The Blue Meanie's Theory Of Space-time

[The Blue Meanie]

Okay, I promised to post this a long time ago but never got around to it. Basically I want to put forward my own theory on the big bangm big crunch, time, space, and causation. Ambitious, I know. This is built on a lot of stuff I've read and thought about, not the least of which is Stephen Hawking's books. Also, I do NOT claim this theory is original - for all I know, someone else may have already thought of this, and I'm not trying to rip off anyone else's theory. I don't claim to be an astrophysicist or any type of expert, either - I'm a layman, nothing more, when it comes to this subject matter. So, with that in mind: We're all familiar with the idea of the Big Bang. The beginning, that the universe started from a singularity that basically exploded, right? (That's an over-simplified version of it, I know) Okay, well, some of you may know this, some may not, but because of "Red-Shift", an astronomical/light phenomena, and I guess other evidence as well, astrophysicsts have determined that the universe is EXPANDING. Furthermore (Although this is more contentious) they have determined that the universe will always continueto expand, and will never level out or double back and start contracting. This is all to do with gravity, light, rate of expansion, and a bunch of stuff which, to be totally honest, I do not FULLY understand. The Big Crunch is the idea of the End, in the same way that the big Bang is the beginning. Under the above finding, though, this will never happen. Everybody knows about the space-time continuum too, right? Okay. Well. Here's my theory in a diagram. Look, I'll explain it: Okay. Now, here's the expanation. The above is the space-time continuum. The horizontal axis is space. This is fairly obvious. Space, of course, is three-dimensional, but for the purposes of this diagram, I've reduced it down to one. The vertical axis, the x-axis. The vertical axis is CAUSATION. Basically, this represents how stuff happens after other stuff. This ISN'T time. Time is the slope GRADIENT of any point on the space-time continuum. Basically, the causation/space gradient. Represented by the red lines in the diagram. So, while it's a given that stuff happens after other stuff, this theory takes a very subjective view of time. As you can see, at the big bang, the gradient is vertical. Time stands still. this seems to be in accordance with a lot of what Hawking says. The same holds true at the Big Crunch. At the beginning and end of the universe, therefore, It will seem to any observer stationed at that point in space-time that the universe will never expand or contract, and that the singularity is all there ever is, ever - in other words, eternity. Time just doesn't exist. As you can also see, for the observer stationed on point 3, the time gradient is vertical. Basically, from his vantage point, the universe is constant, neither expanding or contracting. At point 2, roughly where I believe we are now, the gradient is sloped. We perceive there to be a beginning, a big bang, because the "time-line" converges back behind us. But our time-line stretches out into infinity, and it seems like the universe will continue expanding. At point 4, the situation is the reverse. The universe seems to be contracting, and there seems to be no beginning, but an end is in sight. The key part of all this, is that "Time" is not neccessarily an illusion, but it IS subjective, and it passes at different rates depending on where we are in the space-time continuum. Okay, that's my theory in very rough form. What y'all think?

[ExoByte]

Very interesting. Seems plausable. Im no expert on the subject but its an interesting theory. It'll be interesting to see this theory expand and go beyond rough form

[Universal Mind]

Hmm... That is some trippy stuff, but I don't know about its reality. I am not a theoretical physicist either, but I have a very hard time swallowing any theory about the nature of the universe where "subjectivity" comes into it. Subjectivity is a quality of the minds of organisms, little specs on a spec that came out of a biggers spec. I think we aren't jack shit in the big scheme of things. The universe was here long before us, and it will be here long after us. However, you also seem to be talking about how the universe objectively is at different points, and it sounds like the subjectivity factor you described relates directly to that objectivity and was used to illustrate variations in the actual nature of the universe. That's really cool, but if there's anything to it, it would probably involve multiple dimensions. If the universe is doing X overall in one faction and the opposite of X overall in another faction, it seems that two different universes are involved, and perhaps an infinite number of universes at the infinite gradations of the given axes, much like how there are an infinite number of points on a line. Each point would be analogous to an individual universe. That would be hard to prove, but it sounds interesting. You should write a science fiction novel about it. If it is actually the truth, then you will have inspired theoretical physicists to look for that truth. (Be sure to give me credit if you use my outlooks in it !&#33

[Roller]

Ahh nice work! Yeah I just read A Brief History of Time the other day, and I've been thinking about this a bit myself. It seems like an entirely plausible theory to me... So what do you think about time? Based on this model, and some of what Hawking talked about, beyond point 3 Time would subjectively appear to go backwards as matter goes from a state of disorder to a state of order. I've just been thinking too - if everything remains constant, and this might be a bit of determinism really, but beyond point 3 each reaction should perfectly reverse itself... the entire events of the expanding universe would be repeated.

[bradybaker]

It's interesting and all....I'm just wondering why it's necessarily cyclical. It seems that you've started with the assumption that it moves in cycles and performed a post hoc analysis of the data to make it fit this assumption. Maybe I'm just missing something? I guess what I'm asking is...what force brings us around the corner from point 2 to 4?

[The Blue Meanie]

So what do you think about time? Based on this model, and some of what Hawking talked about, beyond point 3 Time would subjectively appear to go backwards as matter goes from a state of disorder to a state of order.[/b] Actually, no. Time always seems to go in one direction, this being a spin-off of the nature of causation. But after point 3, the universe begins to contract, and time "slows down". This slowing is almost imperceptable, but gets faster the closer you get to point 5, the Crunch. Of course, this also means that you never actually get to the crunch or the bang - they're like that turtle and archilles thing from Xeno's paradox, except unlike in Xeno's paradox, they're not actiually bullshit, because time itself is slowing. I've just been thinking too - if everything remains constant, and this might be a bit of determinism really, but beyond point 3 each reaction should perfectly reverse itself... the entire events of the expanding universe would be repeated.[/b] I'm a determinist as well. A rough determinist. But in my theory, though the universe begins to contract, it doesn't neccessarily do so in the same pattern it expanded reversed. It's interesting and all....I'm just wondering why it's necessarily cyclical. It seems that you've started with the assumption that it moves in cycles and performed a post hoc analysis of the data to make it fit this assumption. Maybe I'm just missing something?[/b] Actually, from any point within space-time, the universe does not appear to be part of a cycle. It appears to be constant, or forever expanding, or doomed and going to contract, depending on where you are within the continuum. And it's not neccessarily cyclical either, because if you take the singularity at point 5 as the same as the singularity at point 1 as identical and the same singularity, then you end up not with a cyclical universe, but with a closed system. One cycle. Not self-repeating, but just a cloosed system. I guess what I'm asking is...what force brings us around the corner from point 2 to 4?[/b] I don't get this question... could you explain a bit more for poor little me?

[bradybaker]

Ohhh ok. So you're saying that our universe is stationed at one point?

[Howie]

Damn. I am always waiting in the shadows for good Discussion. I am leaving for a week. Which I am not complaining about. But I hate jumping in on an extended discussion three pages in. Hey...Do cruise ships have access to the Internet? That would be cool. WTF. Everyone else on the beach while I am in Extended discussion. Well I am going to print this idea. It will let me try and get my head around it a bit. Seems like some great thought. So sorry for the interruption. Carry on

[Roller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div> Actually, no. Time always seems to go in one direction, this being a spin-off of the nature of causation. But after point 3, the universe begins to contract, and time "slows down". This slowing is almost imperceptable, but gets faster the closer you get to point 5, the Crunch.[/b] Ah yes, sorry. Time goes in the same direction in an imploding universe, but causation is reversed. What Hawking seemed to say was that in an expanding universe matter obeys the law of entropy, which is that matter will go from an organised state to an unorganised state - ie. as the universe expands matter becomes more thinly spread. This is what gives rise to cause --&#62; effect. In a shrinking universe, matter would be going from an unorganised state to an organised state, meaning effect would precede the cause. Causation and entropy becomes reversed, and time slows down. That&#39;s from what I understand, anyway.

[Neruo]

Yes I heard the new theory that the universe will keep on expanding. And I do not really get that: Everything attacks each other. Everything. So, no matter how far away something is, if there is long enough time, everything should come back together right? I am not saying that amount of time isn't very, very much. - Anyhow, how do you explain the rotation of the red angle. Physics say that the universe looks to be drifting apart for ever, how does that reverse? Just because the universe, the 'fabric' of it, retracts?

[Howie]

As I am short on time my reply is too. Isn't time always relative to the observer? Have we mentioned dark energy? The effect it is having on the expansion of the universe?

[Cyclic13]

If that's the case, then my 'Eternal Now' idea which I've felt for some time now is actually more plausible, as well.

[Howie]

Why do I happen to always seem to stumble upon these subjective/objective posts? As I view this is it plausible that time does NOT exist at all. This sounds ridiculous I know. But so does not having an end or a beginning. The way I view your theory it could be determined in that manner. If there is the future and the past is gone, then now is in existence... subjectively, in a manner of speaking. Yes I heard the new theory that the universe will keep on expanding. And I do not really get that: Everything attacks each other. Everything. So, no matter how far away something is, if there is long enough time, everything should come back together right? I am not saying that amount of time isn't very, very much.[/b] Going back to the Dark energy. This is one area where I think the dark energy does come into play. It has to considering it may be making up 3/4 of our universe. TBM. I think that your art work should not be overlooked in your hypothesis.

[Roller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div> Going back to the Dark energy. This is one area where I think the dark energy does come into play. It has to considering it may be making up 3/4 of our universe.[/b] Yeah I was going to mention Dark Energy. Basically it&#39;s what has been keeping our universe expanding and expanding at an accelerating rate. This does seem positive for the fact that we might not be faced with a Big Crunch, but it has the effect that our galaxy will gradually become more and more isolated. I do think that time exists, though, and it has nothing to do with subjectivity. Time is a dimension of space, yet we most commonly define it by causation, which is different.

[The Blue Meanie]

In a shrinking universe, matter would be going from an unorganised state to an organised state, meaning effect would precede the cause. Causation and entropy becomes reversed, and time slows down. [/b] I'm not so convinced of this. Why does the nature of a shrinking universe neccessarily mean that matter is becoming more organised? Also, can it neccessarily be said that "organisation" even exists? Perhaps when the universe contracts, matter is still becoming "more chaotic", but is doing so in an increasingly confined space.

[Roller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div> I&#39;m not so convinced of this. Why does the nature of a shrinking universe neccessarily mean that matter is becoming more organised? Also, can it neccessarily be said that "organisation" even exists? Perhaps when the universe contracts, matter is still becoming "more chaotic", but is doing so in an increasingly confined space.[/b] Yeah I thought so too at first. The basic idea behind it is this: say you have a box with a partition in the middle, making two equal and seperate spaces inside. On one side of the partition is a complete vaccuum, and the other side is filled with air molecules. There is only a certain amount of space that the molecules might occupy at a time. If you remove the partition there is now more space for the molecules to occupy at any one time - while the molecules were chaotic beforehand, they are now more chaotic because of being more spread out. As the universe expands matter and energy becomes more dispersed and therefore more chaotic - matter might be chaotic in a confined space, but there is less possible space for it to occupy, making it more &#39;organised&#39;. In an expanding universe casuality follows the law of entropy; in every event the cause disperses - not destroys - energy. The &#39;cause&#39; is defined by greater orginisation of matter and energy and the effect is defined by less organisation. If the universe were contracting, this would be reversed and therefore cause would precede effect.