1

New Theories / Do we live in a Black Hole?

« on: 25/05/2012 09:22:32 »

Is the Universe a giant black hole? How can we tell? Recall John Wheeler's one-sentence summary of general relativity: "Spacetime tells mass how to move; mass tells spacetime how to curve."

Maybe our universe is a black hole in a larger universe.  If we assume that mass continues to accelerate toward the singularity after crossing the event horizon then it is traveling backward in time.  From our perspective inside the event horizon it is travelling forward in time and everything outside the event horizon is traveling backward in time.  What looks like expansion to us (if we live in a small enough patch) would look like contraction toward a singularity from outside the event horizon.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / A light paradox?

« on: 12/05/2012 15:39:35 »

If photons do not experience either time or distance how is it possible for light to be a wave?

3

New Theories / How does an Electro-magnetic wave conserve energy?

« on: 12/05/2012 09:17:25 »

Light is an electro-magnetic wave.  E is the electric field vector, and B is the magnetic field vector of the EM wave.  For electromagnetic waves E and B are always perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.  The direction of propagation is the direction of E x B.

The electric field vector and the magnetic field vector are normally considered to be in phase.  For every cycle there are two null points.  Could it be that a photon is that part of the electro-magnetic wave between two null points?  If so, there would be two of them per wavelength.  Does this explain why light propagates in discreet packets and exhibits a wave like/point like duality?

The electric field vector and the magnetic field vector are normally considered to be in phase.  There is a problem with this view of them being in phase.  At the null points of the wave, energy would appear not to be conserved.  To conserve energy the two components of the wave would need to be either (1) 180 deg. out of phase, or, (2) in some sense the wave needs to be travelling in both directions of time simultaneously.

(1) If the two components of the wave are 180 deg. out of phase then it is difficult to explain why light comes in discrete packets and why it has a wavelike/point like duality.

(2) The simplest explanation therefore is that photons propagate in both directions of time simultaneously.  They do that by propagating backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time flows forward.
This is not the same as photons not experiencing time although the effect is similar.  Neither is it saying that they actually travel backward in time.  They only travel backward in time with the same dilation factor that time flows forward.


Light is an electro-magnetic wave.  Electromagnetic waves can have any wavelength λ or frequency f as long as λf = c.

If you consider photons as not experiencing time or distance then both wavelength and frequency become meaningless.

If you consider photons as traveling backward in time with the same time dilation factor that time progresses forward then they (photons)  have both frequency and wavelength.

4

New Theories / Are Space and Time of space-time Conserved?

« on: 05/05/2012 09:32:34 »

E=mc²

Mass and energy are conserved.
The more energy you have the less mass you have.  The more mass you have the less energy you have.

The speed of light c has two components DISTANCE which is the SPACE dimension of space-time and TIME the TIME dimension of space-time.  The faster you travel in space the less you travel in time.  The faster you travel in time the less you travel in space.

That appears to me to be a conservation law but with time itself being conserved.  Space and time are conserved quantities but are interchangeable.  This is the same as mass in the form of matter and energy being conserved but interchangeable.

This leads to two questions.

1)   Is space-time conserved?

2)   If space-time is conserved how can space expand without time contracting?

5

New Theories / Are Black Holes a Paradox?

« on: 05/05/2012 08:22:28 »

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light.  Therefore the black hole accelerates at the speed of light( but is hidden behind the EH).

General Relativity states that mass can not accelerate up to the speed of light.  Matter being consumed by a black hole accelerates up to the speed of light at the EH.

Is this a paradox?  If not why not?

6

New Theories / Do photons experience time?

« on: 30/04/2012 07:06:52 »

I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.


I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time.  Time for it does not exist.

There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.

It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time.  Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.

The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c.  It propagates backwards in time.

Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.

added 08 May 2012


Time has certain features that make it time.  It has an arrow that points from the past to the future.  It ‘flows’ at a certain rate.  If it did not flow then it would not be time as we know it.  If it flowed at an infinite rate, the arrow of time would be double ended and there would be no causality.  Again, this would not be time as we know it.

An object traveling at c does not experience the passage of time as time has effectively stopped.  It does not experience space as distance has shrunk to zero.  Either of the above is effectively the same as travelling at infinite speed. 
However, light speed is finite not infinite. 

Why is c finite and not infinite?  Why is c the value that it is 299792458 m/s.

If light travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward then it explains why the speed of light is not infinite.  The speed of light is not infinite because the passage of time is not infinite.  Time flows at the speed of light.

A photon cannot be localized without being destroyed. 
This makes sense if a photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.  Whilst traveling backward in time it remains in all senses invisible.

A photon is it's own antiparticle.
A photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward looks the same as a photon travelling forward in time at the same rate that time flows backward.

A photon has no mass but does have momentum.
As the photon travels backward in time so any mass it may have is cancelled or hidden by time flowing forward at the same rate.  Its mass and momentum only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed.  At the point and time of impact it is no longer travelling backward in time.


The concept of a photon travelling backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward should be viewed as a supplement to Relativity.

7

New Theories / Is absolute hot the same as absolute cold?

« on: 24/04/2012 07:08:21 »

Is absolute hot the same as absolute cold?

Time has two components.  The arrow  which points from the past to the future and is the same in all reference frames.  Secondly, the time dilation factor.  Although time locally always passes at the same rate, from any non-local reference frame it is relative and can be seen to be variable.

At absolute cold, time stands still.  The arrow of time remains but there is no passage of time. 
Time as we know it does not exist.

At absolute hot, the passage of time is infinite.  Therefore there is no causality.  Times arrow is double ended. 
Time as we know it does not exist.

So, is absolute hot the same as absolute cold?

8

New Theories / Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

« on: 15/04/2012 15:22:13 »

"The evidence for an accelerating expansion comes from observations of the brightness of distant supernovae. We observe the redshift of a supernova which tells us by what the factor the Universe has expanded since the supernova exploded. This factor is (1+z), where z is the redshift. But in order to determine the expected brightness of the supernova, we need to know its distance now. If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating due to a cosmological constant, then the expansion was slower in the past, and thus the time required to expand by a given factor is longer, and the distance NOW is larger. But if the expansion is decelerating, it was faster in the past and the distance NOW is smaller. Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. Note that these distances are all proportional to the age of the Universe [or 1/Ho], but this dependence cancels out when the brightness of a nearby supernova at z close to 0.1 is compared to a distant supernova with z close to 1. " http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

clip "If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating due to a cosmological constant, then the expansion was slower in the past, and thus the time required to expand by a given factor is longer, and the distance NOW is larger. But if the expansion is decelerating, it was faster in the past and the distance NOW is smaller. Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. "

This argument for the expansion of space can be turned around as follows:-   "If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating ..."  The acceleration may be in time not necessarily in distance.  In which case the distance NOW could be the same but time NOW is smaller (shorter).
"Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. "
What that means is due to the inverse square law of brightness, less photons arrive per second the greater the distance.  The above could be re-written "Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because  their current distances are larger   " time is contracting.  That is, less photons arrive per second because each second is progressively shorter.


"Hubble's law.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hubble's law (Lemaître's Law) is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[1] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

"In effect, the SPACE-time volume of the observable universe is expanding ..."

This is generally interpreted,  by ignoring the time factor, as meaning that as it's velocity is increasing at an alarming rate then to balance the books space must be expanding.   It could equally mean that time is contracting (getting faster).  For space to expand requires something new, dark energy.  For time to contract requires nothing new.  Time contraction perfectly explains the phenomon and is the simplest explanation and should therefore be the prefered explanation.


Apart from the cosmological red-shift as applied to objects, what other evidence is there that time is contracting?  The first is expansion itself.  If the Universe is expanding then mass is becoming more dilute and gravity should be getting weaker.  Weaker gravity implies a contraction of time.  The second is the CBR.  The CBR shows a larger wavelength (lower frequency) as less cycles arrive per unit time as each unit time gets shorter.


Apart from the evidence, the cosmological red-shift of distant objects and the CBR, what is the reasoning that time was dilated in the past?


After an early epoch in the universe, energy converted largely into mass.  Ever since that period that mass (matter) has been converting steadily inside stars to other forms of matter and releasing energy in the process.  This ongoing process has happened through nearly all of the history of the universe.  The proportion of energy to mass in the Universe is constantly changing in favour of energy.  The time dilation factor follows this relationship with time steadily contracting.  In other words, time passed progressively slower in the past.


"Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?"  The question should be.  Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating in distance (the SPACE in space-time) and not the TIME in space-time?


Conclusion.  The Universe may be expanding but the Hubble red-shift and standard candles are not proof of it.  It could equally well be due to time continually contracting since the early Universe.  Of the two scenarios, time contraction is by far the simplest explanation.

9

New Theories / What is 'Time' and from what aspects of the Universe does it originate?

« on: 26/03/2012 09:01:52 »

Time is.

Time has two aspects.  First, the arrow of time, it's direction.   Second, the rate of flow or passage, the time dilation factor.

'Time' is what we percieve when something that travells at infinite speed (light in a vacuum) is 'slowed' to a finite speed.  At infinite speed there is no causality at finite speed there is.

Why does light when unrestricted travel at infinite speed?  We know that photons do not experience time.  Therefore, in a sense they can be thought of as travelling at infinite speed.  However, to travel at infinite speed implies a lack of causality which in turn implies no arrow or perhaps a double ended arrow to time.  So, light  to travel at infinite speed can only do so outside of time as we know it.  Therefore, the concept of 'speed' becomes meaningless when talking about infinite speed.


The origins of Time.

Having established that Time has two aspects, the arrow and time dilation factor.  Where do they come from?  Obviously they are artefacts of the Universe.  What does the Universe contain?  Mass/energy, gravity and space-time.

We understand from GR that local time dilates near to a massive object due to it's gravity.  (Local time as opposed to non-local time.)   Therefore, one of the ingredients of time is gravity.  Gravity slows light and gives it a finite speed.

We could measure the speed of light in the vacuum anywhere in the Universe and it would be the same.  We can therefore use c as a clock.  I would suggest the Universes master clock.  What is light?  Light (to the best of my knowledge) is the purest form of energy.  A clock in an accelerated time frame runs faster.  Obvious you might think but what does that actually mean.  For that time frame to accelerate implies an input of energy.  Therefore  the other ingredient of time is energy. 

Energy unrestricted would dissipate over maximum distance in zero time.  But, under  those circumstances both distance and time become meaningless concepts.  Gravity introduces the concept of 'Time'.  It introduces an arrow of time and the relationship between energy and gravity introduces a time dilation factor.  Energy makes the clock run faster, gravity slows it down.

E=mc²  If we re-arrange this we get c²=E/m.  If c can be used as a reference clock, which it can, then c represents the time dilation factor.  In other words the time dilation factor (Td) is equal to energy divided by mass.  Td=E/m.   Which is what I have arrived at above.   

Time is created by gravitational braking of the instantaneous dissipation of energy.  For  time to 'flow' energy must be consumed.  No consumption of energy, no flow of time.  Therefore, the arrow of time is entropy.  All miner arrows are aspects of that.

Time within the Universe is both local and universal depending upon  Td=E/m both locally and universally.  Only if the energy/mass ratio of the Universe remains  constant can Td remain constant.  The energy/mass ratio does not remain constant.  At this epoch mass is being converted into energy.  That implies that time is speeding up (contracting) in relation to the past.

Time and gravity are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to talk about one without the other.  It is therefore suggested that this post should be read in conjunction with http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43495.0

_{With apologies.  When talking about time it is inevitable that certain words will be used in a confusing manner .  For instance talking about the 'rate of flow' of time or 'passage of time' or 'speed of passage or flow' is technically incorrect but necessary due to the inadequacies of language.}

10

New Theories / Is gravity mass accelerating through space-time?

« on: 20/03/2012 06:40:40 »

I wrote this in a mainline thread and was told to move it to new theories.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43374.0

 "An object with a large mass is travelling from dilated time to a less dilated time and it does that continuously. This is acceleration."

Let's take that statement apart to see where the various ideas it expresses came from.
1) An object with a large mass dilates 'local' time relative to a distant observer.
2)Therefore, time is more dilated closer to the object than further away, again as perceived by a distant observer.
3) All objects are travelling through space-time continuously.
Therefore
 "An object with a large mass is travelling from dilated time to a less dilated time and it does that continuously."
That is in full accord with GR.

4) In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.
However, it can equally be a constant (or changing) velocity with a changing rate of time (changing time dilation factor.) 

5) Therefore an object in an environment where time is contracting is accelerating.
Any massive object creates it's own gravitationally warped space time in which it is continually accelerating as it is continuously travelling through space time from a 'place' where' time is passing slower to a place where time is passing faster (relative to a distant observer).

Any object, feather or cannon ball, in free fall accelerates towards the Earth with a constant acceleration.  They 'fall' at the same rate.  This is very non-intuitive.

It is equally valid to consider the Earth as accelerating toward the object. 
Looked at from that perspective it explains in an intuitive way why all objects 'fall' at the same rate.

I honestly believe this to be in full accord with GR and the known laws of physics and as such could be discussed in mainline forums.

If you believe I am wrong please be specific in stating in what way I am wrong.  Generalizations are of no help.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why do we see less distortion than does a camera?

« on: 17/03/2012 19:25:06 »

A camera lens distorts vertical lines towards the edge of the image such that they appear to be curved.

Why do the lenses in our eyes not produce the same distortion or does our brain automatically compensate and remove the distortion?

12

Geek Speak / Why do my mouse and keyboard lockup?

« on: 02/03/2012 08:06:38 »

Periodically, (anytime between a few weeks and a few seconds) my mouse pointer and keyboard input lockup.  I am using a wireless mouse/keyboard.  I notice when this happens that the keyboard and mouse are not communicating with the PC.  Eventually, I discovered that unplugging the wireless bit (USB) of the mouse/keyboard thingy and plugging it back in again cured the problem (until the next time).

Anyone any ideas as to what could be causing this problem and how to cure it?  At present I am running win 7 but I had the same problem running win XP on the same hardware.  When a ran XP I had a multiple operating system using Hyperos but experienced the same problem on all individual systems. Changing the wireless keyboard/mouse has no effect.

Thanks

13

New Theories / Does the Hubble red-shift really give a true indication of great distance?

« on: 01/03/2012 10:44:39 »

If we assume the Universe to be finite then it must have a shape, possiby spherical.  All that exists (from our knowledge) is contained within the Universe.  Even light cannot escape, just like light cannot escape from a black hole.  Presumably then, just like a black hole, the ‘edge’ of the universe  is effectively an event horizon where according to a distant observer ‘time stands still’.  Unlike a black hole, the distant observer is inside the Universe trying to look out. 

We have no idea of our position in the Universe.  We might be near the 'centre' or we might be near the 'edge'.  If we are near to the center then we would expect time to pass quickly as compared to if we were near the edge where it would appear to pass slowly in comparison.

Varying rates in the passage of time over great distance in the Universe must affect the Hubble red-shift.  When we make very long distance observations of the Universe we have absolutely no idea of what correction factors we should use to apply to the Hubble red-shift to allow for this difference in time discrepancy.

So my question.
Does the Hubble red-shift really give a true indication of the size and age of the observable Universe?

14

New Theories / If you cooled an atomic clock to just above absolute zero would time dilate?

« on: 29/02/2012 07:30:33 »

Most chemical reactions slow down when cooled.  Cryo-preservation preserves cells as it slows or stops decay by slowing or stopping change.  Another way of accomplishing the same thing (reducing or stopping change), were it possible, would be to dilate local time.

So the question is.
If you cooled the time keeping element (the part that oscillates at a given rate) of an atomic clock to just above absolute zero would local time as measured by the clock dilate and if so by how much?

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the difference between moving in space and stationary in moving space?

« on: 06/02/2012 14:49:02 »

A moving clock is seen to run slower than the clock in your reference frame.
What is the difference between the above which would be seen as a red-shift and the red shift due to the creation of space?
The first is a clock moving in space.  The second, a stationary clock in moving space.

16

New Theories / Does Time have a Direction Without Gravity?

« on: 03/02/2012 11:26:36 »

Does Time have a Direction Without Gravity?

I don't think it does.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How do we allow for gravitational red-shift at source when estimating distance?

« on: 30/01/2012 09:11:52 »

Imagine two galaxies far, far away but the same distance from us, one large with lots of mass, the other smaller with little mass.  Both galaxies have about the same brightness.

Light leaving both galaxies will be red shifted at source.  The larger galaxy being more red shifted than the smaller.
To us this would appear that the larger galaxy is further away than the smaller but we know this to be untrue.
How do we recognise and reconcile the difference in red-shift and is it significant enough to cause difficulty in judging distance?

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If a black hole had a magnetic field can it be felt outside the event horizon?

« on: 17/01/2012 09:50:05 »

If a rotating black hole had charge then presumably it would have a magnetic field. 

Could this magnetic field be felt outside the event horizon?

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If you feed an existing black hole with nothing but electrons will it get full?

« on: 07/01/2012 08:10:11 »

If you feed an existing black hole with nothing but electrons will it get full?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Was the Big Bang an exploding Black Hole?

« on: 02/01/2012 07:46:34 »

According to the big bang theory (more or less) the our Universe started off as a singularity from which originated all the energy(/mass) that is and is contained within the Universe.

If energy (as well as mass) creates gravity then what is the difference between the above and saying the Universe originated from a black (or white) hole?

If a black hole then what mechanism can cause a black hole to effectively explode (for lack of a better way of phrasing it)?

I know this is bordering on the unknown but it would still be good to get some feedback.