The main guiding principles of the theories proposed in this blog is that this universe we observe have intrinsic principles of geometry that emerged from nothing. This process of thinking generally leads logically to verifiable conclusions about how the universe works, but also points to some notable exceptions that conflict with currently established peer-reviewed science. The question of whether a scientist/theoretician should take the time to look at the proposed conflicting theories or just label them as speculative or crackpot is a subject often covered in this blog, but I’m not going to go there today. Two something-from-nothing conclusions that conflict with established science are the emergence of particles from field twists, and the time-is-a-property concept. Both conclusions are accepted by no working theoretician, but I have seen reason to consider them and have discussed the former at length in this blog. I don’t often talk about the relativity/gravity area but have been doing some thinking here lately.
I want to discuss special relativity in the context of the something-from-nothing principle because it leads me to conclude that time and space are not the same concept just observed from different frames of reference. It will take me a bunch of posts here to flesh out my thinking on this, but in summary, I am suspecting that the interconnectedness of space and time does not mean that time is a dimension in the same way that space is. In particular, I have come to the conclusion that time is a property of objects in space, and that means that once an object has exhibited a particular time event by an observer, it is not possible to physically revisit that event–by physically revisit, I mean exist in the same arbitrarily small spacetime neighborhood of the event where the observer’s time clock has two different non-local neighborhood times. In other words, it is not possible for an observer to go back or forward in time to revisit an event he has already observed. He can certainly observe photons that have traveled from the past or even the future depending on how frames of reference are set up, but not physically revisit as I’ve described here.
Let me elaborate in the next few posts, because knowledgeable relativist theorists will object that there are ways to bend spacetime in pretty extreme ways. The math of special relativity shows a duality between space and time that appears to show that time can be called a dimension. For this reason, the standard interpretation has been to call time a dimensional quality, which implies that for some observer it is possible to arbitrarily visit any point on the timeline description of events for an object.
I’ve always questioned this. There has never been a provable instance of actual dimensional behavior of time when defined this way (observer with two different timeline points in the same local spacetime neighborhood of an event). I suspect that this is not possible for any observer because we are interpreting the math to mean time is a dimensional concept when in fact it is a property of an object that has a direct mathematical coupling to the objects location in space. Or, to put it another way–they both seem to have dimensional behavior but that is an artifact that both are something-from-nothing concepts.
I’ve discussed the whole something-from-nothing emergence many times in posts on this blog, it essentially means that in a “universe” where there is nothing, it is possible or even certain that certain concepts including the emergence of objects, space, and time must happen–come into existence. I’ll detail why in future posts (you can go back to previous posts to see discussion there too)–in its simplest form, my thinking is that an infinite emptiness things emerge because the multiplication of zero (nothing) times infinity does not remain zero. All it takes is a fold, a density change of one of an infinite range of substances, over an infinite distance, over an infinite amount of time–and a contortion of unimaginable size and energy, a big bang could emerge. Not possible in a finite world, but a nothing by definition, is infinite–no boundary conditions (otherwise you have a something!). Uggh, you say–what a misappropriation of a mathematical equation! Maybe so, you might be right–but to me, I see an open door (infinite emptiness) as to how our existence could form without the need for some intelligence of some sort to willfully create it.
I’ve always felt that this has to be true–I think it is a logical starting point to assume that the universe started from nothing. The problem with assuming anything else, such as a creator, is obvious–what created the creator, and what created the infrastructure that allowed a creator to form. There really is only one way that does not get into the recursive problem of creation–the formation of something from nothing. This is the basis, the fundamental rule, of all of my thinking*–I assume the universe evolved from nothing and ask what kinds of physical structures could emerge given that constraint.
What does that say about the philosophical question of is there a God and a purpose or meaning of life? I think quite a lot, but my focus is much more on what does this mean for the mechanics, the physics, of this existence in the hope of finding a provable and observable confirmation, something new that would prove or disprove my thinking process.
Will I be able to prove this idea? Will I be able to convince you? Probably not–I am nothing in the world of theoreticians and thinkers, and do not have the infrastructure access that would allow review and development of these ideas. Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof, and I’m not equipped to provide that. But I can still present the concepts here and a reader can think for themselves if there’s a possibility here and what to do about it.
More to come
*Note, there actually is a whole realm of beginning-of-universe alternatives I am skipping over due to the fact that I am making a specific set of assumptions about time. The concept of creation is, of course, intrinsically connected to the interpretation of the observation of time. There will be a variety of other possibilities of the formation of the universe based on different interpretations of what time means. So far, I’ve not really investigated those because the something-from-nothing concept appears to be a very solid approach that takes time at face-value and does not require any unintuitive approaches to how time works or things like time as a dimension, which as I said above, does not have experimental confirmation.
Agemoz's Physics Blog 