11.1.10

•TIME, like bubble wrap

Well, here's a little theory I made up about six months ago about what time could be like. That is, how time could work, based on the speed of light. It's a theory (called Time Field Theory) that in fact can't be proven at all, and if it was true, it probably wouldn't help our understanding of time one bit. In fact, it's more likely to make time more complicated. It's simply another way of looking at how time works. Unfortunately, I never finished it, but here us what I wrote down at the time.

TIME FIELD THEORY



This is the theory that, as space has ripples and geometric differences across a length, so does time. This is how speed it formed: all matter is going at Matter-Speed (or ә), and the time fields (и) each have a certain speed that time passes. Objects within them will be affected by the properties of the и they inhabit. As this property of и changes, the speed of the inhabitant object changes too. All elementary particles inhabit their own time field, but if a thousand elementary molecules have the same value in the property of и, then they become 'one' и, and act as one, though are not actually connected. They merely go at the same speed.

Different time fields will cause matter to change from ә to another speed. As the speed of in an и1 slows, the speed of the object within и will become faster to иs outside и1. Inside и1, the object will still be going at ә, and will feel no effects of this speed apart from
a) it traveling faster through space
b) if there is 'air', that air will be in a different и to the object, so they could feel friction or air resistance from other иs.

A note about ә: Matter-Speed is a constant speed, and can never be changed. Matter always travels at ә, though this can appear different depending on what speed the observer is going at. ә cannot be measured in km/s, or any other distance-per-time unit. It is also impossible to find out the exact value of ә, because you can never find out how far off from ә an object is going at.

From the outside, where the иs are going at a faster rate, the object inside и1 (still going at ә) looks like it is going faster. In fact, it is only going faster in relation to those outside иs. If there was another и in which time was going slower than и1, the object inside would cross more space in less time and would therefore see и1 as going slower than itself.

Light is exempt from time fields. In its cross between a particle and a wave, it is not affected by иs, and has a different fundamental speed (base speed at which it travels - its is light speed (m), for matter it is matter-speed (ә)). m, the speed of light, is not affected by иs, thus the speed of a photon never varies. You could theorise that a light wave has its own time field that always goes at the same speed, always has the same в. Therefore ә will have to be a universal fundamental speed.

иs, time fields, support String Theory. Each sub-atomic String could inhabit its own и, and the borders of each String's и is only as big as the String itself. However, the property of и (the rate at which time passes within it - I shall call this variable в) is not affected by the string coupling constant, g, or whether the string is open or closed.

A note about combined иs: When a series of time fields have the same в, they, though not literally, 'become' one giant и. This is an emergent time field, and String Theory correlates to this. If String Theory is true, then if 1,000 Strings have the same value of в, they create an emergent time field, an Eв. These Strings will also create an Emergent String.

This is true of most forces, or bosons. Gravity (caused by the theoretical particle, the graviton), unlike other forces, affects the в of an и. There is no absolute correlation: gravity simply causes в to have a larger value to the вs of иs outside the gravity's pull. Therefore the object will speed up slightly, and will start heading towards the centre of gravity (though this change of direction has nothing to do with time fields).

в is in a reverse duality with the speed of the object within и (relative to objects outside и, going at a slower speed (ie their в is larger, hence time moves quicker) . As в goes down (ie time within и slows down), the speed of the object within и (we will assume this is being seen from another и with a larger в) will get larger.



There is also the issue of, once you travel faster than m (light speed), time going backwards. This can be easily justified by time field theory.
-Let's say you are traveling at ә. Time is going at a 'steady' rate. The в of your и = the time equivalent of ә.
-Now you start going faster. Time becomes slower and slower, and the в of your и becomes smaller and smaller.
-You hit the speed of light. As shown in the diagram below, you hit a в of 0. This is в0, the speed of light achieved by matter.
-Then (though it is impossible), your в becomes smaller still. Because в has nowhere else to go, your в becomes negative.
-You now start dropping through negative в, -в. Time goes backwards.

Hence the relation is as follows: в0 is dual to the Speed of Light, and a positive в is when time goes forwards, a negative в is when time goes backwards.


So, there you go. I wish I could go back and carry on with it, but I've simply lost interest and I'm not in 'the zone' to understand it like I used too. I've even forgotten what the string coupling constant is.

27.11.09

•REALITY, probably.

In the last post we touched briefly on probability. Though I never actually mentioned it (or maybe I did? I forget), probability is a big law that governs the universe, and is especially important in Schrödinger's Cat. It's the whole basis of the dead/undead cat concept.

OK, let's start with a rather disgusting example. Say you're on the toilet and run out of toilet paper (gasp!). There's a cupboard next to you that usually contains the spare toilet rolls. You go to open the door. Stop. Let's think about it: inside the cupboard there could be one of two things: toilet roll, or no toilet roll (in which case you're in some trouble, but we'll not go into that). Suppose there isn't one of two things - suppose both things exist at the same time. Inside the cupboard, there is both toilet roll and no toilet roll. The true result would only define itself when you open the door and find out.

If you've read the previous post, you'll see that's an example of the Schrödinger's Cat theory. But now let's apply probability: which end result is more probable? What does probable even mean? Well, let's say it's more probable that there will be toilet roll there. That means, if you tried the test several times, there will be toilet roll there more times than there won't be toilet roll. But how can you be sure that you've covered all the times? Maybe, if you try it a couple more times, you'll find the results change. Now you have different results. Maybe you'll do even more tests, double the amount of tests. The results may flip again.*

The truth is, the only way you can get an 'accurate' results is if you tried the test an infinite number of times. "Sure," I hear you say, "but you can't try a test an infinite number of times". True, so vary true. In fact, infinity (We'll call it ∞ from now on) is one heck of a concept. It, when looked at logically, cannot exist. Let's explain. You have a bag of red and blue balls - an equal number of each. The total number of balls is ∞, but that also means that the total number of red balls is ∞, and so is the total number of blue balls. There's your dilemma: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. Similarly, ∞ x ∞ = ∞. So ∞ is a completely absurd concept: how can we base our lives, as well as such laws as probability.

Here's the crunch: either everything is finite, hence there is no such thing as ∞ (and so we've got to take a grim look back on probability and change it a lot), or everything is infinite. I'm going take the second option: since infinity is such a basic concept, we can't just disregard it. So how do we make everything infinite?

Easy: look at something next to you, on your desk, something on the train; wherever you are sitting. You think it has edges, you think it lasts from 0cm to 10cm or whatever, that it is finite. Maybe it is, in that dimension. It's finite in the first three dimensions, but there's nothing to stop it being infinite in a higher dimension. It's probably infinite in time, too - everything is, since nothing can be defined in time: what it's been made from is infinite in time. Sure, if it's a ruler, it's not infinite in time as a ruler. But there is no way to define a change of state from ruler to plastic pulp in time: time only sees the atoms, not the ruler. Even after the earth is gone, the atoms will still be there, maybe in the form of energy, maybe as part of another element's atoms. So everything's infinite in time.

Now, enough about infinity. This is where I link the concept back into probability. I remember reading Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy not too long ago, and it mentions what it calls a 'probability axis'. It may be taken from fiction, but the concept has more depth than you would have thought. So, maybe this probability axis is the upper dimension on which everything is infinite. Why? Because any one of an infinite number of things could happen at an infinite number of times. You could open that bathroom cupboard door and, though there are only two results in terms of the toilet roll's existence, in general there are an infinite number of results! Literally, anything could happen, it's just that most of it is not remotely probable enough to take precedence over more probable results and happen instead.

That's another point: people usually describe probability as n:1. However, say there is a probability of x happening of 25:1. That means that if the test is tried 25 times, only once will the result be x. How can we try this? Maybe there are twenty-five separate parallel universes, and the one we inhabit is where x does not happen. That's because x not happening is more probable. So what about the universe where x does happen? What happens to probability in that universe? Maybe the probability of x happening there is higher, so it is more likely to happen, so it does.

Maybe there is an infinite amount of these universes - but does that mean there are only 25 in terms of x, 24 of which do not include x happening? What about the other one, with its higher probability of x happening? Shouldn't that have its own parallel universes with their own probabilities?

I'll leave it there, because I sense the ideas getting a bit more confusing and I'm tired by now anyway. Have fun thinking that over on a friday evening - heh.






*You could argue about the probability of the results flipping - yep, that's right, that's the probability of a probability flipping from one value to another.

6.11.09

•REALITY, all about simultaneity you know.

That's right. Simultaneity. That's related to simultaneous. So what's simultaneous in science? Physics, even?

It's all to do with reality. Whether reality is real or not, whether we are in fact completely fake. Whether my universe is the only true one, and you are non-existent entities floating around in my universe, something created from my own head, without me knowing it. Look, we'll get onto that later. Just don't think I'm selfish, saying it's my universe or anything.

We'll start with Schrödinger's Cat. This is a very famous concept, which is a sort of experiment. Say you have a cat, and you put that cat in a box. Once inside the box, there is a completely equal chance the cat could die or live at any time. Now we have the concept: the cat, inside the box, is both alive and dead at the same time. Why? Well, we have no idea whether he is dead or not. So, until we open the box and find out, the cat is in a transitional state, between being alive and dead.

This is similar to the 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, does it make a sound?' problem. If something is outside your sensory area (what you can see, hear and smell), then for all we know, it may not exist. You could turn away from a hill, a tree, a building, anything, and it will cease to exist. What you sense may create existence. You could be creating the world you live in. So does that mean other people are fake, too? Yeah, maybe it does. Now to the selfish bit. I mentioned before that I create a universe, somehow, that it's somehow all in my head or I have some sort of depth into another universe. There's a theory we're all universes. I mentioned before how the colour blue could be completely different for every person. But what if people - you - were not real? What if you never thought as deeply as I am now? What if you never think at all? I'd never know. I'd carry on suspecting everyone had the same thought processes as me. I'd never know any different. The reason I'm only talking about myself is because that's all I can suspect. Maybe, just maybe, I am only thinking on a level lower than the real 'true person'. Perhaps I, you as well, we are just these non-existent people created by the real centre of the universe. It could be anyone. And we'd never know - we would never be able to tell.

So there we go. Some friday evening philosophy for you - if that doesn't get you quickly turning around to catch the 'void' of nonexistence that could be around your sensory area, I don't know what will. Heh.

25.9.09

•SCIENCE is all wrong

Yes, that's right, people. Every single measurement or reading you take from an experiment will be completely and utterly wrong.

The story behind such a crazy theory goes something like this: once upon a time there lived a German physicist named Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg wanted to be really annoying and so he created the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that every reading you take from an experiment (mainly quantum experiments) will be wrong. When taking an experiment, you usually take readings from all the outside factors - the temperature, the humidity, the wind movement... but Heisenberg noticed that they were missing out one giant factor: the observer itself.

Yes, you, the observer, are altering the experiment. Never thought of that, didja? Well, much to the rest of mankind's frustration, Heisenberg did. So how do you measure the observer? Put in another observer to measure him? OK, but that means that the second observer also becomes part of the experiment, and in some way alters the readings as well as the first observer. Solution? Put in an observer to observe the second observer - oh, wait, that would mean they become part of the experiment...

So that's where the rest of science started to ignore Heisenberg and his decidedly annoying realisation. Now, don't take this as a reason to give up on science completely. If you haven't already noticed, Heisenberg's theory has not been disowned, but just kept out of consideration, because there is nothing to do about it - there is no such thing as a microscope, telescope, or any other sort of measuring equipment which has no mass or energy. So science goes on regardless. Of course there's always that niggling feeling that everything we know about science could be wrong, but the effects of an observer are so small that we can't be that far off from the truth... can we?

19.9.09

•TIME to leave?

No, don't leave yet. We've got TIME to discuss.

Contrary to whatever you may think in your little mind, time is still a mystery, and will probably remain so for many decades into the future. We just don't know what it is because there is no way to stop it and find out. Look, I'll explain.

Time is generally recognised as the 4th dimension, so you can get rid of all your sci-fi books (and films - yes: Blu-Ray, DVD and VHS) that focus on people coming from other dimensions, or even travelling between dimensions. These are all silly concepts because the people who made the books (or films) have little understanding of dimensions. In truth, we see them every day, but that's a discussion for another post. Time is a dimension because it has two distinct directions through which an object can travel. The 1st dimension is up and down, the 2nd left and right, and the 3rd back and forth. Time has two directions to - backwards and forwards in time. It's just the case that we can only travel in one of those directions, and we always have been, and we can't be stopped. We keep on moving through time, forwards and forwards, at the strangely coincidental pace of one second per second.

So how come we can't measure time? You may think seconds and minutes are a great system, and I guess they are (though a little small if you're working in a universal lifetime), but there is no way to look at a second for any longer than a second. Let's take a 1D alternative - the centimetre. It's a useful little unit of 1D measurement, but, unlike the second, it could hang around forever and allow us to examine it forever. That's because it's static in the 1st dimension.

Now, what if that centimetre was moving forwards in the 1st dimension, moving away from you at a steady pace so you had to keep on running to catch up with it? Why, that'd be harder. Now you can see the problem for measuring time, since everything is moving in time and so are we, the observer (that's all about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I'll explain in another post). Also, unlike measurements like centimetres, the minute and the second affect the properties of that object. Say, at three seconds, an object could be 12cm wide, and five seconds later at eight seconds, it could have expanded to being 20cm wide. Without the five seconds, the object would not have any time to move and change. Otherwise it would be static.

Now you see the problem. But, can time be affected by other dimension's measurements? Can time exist without matter to do stuff in it? That's a question which, given what we understand about time at the moment, we'll sadly never know the answer to.

Why not host your images on your own site?

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA