions do come true, then we are not done when things start to get red. Following the red shift, objects will become increasingly dim, and then eventually stop emitting light altogether. Some of this will be because these bodies are absorbed into the supermassive black hole within their galaxy, or other black holes in their region. However, and perhaps most disturbingly, because of the increasing though proportional gravity, at some point (near the end of the “spool”) I believe that objects of traditionally insufficient mass, would start to do things that you would previously need much more mass to accomplish.

For instance, very large planets (“brown dwarfs”) would begin to ignite into stars, and stars that would previously have insufficient gravity to collapse into a black hole would make that transition. We would start to notice much smaller stars than we are accustomed to seeing, and many more black holes.

The end game here, of course, is one gigantic black hole, with a heck of a lot of energy floating around.

reply to post by timepolarity


Ok, so now lets come up with some more testable predictions.

Prediction 1 - (already stated, but again for clarity...) All astronomical bodies would become more red, then dim, starting with the most massive and distant.

Prediction 2 - Curiously small stars would start to show up in our galaxy, and in increasing number.

Prediction 3 - The earth and other planets/moons would begin to heat up as the threshold for ignition is lowered. On the earth, this would appear as an increasing surface temperature and a rising molten core.

Prediction 4 - The earth and other planets/moons would show increasing seismic activity as the stability of the surface would be increasingly compromised by the rising gravity and pressure.

Prediction 5 - The sun and other stars would become increasingly unstable and eventually collapse into black holes.

Prediction 6 - The earth’s increasing gravity would likely, at some point, draw nearby debris closer to us - increasing the likelihood of asteroid impacts.

All of these predictions are not necessarily in their order of occurrence (that’s the sort of thing that needs to be calculated), and presume that the object in question was far enough away from the nearest hungry black hole.

It’s also worth noting that the mere fact that this process is accelerating means that this process could be exponential - meaning that very strange things may start to occur toward the end of time.

You might not want to read this part unless you believe that the Bible is the truth, or at least that the prophecies of Revelation could have merit. (if you said no to either of these, you should probably skip to the conclusion)

While I was working on this a couple of weeks ago, it suddenly struck me - “redder moon!” Under this model, as the end of time approaches, the moon would turn red - but not just any red, a deep, true, blood red.

The similarities don’t stop there of course:

Revelation 6:12-17
When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

Consider that the earth could eventually ignite into a star, literally becoming a lake of fire. Suddenly the upward direction of heaven doesn’t seem quite so ludicrous.

To recap, at the end of time under this model we have: red moon, blackened sun, vanishing stars, seismic activity, lake of fire, inescapable destruction and torment.

There are many other similarities in other parts of the book of Revelation - for instance “wormwood” could easily be an asteroid drawn to the increasing gravity of earth. Revelation 7:1 seems to indicate that the wind might stop - something that could occur if the gravity increases resistance to the movement of the air. Revelation 7:12 seems to describe the dimming of the moon/stars/sun. Revelation 9:1-2 seem to point to an asteroid or some other object piercing the earth’s weakened crust - opening a “bottomless pit.” There are almost too many to mention, and I’m sure many that I didn’t catch.

reply to post by timepolarity


On a personal level, this epiphany caused me to do a spiritual 180. I had originally, and pridefully, considered myself quite smart to come up with this model of the universe, but I now believe that this is merely something that God has shown me. Not necessarily that this is a precisely correct model of things (though it may well be), but that the Bible is quite possibly the literal truth, and may be both compatible with, and perhaps better at science than humans are. Indeed, if this holds true, I would argue that the Bible could be the greatest book of physics of all time, considering it fully articulates these concepts nearly 2000 years ago, in addition to possibly demonstrating relativity in Genesis. (although not exactly physics, I also find this potential Biblical truth quite interesting).

And now, the conclusion:

I believe this is an interesting and very consistent model of the universe, which, while perhaps not perfect (I can’t wait for someone smarter than I to start poking some holes in this), seems to explain all sorts of unexplained or poorly understood aspects of our universe. I am only beginning to conceive of this at the quantum level, and it’s already starting to look pretty good.

The fact that it seems to be completely consistent with the end of time prophecies within Revelation is quite startling, and in my view, actually lends additional credence to these ideas. I’d like to note that, while I don’t have any proof to back this up, this hypothesis was derived independent of any sort of “Bible-proof”. It was only after I had traveled pretty far through this thought experiment that I started to draw some very close parallels. In all honesty, when I begin this endeavor, I was the farthest I had been from God in my entire life, and I believe now that I’m perhaps the closest I’ve been to that particular path.

To close, I will present some potential evidence that suggests we are nearing this end of time, starting with the most obvious or already mentioned phenomenon:

- The observed “accelerating expansion of space”.
- Black holes as the most pervasive and influencing structural element of the cosmos.
- The observed rise in earth’s surface temperature, commonly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
- The potentially increasing volatility of the sun.
- The seemingly increasing seismic activity on earth.
- The recent discovery that Pluto is getting redder and perhaps warmer.
- The recent introduction of theories to explain “dark energy” by actual physicists which (for the first time in decades) has suggested some variation in the constants of the universe, in particular, c.
- The appearance of stars or almost-stars which do not fit neatly within current models.

I hope that people with the requisite skills can step in here and either find more evidence, come up with or refine the testable predictions, or disprove this idea completely. Regardless, I’m excited to finally get this idea written down and spread around to those that are interested. Thank you for reading.

Where is the light traveling to, and from? Why do we believe in gravity? What is time besides want and need?

All of these terms and ideas are great expressions of creativity. How can something that is moving through nothing accelerate? If you have something, and you put it into nothing what is it?

The only thing everything is, is yourself. Outside of self, self doesn't exist.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by onequestion]

As far as I can tell, and what I've always understood, was that time is expanding along with the universe both "forward" and "backward" at the same rate. What this basically means is that The Big Bang is really just a convenient way to describe the flex point from which everything began zooming both forward and backward into time, and continues to do so.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
As far as I can tell, and what I've always understood, was that time is expanding along with the universe both "forward" and "backward" at the same rate. What this basically means is that The Big Bang is really just a convenient way to describe the flex point from which everything began zooming both forward and backward into time, and continues to do so.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, that contradicts what I believe to be the consensus about time. There are many interesting descriptions (even on Wikipedia), but I find this TED talk by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time to be quite informative.

As soon as you mentioned the idea that this is an ongoing process, my mind started wandering and thinking about the implications. There i thought about revelation and moon turning red. I continued reading and planned on replying this "find" here.

Then you go on to mention do not read this part if you dont want to see bible stuff - there i knew you reached the exact same conclusion, and sure you did

Really interesting idea, and i have to give it some more though, and see how it would fit into "matter is made of waves" -theory. It is currently the model that sounds most true to me.

Originally posted by timepolarity
Unless I am misunderstanding you, that contradicts what I believe to be the consensus about time. There are many interesting descriptions (even on Wikipedia), but I find this TED talk by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time to be quite informative.

Yeah, but if you look at your average Feynman equation, a photon bouncing in and out of reality/virtuality doesn't know or care if it's moving forward or backward in time. So approximately half the time, it bounces into a reality that to us would seem temporally negative. But we only perceive the positive bounces.

That's why it's pretty much impossible to get a good estimate on the age of the universe. It's constantly shifting in and out of reality, as well as back and forth in time. So you can consider the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old, or maybe it's only 7.9 billion years old, or maybe the Big Bang was only yesterday.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Blue Shift]