Andre Lefebvre Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 In the meantime, this is what all my ideas are based on; and this is what I want to add maths to eventually : Our total universe Just by thinking a few minutes about the standard model, which gives a beginning to our universe, we can understand and describe the following phases of its history starting from time = zero to (Who knows when everything will have light-speed, if ever): 1) Universe before movement (Potentiality state condition) Unidimensional universe 2) Universe between time = 0 and 10-43 second (motion) Two-dimensional universe 3) Universe between 1rst translation and light-speed (movement) three dimensional universe 4) Universe span time is conditioned by light-speed (Realized state condition) The word “State” here means: The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure. So the word “condition” in the definition means “situation of… at the time of…”. We see that number 1 is in a “state” of no movement, thus no space and no time. While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that “level” of universe. The “states” are the same for the universe in both situations. Number 2 is the embryonic phase of universes “life” when particles where “probabilities” of “translations”; which limits them to “motion” without translation. We can consider here the motion of “rotation” or “vibration”. But a “rotating phase of that universe” is more exact because it results in defining two “things” being: centripetal (which will become gravitation) and centrifugal (which will become expansion) “effects”. Its issues are mirrors particles and what will affect one will effect the other contrarily. The motion of that universe produces time in both directions: past and future. That is why they are entangled. The “present” was created only at the Big bang when past and future were ripped from one another giving the opportunity to the “present” to install itself between the two. This is the event that gave a single direction to the time arrow; toward the future. Number 3 is the “living” phase of the universe. “Translation” governs that period; it produces distances and directs the time arrow toward the future. We call it “space-time”. This is the phase where we live today. So these are the 4 basic phases of the structure for the story of the total universe. To my point of view that is; I could be wrong evidently.
Strange Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Just by thinking a few minutes about the standard model, which gives a beginning to our universe It doesn't, actually. While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that “level” of universe. Speed of what? With respect to what? To my point of view that is; I could be wrong evidently. Well, you got that bit right.
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) It doesn't, actually. You're right Strange. I corected it leaving my error in place. Thanks. Speed of what? Light With respect to what? To that phase of the universe. That's why I wrote: "The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure". The "or" here is quite important. Edited July 31, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Strange Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Light Light always travels at light speed. So what makes you phase four any different from anything else? To that phase of the universe. No, I mean what is the speed relative to?
Mordred Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) In regards to 1 and 4. " How do you define a rate of change without time?". How can those states change without time?. In term On section 2 same question. Plus how would you define time in the opposite direction? number 2 is poorly worded, otherwise. Strange already mentioned the other key areas Edited July 30, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) 1) There's no "rate change" when time, distance, temperature and everything is at "zero". 4) There's no more "rate change" when time freezes and distances disappear. 2) This transition phase starts with the first motion (start of a rotation). Let's say that the rotation is counter clock wise. It means that its arrow points toward the past; which is normal since you're during the first rotation and nothing else exists (is expressed) but the "past" part of that rotation. At the Big bang, the parts of half the surface which are projected in a straight line in all directions determine a traveled distance that is the "past" but its trajectory defines also an arrow of time toward the future; while the other half of the previous surface starts to motion again in a clockwise rotation. Since the underlying laws of physics are time-reversal symmetric, there is no way for them even to distinguish between what we call the past and what we call the future. They offer no temporal orientation. Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics actually says that if at any given moment of interest, a physical system happens not to possess the maximum possible entropy, it is extraordinarily likely that the physical system will subsequently have and previously had more entropy. It tells us that the entropic arrow of time is double-headed. From any specified moment, the arrow of "entropy increase" points toward the future and toward the past. Strange already mentioned the other key areas Strange seems to see everything existing at the same time. Is problems would disappear if he saw events happening successively. Which is easily deduced from the time arrow indicated in the evolution process described in the basic concepts in probability. "The nearer the sum of probability of an event is to zero, the less possibility exist that the event is (or becomes) a reality". So zero becomes abstract "potentiality" and One is the "reality". Between the two lies probability that follows "possibility" toward reality. The "trajectory" is: Potentiality --> probabilities --> possibilities --> Reality which are the four phases I presented earlier. Edited July 31, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Strange Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) 2) This transition phase starts with the first motion (start of a rotation). So you are saying the universe spins faster and faster until it is spinning at the speed of light? There are several problem with this, that I can see: 1. What is this speed of rotation relative to? 2. Nothing can move at the speed of light; unless you are totally discarding relativity 3. The speed within a rotating object depends on the distance from the centre 3a. So at what distance is stuff moving at the speed of light? 3b. Where is this centre? Strange seems to see everything existing at the same time. I don't know where that idea comes from. I was simply asking what you are measuring speed relative to. (As we all know, there is no absolute speed.) Edited July 31, 2015 by Strange
Mordred Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Your initial post has zero time. But with a changing state. You must have time for that to occur. To quote... "While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that level of universe. The states are the same for the universe in both situations." The arrow of time is a hypothetical function of entropy. Time reversal symmetry is the typical application. It's more an alternative mathematics modelling. In your time reversal you would have a state of low entropy reducing to a lower entropy state on the reversal side. Yet you have zero degrees of freedom at stage 1. You can't have less entropy than zero.... Time reversal symmetry will not work as you described it. Once again this post breaks down to a word salad of wording without understanding the material you read. I imagine you read Brian Greene's book that doesn't show any of the finer details such as the math. Then figured you could simply adapt it. ( unfortunately your not the first. On some forums Brian Green is one of the more problematic references. To countless misconceptions) Though his "peer reviewed papers" are great he has several good ones on string theory. This isn't unusual any general public pop media books on Cosmology all inherently mislead. The true understanding comes from studying the math. Not the wording. Edited July 31, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) So you are saying the universe spins faster and faster until it is spinning at the speed of light? No; I'm saying that during Plancks epoch, energy was accumulating by the gradual adding of unidimensional particles producing a circular surface responding to the centrifugal and centripetal effects. What is this speed of rotation relative to? To immobility at time = zero Nothing can move at the speed of light; unless you are totally discarding relativity I don't have to discard it; at Plancks epoch gravity doesn't exist. The speed within a rotating object depends on the distance from the centre And that distance increase because of constant emerging of unidimensional points of 0+ energy at its center. So at what distance is stuff moving at the speed of light? From Plancks information the distance is (10^-35 m /2) from the centre. And that's when everything went "kaboum". Where is this centre? Where the first unidimensional point 0+ energy appeared. Your initial post has zero time. But with a changing state. You must have time for that to occur. The initial phase was a "non changing state"; it was "static". It was a simple "potentiality". It changed only when the first motion started because of the 0+ energy that manifested itself and transformed its potentiality into a probability. While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that level of universe. The states are the same for the universe in both situations." The whole picture is an "expedition". It has a starting point where nothing moves, and an end issue where everything is done and the expedition is finished. So motion is the only thing involved. Before motion, you get a no distance and no succeeding time situation. In other words: "static present". And when the maximum of motion/movement is attained, you are at light speed where distances disappear and time freezes. Which brings you, once again in a "static present" situation. In fact it become a new realized potentiality. It's more an alternative mathematics modelling. It's a mathematical model to explain movement in entropy. Time reversal symmetry will not work as you described it. I'm not describing how it works; I'm stating an interpretation from the second law of thermodynamics (which I don't think exact anyway). I imagine you read Brian Greene's book I'm not finish reading it and actually, I'm starting to find him interested in playing with words instead of ideas like I hoped he did. And you're right I didn't see any mathematics yet. On some forums Brian Green is one of the more problematic references. But that's not a reference. Though his "peer reviewed papers" are great he has several good ones on string theory. The he can't be all bad. I'll finish is book. The true understanding comes from studying the math. Not the wording. 10 - 4 ! Edited July 31, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I think you missed the point. The point is your better off studying the math. Not the pop media type hype books. They are typically written for the novice as an interest, without really teaching how the models work. Edited July 31, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 I agree with you. But I'm trying too much so I have to take a break once in a while.
Strange Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 To immobility at time = zero I don't think you understand (or you are being deliberately evasive. You can only define the speed of an object relative to another object (at the same time). So, when you say the universe is moving at the speed of light, what is it moving relative to? I don't have to discard it; at Plancks epoch gravity doesn't exist. You are discarding it by saying that things move at the speed of light. The rest of your comments get increasingly incoherent. Were you drunk when you posted this?
Andre Lefebvre Posted August 1, 2015 Author Posted August 1, 2015 I don't think you understand Do you now? Well I'll repeat: "I'm saying that during Plancks epoch, energy was accumulating by the gradual adding of unidimensional particles producing a circular surface responding to the centrifugal and centripetal effects." The speed of light you are talking about was define at the Big bang. As for your question, when you talk of the speed of light you talk about that speed relative to what? So, when you say the universe is moving at the speed of light, what is it moving relative to? Maybe I don't understand; but you don't seem to grab the idea that it's the speed (traveling) that produces the universe; ot the universe that produces speed. You are discarding it by saying that things move at the speed of light. What does the speed of light have to do with gravity? Especially when gravity doesn't exist yet? Were you drunk when you posted this? Sorry I don't drink at all. But I'm pretty sure, since it's normal to make "projections" that you can give us a good description about being drunk.
Strange Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 You say that things were immobile at time zero and later they were moving at the speed of light. Presumably in the time between they were moving at some intermediate speed. What were they immobile RELATIVE TO? What were they moving REALTIVE TO? What is their speed RELATIVE TO? What does the speed of light have to do with gravity? Where did I say anything about gravity? Relativity shows that objects cannot travel at the speed of light, yet you claim they do. Therefore you reject relativity. Maybe I don't understand; but you don't seem to grab the idea that it's the speed (traveling) that produces the universe; ot the universe that produces speed. Perhaps you could show us the maths for how this works?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now