Light, Space, and Time

[Fonceai]

For the physics/science minded, here's my theory on light, space, and time.

Imagine space. Space is not emptiness.

Picture 16 beads arranged three by three, with elastic cords connecting them at 90 degree angles.

.____.
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|

Then stack two more of these grids on top of that first one, so you have a three dimensional space consisting of 64 beads to make 27 cubes.

But imagine that this is infinite.

Now what happens when you pull two of those beads closer together?

It pulls on every single other bead.

Mass, matter as we know it, pulls on space. It creates density in space which "stretches" space towards it.

Photons are not massless. They have an infinitesimally small mass, but it does exist.

The reason photons must have mass is because they are affected by bent space.

Time as well is affected by spacial density. The greater the density, the slower time occurs inside the bend than outside.

Gravity is nothing more than a measure of how much space is bent.

Really this isn't anything different than what other threads have touched on, but I think what makes this hard for people to understand is thinking of space in three dimensions, thinking of "gravity" three dimensionally (that why I use the grid of stretched beads analogy), and thinking of spacial compression.

More to follow on why spacial compression slows time, because that's important regarding velocities and the universe in general.

[iahag]

I find it fascinating how infinity can relate one dimension to the next. My knowledge is not vast enough to make mighty elegant postulations ><, but nevertheless;
I postulate, that, in general, in the physical reality in which we live, if the concept of infinity or infinitesimally small (without limits, im not talkin closed integrals here) is required to succesfully describe something within the physical reality, then an evaluation of further dimensions is required to successfully describe the physical concept in full. ie, we dont know enough, and that which is required to be evaluated, is currently unevaluable.
Gimme a week and Ill scan some of my thoughts in regarding these perculiar things.

I think a greater question to ask is 'Can we have a infinitely small length in reality?'. Consider one spacial dimension. Can we treat it like a number line? So that, between any two rational lengths, there are infinitely many rationals and irrationals between these two points? I think we need to fully establish the nature of space before discussing how it can bend.

[Technosoul]

So far I like the idea as presented within it's limited space of data.

We know that space is not a void of nothingness - on earth space contains air. And space contains energy that might be inactive. But space in theory is the distance between detectable objects - so one would need to determine if space is really space if it is not nothingness or just the distance between what we can see as an object due to the ability of the substance to reflect the light issued by the sun.

Also one would need a brief outline of why space expands and contracts. Science is now reporting that space is expanding as solar systems move away from each other but not from a center point for expanding.

Gravity as it is normally understood could pull things together which would reduce space between solar systems or whatever. If space is expanding between those planets in the universe then are we talking about some other factor - a kind of "anti-gravity" factor at work?

If space is expanding within the universe where is it coming from, what is producing more space as time progresses?

I was thinking about that puzzle and it occured to me that space might be composed of "information" that cannot vanish once a new idea comes into exsistance. That thoughts cause the balooning of space because that data must be stored somehow - such that memory creates space which can expand the totality of the universe as time progresses. As memory creates "the past" timewise - relative to now or relative to the future.

All those people thinking as well as animals over millions of generations would create a lot of "memory" data that would not be detectable as a substance other then within the concept of "space".

Of course it would be foolish to think that the space in the universe could expand just because people here on earth come up with new ideas or as animals come up with new ways to evolve which ideas would also be "information" that came into exsistance in this dimensional reality (from who knows where?).

So one would need to add the ideas related by Peter Russell in his book about the Global Brain. That planets are surrounded with memory banks which contain information that is added too for evolutionary purposes or to maintain a continued status of repeatable principles.

In effect he was suggesting that planets generate a type of consciousness - a field of information from which the next generation can draw from as a source of "construction instruction". Simular to genes or DNA strands of "tiny beads" as realted in the anology. As knowledge expands then so does the invisable storage "space" for that evolving data.

So would any of these comments add or subtract from the theory you presented?

[Fonceai]

After some thought on that question, I figure there are two possible answers... let me know which one tickles your fancy...

Infinite Space, Finite Matter

Just that. I believe that just before the Big Bang, all matter in space was collected in one point. Unbelievable "gravity" with the elasticity of space stretched to nearly tearing the closer you are to the center. But because the amount of matter is finite and space is infinite, all of space is not compressed to that point.

In fact, one could say that the Big Bang happened when the matter literally reached a critical mass where space "snapped" and all that matter was flung out from the center.

Another theory on the Big Bang Center after this post.

Finite Space

This is a neat one, but it relies on the concept of space being in some other kind of space. If you can wrap your mind around that, then you can perceive that all the beads and elastic are stretched where only the very outer edges of space are attached to its "container". Again, the Big Bang is the snap of matter released again.

---

As far as "infinitely small" existing in reality, we see it all the time.

It's at the point where a sphere touches a line. That is technically an infinitesimally small point of contact, occurring only where at the precise point of tangent.

[rcne]

You may find this interesting concerning quantum gravity:

LEE SMOLIN is no magician. Yet he and his colleagues have pulled off one of the greatest tricks imaginable. Starting from nothing more than Einstein's general theory of relativity, they have conjured up the universe. Everything from the fabric of space to the matter that makes up wands and rabbits emerges as if out of an empty hat. It is an impressive feat. Not only does it tell us about the origins of space and matter, it might help us understand where the laws of the universe come from. Not surprisingly, Smolin, who is a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, is very excited. "I've been jumping up and down about these ideas," he says. This promising approach to understanding the cosmos is based on a collection of theories called loop quantum gravity, an attempt to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single consistent theory.

You are made of space-time - fundamentals - 12 August 2006 - New Scientist

As far as infinitesimally small, that would be the Planck length -

This is the length scale at which quantum gravity should become important - the Planck length l. On the scale of the Planck length, it's possible that the structure of spacetime becomes quite different from the four-dimensional manifold we know and love. Spacetime itself becomes a foam (according to Wheeler) or a bucket of dust (according to Wheeler) or a bubbling sea of virtual black holes (according to Hawking) or a weave of knots or tangles (according to Ashtekar, Rovelli, and Smolin). In short, it's weird, but beyond that nobody really knows. To be more precise, the Planck length is the length scale at which quantum mechanics, gravity and relativity all interact very strongly. Thus it depends on hbar, c, and Newton's gravitational constant G.

Basically, gravity is the problem in tying GR and the Quantum world together, right now Lee Smilon is investigating space as discrete Planck scale units.

[Fonceai]

What... the... hell...

So me, an average person with no degree in science just happens today to think up a theory that is being published already by these uber-geniuses?

The subsequent conclusion I had with my "bead" thing was that as the beads closed together, the space in between was where matter came to be.

Dammit.

Still writing how this relates to time dilation... more to follow...

[rcne]

They may be reading your mind Fonceai. Have you noticed any Men in Black in your neighborhood?
Just joking, I'm not sure I've followed the gist of your post yet, but would be curious as to the time dilation.

[Fonceai]

Mostly it's the idea that space itself is a medium.

When that medium compresses to a certain density, it becomes matter.

It's based on the idea that the reason matter bends space is because it is space. Space, of course, being some other kind of material... call it "null matter" for now.

Think of the null matter being the beads in the grid.

When they are close enough together, it stretches the "fabric" of the grid.

[Kuroko]

Mmm.

^_^

Definitely on a right track there Fonc.
Try and work this into your reasonings (equations, workings out, understandings).

Infinite does not exist, universally any way.

The universe if expanding is therefore finite, it while large, is still expanding therefore at this point is finite. other wise, the universe already IS infinite, and from the begining.

However, Time is in the same boat. Either it is finite, or it is infinite.

It will continue forever or it won't, however, we cannot say wether time is already infinite, because the nature of time is linear. if it is infinite then any test will simply return the same any way, inconclusive, as any means of measuring the line would simply have to go further and further back, and the only way to measure infinite is with infinites.

Which obviously we cannot do.

I propose the universe is only as infinite as time.
Which is to say that if the universe is expanding then were time to cease the universe would cease to expand.

Therefore I stipulate that the universe instead simply has the possibility to reach infinity, and again, time as a dimension of the universe will only last as long as the universe does. I would even go so far as to say, that the expanding of the universe is DUE to time.

Think about it for a seccond before you brush it off guys.
The universe is accelerating in it's expansion (matter) time is affected less by massless space, the more it expands the faster it can expand.

Not only that, but if (under this line of reasoning) time expands faster so does space, and any thing in it, which would bring upon an acceleration effect.

Penny for your thoughts Fonc.

[Fonceai]

I don't think the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

I think the observed effect is caused by spatial stretching as I've described it above. Here's why.

Get a rubber band and draw a dot on it.

Draw another dot on the band, one inch away.

That represents one light year.

Based on the frequency of the light traveling from Dot2 to Dot1, we can determine relative velocity. A year later we measure the frequency again and we can also determine if there is acceleration.

Now stretch the rubber band.

Is the distance from Dot1 to Dot2 the same?

From "outside", the answer is no.

From "inside", this has the same effect of stretching the measuring units as well. So the answer would be yes.

We've effectively altered the density of the medium.

Photons have a constant speed, but it is altered based on the medium and the density of the medium.

In water, the photons are going 'c' but the final velocity is slower due to refraction. This is an example of "real" velocity conflicting with relative velocity. This is observable in the Cherenkov radiation caused by emitted particles traveling faster than the photons in water (because they aren't affected by refraction).

Because we are in the same medium we are trying to measure, perceiving acceleration (difference in velocities over time) is caused by the equivalent of Cherenkov radiation in a medium with varying densities (caused by "gravity").

The only way to make accurate measurements of velocities when dealing with relativistic distances and speeds is to be an outside observer... effectively impossible.

---

Almost done with time dilation... it will be in my next post.

[Fonceai]

Time Dilation

Here's where things get tricky.

I was not clear about time dilation in my opening post. It passes faster for those inside bent space in relation to those outside the bend. Here's why:

The velocity of mass depends on the relative compression of space.

Picture two points an a rubber band, again.

A and B.

A and B are 1 LY apart.

Let's say you pinch A and B to half the distance; 1/2 LY.

For theoretical purposes, assume there is no spacial bend outside A and B.

Now you have two travellers, X and Y.

X can travel outside bent space. Y cannot.

X and Y are both travelling at a speed of 1 LY and arrive at A.

Y is the easy one to figure. Y is stuck travelling through bent space, but does not perceive the compression. Therefore, Y arrives at B in one year.

X detects the bend and "exits" to the "outer" area. Instead of conforming to the compression, X travels outside of it. This is equivalent of walking on a moving walkway. You still cover the same distance, but you traveled through a faster medium. X keeps the same speed and arrives at B in six months.

---

The hard part about this is considering who lost time. There are two conclusions...

1. X would arrive at B having experienced 6 months and with 6 months of time passed.

2. X would arrive at B, having experience 6 months, but a year would have passed and they would arrive at the same time as Y.

This has to do with the idea that every compression of space needs a stretch to counter it. Think of it as needing an uphill for every downhill. So while you run twice as fast down the hill, you run half as fast up the hill. In the end, you and the person who ran the same distance over the hill both arrive at the same time. Exiting "normal space" doesn't save you overall time, just relative time.

---

I personally support the 2nd conclusion.

I'm sorry I can't explain it better, but it's something I see so clearly in my head and just can't articulate.

[Kuroko]

Matter in the universe is accelerating in it's expansion, at this point, scientists are blaming dark matter for the countering of gravity's effects.

Erm I believe newscientist.com had some thing headlined "Dark matter fighting gravity and winning". Which was an artical on matter accelerating away from each other as though being pulled.

Now, as for your theory on time dilation.
This is in direct line with my theory, so I'm more then glad to accept it as a reasonable explination of effects denser space may cause.

Neither of them have truelly lost time, here's why.

The time taken for both travellers to reach point B is undoubtably different, traveller A however has passed through more space thus taking more time.

But when one tallies up who travelled the furthest traveller A would have travelled obviously more then traveller B.

Your elastic band analogy works fine for this line of reasoning as well.

For traveller B however, there comes a tricky obstacle, does traveller B avoid the denser space, or does traveller B have a means to be unnaffected by denser space.

This would be the interesting question as to travel arround the denser space would be to travel in an order least efficiant of all (which is to say the shortest distance between any two object is a straight line) however depending on the density of space we are talking about this may not be the case.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Fonceai ..Picture 16 beads arranged three by three, with elastic cords connecting

Fuck, I'm already lost. How do you arrange 16 beads in a 3x3?

[Fonceai]

@Kuroko

The idea of traveler B doing that comes from the idea of "folding" space. The movie Event Horizon actually did the theory right... they used a black hole to bend space so hard that the ship just had to cross the black hole "outside" of normal space.

@Compugasm

16 beads to make 3 x 3 squares. Try it, you'll see that it works.

[Kuroko]

Kind of like an ability to pull a point pretty much right up to yourself?

1000 light years becomes 200 if 800 of those lightyears are compressed in the middle kind of thing.. Mmm.. assuming one would have to avoid the space-time distortion there may still be 1000 light years worth of travel in there.

[Fonceai]

But I don't believe you can "cheat" time.

Let's use smaller numbers so this makes more sense.

1 LY becomes 0.5 LY.

If you travel across the compression, instead of within, and you are traveling at the rate of 1 LY, in 6 months your time the trip will be done.

But when you emerge, you will not have "saved" any time. 1 year will still have passed.

[Kuroko]

Dammit, I have to head off to work.

I see what's happened here, I think we need to express our views on how a space-time distortion would be in four dimensions (and in a field of mass a 3d one).

Travelling accross it would work on a 2D field but in a 3D one any affected space would be altered.

Now, if you were to tell me, oh I don't know, creating a tunnel through the distorted space where the distortion wraps arround and a less dense space were to fill the tunnel thus allowing 1ls travel at low dense space.

[Technosoul]

What I cannot imagine is how (I assume a person) could get objectivly outside of time or space to journey around this so-called denisity, he would need to become non-phyical it seems? But your example of the hill - running up and down, or down and up, and down again, might offer an alternative pathway that would be faster, flying over the hill like a bird. Same distance and same amount of gravity but with less resistance.

But then, with my lack of knowledge about physics I might not even be "on topic".

I once had this one book (formally being a book dealer) that seemed like it would be interesting. It took some of the science fiction ideas used for the Star Trek TV show and proved they are workable if you did the math. The process used to "beam me up Scotty" and the ideas of "time warp speed" were written about in this physics book. Anyone here read it?

Amazon.com: The Physics of Star Trek: Books: Lawrence M. Krauss,Stephen Hawking

[Fonceai]

Never read it.

But you are on topic with your assessment of the hill and how a bird can travel over it.

The key to that is that humans were meant to travel in two dimensions. Birds can travel in three.

What you are inferring, and what I think is correct, is that if we can travel in the next dimension we can skip "over" space compression.

I do not, however, think the fourth dimension is time.

Time is a side effect of space itself.

[Kuroko]

The hill analogy does not fit so well.

Birds naturally travel faster then humans (when flying) and the hill in this scenario is only a hinderance so long as gravity from earth is applied.

Think about it like this, if the maximum speed of travel were walking pace, would flying arround the hill be better then flying over it and would that be as fast as walking..

It would be the same if not worse. Because the distance is the same.

Now, a bird will fly over hills faster then a human can walk over it, and indeed, even if the bird were to fly on a 2D path (top down) it would cover more distance because of it's ability to ignore hills altogether and travel in a straight line, however, the destination of the bird would be the same as the person, and to truelly test the speed difference they would have to start from the same point, the bird would have to gain altitude and lose it much the same as a regullar person.

With the beads (tell me if this makes a little more sense when regarding gravity guys) instead of imagining the beads being stretched towards the gravity source, imagine instead that the beads are scrunched up to it.

For instance, wherever there is a gravity source, where space is made to be more dense, there will be more beads arround that source, the beads will get smaller but there will be many of them, so the beads AWAY from the gravity source would be stretched and the closer they get the more compacted they get. The space is still equal to regullar space, distance still applies, however in relation to the outside you cover less distance then you should.

However, if measuring by units of light-speed (or light years) the speed really doesn't change.

Neither does the distance when you think about it.
Check this out, As light travels through space time, the speed is able to be calculated by Distance travelled over time, the distance is able to be calculated by time over speed, and the time is able to be calculated by the speed over distance.

These are all good for figuring out the time's distances and speeds however the other two are necissary to know in order to use this method.

But, light stays constant, kind of.
^_^
A light year is how far light takes in a year to travel, light still takes a year in denser space time, however in relation to outside the density it has travelled less distance. By using light as our measurement we can see that light makes a good marker for us as to how dense space gets or can get.