INTP Forum  

Go Back   INTP Forum > Within > Science & Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th-January-2017, 10:51 PM   #1
AndyC
Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default New Theory on Time

https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-T.../dp/0393285235

Richard Muller has created a new theory on time.
Quote:
if my new theory of the flow of time is correct. In that theory, time is generated whenever new space is created. We can “create” new space by concentrating mass. The most important creation of new space that we observe is the continuing expansion of the universe, and in the theory, that’s why we keep having new seconds available. The most dramatic creation of new local space was in the LIGO gravitational wave observation in which two large black holes combined, creating in that process millions of new cubic kilometers, and about 1 millisecond of new time; see my eNow—The Physics of Time and our paper Now, and the Flow of Time. If the theory is correct, then amounts of time can be created locally just by moving masses around. We hope to be able to test this in the laboratory in the next year or two.
(excerpt from something he wrote on quora)

link to his paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07975


Thoughts?
__________________
65% I
83% N
82% T
198% P
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2017, 12:42 AM   #2
Auburn
Creator of Castles in the Sky
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the ground
Posts: 2,058
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: New Theory on Time

Sounds like an interesting book!

Quote:
Thoughts?
Wouldn't it be interesting if energy was turning into space? So the Big Freeze at the end of the universe is actually all of the energy of the big bang turning into spacetime.

I always wonder why the universe would ever 'go cold' if --as a closed system-- it should always have the same amount of energy within it. Hence, always be in some way 'hot' and have planets/stars/etc ---with all of their energy passed along to other (future) celestial bodies when they die, with zero 'true' loss.

disclaimer: I'm a physics noob, so I have no idea what I'm saying.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2017, 01:02 AM   #3
Artsu Tharaz
Resident Resident
 

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: /~\
Posts: 2,187
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: New Theory on Time

Quote:
I always wonder why the universe would ever 'go cold' if --as a closed system-- it should always have the same amount of energy within it.
I think it's because all of the energy would be dispersed over a huge amount of space.
Artsu Tharaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2017, 03:00 AM   #4
Blarraun
straightedgy
 
Blarraun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: someplace windswept
Posts: 4,070
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: New Theory on Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
I always wonder why the universe would ever 'go cold' if --as a closed system-- it should always have the same amount of energy within it. Hence, always be in some way 'hot' and have planets/stars/etc ---with all of their energy passed along to other (future) celestial bodies when they die, with zero 'true' loss.
Universe isn't a closed system in the way that thermodynamics treat closed systems and the idea of open/closed systems is derived from thermodynamics. It goes cold because the energy density (energy per unit of volume) decreases and will continue to decrease.

The finite amount of energy in the universe is getting spread infinitely thin as it expands on itself, so at some point it is theorised that it will be practically empty (cold). It will become fully cold before it expands infinitely wide, for a given amount of energy there's a finite amount of volume required before further distribution of energy doesn't change the average minimal energy density. So yeah, no need for infinities at all.

If you had a solar system sized box then you could expect all the energy-matter in that box to keep collapsing in on a star, going red giant and repeating the cycle. If you do the same thing but keep doubling the volume of the box, at some point the stellar/plasma radiation and expansion pressure will cause the whole energy-matter to be distributed across a proportionally larger volume.

Stellar bodies and black holes and any other hot objects convert a part of their mass into energy of neutrinos and photon radiation that isn't convertible back into the original reactants.
So over time, even with the same unchanging volume, all of the sun's matter would convert into photons and neutrinos until it wouldn't have enough of it to continue the fusion.

Many processes currently happening across the universe are irreversible. Neutrinos and photons are the longest surviving remnants of those irreversible changes.
__________________
Spoiler:
~life is the exercise of will
Many valued logic
mail preferred

Blarraun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2017, 04:02 AM   #5
Auburn
Creator of Castles in the Sky
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the ground
Posts: 2,058
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: New Theory on Time

Ty Blar.
My terribly inept brain. I think I asked the wrong question.
I knew an expanding universe would dilute the energy density of the universe, but always wonder why. (i.e. why isn't it a closed system instead -> why does space expand at all) As in; in one form or another, everything "that is" should be "what is" right? Unless something is constantly coming from nothing.

So the expansion of the universe breaks what I consider a very intuitive law of conservation of energy; which maybe should be impossible? Where is all this space (and energy?) coming from? And shouldn't the universe (in its grandest scale) technically be a closed system consisting of only everything "that is" (with no additions, just conversions), due to the law of conservation?

So the OP had me wondering if, as a reality of this conservation, the expansion of space is linked somehow to energy being slowly converted into spacetime -- while keeping the net energy In Existence the same. High-energy black hole collisions creating millions of cubic kilometers of new space sounds sorta like this, in a way. I'm terribly sorry if this is incoherent though; I'm way outside my domain here.

Quote:
So over time, even with the same unchanging volume, all of the sun's matter would convert into photons and neutrinos until it wouldn't have enough of it to continue the fusion.

Many processes currently happening across the universe are irreversible. Neutrinos and photons are the longest surviving remnants of those irreversible changes.
Huh!
So in this hypothetical solar-system sized box (say it's 100% reflective and frictionless) eventually everything will be lit up by photons endlessly bouncing off the box's walls, while not really having any light source anymore. And be a type of homogeneous energy volume..?
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2017, 08:43 AM   #6
Blarraun
straightedgy
 
Blarraun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: someplace windswept
Posts: 4,070
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: New Theory on Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
Ty Blar.
My terribly inept brain. I think I asked the wrong question.
I knew an expanding universe would dilute the energy density of the universe, but always wonder why. (i.e. why isn't it a closed system instead -> why does space expand at all) As in; in one form or another, everything "that is" should be "what is" right? Unless something is constantly coming from nothing.
Everything surrounding the expansion of the universe is highly theoretical, there are models that show the expansion isn't accelerating, there are some that say it's time-variable, the prevalent one saying it's slowly accelerating, etc. A lot more observational data is needed to decide which of those theories best describe what we have. With the advent of gravitational wave astronomy this answer might be closer than expected, who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
So the OP had me wondering if, as a reality of this conservation, the expansion of space is linked somehow to energy being slowly converted into spacetime -- while keeping the net energy In Existence the same. High-energy black hole collisions creating millions of cubic kilometers of new space sounds sorta like this, in a way. I'm terribly sorry if this is incoherent though; I'm way outside my domain here.
I recall reading about something roughly similar. Some theory suggested that space itself has minimal energy potential due to whatchamacallit (vacuum energy, zero point energy or whatever else) that would cause the expansion. I don't think high energy interactions create new space other than bend it, but they could radiate some expansion pressure.

One concept that I think is useful to understand when talking about such things is that all things have mass, including photons. Everything that has even a tiniest bit of potential energy has mass and exerts influence on any other bit of mass that it comes in contact with. Photons don't have mass in a traditional sense, but instead their mass comes from their wavelength. Lower wavelength photons are "heavier" because they carry more energy and I'm talking about relativistic mass here of course but it can be equally valid to think of it in Newtonian terms. Similarly, the mass of atoms comes at least partially from the potential binding energy of the quarks that they're made up of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
Huh!
So in this hypothetical solar-system sized box (say it's 100% reflective and frictionless) eventually everything will be lit up by photons endlessly bouncing off the box's walls, while not really having any light source anymore. And be a type of homogeneous energy volume..?
Sort of, for simplicity's sake I ignored the sun fusion cycle, which in its first generation would produce a lot of the heavier elements going up to iron and slightly beyond that. Iron is a natural fusion barrier because most of the elements that come after it don't generate energy when they fuse and instead consume it. So what would end up happening probably is that you'd have a few generations of star fusion until all of the lighter elements would fuse into carbon and beyond until those would collapse into a neutron star like object that would radiate dim light due to its tremendous heat for bilions of years to come.

After that all those neutrinos and photons would continue bouncing off of its surface and keeping its heat uniform and I suspect quite hot. Or the whole thing could get sufficiently hot to remain as a large cloud of plasma indefinitely, without any fusion going on.

What's important here is that it would go from a star to a less active object and there's no known way at these kinds of still very low energy levels (compared to the big bang) for it to reverse back into being a star by somehow absorbing all those photons and other particles or element fission. It would go from the unstable state A to the thermal equilibrium state of B by the way of one-way transformations, just like the universe does on a large scale.
__________________
Spoiler:
~life is the exercise of will
Many valued logic
mail preferred

Blarraun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Template-Modifications by TMS
no new posts