Inquiry : Spacetime Ruptures and Bidirectional Time

[ovidiu t]

I am reaching out as a passionate enthusiast of theoretical physics with a deep curiosity about the fabric of our universe. 

Premise: My hypothesis is centered around the possibility that spacetime could undergo dramatic ruptures under conditions where an immense mass is concentrated into a scale as small as the classical electron radius, similar to singularity points in black holes. I am particularly fascinated by the idea that such spacetime ruptures could potentially trigger localized big bang-like events on the 'other side' of these singularities.

Exploratory Thoughts:

- Using the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, I've theorized how spacetime might react when an object with a mass 20 times that of the Sun is compressed into the scale of an electron.

- This led to intriguing results, including negative time dilation values, which open the door to speculating about unconventional spacetime behaviors under these extreme conditions.

- Could these spacetime ruptures be a gateway to understanding the initial conditions of our universe? Might the remnants or 'echoes' from such explosive events provide clues, suggesting that time could have behaved bidirectionally at the Planck moment?

Speculation: 

While I am fully aware that these ideas are highly speculative and extend beyond the current empirical frameworks of physics, they represent a conceptual exploration into the mysteries of the cosmos. The notion that bidirectional time at the Planck moment could be linked to remnants of past cosmic events is particularly fascinating and something I am eager to explore further.

Seeking Expert Insights:

- With the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics applied to an object of such immense mass at the scale of an electron, my calculations led to negative values in time dilation. How would you interpret these negative values in the context of these metrics and the given extreme conditions?

- Does this theoretical approach to understanding spacetime at quantum scales resonate with current scientific thought, or does it conflict with established principles?

- Regarding the possibility of spacetime ruptures leading to localized big bangs and the implication of bidirectional time at the Planck moment, what are your thoughts on these speculative ideas and their potential impact on our understanding of the universe?

 

 

 

Edited January 30 by ovidiu t
Mistakes

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

My hypothesis is centered around the possibility that spacetime could undergo dramatic ruptures

Do you have any evidence that spacetime is a substance that could rupture?

Quote

 

- Using the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, I've theorized how spacetime might react when an object with a mass 20 times that of the Sun is compressed into the scale of an electron.

- This led to intriguing results, including negative time dilation values, which open the door to speculating about unconventional spacetime behaviors under these extreme conditions.

 

Can you show the math that led to these negative time dilation values?

[ovidiu t]

Nota Bene: I am not a mathematician or a scientist by profession. Instead, I am someone driven by curiosity, using various tools to experiment with speculative ideas and applying them to established equations in physics. My primary interest lies in the philosophical implications of these explorations and the thought process. I find that the realm of physics provides a fascinating and rich landscape to go into these ideas and to explore the deeper questions about existence and the nature of reality. 

I hypothesize that if space and time are intrinsically linked (as general relativity suggests), then any extreme effects on time, such as negative time dilation (?!), could imply a 'rupture' or dramatic change in spacetime structure. This speculation extends to consider the impact of such a rupture on the space component of spacetime as well. 

 

 

 PS: Again, I didn't do the calculations. 

[Markus Hanke]

Time dilation is a relationship between frames, it’s not a property of a single isolated clock. You wrote that you are considering an observer near the mass - is this a free-fall observer, a stationary observer (meaning he applies radial acceleration), or some more complicated motion? And which other clock exactly are you comparing his proper time against?

[ovidiu t]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Time dilation is a relationship between frames, it’s not a property of a single isolated clock. You wrote that you are considering an observer near the mass - is this a free-fall observer, a stationary observer (meaning he applies radial acceleration), or some more complicated motion? And which other clock exactly are you comparing his proper time against?

I'm approaching this topic with a sense of curiosity and exploration, fully aware of my non-scientist status and the speculative nature of these concepts. My thoughts are grounded in an opportunistic use of established theories, in ways that deviate from their standard applications.

In my hypothesis, I imagine a scenario where an object with a mass 20 times that of the Sun is compressed to the scale of an electron. This extreme condition, I speculate, might lead to a significant alteration in spacetime curvature, potentially reaching what I am thinking of as a 'zero degree' in the geodesic path. At this point, I wonder if spacetime could experience something akin to a rupture.

The observer in this scenario is posited within a unique frame of reference, influenced directly by these extreme conditions. This is a departure from the relative frames typically discussed in physics. As such, this observer's experience of time might differ radically from our conventional understanding, potentially displaying properties like bidirectionality.

As for the mathematics underpinning these ideas, I'm drawing inspiration from the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, which describe the gravitational field around black holes. While my understanding is limited, I'm intrigued by how these metrics might behave under the hypothetical conditions I've described. The negative time dilation values, which emerged from my rudimentary calculations, suggest to me a departure from traditional interpretations, possibly indicating a breakdown or unusual behavior in spacetime.

I recognize that my approach is highly theoretical and not based on the rigorous mathematical frameworks that professional physicists would employ. It's more a thought experiment, a way to imagine what might happen under extreme conditions and how that could possibly relate to our understanding of the universe's beginnings.

1. Defining a Unique Frame of Reference: Is it theoretically possible to define a unique frame of reference that is influenced directly by extreme gravitational conditions, such as those created by compressing a massive object to the scale of an electron? This frame would be distinct from standard frames in relativity, perhaps isolated or uniquely affected by these conditions. How might we approach defining and understanding such a frame, and what implications could this have for our understanding of spacetime and gravity?

(Overlooking Synchronicity and Relativity: very unscientific/unhealthy approach) :I am wondering if it is possible to explore the idea for 'a Unique Frame of Reference'. This concept would revolve around the development of an 'Existence Function'. This function would emphasize the fundamental existence of entities over their synchronous events in spacetime. Instead of focusing on when and where events like the classic train-lightning scenario occur relative to each other, this function would prioritize the very existence of these entities or events as its primary attribute. The aim here would be to shift the focus from the relative timing and positioning of events to a more foundational level of their existence. Could this offer a new perspective in understanding the nature of reality, especially under extreme conditions like those in my hypothesis? Is it possible to reconcile such a concept with the established principles of quantum mechanics and relativity?"

2. Spacetime Curvature at the Electron Scale: Considering the immense gravitational forces at play in my scenario, how might we conceptualize the curvature of spacetime at the scale of an electron? This question delves into the realm of quantum gravity – a territory where the classical laws of physics meet the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Are there existing theories or models that could help us explore the behavior of spacetime curvature at such minute scales, particularly under extreme gravitational conditions?

 

[joigus]

Besides the more specific criticism you're getting, what part does QFT play in all this?

It's extremely unlikely that any insight about big-bang, singularities, etc, would be obtained from classical GR alone without QFT playing any part in it.

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, ovidiu t said:

The negative time dilation values, which emerged from my rudimentary calculations

What you did there unfortunately does not make much sense. The r in the Schwarzschild metric is not the size of a mass, but a radial coordinate. The parameter M is a global property of the entire spacetime, not just some isolated region; the physical size of the mass has no bearing on the geometry of the vacuum region around it, which is why it is most often assumed to be point-like, and which is why its size does not appear as a parameter in the metric.

If you want to consider time dilation, you have to first of all decide on two clocks, one of which will be dilated with respect to the other. Oftentimes this will be a clock in free fall towards the mass, and another one stationary somewhere far away (so gravity is negligible there). You can then use the metric to calculate how these clocks relate to one another - it involves setting up two integrals, which you can then evaluate. In the case of Schwarzschild, this can be done explicitly and in closed form - but it’s more complicated than just inserting numbers.

[ovidiu t]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Besides the more specific criticism you're getting, what part does QFT play in all this?

It's extremely unlikely that any insight about big-bang, singularities, etc, would be obtained from classical GR alone without QFT playing any part in it.

In considering Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in relation to my ideas, two key aspects come to the forefront. Firstly, there's the matter of scale. QFT deals with the extremely small, like electrons, and it's this microscopic scale that's central to my thoughts.

Regarding the nature of time, its treatment in quantum mechanics presents a complex picture. Time in the quantum realm doesn't always conform to our everyday understanding. The role of the observer, a fundamental aspect of quantum theory, adds another layer of complexity to how we perceive time in these scenarios. 

For the moment, it looks more “manageable” to focus on a basic yet fundamental aspect of time: its unidirectional flow. While the deeper essence of time remains elusive in quantum contexts, acknowledging its consistent forward progression provides me a practical framework for further exploration (l am aware that simplifying it has its own dangers)

I have read the post “Does time exist? “ (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125382-does-the-time-exist/#comments) and I have to admit it sometimes eludes my understanding and my intellectual tools. But it looks fundamental as, in my perspective, it connects it to the question of “Existence”. Poetically – if it is, it flows! 

Additionally, the concept of matter decaying over time, a well-established phenomenon, prompts a thought: could this be an example of an interaction between matter and time?

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Regarding the nature of time, its treatment in quantum mechanics presents a complex picture. Time in the quantum realm doesn't always conform to our everyday understanding. The role of the observer, a fundamental aspect of quantum theory, adds another layer of complexity to how we perceive time in these scenarios. 

This is an outdated package of ideas otherwise known as Copenhagen's school. Decoherence is the key, not the observation, whatever that means.

14 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Additionally, the concept of matter decaying over time, a well-established phenomenon, prompts a thought: could this be an example of an interaction between matter and time?

I don't think that makes much sense. Decay is already understood as an interaction, but not between matter and time, but mediated by W and Z bosons.

What would interaction between matter and time even mean? Interactions, as we understand the concept, require a position representation.

[ovidiu t]

24 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

What you did there unfortunately does not make much sense. The r in the Schwarzschild metric is not the size of a mass, but a radial coordinate. The parameter M is a global property of the entire spacetime, not just some isolated region; the physical size of the mass has no bearing on the geometry of the vacuum region around it, which is why it is most often assumed to be point-like, and which is why its size does not appear as a parameter in the metric.

If you want to consider time dilation, you have to first of all decide on two clocks, one of which will be dilated with respect to the other. Oftentimes this will be a clock in free fall towards the mass, and another one stationary somewhere far away (so gravity is negligible there). You can then use the metric to calculate how these clocks relate to one another - it involves setting up two integrals, which you can then evaluate. In the case of Schwarzschild, this can be done explicitly and in closed form - but it’s more complicated than just inserting numbers.

I agree and understand. This is a forced, and probably inacceptable “trickery”. My reference to the electron was intended as a measure to conceptualize extreme density,  a point-like mass in the Schwarzschild solution, rather than a literal size reference. I see how my initial thought may have strayed from the accurate mathematical framework and approach.

I'm interested in whether it's theoretically possible for the geodesic paths around such a dense point (conceptualized as extremely dense but point-like for mathematical purposes) to be altered to an extent where the angular movement approaches a 'zero degree', or close to it.

Essentially, could such extreme density lead to a spacetime configuration where the paths taken by objects or light become radically different ?

As space and time are connected I am assuming that if one is affected the other one will be as well.

(I belive it might be over my head these concepts and scientific work...I am seeing my own "event horizon"  ) 

[MigL]

I am not understanding these 'ruptures' of space-time you speak of.
And how they arise from conditions more extreme ( ? ) than those that lead to a Black Hole.

You cannot curve space-time any more than a Black Hole does.
And Black Holes certainly don't cause 'ruptures' in space-time or negative time dilation.
( too much Star Trek or Marvel multiverse madness ? )

I have a simple argument against the existence of central singularities in Black Holes.

Consider an electron swallowed by a BH.
It crosses the EV and reaches the 'singularity'.
At this point its position is exact; it is a point.
That means that, according to Heisenberg, its momentum ( and speed ) could be any value up to infinite.
That means the electron could escape the BH.
Since this same argument can be applied to every other particle swallowed by the BH, every particle could then escape, and there would be no BH

And since we have photographic evidence that BHs exist, the above inconsistency means that singular points, in a BH, cannot be possible.

[ovidiu t]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am not understanding these 'ruptures' of space-time you speak of.
And how they arise from conditions more extreme ( ? ) than those that lead to a Black Hole.

You cannot curve space-time any more than a Black Hole does.
And Black Holes certainly don't cause 'ruptures' in space-time or negative time dilation.
( too much Star Trek or Marvel multiverse madness ? )

I have a simple argument against the existence of central singularities in Black Holes.

Consider an electron swallowed by a BH.
It crosses the EV and reaches the 'singularity'.
At this point its position is exact; it is a point.
That means that, according to Heisenberg, its momentum ( and speed ) could be any value up to infinite.
That means the electron could escape the BH.
Since this same argument can be applied to every other particle swallowed by the BH, every particle could then escape, and there would be no BH

And since we have photographic evidence that BHs exist, the above inconsistency means that singular points, in a BH, cannot be possible.

I am indeed a fan of 'Star Trek'!   However, I'm not sure I understand; I thought it was generally accepted that nothing escapes from black holes, except for Hawking radiation. How do you relate it to Heisenberg's principle?

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

I thought it was generally accepted that nothing escapes from black holes, except for Hawking radiation.

From the Wikipedia article (bolding done by me):

Quote

 

Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[10] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[11]

An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.

 

So even Hawking radiation doesn't escape once it's past the EH.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

At this point its position is exact; it is a point.

From Susskind & Cabannes, General Relativity: The Theoretical Minimum (p. 227):

Quote

the singularity at r = 0 is not a place, it is a time! More accurately, it is not a single place but many places all on a time-like curve.

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

the singularity at r = 0 is not a place, it is a time!

Single place or single time makes no difference to Heisenberg.

Singular place means infinitely indeterminate momentum, and singular time means infinitely indeterminate energy.
Either way, that electron cannot be confined.
 

Hawking radiation is generated just outside the event horizon, and Heisenberg Uncertainty applies everywhere, as it is a fundamental aspect of nature.

[swansont]

Does applying the time dilation formula to a radial value less than the Schwarzschild radius have any physical meaning?

The imaginary result suggests not

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, ovidiu t said:

Essentially, could such extreme density lead to a spacetime configuration where the paths taken by objects or light become radically different ?

What do you mean by “radically different”? In the presence of ordinary matter (ie positive energy), originally parallel geodesics will always converge, never diverge; meaning that gravity is always attractive, and clocks closer to the mass are thus always dilated wrt some external reference clock. There is no “trick” by which this can be circumvented.

[ovidiu t]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Does applying the time dilation formula to a radial value less than the Schwarzschild radius have any physical meaning?

The imaginary result suggests not

This was the initial question. And this is the answer I was looking for. 

[joigus]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I have a simple argument against the existence of central singularities in Black Holes.

Consider an electron swallowed by a BH.
It crosses the EV and reaches the 'singularity'.
At this point its position is exact; it is a point.
That means that, according to Heisenberg, its momentum ( and speed ) could be any value up to infinite.
That means the electron could escape the BH.
Since this same argument can be applied to every other particle swallowed by the BH, every particle could then escape, and there would be no BH

And since we have photographic evidence that BHs exist, the above inconsistency means that singular points, in a BH, cannot be possible.

This walks in the direction of what I was saying. GR as a theoretical standalone is not reliable to tell us what a BH (or any other trans-horizon-hidden singularity of the EFE) is telling us about. QM has to play a big role in it. Rupture of space-time, as if ST were some kind of elastic medium is clearly not the ticket. Every direction I know in which people are thinking has to do with generalising QFT to the appropriate degrees of freedom accounting for gravitation or proposing a unifying principle (EPR = ER) that achieves the concept-bridging between GR and QFT that everybody dreams of.

There must be a reason why entropy has to be included in the mix, and it's almost a certainty that the reason has to do with QM.

PD: From what I know, @Genady is right, and the singularity is a time rather than a spatial point. Assuming BHs are not better represented by other solutions that haven't been found yet and nobody knows anything about. Such is the plight of the non-linear physicist.  But you're right. You shift to the E, t HUP and your point is still valid --at this point I don't know whether the pun is intended or not!!  

Sorry for the acronym shower.

[ovidiu t]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

This walks in the direction of what I was saying. GR as a theoretical standalone is not reliable to tell us what a BH (or any other trans-horizon-hidden singularity of the EFE) is telling us about. QM has to play a big role in it. Rupture of space-time, as if ST were some kind of elastic medium is clearly not the ticket. Every direction I know in which people are thinking has to do with generalising QFT to the appropriate degrees of freedom accounting for gravitation or proposing a unifying principle (EPR = ER) that achieves the concept-bridging between GR and QFT that everybody dreams of.

There must be a reason why entropy has to be included in the mix, and it's almost a certainty that the reason has to do with QM.

PD: From what I know, @Genady is right, and the singularity is a time rather than a spatial point. Assuming BHs are not better represented by other solutions that haven't been found yet and nobody knows anything about. Such is the plight of the non-linear physicist.  But you're right. You shift to the E, t HUP and your point is still valid --at this point I don't know whether the pun is intended or not!!  

Sorry for the acronym shower.

This was somewhat expected, an inevitable trajectory for General Relativity (GR) when considering very small scales and gravity. There are no surprises there.

From this conversation, I am taking some points:

• Philosophers must follow compulsory courses in physics, and physicists must follow courses in philosophy!  
• GR is effective on large scales but overlooks the quantum scale, which can lead to a metaphorical 'stiff neck' from trying to reconcile its implications.
• QFT becomes essential when dealing with massive black holes.
• At the quantum level, uncertainty reigns supreme, guiding the behavior of nature. Though, in the eyes of a profane, it looks like you can't have a piece of knowledge if you don't trade their piece of knowledge...
• 'Singularity' might just be a term for our current lack of understanding.
• No bridge yet (except string theory ? ) between big things and small things.

Intuitively, this sheds some light on my initial question: the singularity at r=0 isn't a location; it's a moment in time, or more precisely, many locations along a time-like curve.

I'm assuming that space in this scenario could resemble crumpled paper. Yet, I would like to know if this 'crumpled paper' has a breaking point, despite knowing that any analogy is inadequate when facing such counterintuitive levels and forces at play.

Thank you all!

@Moderators: feel free to close the subject, though unsolved. I have seen my mistakes of conception and methodology.

[Genady]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Every direction I know in which people are thinking has to do with generalising QFT to the appropriate degrees of freedom accounting for gravitation or proposing a unifying principle (EPR = ER) that achieves the concept-bridging between GR and QFT that everybody dreams of.

And then, there is Freeman Dyson (F. Dyson, “The World on a String,” New York Review of Books, May 13, 2004)

Quote

[Gravitons] are like the ether, the elastic solid medium which nineteenth-century physicists imagined filling space. Einstein built his theory of relativity without the ether and showed that the ether would be unobservable if it existed. He was happy to get rid of the ether, and I feel the same way about gravitons. According to my hypothesis, the gravitational field described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a purely classical field without any quantum behavior.

 

Edited February 1 by Genady

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

And then, there is Freeman Dyson (F. Dyson, “The World on a String,” New York Review of Books, May 13, 2004)

 

Oh, yes. What Stanley Deser defined as 'denial' in this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh36XEX7yTk

IOW, the gravitational field is one of a kind. Everything else is quantum. It's only gravity that's classical. Doesn't sound like a sound alternative. People have pointed to paradoxes and the like. And it's no surprise really.

 

[ovidiu t]

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Please don't post a long video and nothing else as a response in discussion. If the video comments on a particular point you wish to make, please let us know about where it is without requiring an hour and forty-seven minute viewing to figure out what you mean. Thank you!

 

[ovidiu t]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please don't post a long video and nothing else as a response in discussion. If the video comments on a particular point you wish to make, please let us know about where it is without requiring an hour and forty-seven minute viewing to figure out what you mean. Thank you!

 

I apologize. It mainly tries to solve AMPS paradox by EPR approach:  

1. Entanglement of "space" in vacuum 

2. Entangled Black holes (so it implies "un" entangled black holes) 

3. Entanglement as a phenomenon generating/ creating spacetime 

4. Entanglement quantum phenomenon bridging GR and QFT 

I suppose the scientist needs no introduction. He's part of the team working/starting string theory.