A new definition of space-time?

What is space-time?

Well we all know of its description in terms of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity papers, not to mention countless other interpretations and further work to Einstein’s original thought experiments, from John Archie-ball Wheeler through to modern-day scientists such as Kip Thorn, Paul Davies, Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose and Stephen W. Hawking, to name a few.

But none of these great minds, as far as I am aware, have come up with a physical tangible non-mathematical description. The closest we have describes space-time akin to a 2 dimensional rubber sheet where planets and stars glide across the top of it. Modern day computer graphics can provide images of 6 dimensional space manifolds, but these are still represented on 2 dimensional paper; no element of time is represented pictorially.

So how can space-time be visualized?

Well this is a hard question to answer and there currently is no known ‘correct’ answer, but we can deduce from common sense some factors; this could be dangerous of course because where quantum mechanics is involved, common sense usually is the proverbial ‘baby being thrown out with the bath water’, to miss-quote an old saying.

Common sense notions would say that causality – the idea that effect must follow cause – being one of the most common fundamental principles of physics, rules the roost with a description of space-time; also see thermodynamics. However if you look at things on the quantum level, causality can be broken; experiments with particle pairs can demonstrate strange quantum on-goings and time can flow backwards, thus breaking common sense notions of causality.

So how would one describe space-time?

Well one would like to think of space-time as having some sort of structure, a box to contain the contents of the universe, like a Venn diagram holds sets and subsets of information.

  • So how do you describe space-time?
  • What are its physical characteristics, or properties?
  • Could space-time be seen as sponge with lots of honey-combed connected holes?
  • How about looking at the 3 dimensional aspect, what if space is a super-fluid?
  • Could the structure of space-time be similar in properties like water being cooled down to almost absolute zero where it would have super-fluid like properties?

We know that atoms that exist within space-time all “vibrate” to a certain extent, where each element has a particular frequency or vibrates at a specific cycle/pattern; this is not including the possibility of string theory properties. This individual resonance can sing when a combination of atoms are put together – song in the heavens? But what if the time element of space-time is the expansion of space or the resonance of the very super-fluid structure of space?

We know that space-time itself is expanding, this does not mean that the matter within is expanding itself, but space-time is, hence why galaxies are moving away from each other. We also know that the light carrier, the photon, is connected through “Einstein’s biggest blunder“. It has been suggested by physicist João Magueijo of Imperial College London, that when the Universe was younger and space-time was smaller, light moved faster than 300,000 km/s, and as space-time grew/expanded, light slowed down to its current speed of 300,000 km/s. If space-time were to collapse and shrink up, then light would become more energetic and would get faster? This might be testable with future particle accelerators.

Gedankenexperiment

So if we take the idea of space-time as a super-fluid structure, and the time component is the frequency vibration of the space super-fluid, could this description be visualised as a working structure or model? Think of the super-fluid at its smallest component, like a ‘molecule’ of water vibrating away, collectively the ‘molecules’ make space-time. The carriers that exist within space-time, such as the photon, have no mass or discernible quantitative structure as they are a by-product of space-time ‘molecular’ structure vibrating, ‘molecules’ which have broken off from the whole structure because they have lost energy and have a slightly different frequency, and therefore vibrate differently from the other ‘molecules’ that make up the space-time super-fluid structure.

Could this explanation not account for some of the behaviour of the carrier particles and the structure of space-time itself?

Lets open up a new way of thinking, with another Gedankenexperiment.

Advertisements

Time Machines and the Universal co-ordinate system

This is a new version from the submitted article by myself 14857 of rec.arts.sf.science Subject: Time Travel, is it spatial relocation? The title of this document is: Time Machines and the Universal co-ordinate system.

Please note: I have posted and email several people with material that is contained within this documentation during 1995. The first draft was produced in May 1995 and the final draft was completed on 21st of November 1995.

Copyright Notice © 1996

This document, including all of its parts, is not in the public domain and is the intellectual property, Copyright © 1996. Permission to distribute the parts of this document that are mine, not including the quoted material, in its entirety (unedited and including this copyright notice) is permitted, provided that no fees are charged for the reproduction and distribution of the material with the exception of any fee necessary for the transmission of this information in any format or by any means of dissemination. Any necessary fee covers categories such as: reproduction on a photocopier, scanner, or any other means of reproduction; and the distribution by any means. The use of external material within this document for referencing or other purposes which belongs to and is copyrighted and/or registered trademarks of those respective owners, is the property of those owners. ©

Star Trek (R), “Warp Nacelles” ® and CDP (Continuum distortion propulsion) ® are registered trademarks of Paramount Pictures. “Hunt for Red October” is a Paramount Picture film ©.  JET (Joint European Torus) is a European Community project based in Culham, Oxfordshire, England. New Scientist, 16th November 1991, Vol. 132, No. 1795, This Week, Michael Kenward, “Fusion becomes a hot bed for the Future” ©, is an article in New Scientist on the success of JET’s nuclear fusion. John Gribbin’s “The Search of Schrodinger’s Cat” ©, (1991), is published by Black Swan edition. Andrew Watson, “Wanted: dead or alive” ©, New Scientist, 13th May 1995, No. 1977, p42., is a review of the book “Schrodinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality” by John Gribbin, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson ©, pp261. Lawrence A. Crum and Kenneth S. Suslick, “Bubbles hotter than the Sun” ©, New Scientist, 29th April 1995, pp36-40, No. 1975, is published by IPC Magazines Ltd. Spatial Inductive Gyrodynamic Distortion Module (SIGDM) is © copyrighted and is a Trade Mark ™.

Keywords: magnetohydrodynamics; sonoluminescence; magnetic containment fields; spatial-theory; cosmic strings; wormholes; time-travel; quantum tunneling.

Introduction.

The purpose of this document is to delve further into the issues that I discussed within my posting, 14857 of rec.arts.sf.science, Subject: Time Travel, is it spatial relocation? This new documentation is an expanded version of that material with additional information.

The document’s purpose is two fold. It is to focus discussion onto some of the areas of space-time, in particular relativity theory. Its second purpose is to discuss some of the possible different forms of time-travel as discussed within the science community and by science-fiction writers. Its main focus will capitulate into a discussion of a theoretical model of SIGDM ™ technology.

It should be noted that this documentation is science-fiction based, and is not intended to be taken seriously. However, the ideas within here cannot be ruled out, until they can be either proved or disproved. There are no bounds to human imagination. Is the construction of a time-machine just wild hypothetical theory that scientists and science-fiction writers discuss?

1. In order to set the foundations for this discussion, I shall start by first probing into the murky areas of what we perceive time to be.

“Knowledge is dangerous in the hands of fools, as for those who would use it could destroy entire worlds”, (Krakston, 2663).

In order to set the foundations for this discussion, I shall start by first probing into the murky areas of what we perceive time to be. The definition of time is not an easy concept to grasp. Time has been speculated about since before the dawn of the first civilisations. Examples of cultures past which used tools to measure the equinox can still be found in southern England at Stone-Henge, additionally similar types of “technology” have been used amongst many other cultures across history; including countries such as: Ireland, Norway, Central Africa, South America, etc… The notion of time has stuck into conscious perception and rules our very lives, which have become based upon a modernist industrial based economic society. I shall discuss in a future paper the development of science’s culture, links with science’s application with science-fiction and its foundations.

However, my concerns for this discussion are not so much to do with how the brain perceives what we call “time”, but rather its physical attributes that cause a direct effect within the cosmos.

Within the last 450 years, theories have been developed about the universe that have turned religion onto its head and have herald a new religious order, “science”. Within recorded history, these theories notably started with Nicolaus Copernicus, and moved onto Galileo Galilei, through to Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Shernberge, de Selby, Zorac, Dayno, (circa 2684). At the very core of their discoveries, each have postulated a theory, which has made a significant impact upon the way that time is perceived; not all agree with the proposed theories. However, no matter how much we speculate on space-time’s raw constituency, space-time as a physical entity will not change. Our understandings and perceptions of its functions may alter as we gather more information – but will we necessarily learn from this?

So, what is this substance of time? Is it part of a fabric of space, intrinsically interwoven to bring order to a chaotic existence? (Einstein’s theory). Is it all about us, and matter moves within it, through its space? (Plenums’s theorem). Or is it a “movable feast” belonging to a multidimensional facade that cat-cradles all fibres of the universe? (Sommer’s theory).

One thing is for certain, time is a definite structure, with substance that effects the very known Universe that we exist within. But if we exist in time, and we can physically measure changes, then do we travel through time? Indeed we do, in one direction, forwards, forever ageing at a human defined rate, whose measurements are based upon the Earth’s rotation and orbit of its star. But we do not “feel” time as we can feel three of the other known dimensions of space. We know of the physical presence of space by looking at real-world objects, such as boxes. They have length, depth and breadth; also called Length, Width and Height (LxWxH). These dimensions are tangible. The temporal dimension is experienced in a different manner and measured by things such as age or atomic decay in atoms, etc..

According to Einstein’s Space-time geometry, movement in the three tangible dimensions of LxWxH, are coupled to another dimension, that of time (t); hence they produce the four dimensional space-time. Others have looked at Einstein’s work and produced other theories, such as Minkowski, who further expanded upon the relationship between time and the photon, which is represented as a two dimensional drawing called a light-cone diagram. This defines the available space for movement within space-time for matter that travels below the speed of light. Relativity does not preclude the existence of particles which can travel faster than light, but they do stipulate that any such particles, can never travel slower than the speed of light. Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but what does this all have to do with time-travel. I shall endeavour to explain. Continue reading “Time Machines and the Universal co-ordinate system”

What if…

Question: Is it possible to survive the Grandfather Paradox? What If…

Since quantum mechanics is governed by probabilities, an unmeasured entity (in this case, your historical grandfather) has numerous probable states. When that entity is measured, the number of its probable states singularities (analogous to a psi wave in a world-history line), resulting in a single outcome; in this case, ultimately, you. Therefore since the outcome of your grandfather is known, killing your grandfather would be incompatible with that outcome. Thus, the outcome of one’s trip backwards in time must be complementary with the state from which one left.

What if the Grandfather paradox only works in a system (a reference frame) that is local to the entropy state of that local reference frame’s state of knowledge, i.e., what if, the information of what happened with say a history of a grandfather relative is lost (or older ancestor), either information becomes dispersed and forgotten with time or information within a short period is being trapped by a black-hole. So lets suppose that if this information is lost and no living person or system state has a record of a grandfather or older relative. If you went back in time and killed them, not knowing that they were your grandfather, you would cease to exist?

Logically you might think so, but the quantum state of knowledge (information) has not changed. Therefore if you kill your grandfather without any system or person within the Universe knowing that they are your grandfather, (or older relative back in time), would you cease to exist or would you continue to exist in a merged paradox as the state of information is then changed and incorporated into a new state? The supposition being that the previous information (on your grandfather) has become lost and therefore logic no paradox would be created? This might be done without the need for a parallel world or a paradox machine to keep the consistency invoked.

The Novikov self-consistency principle holds that if one were to travel back in time, the laws of nature (or other intervening cause) would simply forbid the traveller from doing anything that could later result in their time travel not occurring. For example, a shot fired at the traveller’s grandfather will miss, or the gun will jam, or misfires, or the grandfather will be injured but not killed, or the person killed will turn out to be not their real grandfather, or some other event will occur to prevent the attempt from succeeding. No action the traveller takes to affect change will ever succeed, as there will always be some form of “bad luck” or coincidence preventing the outcome. In effect, the traveller will be unable to change history from the state they left it. Very commonly in fiction, the time traveller does not merely fail to prevent the actions s/he seeks to prevent; s/he in fact precipitates them (see predestination paradox), usually by accident.

The Novikov self-consistency principle theory might lead to concerns about the existence of free will (in this model, free will may be an illusion). This theory also assumes that causality must be constant: i.e. that nothing can occur in the absence of cause, whereas some theories hold that an event may remain constant even if its initial cause was subsequently eliminated.

Closely related but distinct is the notion of the time line as self-healing. The time traveller’s actions are like throwing a stone in a large lake; the ripples spread, but are soon swamped by the effect of the existing waves (interference). For instance, a time traveller could assassinate a politician who led his country into a disastrous war, but the politician’s followers would then use his murder as a pretext for the war, and the emotional effect of that would cancel out the loss of the politician’s charisma. Or the traveller could prevent a car crash from killing a loved one, only to have the loved one killed by a mugger, or fall down the stairs, choke on a meal, killed by a stray bullet, etc.

In some stories it is only the event that precipitated the time traveller’s decision to travel back in time that cannot be substantially changed, in others all attempted changes will be “healed” in this way, and in still others the universe can heal most changes but not sufficiently drastic ones. This is also the explanation advanced by the Dr. Who role-playing game, which supposes that Time is like a stream; you can dam it, divert it, or block it, but the overall direction it is headed will resume after a period of conflict.

An interesting concept in the “The Stone Rose” (Jacqueline Rayner, BBC Books, 2006), but slightly obscure perspective on a temporal paradox. By seeing a statue of yourself in the future, even for a time lord’s companion such as Rose in this case is a paradox in itself, because until they see the statue the Doctor has not taken her to Rome 1900 years ago (give or take 100 or so years). But by doing so he sets up a paradoxical causal loop, so the real question is, where did the knowledge of Rose being in Rome 1900 years ago come from?

After all the Doctor may never have taken her to Rome unless Mickey showed her the stature of Fortuna (Rose) being an exact replica, right down to her ear rings. So where did this state of knowledge of events that put the statue of Rose before he decided to go to Rome come from? If the Doctor had not see the statue of Rose, he may never have gone back to Rome 100 ~ 200 AD with Rose. Did the information of the trip come into existence on its own? And if so, from where did this quantum information come from?  A paradox within a paradox or did the information just arise naturally form Rose’s very existence as a complex system in her own right?