Space.

[Dre89]

This will probably seem like a strange thread, but it does relate to a much more popular topic.

I'm guessing everyone here will agree that time and space are both finite.

Firstly I'd like to begin with a question to those with scientific knowledge. Space is most likely finite, meaning that the universe would have 'edges'.

Can the edges of the universe expand to make the universe bigger? I thought the answer would be no, because that would mean that there would have already been extra space prior to the expansion, but then I remembered Bing Bang asserts the expansion of space.

So what exactly is the theory on the expansion of space?

Depending on the answers I get, I'll probably reveal why I'm asking this.

 

[Ajna]

The question that immediately arises to me, is if space has the ability of intrinsic expansion, and its agreed in most modern scientific circles that it is indeed finite (which of course is why it would even expand in the first place) ... what is on the other side to begin with... if not space?

I may be wrong, but i believe what you are looking for is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker/

I find it a bit strange that we could say without a shadow of a doubt that time and space are finite... am I incorrect in saying that this would still be in the realm of scientific theory?

 

[GoldShadow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_universe

 

[Eor]

Firstly I'd like to begin with a question to those with scientific knowledge. Space is most likely finite, meaning that the universe would have 'edges'.

I've covered this many times, but no, spacetime doesn't need to have "edges", in the same way a circle can be finite but not have edges. From what we can tell the universe has no edges. So like a circle with two more dimensions (though the actual shape isn't a circle)

 

[Sucumbio]

This will probably seem like a strange thread, but it does relate to a much more popular topic.

I'm guessing everyone here will agree that time and space are both finite.

I think before it's all said and done we'll end up re-classifying "time" as 2 different things, U-Time and R-Time. U-Time (Universe Time) is the thing created by the big bang, a literal chronology of the known universe, the perception of which is only possible by an individual contained within it, and of which is highly dependent on the physical matter and energy of the known universe. R-Time will be something else, so called Real Time, will be the time that has been more traditionally known as Space-Time, a fabric of sorts, that technically predates the known universe. It will have a similar linear property to U-Time, but it will exist before the Big Bang, and it will exist long after the known universe is expanded into nothingness. One is finite. The other is not.

Now as for space, again I expect we'll eventually have to re-classify space into 2 entities. U-Space and R-Space. U-Space will be the "vacuum" of space whose invisible borders are made up of the outer circumference of the spherical known-universe. Everything outside that area is R-Space. There would be 1 significant difference between U-space and R-space. U-space is subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, R-space is not. When U-space is gone, ie when the universe expands into nothingness, what will be left behind is what was there before, R-space. Unlike U-space, R-space would have no evidence of Cosmic Galatic Radiation, no evidence of a space-time fabric, not even light would travel through it. You could not go there, and play around. You couldn't sit in it and look back to see the "dot" of the Singularity.

Firstly I'd like to begin with a question to those with scientific knowledge. Space is most likely finite, meaning that the universe would have 'edges'.

Can the edges of the universe expand to make the universe bigger? I thought the answer would be no, because that would mean that there would have already been extra space prior to the expansion, but then I remembered Bing Bang asserts the expansion of space.

So what exactly is the theory on the expansion of space?

Depending on the answers I get, I'll probably reveal why I'm asking this.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

Don't mean to patronize you, but this interview clears up a lot of what you're asking, by helping to first define the questions.

Ultimately, it has NOT been decided whether or not the universe is flat, and finite, or flat, and infinite, but it's been fairly decided that it's flat. Not flat like a table, flat as in it adheres to Euclidean geometry.

am I incorrect in saying that this would still be in the realm of scientific theory?

Nope.

 

[Dre89]

I think before it's all said and done we'll end up re-classifying "time" as 2 different things, U-Time and R-Time. U-Time (Universe Time) is the thing created by the big bang, a literal chronology of the known universe, the perception of which is only possible by an individual contained within it, and of which is highly dependent on the physical matter and energy of the known universe. R-Time will be something else, so called Real Time, will be the time that has been more traditionally known as Space-Time, a fabric of sorts, that technically predates the known universe. It will have a similar linear property to U-Time, but it will exist before the Big Bang, and it will exist long after the known universe is expanded into nothingness. One is finite. The other is not.

Now as for space, again I expect we'll eventually have to re-classify space into 2 entities. U-Space and R-Space. U-Space will be the "vacuum" of space whose invisible borders are made up of the outer circumference of the spherical known-universe. Everything outside that area is R-Space. There would be 1 significant difference between U-space and R-space. U-space is subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, R-space is not. When U-space is gone, ie when the universe expands into nothingness, what will be left behind is what was there before, R-space. Unlike U-space, R-space would have no evidence of Cosmic Galatic Radiation, no evidence of a space-time fabric, not even light would travel through it. You could not go there, and play around. You couldn't sit in it and look back to see the "dot" of the Singularity.



http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

Don't mean to patronize you, but this interview clears up a lot of what you're asking, by helping to first define the questions.

Ultimately, it has NOT been decided whether or not the universe is flat, and finite, or flat, and infinite, but it's been fairly decided that it's flat. Not flat like a table, flat as in it adheres to Euclidean geometry.



Nope.

I disagree that R and U time are compatible. If U time exists, then it impossible that R time exists.

Logic tells us for time to be infinite there can be no change. However, the creation of U time requires change, because it creates a reference point along the R timeline, which cannot happen on an infinite timeline.

Because we know U time exists, that means that R time must not. Subsequently, because time and space are interrelated, that means that R space must not exist either.

 

[Sucumbio]

Logic tells us for time to be infinite there can be no change.

Apologies my logic is failing me... why can there be no change for time to be infinite? And what change do you mean, like it can't slow down, or speed up, or...

the rest of your post

hinges on the above, so ... once we clarify that we good.

 

[Dre89]

Apologies my logic is failing me... why can there be no change for time to be infinite? And what change do you mean, like it can't slow down, or speed up, or...



hinges on the above, so ... once we clarify that we good.

If there is change, then there are events, and infinite time cannot have an event-by-event sequence, because it removes first, middle and last causes.

The first cause removes its effect, which is the middle cause, which removes its effect, which is the last causes.

Events are finite, meaning they have a prior cause, but infinite time theory suggests there is a succession of dependant events with no original self-necessary cause, which is illogical.

Change also requires reference points. The present is a reference point. It is impossible to count down from infinity to the present. The fact we have reached the present shows that the past is finite, not infinite.

Think of it this way, suppose I ask how many years has it been until the present, and you say 'infinite'. Then ten years later I ask the same question, you can't just say infinite because it hasn't been the same amount of time, and you can't infinite plus ten. You can't mix finite variable with infinite ones.

 

[Sucumbio]

If there is change, then there are events, and infinite time cannot have an event-by-event sequence, because it removes first, middle and last causes.

Wait, what about a line? In Euclidean terms, a line is infinite, in both directions:

<= -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 =>

.........................* U-Time*

<=................R-Time............=>

In this diagram we start with a line, infinite in both directions.
Then we display the Universe, from beginning to end (marked by asterisks)
Then we display R-Time, Relative Time may be more accurate than Real Time, but nonetheless it's a Time Line of its own, stretching onto infinitiy in both directions, not having any direct relation to U-Time, which is only the Time from the start of the Universe to its end, so Finite on both ends.

Now lets make this even more crazy:

<= -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 =>

<= * U-Time * U-Time * U-Time * =>

<=................R-Time............=>

In THIS example, it's showing that U-Time is finite in itself, and yet repeating indefinitely. This is a representation of Loop theory.

And finally, this:

<= -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 =>

<= * -1, U-Time * 0, U-Time * 1, U-Time * =>

<=................R-Time............=>

This is probably the most fantastic of all the examples, but it displays the possibility that not only are U-verses infinite in creation but that each one is unique.

Infinite time theory suggests there is a succession of dependant events with no original self-necessary cause, which is illogical.

haha ok, so yeah this is sounding familiar. Uh, well just look above at the diagrams, the first one is the only one that requires a "starting" event and again, it's technically unique to itself. Unique Time wouldn't be a bad word... Hm I should coin these. But yeah, it totally makes sense that a Singularity that's been sitting around for literally ever, has NO reason to just BOOM on its own. Only one that's been around for a set period time would make sense to suddenly go Boom. Unless, of course, that's not what happened at all.

Imagine instead the Singularity still exists! (In R-Time) Its just we can't see it anymore, because U-time is happening, and you can only see the Singularity if you're not within U-Time (or U-space). Think of U-time and space as... the nature of the Singularity, "breathing" if you will... this is getting a tad deep but it helps to have pictures. Just imagine for a moment sitting on the R-time line, and witnessing the birth and death of the U-time line over and over again, or just once even... in any case you'll find that existence on the R-time line (and in R-space) is actually infinite, or in a stricter sense... a Singularity.

Change also requires reference points. The present is a reference point. It is impossible to count down from infinity to the present. The fact we have reached the present shows that the past is finite, not infinite.

I partially agree, but technically for different reasons. As illustrated above, U-time IS finite. It's R-Time that is not.

Think of it this way, suppose I ask how many years has it been until the present, and you say 'infinite'. Then ten years later I ask the same question, you can't just say infinite because it hasn't been the same amount of time, and you can't infinite plus ten. You can't mix finite variable with infinite ones.

Again we agree partially. True saying Infinite + 10 is fairly meaningless. But... again, U-Time is finite, so if I were asked how many years has it been from the beginning of U-Time until today, I'd say approximately 14 billion years. If asked how many years has it been since the beginning of R-Time until today, I'd say 0 years.

 

[Dre89]

Wait, what about a line? In Euclidean terms, a line is infinite, in both directions:



In this diagram we start with a line, infinite in both directions.
Then we display the Universe, from beginning to end (marked by asterisks)
Then we display R-Time, Relative Time may be more accurate than Real Time, but nonetheless it's a Time Line of its own, stretching onto infinitiy in both directions, not having any direct relation to U-Time, which is only the Time from the start of the Universe to its end, so Finite on both ends.

Now lets make this even more crazy:



In THIS example, it's showing that U-Time is finite in itself, and yet repeating indefinitely. This is a representation of Loop theory.

And finally, this:



This is probably the most fantastic of all the examples, but it displays the possibility that not only are U-verses infinite in creation but that each one is unique.



haha ok, so yeah this is sounding familiar. Uh, well just look above at the diagrams, the first one is the only one that requires a "starting" event and again, it's technically unique to itself. Unique Time wouldn't be a bad word... Hm I should coin these. But yeah, it totally makes sense that a Singularity that's been sitting around for literally ever, has NO reason to just BOOM on its own. Only one that's been around for a set period time would make sense to suddenly go Boom. Unless, of course, that's not what happened at all.

Imagine instead the Singularity still exists! (In R-Time) Its just we can't see it anymore, because U-time is happening, and you can only see the Singularity if you're not within U-Time (or U-space). Think of U-time and space as... the nature of the Singularity, "breathing" if you will... this is getting a tad deep but it helps to have pictures. Just imagine for a moment sitting on the R-time line, and witnessing the birth and death of the U-time line over and over again, or just once even... in any case you'll find that existence on the R-time line (and in R-space) is actually infinite, or in a stricter sense... a Singularity.



I partially agree, but technically for different reasons. As illustrated above, U-time IS finite. It's R-Time that is not.



Again we agree partially. True saying Infinite + 10 is fairly meaningless. But... again, U-Time is finite, so if I were asked how many years has it been from the beginning of U-Time until today, I'd say approximately 14 billion years. If asked how many years has it been since the beginning of R-Time until today, I'd say 0 years.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think there are still problems though.

By putting U and R time onto different timelines, you're trying to avoid the complication that change cannot occur on an infinite timeline, whilst still retaining change on the U timeline.

The problem is, the two timelines are in fact interrelated. U time cannot exist without R time. Because U time is finite, it comes into existence at a cetrain point in time, thus relating it to R time.

It doesn't really change the problem. If U time began at -500, you still can't count down from infinity (or -infinity) to -500.

-500 would actually be 0 for U time, but -500 shows the relation between U and R time, the fact U time occurs along the R timeline relates it.

For there to truly be an infinite timeline, and also change, there would have to be two separate self-necessary entities, which is of course illogical. Even if that was possible, it's evident that the U timeline is in fact not self-necessary, it is dependant on the R timeline, because essentially, the R timeline is what allows motion to create the U timeline.

 

[GoldShadow]

I think the biggest problem here is non-physicists debating physics

 

[Dre89]

You don't really need physics to talk about time (at least not what I'm saying about it anyway).

Philosophers write 100 000 word essays about time.

Time is related to phenomenology, which spreads acceoss various disciplines, including philosophy.

The only real time issue I've addressed is the plausabiltiy of its infinity, which philosophical logic can prove or disprove.

In reality, most of us are young undergraduates with only a few years of study underneath our belts, so to speak on matters like these with 'authority' would be ignorant, but in the conext of a debating board on a game forum, we are just trying to show our debating capabilites.

 

[Sucumbio]

The problem is, the two timelines are in fact interrelated. U time cannot exist without R time.

Ah, I see your issue here. That's not what I was trying to say... uh... hm. OK, so yes they are interrelated... but not because one causes the other perse. more that one is an observation of itself from within itself, the other is an observation from outside itself.

Because U time is finite, it comes into existence at a cetrain point in time, thus relating it to R time.

ah ha! no, actually. It comes into existence at a 0 point in time. You recall my answer to your hypothetical question "how many years has it been from the start of R-time to today." and my answer was "zero years." This is because from a relative standpoint, all time is 0. You could even say time is "frozen" though that's inaccurate. It's definitely not frozen, because U-time IS happening. It's just when you reference two points in U-time with a point in R-time, you get the same point on 1 line, and the varying points in the other.

.................*....U TIME ........The day you're born...+........................*
......................................................................./..\
....................................................................../....\
...................................................................../......\
................R-Time...........................................A........B

Now in this example from the perspective of points A and B on the timeline of R-time, we can see that both points can reference the same event, but are in 2 different places. The reverse of this is also true. The beginning and end of the universe can be referenced from the SAME point on the R-time line, at exactly the same "time" (this reminds me of First Contact and a drunken Counselor Troi >< ) ... this concept can be expanded to say that all points on the U-time line can be referenced by the same single point on the R-time line, so in essence, R-time is infinite, whereas U-time is not.

It doesn't really change the problem. If U time began at -500, you still can't count down from infinity (or -infinity) to -500.

You don't have to count down from infinity because we already know U-time is finite. Trying to find out how many R-time years have passed is moot. R-time has 0 years in it, it's a singularity.

For there to truly be an infinite timeline, and also change, there would have to be two separate self-necessary entities, which is of course illogical. Even if that was possible, it's evident that the U timeline is in fact not self-necessary, it is dependant on the R timeline, because essentially, the R timeline is what allows motion to create the U timeline.

Actually rather than seeing them as 2 entities which cannot logically create themselves, see them as the same entity, with 2 different ways of referencing them, one from within one of them, one from without.

Yeah.

I think the biggest problem here is non-physicists debating physics

Yeah.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This will probably seem like a strange thread, but it does relate to a much more popular topic.

I'm guessing everyone here will agree that time and space are both finite.

Firstly I'd like to begin with a question to those with scientific knowledge. Space is most likely finite, meaning that the universe would have 'edges'.

Can the edges of the universe expand to make the universe bigger? I thought the answer would be no, because that would mean that there would have already been extra space prior to the expansion, but then I remembered Bing Bang asserts the expansion of space.

So what exactly is the theory on the expansion of space?

Depending on the answers I get, I'll probably reveal why I'm asking this.

I would have thought space was infinite (or looped back on itself), and instead the edge of the universe was caused by time rather than space. What I mean is the current "edge" of the universe is caused by the fact that the light from things beyond the "edge" wouldn't have time to reach us. Thus, as light is the universal speed limit, enforced by the laws of physics, causality cannot travel faster than that (unless it's in some really weird circumstances), the stuff beyond the "edge" can't affect us in any way, shape, or form. Therefore for practical purposes time causes the "edge" of the universe.

Does this make sense?

Also it's almost certain that space itself is expanding, there is plenty of evidence for it, such as red-shifted galaxies! Yep, you can tell that distant galaxies are moving away from each other at ridiculous speeds! A whole number are all moving away from us, this isn't a coincidence, it's merely the fabric of space-time inflating like a balloon. The reason galaxies and clusters of galaxies aren't falling apart is probably due to gravity keeping them together.

Anywho, that's just my uneducated ramblings on the subject.

 

[Dre89]

Ah, I see your issue here. That's not what I was trying to say... uh... hm. OK, so yes they are interrelated... but not because one causes the other perse. more that one is an observation of itself from within itself, the other is an observation from outside itself.



ah ha! no, actually. It comes into existence at a 0 point in time. You recall my answer to your hypothetical question "how many years has it been from the start of R-time to today." and my answer was "zero years." This is because from a relative standpoint, all time is 0. You could even say time is "frozen" though that's inaccurate. It's definitely not frozen, because U-time IS happening. It's just when you reference two points in U-time with a point in R-time, you get the same point on 1 line, and the varying points in the other.



Now in this example from the perspective of points A and B on the timeline of R-time, we can see that both points can reference the same event, but are in 2 different places. The reverse of this is also true. The beginning and end of the universe can be referenced from the SAME point on the R-time line, at exactly the same "time" (this reminds me of First Contact and a drunken Counselor Troi >< ) ... this concept can be expanded to say that all points on the U-time line can be referenced by the same single point on the R-time line, so in essence, R-time is infinite, whereas U-time is not.



You don't have to count down from infinity because we already know U-time is finite. Trying to find out how many R-time years have passed is moot. R-time has 0 years in it, it's a singularity.



Actually rather than seeing them as 2 entities which cannot logically create themselves, see them as the same entity, with 2 different ways of referencing them, one from within one of them, one from without.

Yeah.



Yeah.

I just have a few questions, none of which are really trying to refute your arguments, I'm just asking them so I can understand your arguments better.

1. If R time has no relation to the U time, what's its point?

2. If R time doesn't cause U time, what does?

3. If something does cause U time, wouldn't this require R time to do so?

4. Is not the beginning of U time, or 0 time, still a point such as -300 on R time?

5. U time is an event-by-event sequence, how can R time relate to any point, without being linked into an event-by-event sequence, whilst remaining infinite?

 

[GoldShadow]

In reality, most of us are young undergraduates with only a few years of study underneath our belts, so to speak on matters like these with 'authority' would be ignorant, but in the conext of a debating board on a game forum, we are just trying to show our debating capabilites.

It's hard to really debate properly when you're not familiar enough with the material to do so. That's why I try to stay out of debates in which I know what the experts say but don't know enough to take a stance on it myself (hence, why I posted the wikipedia link).

It's like trying to argue about the rules of say, chess or football, when you yourself don't know what the rules are. It doesn't make sense.

Also this is hardly a philosophical debate; if you want a real, concrete answer, you have to look at the physics.

 

[Dre89]

It's hard to really debate properly when you're not familiar enough with the material to do so. That's why I try to stay out of debates in which I know what the experts say but don't know enough to take a stance on it myself (hence, why I posted the wikipedia link).

I do understand what you're saying, but I'm not talking about aspects of time I'm not somewhat learned in. I know nothing of phenomenology, so I don't speak of how time relates to human consciousness etc. The infinite regress of time has/can be refuted by philosophical logic, and that's all I've really spoken about.

Also this is hardly a philosophical debate; if you want a real, concrete answer, you have to look at the physics.

Tell that that to all the philosophers who have written 100 000 word PHDs on time lol. Are you really saying someone such as Immanuel Kant was out of his depth when he spoke on time?

 

[GoldShadow]

Immanuel Kant most certainly did not know what we know today about physics.

This has been a philosophical issue until now.

 

[Dre89]

Immanuel Kant most certainly did not know what we know today about physics.

This has been a philosophical issue until now.

What he said related to phenomenology, which is still a philosophical discipline today.

Are you trying to tell me that philosophers are wrong in using pure logic, scientific metholodogy absent, to conclude that infinite time is impossible?

 

[Eor]

Are you trying to tell me that philosophers are wrong in using pure logic, scientific metholodogy absent, to conclude that infinite time is impossible?

I do have a lot of respect for philosophy, but when it comes to things that we can actually test and find out, then what we can observe and test and have physical evidence for has to take precedence over any philosophical musing.

For example, a Zeno Paradox. To move somewhere, an object has to get half way there first. Before it can get half way there, it has to get a fourth way there. Before it can get a fourth way there, it has to get an eight way there. Before 1/8th, 1/16th. Before 1/16th, 1/32nd. Before 1/32nd way there, the object would have to get 1/64th way there. Then 1/128, 1/256, 1/512, 1/1024, and so on. An object would have to cross an infinite amount of space before it could move. Therefore, movement is impossible.

That's logically sound. The reason it's a paradox is because we can move. And we can prove that we move, as well as answer Zeno's paradox, through science. Philosophy can do multiple questions about many things, but you can't use philosophy to deny evidence.

 

[Dre89]

I do have a lot of respect for philosophy, but when it comes to things that we can actually test and find out, then what we can observe and test and have physical evidence for has to take precedence over any philosophical musing.

For example, a Zeno Paradox. To move somewhere, an object has to get half way there first. Before it can get half way there, it has to get a fourth way there. Before it can get a fourth way there, it has to get an eight way there. Before 1/8th, 1/16th. Before 1/16th, 1/32nd. Before 1/32nd way there, the object would have to get 1/64th way there. Then 1/128, 1/256, 1/512, 1/1024, and so on. An object would have to cross an infinite amount of space before it could move. Therefore, movement is impossible.

That's logically sound. The reason it's a paradox is because we can move. And we can prove that we move, as well as answer Zeno's paradox, through science. Philosophy can do multiple questions about many things, but you can't use philosophy to deny evidence.

Funny that you mentioned that paradox, because we actually used philosophy in one of my classes to deduce that Zeno's implied conclusion is incorrect, just as science did.

There are certain philosophical facts that science can't step on though. The implausabiltiy of infinite time is one of them.

Philosophical logic can prove many things, the problem is most people will apply faulty logic, hence the abundance of different conclusions.

 

[GoldShadow]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6207558&postcount=800
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6499748&postcount=838
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6026278&postcount=113
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4781764&postcount=196

 

[Eor]

Funny that you mentioned that paradox, because we actually used philosophy in one of my classes to deduce that Zeno's implied conclusion is incorrect, just as science did.

There are certain philosophical facts that science can't step on though. The implausabiltiy of infinite time is one of them.

Philosophical logic can prove many things, the problem is most people will apply faulty logic, hence the abundance of different conclusions.

Is that so? I'd be interested in a philosophical argument that Zeno's paradox is incorrect without using math or science, which was actually what I was going to ask of you.

Either way, you say Philisophical Logic can prove things, which is true, but it can't override facts. There is, literally, no place where philosophy can trump science. For example, your reasons why time can't be infinite can be beaten by assuming that time starts at one point, then goes on forever. It is still infinite, but has a moment of creation. Therefore it is still measurable.

 

[Dre89]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6207558&postcount=800
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6499748&postcount=838
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6026278&postcount=113
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4781764&postcount=196

This guy seems to be treated like a god around here lol.

 

[Dre89]

Is that so? I'd be interested in a philosophical argument that Zeno's paradox is incorrect without using math or science, which was actually what I was going to ask of you.

Either way, you say Philisophical Logic can prove things, which is true, but it can't override facts. There is, literally, no place where philosophy can trump science. For example, your reasons why time can't be infinite can be beaten by assuming that time starts at one point, then goes on forever. It is still infinite, but has a moment of creation. Therefore it is still measurable.

The problem is, endless time still has the complication of what caused it etc.

Wouldn't then you also have to suppose that space is endless also?

 

[Eor]

The problem is, endless time still has the complication of what caused it etc.

Wouldn't then you also have to suppose that space is endless also?

Do you not read what I post? Or the recent links Goldshadow just posted? I think this is the third time I've responded to you by mentioning the No Boundary proposal.

Think of a mobious strip. To a 2 dimensional being, the mobious strip would be a straight line. To someone who exists in 3 dimensions, us, we see that the mobious strip is curved and one travel alone one forever. Similarly, we see time as a straight line. But spacetime, which is one thing, is a curved topology. A topology is simply something similar to a mobious strip. Just imagine Spacetime as a mobious strip. You can travel infinitely on it, but you won't reach a beginning or end. Time is the same.

 

[Dre89]

Do you not read what I post? Or the recent links Goldshadow just posted? I think this is the third time I've responded to you by mentioning the No Boundary proposal.

Think of a mobious strip. To a 2 dimensional being, the mobious strip would be a straight line. To someone who exists in 3 dimensions, us, we see that the mobious strip is curved and one travel alone one forever. Similarly, we see time as a straight line. But spacetime, which is one thing, is a curved topology. A topology is simply something similar to a mobious strip. Just imagine Spacetime as a mobious strip. You can travel infinitely on it, but you won't reach a beginning or end. Time is the same.

Is the no boundary proposal similar to Looping Theory?

 

[Eor]

Is the no boundary proposal similar to Looping Theory?

I'm afraid I'm only familiar with the Time Loop theory people have on the show Lost.

Unless you mean Loop quantum gravity?

Either way, the fact that you have to ask me seems like you haven't read any of my, goldshadows, or alt's posts on it, all of which have been directed or linked to you.

 

[GoldShadow]

This guy seems to be treated like a god around here lol.

He's a computer science/math major with a lot of knowledge in physics.

 

[Dre89]

I'm afraid I'm only familiar with the Time Loop theory people have on the show Lost.

Unless you mean Loop quantum gravity?

Either way, the fact that you have to ask me seems like you haven't read any of my, goldshadows, or alt's posts on it, all of which have been directed or linked to you.

I read yours and ALT's, both of which sounded very similar to a theory I knew of, which Sucumbio called Looping Theory.

That was the reason I asked.

 

[Dre89]

He's a computer science/math major with a lot of knowledge in physics.

Does that make him automatically right does it?

I know of people far more intelligent than any of us here, but that doesn't make them right, because people of equal intellect disagree on an abundance of things.

Plus, it seems that in one of his threads, he mentioned something which sounds like Loop Theory, which has been criticised before, so it's not as if every single thing he's said is irrefutable.

 

[Eor]

I read yours and ALT's, both of which sounded very similar to a theory I knew of, which Sucumbio called Looping Theory.

That was the reason I asked.

To be honest I didn't really read Sucumbio's posts in this thread. I looked back at his reference to Loop Theory, but his was just talking about U Time and R Time, none of which are scientific and both of which mainly were theorized by him, so I didn't really bother with it.

But I'll assume Loop theory is that time repeats itself? I haven't heard of any Loop theory before this thread, so if that's not what the theory is then please correct me. But no, that's not the no Boundary Proposal.

It's like a graph of 1/x

If we extended the graph further, we'd see that the lines keep on going closer to the y/x axises, but if we magnified it we'd see that they'd never reach there. To reach it, the x would have to be zero, but 1/0 is impossible. You might assume that because they never reach 0, they're infinite, but this isn't true. If you take 1, and divide it by, say, 2, and so on, it'd eventually add up to 1.

 

[Dre89]

So are you saying that time (if reversed) approaches the moment of creation but never reaches it?

Does that mean that time will never actually reach the end either?

Admittedly I'm confused as to how a succession of dependant finite entities could exist without any moment of creation.

 

[Eor]

Yes, that is what the No Boundary proposal says.

To be honest, I don't comprehend it either. The thing is, the math works, and what we can observe works, therefore it doesn't really matter if we can comprehend it or not. Same with a 4-d object, or the concept of there being other colors.

 

[Dre89]

Yes, that is what the No Boundary proposal says.

To be honest, I don't comprehend it either. The thing is, the math works, and what we can observe works, therefore it doesn't really matter if we can comprehend it or not. Same with a 4-d object, or the concept of there being other colors.

Is this considered to be irrefutable scientific fact though? Because to be honest I think that would be stretching it too far. It more just seems to be an unfalsifiable explanation attempting to cover up the causation problem, whilst trying to avoid infinite time problems, but prove me wrong.

What experiments were done to conclude it to be true?

 

[Eor]

Is this considered to be irrefutable scientific fact though? Because to be honest I think that would be stretching it too far. It more just seems to be an unfalsifiable explanation attempting to cover up the causation problem, whilst trying to avoid infinite time problems, but prove me wrong.

What experiments were done to conclude it to be true?

Well first of all, I'm not saying the No Boundary Proposal is scientific fact. It's not. It's still a proposal. But it does show that we don't need boundaries in time, despite time being finite.

Now for what you're asking, I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I'm just going to actually quote Stephen Hawking on this, as he'd explain it much better then I could paraphrase what he said. I'm going to just quote the important parts, but at the end of it I'll include a link to the rest of the lecture I'm quoting from so you can read the rest.

It would clearly be nice for science if the universe were in the ``no boundary'' state, but how can we tell whether it is? The answer is, that the no boundary proposal makes definite predictions, for how the universe should behave. If these predictions were not to agree with observation, we could conclude that the universe is not in the ``no boundary'' state. Thus, the ``no boundary'' proposal is a good scientific theory, in the sense defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper: it can be falsified by observation.

The early universe could not have been exactly homogeneous and uniform, because that would violate the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics. Instead, there must have been departures from uniform density. The no boundary proposal, implies that these differences in density, would start off in their ground state. That is, they would be as small as possible, consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. However, during the inflationary expansion, they would be amplified. After the period of inflationary expansion was over, one would be left with a universe that was expanding slightly faster in some places, than in others. In regions of slower expansion, the gravitational attraction of the matter, would slow down the expansion still further. Eventually, the region would stop expanding, and would contract to form galaxies and stars. Thus, the no boundary proposal, can account for all the complicated structure that we see around us. However, it does not make just a single prediction for the universe. Instead, it predicts a whole family of possible histories, each with its own probability. There might be a possible history in which Walter Mondale won the last presidential election, though maybe the probability is low.

http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html

I'd definitely suggest reading the actual full lecture (for anyone, actually. Stephen Hawking is great for explaining advance physics to regular people)

 

[Sucumbio]

I just have a few questions, none of which are really trying to refute your arguments, I'm just asking them so I can understand your arguments better.

1. If R time has no relation to the U time, what's its point?

2. If R time doesn't cause U time, what does?

3. If something does cause U time, wouldn't this require R time to do so?

4. Is not the beginning of U time, or 0 time, still a point such as -300 on R time?

5. U time is an event-by-event sequence, how can R time relate to any point, without being linked into an event-by-event sequence, whilst remaining infinite?

1.) It has no direct cause and effect relation. It is still related, but in a referential sense.

2.) Physics.

3.) Nope.

4.) No. It's a point on its own time line, sure, but not a point on the R-time line, aka "imaginary" time line (which I dislike the name of because of its implications).

5.) Algebra.

To be honest I didn't really read Sucumbio's posts in this thread. I looked back at his reference to Loop Theory, but his was just talking about U Time and R Time, none of which are scientific and both of which mainly were theorized by him, so I didn't really bother with it.

"Hawking's theory is the first cosmological model of the universe with a second reference of time which has no beginning or end." Edification, it's a good thing.

-souce (thank you Goldshadow!!! and by extension AltF4!!, great post)

Anyway, yes I am using my own variables but the science behind my suppositions are rooted in up to date theory on the matter.

Oh and this: source

It's my spherical universe container! Ok not really, but the theories described in there are where I got the idea from.

Dre, yo... take some astronomy classes, some cosmology classes... it helps a great deal when an expert is able to dumb these things down, like I had to have done for me. I failed physics one, lol TWICE. I was a REAL slow learner, and it took tons of patience to get through the thick of things, but it was well worth it, as I have a far greater understanding of the universe and of the cosmos. Oooo that's a good series too, Cosmos hosted by Carl Sagan, might get at it on these here internets. and if you're REALLY adventurous go out to the national space symposium in colorodo. lots of excellent speakers, exhibits, and cutting edge theories.

 

[Dre89]

The problem I have though is that it as you yourself admitted, it appears to contradict logic completely, so if it's not irrefutable fact, there is really no reason to believe inseatd of other theories.

Would you agree with this?

For my mind, the No Boundary Proposal appears to be a good theory really only if you presuppose atheistic Big Bang, because essentially it is the best theory that covers BB's problems.

However, you can look at it two ways. You can say that it is correct because it covers BB's problems, or you could say that because it is seemingly illogical, perhaps BB is flawed if this is the best theory.

I know you probably want to knee me in the balls by now, but I still have issues with it though. It's all well and good saying that we can't reach the start and end points of time, but haven't you still failed to account for the existence of a succession of dependant entities?

Also, this theory would suppose that timespace is self-necessary, yet logic suggests two entities cannot be self-necessary. The question then becomes whether time and sapce are one or two entities. I would argue they are separate, seemingly because you can manipulate one without doing so to the other.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for the double post.

1
Dre, yo... take some astronomy classes, some cosmology classes... it helps a great deal when an expert is able to dumb these things down, like I had to have done for me. I failed physics one, lol TWICE. I was a REAL slow learner, and it took tons of patience to get through the thick of things, but it was well worth it, as I have a far greater understanding of the universe and of the cosmos. Oooo that's a good series too, Cosmos hosted by Carl Sagan, might get at it on these here internets. and if you're REALLY adventurous go out to the national space symposium in colorodo. lots of excellent speakers, exhibits, and cutting edge theories.

I appreciate the idea, but that doesn't really appear necessary. If the best explanations physics has developed to cover up BB's problems are mere theories and not irrefutable fact, why am I not entitled to a say?

If anything, Looping Theory and No Boundary Theory sound more like philosophies to me. If Immanuel Kant had invented NBT it probably would be considered a philosophy rather than a scientific theory.

Besides, physics-based time theories still have to answer to the questions philosophical logic proposes them.

 

[GoldShadow]

I appreciate the idea, but that doesn't really appear necessary. If the best explanations physics has developed to cover up BB's problems are mere theories and not irrefutable fact, why am I not entitled to a say?

Did you really just dismiss the entire fields of astrophysics/physics, quantum mechanics/mechanics, and mathematics? You honestly think they just conjure stuff up to "cover up problems"?

This is exactly why scientific debates often don't turn out well on this kind of website. Heck, I myself am not very knowledgeable in this area. That's why I put a lot more stock in what hundreds of thousands of hours worth of research, and hundreds upon thousands of published papers and books by people who dedicate their entire lives and careers to have to say.

Dre, you are allowed to have an opinion. But I think it's ridiculous that you think your opinion holds the same weight as volumes and bodies of scientific literature and thought published by hundreds upon hundreds of experts in the field.