Vanishing Time

[arfa brane]

In your case, what would be a maximal entropic stage?

It's called a black hole. It represents the highest density of information that can reasonably form in the universe, so it depends on the background level, or the average density.

Why invoke observers, stating they do not exist, but equally state they do not remember the past? It's a paradox to refer to something that doesn't exist, and nor does it's application lay on anything relativity says on an experimental level, talking about atoms being ''observers'' making ''measurements'' is what's called a strong coupling on the system. The human which remembers a past is no more credible than a single atom collapsing the wave function. In other words, memory is negligable in physics when the collapse of the wave function is involved.

Well, it seems to be that in order to "remove" observers you do need to refer to them. Memory as such can be considered a form of information storage, as a process requiring energy. So you can say an electron "remembers", without getting too metaphysical with it.

So, according to your analysis, observers which have mass, follow timelike curves? We are made of mass, but we don't experience any immediate timelike effects...

But we do experience timelike effects, all the time. You can see things in motion, and you can move. In fact, if you "stand still" on the earth's surface you're moving, because so is your local frame. Also, you need to explain why you experience a sensation of weight, or being "accelerated" in one direction.

 

[Green Destiny]

It's called a black hole. It represents the highest density of information that can reasonably form in the universe, so it depends on the background level, or the average density.
Well, it seems to be that in order to "remove" observers you do need to refer to them. Memory as such can be considered a form of information storage, as a process requiring energy. So you can say an electron "remembers", without getting too metaphysical with it.
But we do experience timelike effects, all the time. You can see things in motion, and you can move. In fact, if you "stand still" on the earth's surface you're moving, because so is your local frame. Also, you need to explain why you experience a sensation of weight, or being "accelerated" in one direction.

Right, I'm not sure were to start.

When you stated timelike, I truely beleived you meant this in the most technical sense of the word. In physics, we live in what is called the spacelike dimensions - even time is an imaginary dimension, and is an angle off the spacelike dimensions. But as I said, in physics, we do not tend to say we move through space in a timelike fashion - we are stuck in a spacelike world. Timelike would be when we cannot move through space as freely as we could - but this is harder to imagine.

In a sense, I would agree with the information storing, however, note of course, an electron has no sense of it.

 

[arfa brane]

But as I said, in physics, we do not tend to say we move through space in a timelike fashion - we are stuck in a spacelike world. Timelike would be when we cannot move through space as freely as we could - but this is harder to imagine.

No, we say we move through spacetime.
If you throw a ball (or an observer with mass) so it follows a parabolic path, this is far from being a geodesic in space: space is curved by the Earth's gravitational field. While the ball moves a small distance in space, it moves a much larger distance in time (in units where c = 1).

So putting that together, and "framing no hypotheses" as to why the acceleration is in one direction, you experience weight because your local frame moves a large distance in time (through a postulated 'spacetime'), as the surface you 'remain spacelike' on rotates beneath you.

 

[Green Destiny]

No, we say we move through spacetime.
If you throw a ball (or an observer with mass) so it follows a parabolic path, this is far from being a geodesic in space: space is curved by the Earth's gravitational field. While the ball moves a small distance in space, it moves a much larger distance in time (in units where c = 1).

So putting that together, and "framing no hypotheses" as to why the acceleration is in one direction, you experience weight because your local frame moves a large distance in time (through a postulated 'spacetime'), as the surface you 'remain spacelike' on rotates beneath you.

So what would you have? Those experiencing spacelike effects as spacetime, but those who experience time as timespace perhaps?

I hope you recognize our problem here. Simple fact is, that I did state time was part of the spatial dimensions - I do strictly make it clear however that we do not move through space in a timelike manner.

This you will just either have to agree or disagree with - I am certainly correct in the most deepest understanding of the terminology - we do not experience a timelike reality, as perhaps is found for instance, past the event horizon of a black hole.

 

[Green Destiny]

Let's go about this another way.

You did say that we experience timelike effects. By this I assumed you meant it by its true physical interpretation, as found in physics, where space ceases to exist with the degrees of freedom we often associate space to. Because however, space does not exhibit a temporal likeness, it's by physics definition to state that the world we associate our movements through are spacelike, where time is but another space dimensions, which obviously does not effect us in any obvious stance like we do when being aware of the spatial dimensions.

I do believe when you stated timelike, you are associating the idiom based on believing that we must experience timelike effects, because there is a time dimension alongside the spatial - this simply is not true.

 

[arfa brane]

So what would you have? Those experiencing spacelike effects as spacetime, but those who experience time as timespace perhaps?

I hope you recognize our problem here. Simple fact is, that I did state time was part of the spatial dimensions - I do strictly make it clear however that we do not move through space in a timelike manner.

I think I recognise a problem, but not "our" problem.
Time is physically separated from space in the idea of time differentials. Or that a continuous path through space has a corresponding time derivative. For a parabolic path of a ball, the distance between the start and end points is independent of the height of any path, so is said to be independent of time as well.
In spacetime, time is just a variable in a coordinate system. It represents a fourth 'direction', of an abstract 4-vector.

Note that gravity curves space in time, and also curves spacetime. If spacetime is all there is and gravity is curvature, it must be curved "in" itself. But there is the matter field, with space and time coordinates (as systems of test particles).

 

[arfa brane]

I think, picking up the phrase "space ceases to exist" I can attempt a better explanation, of how it works.

Space is a property of material objects, because they 'occupy' space, at a given time. But objects like balls that follow a parabolic path, don't leave any spacelike information behind themselves--their spacelike 'curves' vanish except for the part of spacetime they 'maintain', leaving a timelike path which only exists in terms of infinitesimally small spatial distances and which also vanishes 'identically', since again, no information is left behind.

Objects as test particles that have zero mass don't follow spacelike or timelike curves. We can't 'see' the space that is occupied by light, and we can't 'see' any spatial curves (of timelike objects) unless we 'coordinate' the light to our local frame (in discrete space + time), because everything has a velocity.

So particles with mass don't leave any path-information (no spatial images) in spacetime, and particles without mass don't 'have' spatiality either. Instead they form the boundary of objects that we 'see' are in motion. Otherwise a lightcone would never change.

 

[Green Destiny]

I do not question speculations.

 

[arfa brane]

Well, I do:
What do you see as speculative, in the above?
If we don't move through space in a timelike manner, do we move through spacetime?

 

[Green Destiny]

Well, I do:
What do you see as speculative, in the above?
If we don't move through space in a timelike manner, do we move through spacetime?

Three of my favourite

''Time is physically separated from space in the idea of time differentials.

Note that gravity curves space in time, and also curves spacetime.

Space is a property of material objects''

The last two might not just be speculative, but also wrong.

 

[arfa brane]

The last two might not just be speculative, but also wrong.

So you think the idea of a separate time is speculative, the calculus is as well?

Gravity and curvature are speculative?

Material objects that occupy space are also speculative?

About the last point, do you believe that your body occupies any space? Or your brain?

And is there an answer to the other question about moving through space/spacetime?
See, if I'm an object and I'm in motion, how should I define or consider the concept of "space" given that I can think about my "surroundings"? Is it whatever I'm moving "in", and in that case, why do I perceive a material body that remains coherent (i.e. "occupies" the same space continuously)? Or if I'm a massless object, do I retain a coherent shape, and do I move through something in the same manner as a massive object?
Or should I not bother with any "speculative" ideas?

 

[Green Destiny]

So you think the idea of a separate time is speculative, the calculus is as well?

Gravity and curvature are speculative?

Material objects that occupy space are also speculative?

About the last point, do you believe that your body occupies any space? Or your brain?

And is there an answer to the other question about moving through space/spacetime?
See, if I'm an object and I'm in motion, how should I define or consider the concept of "space" given that I can think about my "surroundings"? Is it whatever I'm moving "in", and in that case, why do I perceive a material body that remains coherent (i.e. "occupies" the same space continuously)? Or if I'm a massless object, do I retain a coherent shape, and do I move through something in the same manner as a massive object?
Or should I not bother with any "speculative" ideas?

Now you're putting words into my mouth. Certain statements can be correct, if they are stated correctly - let's go through what you said.

Space is a property of material objects

Wrong. Space is a property of the vacuum itself, not matter.

Note that gravity curves space in time, and also curves spacetime.

This is a messy statement. Gravity curves space into time... it also curves spacetime. Isn't the first statement just the same as the last?

Time is physically separated from space in the idea of time differentials.

Wrong. Time is a phsyical dynamical quality of the vacuum of space. Time cannot be physically disconnected from it.

 

[Green Destiny]

Oh and, I do not believe this is the right subforum for any speculative ideas.

 

[arfa brane]

Space is a property of the vacuum itself, not matter.

But material objects have volume. Volume is space, by definition. The vacuum is space with no or very small densities of matter.

Gravity curves space into time... it also curves spacetime. Isn't the first statement just the same as the last?

The first part of your statement would sound more convincing if it said "Gravity curves space, in time", which is what I stated. But you seem to now be saying it isn't speculation (??)

Time is a phsyical dynamical quality of the vacuum of space. Time cannot be physically disconnected from it.

Well, there are a lot of people who would say that may be true, but since nobody really knows exactly what time is, you're being speculative here. However, the calculus treats time as an axiomatic quantity--it doesn't question the existence of time derivatives/differentials, it just determines them.

 

[Green Destiny]

But material objects have volume. Volume is space, by definition. The vacuum is space with no or very small densities of matter.
The first part of your statement would sound more convincing if it said "Gravity curves space, in time", which is what I stated. But you seem to now be saying it isn't speculation (??)
Well, there are a lot of people who would say that may be true, but since nobody really knows exactly what time is, you're being speculative here. However, the calculus treats time as an axiomatic quantity--it doesn't question the existence of time derivatives/differentials, it just determines them.

Tell me, if we take a fundamental look at matter, you could perhaps tell me what space is inside an electron?

And the statement about how gravity curves space into time, was not my statement, and ofcourse its speculative.

And no, I am not being the one speculative here - you are. My statements on the dynamical quality of time treated in a vacuum-sense, is not just a fairy tale swiped from the aether. It's a part of the relativistic understanding of the vacuum.

 

[arfa brane]

An electron is one of the fundamental material objects in the SM.

Depending on how you try to determine if it occupies any volume, it looks like a point with charge and very small mass. In some sense you can picture a 0-dimensional 'origin' that has field lines radiating spherically, in the same sense you can picture the origin of a coordinate system that has imaginary lines of "space" extending spherically from itself.
But electrons are never at rest, and nor are the origins of coordinates in spacetime.

Electrons can be said to occupy a volume which is bounded by the Uncertainty Principle. Coordinates are massless and "imposed" on spacetime, but can describe volumes of empty space, or of dense space (like the center of mass of a black hole, for instance).

Time is physically separated from space in the idea of time differentials.

Wrong. Time is a phsyical dynamical quality of the vacuum of space. Time cannot be physically disconnected from it.

But the IDEA of a separate time-domain is also very much an accepted concept in physics. The calculus doesn't imply anything about time being a physically disconnected "physical dynamical quality", but it does treat it as a separate, independent one.
I'll rephrase the original statement: The (idea of) time is treated as being physically separate in the calculus. The "paradox" if you will, is that small changes in time are never observed--hence calculus is based on an idea of time. But so are clocks.

 

[Green Destiny]

An electron is one of the fundamental material objects in the SM.

Depending on how you try to determine if it occupies any volume, it looks like a point with charge and very small mass. In some sense you can picture a 0-dimensional 'origin' that has field lines radiating spherically, in the same sense you can picture the origin of a coordinate system that has imaginary lines of "space" extending spherically from itself.
But electrons are never at rest, and nor are the origins of coordinates in spacetime.

Electrons can be said to occupy a volume which is bounded by the Uncertainty Principle. Coordinates are massless and "imposed" on spacetime, but can describe volumes of empty space, or of dense space (like the center of mass of a black hole, for instance).

Oh really? How does a pontlike particle have a volume? You never retorted the rest of my post..

 

[arfa brane]

A pointlike particle occupies a volume by having energy and motion. Ask Heisenberg.
I don't want to retort the rest of your post, that wouldn't leave you anything to cling to...

 

[Green Destiny]

A pointlike particle occupies a volume by having energy and motion. Ask Heisenberg.
I don't want to retort the rest of your post, that wouldn't leave you anything to cling to...

That is a contradiction. How can something which has no internal dimensions, occupy a volume?

 

[arfa brane]

How can something which has no internal dimensions, occupy a volume?

The 0-dimensionality of electrons is obviously just another idea? Since electrons do seem to occupy space according to the UP, in which electrons are never at rest so they can't be 0-dimensional. The "electron at rest" is another idea which can't be true either.

So electrostatics and Coulomb potential would seem to be more "speculation", except that pointlike charges in motion seems to describe an awful lot of electronics.