The Pencil Universe

[michel123456]

Here is a new Universe for thinking about in 2010. Wishing everybody all the best.

We begin with a simple diagram (i love that):

fig.01

 

We are living in Space at Present Time: the red spot in the center.

the universe is there around us. Where is it? We know that all that we can observe belong to the Past.We cannot observe events from the future, and Relativity says that we cannot see anything from the present either, because information is always transmitted at speed max=C. So here is the Observable Universe:

 

fig.02

 

Great. But, wait a moment: The Universe, by definition, must belong to Present Space, isn't it? So, the "real" present Universe must be as indicated in the following diagram:

 

fig.03

 

As if the "real" Universe was standing perfectly at rest in present time. A screenshot of the Universe. A solid block in which nothing can happen, like a piece of wood.

The Pencil Universe:

fig.03

 

And what we are observing of this Universe, is a broken pencil. Like this:

 

 

Now, imagine yourself looking at yourself, there exactly where you stand, what do you expect to see? A broken piece of the universe.

[michel123456]

Hello-o. Is there anybody? I feel quite alone with my pencil. Do I have to ask a question in order to take some comment? (that was a question).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, most probably, there is an error.

From the right beginning. From the first diagram.

Why that? It looks so simple. And it looks quite well to a simplified Minkowski diagram. What is wrong?

 

Look:

The vertical axis representing Time is the representation of the value of time (seconds). It is a representation used formally in mathematics to represent functions.

The horizontal axis is representing the projection of 3d space upon a line. It is geometrical representation.

To see the difference, you can for example put positive & negative sign upon the vertical axis, something you do upon a mathematical diagram. On the horizontal axis, you cannot do that. The left & right instance indicates a direction, not plus/minus. You can put for example East & West right & left.

Then you obtain a bizarre hybrid diagram.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edited January 4, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[Airbrush]

Cool illustrations! I wonder how you did that? Anyhow, since nobody sent your post to speculations, your post can't be so bad. You just need to provoke discussion somehow.

 

I can't follow your reasoning much beyond the first illustration. Can you put your theory into a few sentences and plain English for novices such as me?

[michel123456]

This is not a theory. It is just the way I feel things must be, by simply combining the informations I can get from here and there. There is nothing new, but maybe the combination I made is wrong somewhere. That's the reason I post that kind of stuff, and wait. If i am completely stupid, I expect my thread will be sent to the waiste basket, or at least I'll get a bump on my head from some smarter guy here (and there are plenty of them). When I get no answer, I feel well, but there is a restriction, maybe no-one was interested to even read it. I expect that's what happens most of the time, because all of my threads are sooooo basic that a decent scientist will not spend much time upon them. But they should. I make systematically some tricky input that should raise some comments.

 

Now, back to the point.

The basics:

_we suppose that Space exists as a 3D environnement.

_we suppose that Time exists as a 1D dimension.

 

In order to represent all of these upon a piece of paper (or display screen), we make a geometrical projection of 3D space upon a surface. The observable sphere around us is represented as a circle. Better say, as a disk, because the observable sphere is full of things, the circle also is full of things. A disk.

Then we look at this disk from the side, like looking at the sheet of paper from its width. We see a line. That is what is represented. This line represents space around us, full of "things", and we are in the center of it: the red dot "You Are Here".

After that, we put the Time dimension, and suppose that Space is somewhere upon the time-line, no matter where. The important thing is that for the observator, no matter where he is, no matter when he is, he will always be at the center of his observable universe and always at present time, in his own Frame Of Reference to speak more technically.

So far, so good.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That was the first diagram.

Here the story begins.

We consider ourselves as an observer at the red spot. We look at the Universe all around us. The word "look", or "observe" means that we are gathering information sended by the elements of the Universe. We barely can act upon the elements, planets, stars & galaxies. The main thing we can do is gather the Electromagnetic radiation from these objects, and calculate.

And we know that this radiation travels through space at specific speed=Speed Of Light.

 

So, the first thing we have to do upon our diagram is to draw the Speed Of Light, and we can do that easily, because we have both Space & Time, and we know that SOL (& any speed) is a combination of Space & Time.

 

Here, the problem is that our first diagram has no measures. How to put the graph of a speed if I don't put specific distances & specific times. Here we have to go back and get help from eminent Minkowski (in fact all the above is a pathetic plagiat of his work), who made a sort of "trick". He simply said that because the axiom of Theory is that SOL is absolute, we can switch the time coordonates with spatial ones. As explained in Wiki "For convenience, the (vertical) time axis represents, not t, but the corresponding quantity ct, where c =299,792,458 m/s is the speed of light. In this way, one second on the ordinate corresponds to a distance of 299,792,458 m on the abscissa. Due to x=ct for a photon passing through the origin to the right, its world line is a straight line with a slope of 45°, if the scales on both axes are chosen to be identical. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram#Basics

 

So we can draw SOL as being a line at slope 45°.

Where to put this line ? Well, in fact, the whole sheet of paper is full of those lines. But the only ones that are interesting in the first place are those that can be catched by the observer. All the other lines are passing by "somewhere else", not observable by us.

And so we draw the "interesting" line at slope 45° passing through the observer. Actually, there are 2 of those lines, one at 45° and another symetrical.

 

So far so good.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now you can play by yourself. Take any random point upon the diagram, and check if this point is observable. In order to do that, draw a line at 45° from your chosen point, and see if it joins to the red spot. It is little bit trivial: the only points that can be observed are upon the diagonals. All the others intersect somwhere else, either in the future or the past.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention, the low part of the diagram is the Past, the upper portion is the Future.

We see that:

1. the entire observable Universe belongs to the past.(it is an input)

2. the entire observable Universe at present time belongs to the diagonals and only to the diagonals. Even the internal part of the past triangle is not observable at present time.

3. the future is not observable (that is not a conclusion, it is an input due to the fact that time goes only from past to future and never backwards)

4. Space at present time is not observable, because the entire line of Space (the great horizontal one) is out of the diagonals. The only observable event from space in present time is the observer himself.

 

That is the meaning of the second diagram (fig.02).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now things are getting weird.

 

We can see on the diagram where is the observable universe. The entire Observable Universe is upon the SOL diagonals. Here some other Forum member should have responded that, no, the O.U. is in the whole past triangle, as mentionned in all physics books. But since nobody seems interested, let's pass over it.

 

At the right beginning, we posed that the whole 3D Space is represented by the horizontal line. And now we see that the Observable Universe is out of Space. What happened? See fig.03.

 

It happened that the horizontal line represents 3D Space AT PRESENT TIME. So that in fact there are 2 entities here:

_the first is the Universe (the "real one"), which of course relies entirely into Space at present time. I putted a pencil upon the diagram to make it clearer. That is fig. 04 (labelled fig.03 by error, aargh). Ladies and gentlemen:

The Pencil Universe.

It is the "Real Universe", the one that slides smoothly through time (in other words, during).

 

The projection of the Pencil Universe upon the diagonals SOL lines is the Observable Universe. It is the deformed image of the passage of the P.U. through Time.

 

What we observe as Reality, all that we measure, all that we see and interpret is based upon the deformed image of the Pencil Universe.

 

What is this Pencil Universe? How can we investigate its structure since it is not observable? Well, nothing difficult. We just have to wait. As Time passes, we are sliding through Time, and little by little, the Pencil Universe demasks itself. The other way we can act is simply decide observing the Pencil Universe the way it was some long time ago, let's say one billions years ago. We should see a P.U. one billion LY wide, not so bad. It could be done by mapping the position of all stars & Galaxies at a fixed time of one billion LY ago(1). Of course, astronomers will have to take count of Relativity, expansion of space, and surely a bunch of other parameters. But that could maybe help understanding what is this Pencil Universe like.

 

The second weird thing is that the P.U. is just like a piece of wood: dead. Just like a picture. A snapshot of the Universe. Nothing happens in the P.U.

 

The third weird thing is that the O.U. has a breaking point at the observator. Which I represented with a broken pencil. After some profound thinking, I came to the conclusion that it is due to the graphic representation, in other words, an error. Reality has no broken point at the observator. Although I liked the idea very much.

 

The fourth weird thing is that I putted a plus minus sign in the last diagram and nobody came to say Michel what have you done!

Here a comment is urgently needed. Please shoot.

 

(1)Oops, that is impossible I'm afraid.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hmmm, no comment.

I have to write enormities if I want a debate, it seems.

O.K.

Here is another one :

fig.06

 

Kind of summation of the precedents.

The Observable Universe is in the past. It represents all that we meaure, all that we see, everything. It is positive. Positive time (negative time doesn't exist), positive space, positive distance, positive mass, a.s.o.

On the upper side, there is the negative part, the future. It is the unknown place, where we must encounter all negatives we do not encounter in our positive world: like negative time, negative space, negative distance, negative mass, a.s.o.

Pause.

Edited January 8, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[ydoaPs]

I didn't read anywhere near the whole thing, but the basis for whatever you're trying to say is wrong since simultaneity is relative.

[Martin]

This is not a theory. It is just the way I feel things must be,... The entire Observable Universe is upon the SOL diagonals...

 

There are neutrino telescopes.

 

There are cosmic ray telescopes.

 

These signals travel less than the speed of light.

 

Not all information about past events travels exactly at the speed of light.

 

When a geologist takes a core rock sample, and studies it's sediment layers, he observes something about past events. When a paleontologist discovers a dinosaur bone he observes, he gathers information about past events. The information has barely traveled at all, and certainly not at the speed of light.

 

You have a feeling that the whole observable universe, all past events about which we gather info, and from which we receive signals, must be on the surface of the past lightcone. You have a feeling that all relevant information must be speed-of-light signals.

I am not sure how to categorize this feeling, how to classify it.

You present it as if you want to stimulate discussion! But as you say it is not a scientific theory, it is just a feeling.

 

It is not supported by physical evidence. Indeed it is contradicted by the realworld evidence. I don't see it as a basis for scientific discussion. If anything it could spark a vacuous debate about words and feelings.

[michel123456]

O.K. that was hard to get an answer.

 

I will try to go out of a "feeling" and try to explain.

 

First of all, let's suppose the entire past triangle is observable. i will put events into the triangle and discuss.

Here we are:

fig.07

 

I putted 4 events.

_your friend Michel , he walks in your direction (you are standing at the red point).

_a car is coming to you

_a missile

_a flash of light.

 

I putted all these events 1 year in the past, at different distances corresponding to their available speed ( simplified for better understanding)

 

You are today, and you look through your window.

Can you see Michel? Michel's departure point is 100 meters from you. You should see him. But Michel is not there, because on the diagram he was 10 meters from you one year ago. So when you go today at Michel's departure point, there is nobody there. You cannot see him today one year ago. I know it looks strange. Wait and see.

Can you see the car? (a Ferrari)You are today and you look for the car at its departure point, Moskow the Red Square, one year ago. Is the Ferrari there? No, the Ferrari was there one year ago. Today the Ferrari has reached you and crashed upon your car as seen in the diagram. At Moskow, the Ferrari is not, and you can't see the Red Square as it was one year ago.

Can you see the missile? The missile was launched one year ago from a sattelite of Jupiter. You take your telescope and look at Jupiter's sattelite. Can you see the launch? No, because it happened one year ago. The missile today is just above your head. You cannot see it in the past.

Can you see the flash? The flash happened one year upon a planet one Light Year from you. So you take your telescope again and focus upon the planet. Can you see it. Yes, because the time needed for the light to travel is the same as the time that has elapsed. In the diagram, you can only see the flashlight.

 

Surprising. No there must be an error somewhere.

O.K.

Let's analyze.

Let's take the example of the red car (Schumacher's Ferrari) that just crashed your own today.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

fig.08

You could see the red car leaving Moskow on year ago, but not today. I could some time ago, not exactly one year ago, something less than that, when I was at point A in time. The trajectory of the car in space & time is represented in the following diagram.

 

Now we can (maybe) understand what is happening. The past triangle is observable but only bit by bit, as time elapses. In order to observe the entire triangle, you have to gather the data of all the past events and sum all of it.

But if you look through your window at present time, if you look into your telescope today, you will only observe what is upon the diagonal. Nothing else. The past triangle is empty, not observable.

 

Maybe you feel bad about it, but that is the reason why you cannot observe yourself (your own existence), into the past. Your own past is exactly at the vertical of the red spot, upon your life line. And it is not observable.

Edited January 9, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[Edtharan]

The biggest problem with the diagram is that there is no such thing as Absolute Time. There is no Universal NOW.

 

By laying the pencil across the diagram like you have, you have stated that ther must be a universal Now (that lies along the pencil). But as there is no universal Now, then the inclusion of the pencil is an inclusion that is not represented by reality.

 

Because you have included something not included in reality, what you have is not actually a representation of reality at all.

[michel123456]

The biggest problem with the diagram is that there is no such thing as Absolute Time. There is no Universal NOW.

 

By laying the pencil across the diagram like you have, you have stated that ther must be a universal Now (that lies along the pencil). But as there is no universal Now, then the inclusion of the pencil is an inclusion that is not represented by reality.

 

Because you have included something not included in reality, what you have is not actually a representation of reality at all.

 

Exactly.

What we call reality belongs to the diagonals. The P.U. is not reality.

 

Martin got mad at me.

I have to stop for a while.

[Sisyphus]

There are no universal diagonals, either.

[Martin]

There are no universal diagonals, either.

 

That's fairly deep. I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate some on that.

One thing that comes to mind is the Shapiro observation. Lightrays passing near the sun are actually slowed down by the fact that time is slower as you go deeper down in the gravity well. So the speed of light appears to be contingent.

 

So the "diagonals", which symbolize the lightcone structure of spacetime, could be seen as contingent, somehow not absolute.

 

The smallest gravitywave ripple would in principle (infinitesimally) alter the lightcone structure of causality.

Or am I off track? Do you want to add some detail?

================

 

Edtharan, I think you know that in cosmology we do have an (approximate) universal Now. Given (approximately) by the CMB.

We have discussed that. But in pure General Relativity, in the abstract, not including features of our universe like the CMB and Hubble expansion, there is no universal Now. So you are right in that respect.

 

As soon as you include even Hubble expansion, you have implicitly accepted a Now. The Hubble law depends on being able to measure distances at a given moment, it contains a universal time coordinate

v = H(t) d

[Sisyphus]

I didn't mean anything too complex. Edtharan pointed out there was no universal "now," and michel seemed to take that to mean that the "real" thing was the diagonals rather than the horizontal. But the diagonals are no more universal than the horizontal "now" line, because simultaneity of events separated in space doesn't hold between different reference frames. If the observer in the center of the diagram had the same location but a different velocity, those diagonals would be passing through different events, because:

 

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

[michel123456]

I didn't mean anything too complex. Edtharan pointed out there was no universal "now," and michel seemed to take that to mean that the "real" thing was the diagonals rather than the horizontal. But the diagonals are no more universal than the horizontal "now" line, because simultaneity of events separated in space doesn't hold between different reference frames. If the observer in the center of the diagram had the same location but a different velocity, those diagonals would be passing through different events, because:

 

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

 

Right.

_I was always talking about a single observator and all meanings and developpements in his own FOR. The horizontal (present time) is not absolute, as said previously, and the diagonals are not absolute either.

_there is a confusion (and I am confused as well) about the meaning of the word "real". As it appears, "real" is not absolute. For my single observator, his observable universe lies on the triangle (and inside the triangle following Martin, I will not discuss further this point). For another observator next to him, the observable universe will lie into another triangle. If the 2 observators are moving from each other, the triangles will change and the corresponding observable universe will be again different for both observators. I suppose we can all agree on that.

Now, if you call the observed universe "reality", reality will be different for all observers.

Confusion arises when you take a look at all the events that make up the entire diagram, all points inside and outside the past & future cone. What is this? Obviously, it is more than the observable universe for a single observator. Is this the Block Universe? All points "existing" at all times? Or is this something like my Pencil Universe sliding through time like a scanner?

Edited January 13, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[Edtharan]

Edtharan, I think you know that in cosmology we do have an (approximate) universal Now. Given (approximately) by the CMB.

We have discussed that. But in pure General Relativity, in the abstract, not including features of our universe like the CMB and Hubble expansion, there is no universal Now. So you are right in that respect.

However, that "approximate" universal now is not universal, but local to the observer and their inertial frame of reference. Two observers differing in their inertial reference frame or position will see the "approximate" now as different. This means that although it might be an approximate now, it is by no means "Universal".

 

As soon as you include even Hubble expansion, you have implicitly accepted a Now. The Hubble law depends on being able to measure distances at a given moment, it contains a universal time coordinate

v = H(t) d

I never claimed there wasn't a Now, just not a universal now. So we can use the Hubble data as a local Now, but if we changed our frame of reference (inertia or location) then we would be experiencing a different now to what we would if we didn't change these.