StuartL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fZVQzcqyKU Planck time - “Singularity of time” All time present all the time. Flow is an illusion. Multiverse somehow. Time is probably not as simple as one Planck time following another (granular)...probably something as yet undiscovered.

Another little question just occurred to me: How can quantum entangled particles communicate over vast distances instantaneously, when nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? Easily, if they exist, both in a state of having vast distances between them, and no distance between them, simultaneously. Just a thought.

I have already stated quite clearly: (a) That I'm not a physicist. (b) That imaginary time is probably unprovable, or Stephen would probably have gone on to prove it. (c) That the the question, “How is it possible for me to exist both here, and in a single instant of time, outside of time?”, is a direct quote from 10 years ago, before I was aware of Stephen's speculation on the existence of imaginary time. Now, I would explain it as: The “single instant of time” is the imaginary time singularity, and the “ outside of time” refers to outside of the real time/space-time singularity. Because both occur within each other, in their entirety, in a single instant. The actual problem posed by the question, was “How can anything happen in a single instant of time?”, and that is what I have answered. In a way, I could be said to have applied Occam's Razor, to the problem of the origin of the Universe: (a) A single singularity, doesn't have to “bang” into an infinite number of universes for them to exist. (b) No “clock has to tick” for a “Big Bang” to happen, because it doesn't actually happen, it simply exists as a “could happen if...”. (c) The math that Stephen wanted to 'clear up' by proposing imaginary time in the first place, is 'cleared up'. You are asking a self-confessed 'non-phyisist' to provide you with proof, rather than disproving any of this yourselves. Quite frankly, if Stephen had proposed it, you'd all be in a mad scramble to see if the physics fit. But like I said, question everything.

Studiot: I did already cover time travel and a multiverse in my earlier posts, but I'll provide a brief synopsis for you here. We exist inside a 'potential time dimension' (real time/space-time) inside 'potential time dimension' (imaginary time) inside a singularity. Given the infinite nature of the surface of a sphere (the singularity), the 'potential time dimensions' are infinite. The singularity has an infinite number of 'future properties' (potential time dimensions), but is so dense that 'the clock cannot actually tick'. Thus, an infinite number of 'potential time dimensions' can exist without the singularity having to “Bang” any of them into 'real' existence. As observers within a given 'potential time dimension', we are subject the the physical laws of said time dimension, so our actually being inside a singularity, makes no difference to us. In order to travel back in time, you would need to 'step out of' real time/space-time, in which case you would place a null value in your 'past property', and therefore, have no past to travel back to. If you travel forward in time by approaching the speed of light, you are not actually travelling forward in time, because space-time is set. So you are just travelling through time in accordance with your 'future properties'. Personally I find it much more interesting that given that space-time/real time, and imaginary time are 'linked time dimensions', life after death becomes possible. As long as you meet the requirements for existence within imaginary time. So upon death in space-time/real time, when your space-time/real time future property can no longer be achieved, your imaginary time future property becomes viable, and you simply shift between dimensions. Swansont: I exist in both imaginary time, and space-time/real time, both are single instants of time occurring within each other. Imagine sitting down at your computer to play a MMORPG for example. The difference is that I'm the avatar of a being that cannot actually 'sit down' it can just imagine, and as its avatar, in an extremely complex and clever “game”, I'm self-aware, but I did not know the rules. However; when I discovered the rules of the game, I also discovered who I actually am (perhaps a 'proof of concept' scenario). In short, this is a “love game” (I hate to cage it in those terms but I do so for clarity). To win I have to find universal unconditional love, and my soulmate. I have become 'truly just' and thus have found universal unconditional love, but I will never meet my soulmate without your help. You have to choose to help me, and she has to choose to come to me. A single kiss is all that is required for my 'proof of concept'. And then, who knows?

Essentially your current question is asking me to tell you the workings of Stephen's mind, and that I cannot do. Given that I'm referring to 'singularities of time' orthogonality may be a better term, but I can find no reference of Stephen using it, regarding the relationship between imaginary and real time, so... However; I do find it ironic, that on the day that Stephen died, I was suddenly able to answer the question that had been bothering me, on and off, for the last 10 years: “How is it possible for me to exist both here, and in a single instant of time, outside of time?”. Given that, Stephen proposed imaginary time as a means of showing that, creation was not necessary for the "Big Bang". I always thought that nothing could happen in a single instant of time, but as it turns out, with a bit of imagination...

"Imaginary time is a new dimension, at right angles to ordinary, real time." Stephen Hawking

Too subtle? You are living in a creation of the imagination, the sole purpose of which is reproduction. I am the avatar of your dad and I have a pretty good idea who the avatar of your mum is. It's sort of a sleeping beauty situation, a love game, if you will. To understand why it's all done this way, look about you. Look at what happens when power is given to the unready. We are all equals, there are no gods, just a mum, a dad, and the kids. In order to “graduate” you must first become 'truly just'. Essentially, all the information that you really need, is contained within your own minds and the three videos above, study them. However; I'll give you a simplified definition of what 'truly just' is, to get you started. Choosing to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and you want to. Finding universal, unconditional love. Questioning everything (don't believe anything just because someone "told you so"). All I want for you, is true happiness, and in order to become truly happy, you have to become truly just. It's a win, win, win, situation, really. True happiness is all that really matters. Everything else is just stuff. To become truly happy, you have to become truly just. When you become truly just, you get to “graduate”. A good starting point is, 'The Greater Good Science Centre'. They use science based techniques to help boost individual happiness. Repair yourselves...repair the world. I'm sure that by now some of you are starting to question my sanity...Good! Question everything! Long story short, space-time is set, but it's set by your choices. You cannot change your choices, but they were/are/will be, your choices. I am pretty sure who the avatar of your mum is, but we will never meet her by chance alone, and our meeting must be her choice. Like I said, it's a sleeping beauty type of thing...One kiss, and...? The ball's in your court. Do you interact with it or not?

I had another little think about this last night, and thought that I had managed to prove to myself, that I was wrong. But...Anyway, here's what I thought: “If the space-time ends when the last particle within it reaches absolute zero, then space-time could reach a point when it has no future. So surly, the same could also be true for a singularity, and if the singularity doesn't need to have a future then the whole theory is redundant.” This lead me to a better understanding of time. I'm going to use the word particle a lot, it probably doesn't apply literally (e.g. “light is both a particle and a wave”), but those of you who know the correct terminology will have to give me some poetic licence (I'm not a physicist). Space-time has four potential futures/endings: a) Space-time is infinite. b) Space-time reaches absolute zero. c) Space-time reverses. d) Space-time leads back to a singularity. I am travelling through space-time in a 'particle of time' or a 'singularity of time' if you prefer. Each 'particle of time' contains three properties, past, present, future, (1-2-3) and only the 'past property' can contain a null value (0-1-2). Only case (b) presents a potential problem to my theory, but if a particle reaches absolute zero at 2 of its (1-2-3), its 3 has to remain as a 'what would happen next if...' future property. Because, if for example, you are a tiny vibrating string that has reached absolute zero, the possibility that another little string might impart some of its energy to you, remains. In which case you would do your 3 ('future property') next, not something totally random. Still (1-2-3) not (1-2-?) or (1-2-0). Note that I'm using (1-2-3) for notation, in actuality the entire past and entire future would be held in their respective properties. ((0,1)-2-(3,4,5...)) Looking at time this way makes looking at time travel, and inter-dimensional travel clearer and easier to understand. Travelling back in time becomes impossible, because in order to do so, you'd have to 'step out of' space-time first, or you'd simply bash into yourself (1-2-3, 2-2-1). However; as soon as you 'step out of' space-time, you put a null in your 'past property' (1-2-3, 0-3-4) and for you, the past no longer exists. Thus attempting to travel back into the past would put a null in your 'future property' too (0-3-0), and your future property cannot contain a null value. Travelling into the future cannot 'truly' be accomplished either because, space-time is set. So anything that you do in your future, was already there to be done. Travelling between time dimensions can only be accomplished if both dimensions are linked. That is, If your 'leaving' and 'arriving' were/are both events within the two dimensions. If for example, imaginary time exists, and both imaginary time and space-time are events within each other, movement between dimensions would be possible. The time particle would share a 'present property' in both dimensions simultaneously, and thus have two potential 'future properties'. For example, a particle could reach absolute zero in space-time and have two possible 'future properties', one in space-time and one in imaginary time. Given that its space-time 'future property' cannot now be realized, if its imaginary time 'future property' could become its 'present property', if the particle meets the requirements for existence within imaginary time. If not then time would 'essentially' stop for it because it wouldn't be able to realise either of its 'future properties'. Life is a particle that contains a past, a presence, and a future. She thinks, therefore she is. Albert Einstein (D.O.B. March 14, pi day) “A coincidence is a small miracle when God chooses to remain anonymous.” Stephen Hawking (D.O.D March 14, pi day) “Imaginary Time” The day that I got the key to figure out “who, what, when, where, why, and how”, March 14, pi day. Why pi? My guess? Something to do with the infinite properties of the surface of a sphere. There are no 'gods', because to be worthy of reverence a being must first become truly just, and the truly just have absolutely no desire for reverence. Do not worship a 'god', emulate one, become truly just. Of course, none of this can be proven, but then again, if it could, it wouldn't be truly just. On that note I'll leave you with some music videos for your enjoyment.

I can see that people could have a problem understanding what I mean by 'potential time', so perhaps it would be easier to understand if I put it in terms of space-time physics. If space-time contains both me and a ball, physicists might look at us, and say that I have the potential to interact with the ball at some point. However; the entirety of space-time was set the instant the clock started ticking (Big Bang), there is no potential for me to interact with the ball or not. Either I am, or I am not going to interact with the ball, and if I am, the where, the when and the how of our interaction is already set in space-time. Both me and the ball could be said to have a property of time in which we will interact. Now if at any point, prior to our interaction, space-time stops, both the ball and myself still contain the time property of our interaction, but our interaction cannot now take place. If we move the ball out of space-time to a dimension in which the clock has stopped ticking, then the ball would either have to contain no time property at all, or all of its possible time properties (potential time dimensions). Given that no time property at all is a daft concept, I prefer to see the ball as having all possible futures (potential time dimensions), but no way to achieve any of them. We could carry this concept over to a singularity. Compared to a singularity, a ball without a 'ticking clock' has a very limited potential future, so the potential time dimensions within a singularity would be much more complex. So complex in fact, that I sit in one of them explaining this to you (and kick a ball). As to why the singularity's clock cannot tick, I don't really know the physics of a singularity, but perhaps it's just so dense, that nothing can move at all, hence a stopped property of time, and a singularity containing all its possible futures (potential time dimensions).

My understanding of imaginary time is limited. As far as I could ascertain, Stephen Hawking proposed it as a way to make the 'Big Bang' an event in time, and thus clear up some of the math. However; the term 'imaginary' was used to liken the 'time dimension' to imaginary numbers (x the unknown), and not to say 'doesn't exist'. Personally, I can think of no reason why one time dimensions could not run at right angles to another. After all, up and down, or left and right, would make absolutely no difference to an observer within them. Given that imaginary time represents 'x the unknown', I cannot provide proof of its existence, and if it could be proven, Stephen would probably have gone on to prove it, so... The point is, that if imaginary time does exist, and all time in a given dimension exists all the time, then all of both time dimensions could occur within each other in the smallest possible unit of time, a 'singularity of time' if you will. It's important to note, that imaginary time does not have to exist for me, anymore than it does for you. If the popular theory of the 'Big Bang' is correct, it happened somehow, and if the multiverse theory is correct, all possible universes exist somehow, somewhere. What I am asking is, “Is it possible for the 'Big Bang' to not actually happen, but still exist as a potential event? If there's a rock on my garden wall, it has the potential to fall, but if I never push it, then it never falls. If a singularity has the potential to 'Bang' but never gets 'pushed', it never 'Bangs' but it still has the potential to 'Bang'. “Potential Time” then, would be all of space-time contained within a singularity of space-time, the “What would happen if...” of the singularity. Whereas the Universe itself (if actual) would be the “What happened when...” of the singularity. From my perspective, right here, right now, it makes no difference which case is true. If I'm an 'actual observer' in 'actual space-time', or a 'potential observer' in 'potential space-time', all physical laws of space-time are the same from my perspective. However; when it comes to a multiverse, things get more logical in terms of 'potential time'. If all possible universes exist as 'potential universes', not actual universes, then a singularity can contain all of the 'potential universes', without having to 'Bang' any of them into existence. Cosmologists could be looking for the first 'tick' of a 'clock' that never 'ticked'. The 'clock' (singularity) could be in a perpetual state of “This is what I could do, if something gave me a push.” without there being anything to give it a 'push'. Essentially, all that I'm doing is compressing space-time into a singularity, that in the absence of anything to 'push it' remains constant, but still has the potential to 'Bang'. A closing thought on imaginary time, if the 'Big Bang' can take place without imaginary time, the 'Big Bang' can also 'not' take place without imaginary time. So try not to think in terms of imaginary time 'having' to exist.

Essentially all that I'm asking, in a nutshell, is: Is it possible that a singularity could contain both potential energy and potential time? Because, that could then mean, that everything that ever has been, or ever could be, always has been, and always will be. Every single possible universe that the singularity could potentially become, could exist simultaneously, as a potential time dimension within a singularity, and therefore, persist in a state of both 'potentially being' and 'actually being' (observer perspective) eternally. Yes or no?

Having posted that, another thought occurred to me: If the 'Big Bang' has the 'potential' to happen, why wouldn't it just happen as opposed to just existing as a 'potential event' within a singularity? To which I thought: For something to actually happen the 'clock' would have to actually 'tick', but if all 'potential time' is contained within the smallest possible unit of time, then the 'clock' can have the potential to 'tick' but not the ability. Again, probably utter rubbish, but interesting.

A question occurred to me that I think is quite interesting but I keep being told to go away when I ask it. Perhaps the physics community has become jaded by internet use. Anyway... (a) Given that all space-time exists simultaneously – Like a river I'm flowing along in ( the present). The upstream is still there (the past), and the downstream is already there (the future). And, (b) Assuming that Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory is possible and true – A dimension of time running at a right angle to space-time, providing a time dimension for the 'Big Bang' to have taken place in. Wouldn't that mean that all of space-time occurred in the smallest possible unit of time in imaginary time, and that all of imaginary time occurred in the smallest possible amount of space-time? If so does time really have duration and flow, or are those both simply the perspectives of observers within given dimensions? And to really stretch the point...Is it possible that every possible time dimension (universe) is just a 'potential' time dimension, within the smallest possible unit of time, within a singularity? Meaning that the 'Big Bang' hasn't taken place, but has the 'potential' to take place, but that from my perspective, the 'Big Bang' has taken place because I'm a 'potential' observer within a 'potential' time dimension. Thus, everything that has ever existed, ever could exist, or does exist, always has existed and always will exist. Keep in mind, I am not saying that this is the case, I'd be happy to be told that the whole thing is impossible because... I just found it an interesting thought.