Scientists predict time will stop completely

[Render]

That connects the mind to fabric of reality.

Next time I'm in a car crash and things are running in slow motion I will know the effect is real. If time flow can manipulated by the mind then the force of gravity can be too as they're connected. That means telekinesis is about manipulating the curvature of space-time by altering how time flows for a location.

Cool deduction. But I don't believe Wubbo implies we can manipulate time flow. Rather gravity manipulating us into the illusion of time, to cope.

The manipulating of space-time how you describe it mainly reminds me of warp drive. Where basically the ship stays in the same place and space-time moves.

[StarMountainKid]

This short quotation is taken from a lecture by Professor A. Zildming, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.D.S. It may have some relevance here.

"Tonight I'd like to begin my lecture about Time by first asking the question, what is Time, quantumly speaking? Well, simply put, Time is the flow of the quantum particle of Time, the Chronon. These Chronons flow as wave functions from Future to Past in Superposition. This means the Chronon possesses all Future Time realities as yet not revealed.

"Their movement is in Time, of course, not in Space. As they travel in Time from the Future, they eventually cross the Boundary of the Present. There they interact with the quantum particles of Space, the Spacions. Their wave function collapses and they thusly create the reality of the Present Moment. After they have passed this Boundary their Time energy is expended and they continue to travel into the Past as virtual Particles, never again being able to interact with the Present.

Now, as there are a finite number or elementary particles in the Universe such as protons, electrons, et cetera, there are also a finite number of Chronons, all flowing from Future to Past. Therefore, there are a finite number of Future Moments available to our Universe. This being so, when all existing Chronons have crossed the Boundary, Time will cease to exist and the Universe will become static. Nothing further will occur. No action, no movement. This, gentle species, will be the end of our Universe as we know it!"

Of course, this explanation may be rubbish, as some here consider other explanations other than their own to be. I personally cannot confirm or deny the authenticity of the above quotation, or even the authenticity of its author. I'll just say it sounds as reasonable to me as many other explanations of Time I've heard.

I'd include a link here, but modesty forbids.

[Varelse]

Time will never end-impossible-just like getting to the end of the universe-how would you know it-would you fall off-into what--is there a wall there-something has to be on the other side

I should put the disclaimer in that I'm one of the a psuedo-scientific junkies here who only has a basic laymens understanding of quantum mechanics, ToR, Newtonian Physics, ToE..ect. That said, imo, too much of the cutting edge science out there seems to be yahoo scientists saying completely unprovable and outlandish things to get attention and grants. Same as it ever was I guess.

But to forget about some of the most basic, proven, tested, repeated and observed facts about the universe is just sad. Time can be perceived inside your own head to slow down or speed up. We all do it every day. Notice how slow the clock moves at 4:55 pm on a sunny friday in the office? Doesn't mean time slowed one iota. Somewhere else in the world someone on a rollercoaster thought 5 minutes was just a blink of an eye.

While light can be used to measure time so can anything else that moves at a constant rate without fail. Time will always be there, moving, aging something somewhere. Light, we're not so sure about.

With that thought, people who have a true grasp of infinity know that even if you could fly beyond the universe to the end of subspace you'd still have to have something on the other side, even if it was a huge empty, element free vacuum of dark nothing it would still be something that's part of infinity.

Time, or one moment to the next, cannot stop, slow down or speed up. Even Einstien's theory where someone flying near the speed of light for one hour returns to earth to find years have gone by is being seriously questioned.

As for folding space, i'm still pretty agnostic but hopeful that one can work. Otherwise i think we're stuck on this rock until we wipe ourselves out or the sun dies.

[sepulchrave]

Of course, this explanation may be rubbish, as some here consider other explanations other than their own to be... [snip] I'd include a link here, but modesty forbids.

Haha, so you quote your own fiction but question it's origin? I like your style.

The scientific issue with your explanation is that there is not, necessarily, a limit to the number of particles in the Universe. There (probably) is a finite quantity of energy in the Universe, but this energy can manifest in an arbitrarily large (or small!) number of particles.

I do like the idea of a chronon, but in my understanding the chronon would be more like a photon: a quantization of a field that matter interacts on. Chronons (and, presumably, the Planck length) would provide a sort of quantized lattice for what General Relativity considers the continuum of space-time, just like a photon provides a quantized lattice for what Classical Physics considers the continuum of the electromagnetic field.

Since photons have a degree of quantization (Planck's law) they provide restrictions on the Quantum electromagnetic field that would not exist in a continuous Classical electromagnetic field (the best example is the ``ultraviolet catastrophe'' that would occur if the electromagnetic field were truly continuous), but the number of photons a field can generate is only limited by the nature of the electromagnetic interactions: a particle might emit n photons with energy u, or possibly m photons with energy v as long as nu = mv (obviously other restrictions apply to the emission of photons as well - it is highly dependent on the situation - but you get the idea).

Similarly I would expect the quantity and ``scale'' of chronons (or Planck lengths) to depend on the particular interaction, but the number of particles is not limited.

A star going supernova in one part of a galaxy doesn't ``steal'' photons from other stars; having one object moving at close to the speed of light (causing time dilation) wouldn't ``steal'' chronons from a slower object.

(That is my opinion, anyway. I am not a theoretical physicist though.)

Time, or one moment to the next, cannot stop, slow down or speed up. Even Einstien's theory where someone flying near the speed of light for one hour returns to earth to find years have gone by is being seriously questioned.

By whom?

The lifetime of unstable particles in an accelerator is a pretty good proof of Einstein's time dilation, not to mention the correction factors needed to account for the different clock speeds (due to gravity) for GPS satellites and stations on the ground.

Edited June 22, 2012 by sepulchrave

[StarMountainKid]

I am wondering why the Present Moment just happens to exist everywhere at the same time. There seems to be no location in the universe where it's just slightly in the future, or no location that's slightly in the past, compared to our present moment here on Earth. Why is this Present Moment we experience universal?

Space isn't like this. Different locations in space are in different locations. If space and time are locked together as spacetime, why is time always the same time, but space always in different places?

I would say this is true even considering time dilation. If I look at my watch and consider "now" the present moment, and someone who is experiencing dilated time relative to me looks at his watch at the same moment as I do, we both consider that same moment as "now", even though our watches are ticking away at different relative speeds.

Also, does Time only exist "now"? I wonder this because if there is no future Time and no past Time, Time is squeezed into this "now" moment, and this reduces Time to only that moment. So, Time isn't a very big place after all, is it?

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,^[3] roughly 10⁻⁴³ seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

We can't experience one unit of Planck Time, but if Time is quantized into units of Planck Time, there must be a Time Field in which excitations of the Time Field produce Time quanta, or Time itself. I guess this answers my question of why time's "now" seems to be universal.

But, in relative dilated time frames, this Time Field is isolated from other relative time frames, and how do we explain this disconnect? I suppose an analogy would be the warping of space by gravity. In an isolated dilated time frame, the Time Field operates as usual, it is only in relative perspective that that the duration of the Time Field quantized excitations appear to elapse at different rates. So, Time remains universal, and we're all safe here in the present.

All this has nothing to do with time stopping, and I apologize for this.

I also apologize for sounding like Professor Zildming.

[Horus Christos]

When the universe begins to pop stars off left and right in another 10-20 billion years the only thing left will be black holes and space debris( random rocks, planet fragments, ect) that will also fall into black holes. Soon enough the larger black holes begin drawing in the smaller ones. Eventually entire galaxies become "black holes" which is a misnomer in itself. Those masses then eventually collide with other black hole galaxies and soon enough you have a black hole crammed so tight it cannot contain itself and reaches a critical mass. Maybe it's the force of the billionth galactic black hole crashing in that lights the fuse. Then expansion of matter and gas begins all over again. Life follows where it can.

eta: this is just my best guess. Who knows when it will happen or if it will take a trillion years but i believe this is the basic cycle

One problem with the Framling theory is that Black holes also evaporate, due to Hawkin radiation. It takes a great deal of time, but it happens. Shrinkage will of course happen at a relatively faster rate once there is no more matter around it for the black hole to suck up. Another problem with the Framling theory is that if the universe keeps expanding, there is no guarantee that all black holes would eventually join together.....they'd just keep getting further and further separated and isolated until they gradually dissipated.

As for the HorusChristos theory, well I submit that we are living inside a black hole. That explains expansion (as we are sucking in matter in from "outside", and our black hole universe will continue to expand until there is no more matter out there, then will start to very slowly contract due to hawking radiation). My physics isn't good enough to explain this next part, but I think the HorusChristos theory may also goes some way to explaining why time is (or appears) frozen at the event horizon (i.e. the boundary of our black hole universe), at least from our perception from inside the black hole (every point inside it being considered the center).

Oh and I've noticed that Framling and Pbarosso keep forgetting to add the obligatory disclaimer to their theories. I happy provide one, as I don't really know what I am talking about.

"Disclaimer! I am a totally scientifically-illiterate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have no knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

[Mr Right Wing]

Cool deduction. But I don't believe Wubbo implies we can manipulate time flow. Rather gravity manipulating us into the illusion of time, to cope.

The manipulating of space-time how you describe it mainly reminds me of warp drive. Where basically the ship stays in the same place and space-time moves.

I propose an experiment!

As many people are aware some scientific formulae have time in them and some dont. That means theres a way to test if time is perception during an event where it appears to run in slow motion.

Put simply certain things would be effected as time occurs in their formulae some things wont.

[Rlyeh]

I propose an experiment!

As many people are aware some scientific formulae have time in them and some dont. That means theres a way to test if time is perception during an event where it appears to run in slow motion.

Put simply certain things would be effected as time occurs in their formulae some things wont.

An utterly pointless experiment as you're unable to differentiate between the concept of the mind's time keeping and time dilation. Two entirely different phenomena.

[chezarelli]

So someone is observing a phenomena.

Just explaining to another member who used the word phenomena

its more of an experience in personal perception time exist separately for

every living thing

[Mr Right Wing]

An utterly pointless experiment as you're unable to differentiate between the concept of the mind's time keeping and time dilation. Two entirely different phenomena.

Suppose we have two people in an office.

One day dreams and after what seems to be 15 mins snaps out of it to find its been 3 hours. They then turn to the colleague and ask is it me or is today going really fast?

Repeat 20 times.

If the time flow and time perception are the same the answers will match.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Rlyeh]

Suppose we have two people in an office.

One day dreams and after what seems to be 15 mins snaps out of it to find its been 3 hours. They then turn to the colleague and ask is it me or is today going really fast?

Repeat 20 times.

If the time flow and time perception are the same the answers will match.

Like I said, a pointless experiment. What you're describing isn't even time dilation.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

[Rlyeh]

Just explaining to another member who used the word phenomena

its more of an experience in personal perception time exist separately for

every living thing

Phenomena is an observable event or occurrence. Perception isn't the same as a reference frame.

[Mr Right Wing]

Like I said, a pointless experiment. What you're describing isn't even time dilation.

http://www.phys.unsw...me_dilation.htm

Please invest in an education

Edited June 22, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Rlyeh]

Please invest in an education

[sepulchrave]

As for the HorusChristos theory, well I submit that we are living inside a black hole. That explains expansion (as we are sucking in matter in from "outside", and our black hole universe will continue to expand until there is no more matter out there, then will start to very slowly contract due to hawking radiation).

I think (I am not completely sure about this, though) that if we were living in a black hole we would see a preferred direction in the Hubble flow (i.e. towards the singularity). We do not observe such a thing.

I am wondering why the Present Moment just happens to exist everywhere at the same time.

It doesn't! The ``present moment'' is entirely a local effect determined by your reference frame. (There is a decent explanation here.)

The idea that what appears to happen simultaneously for you also appears to happen simultaneously to someone else is purely a consequence of our relatively low speeds.

If you and I had super good telescopes, and we were able to observe a planet thousands of light years away in detail, if you watched that planet for an hour standing on the road side, and I watched that planet for an hour driving along the road in my car, we would end up with slightly different stories of when things happened on that planet (because my car can only move at a tiny fraction of the speed of light we would have to observe something incredibly distant for there to be a noticeable effect.)

[StarMountainKid]

StarMountainKid, on 21 June 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I am wondering why the Present Moment just happens to exist everywhere at the same time.

It doesn't! The ``present moment'' is entirely a local effect determined by your reference frame. (There is a decent explanation here.)

I understand your point about simultaneity, but what I'm trying to get at is, even though two observers would not agree when an event happened, their "nows" would always be the same. It seems to me "now" is independent of relative time frames.

Two observers at different distances from a super nova explosion would not agree when that event happened according to their clocks, but they would always agree on when "now" is occurring. This would also be true in time dilation. One observer's clock may be ticking at a different rate relative to another observer's clock, but for both observers, "now" would always occur at identical moments in their relative time frames, irrespective of what their clocks say, and irrespective of their relatively different rates of elapsing time.

Here I add Disclaimer.

[Varelse]

One problem with the Framling theory is that Black holes also evaporate, due to Hawkin radiation. It takes a great deal of time, but it happens. Shrinkage will of course happen at a relatively faster rate once there is no more matter around it for the black hole to suck up. Another problem with the Framling theory is that if the universe keeps expanding, there is no guarantee that all black holes would eventually join together.....they'd just keep getting further and further separated and isolated until they gradually dissipated.

As for the HorusChristos theory, well I submit that we are living inside a black hole. That explains expansion (as we are sucking in matter in from "outside", and our black hole universe will continue to expand until there is no more matter out there, then will start to very slowly contract due to hawking radiation). My physics isn't good enough to explain this next part, but I think the HorusChristos theory may also goes some way to explaining why time is (or appears) frozen at the event horizon (i.e. the boundary of our black hole universe), at least from our perception from inside the black hole (every point inside it being considered the center).

Oh and I've noticed that Framling and Pbarosso keep forgetting to add the obligatory disclaimer to their theories. I happy provide one, as I don't really know what I am talking about.

"Disclaimer! I am a totally scientifically-illiterate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have no knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

Sorry, I forgot most the disclaimer. I also forgot about quazars, neutron stars and probably a few hundred other things.

Since most galaxies seem somewhat flat and round I wonder what could happen if we "flew" straight up or down (above or below the saucer shaped galaxy) to get to subspace faster. Once in subspace we could in turn use galactic gravity to achieve an enormous speed to pop back into the galaxy almost wherever we wanted.

Still working on the brakes though...

[sepulchrave]

This would also be true in time dilation.

How could it? We only have simultaneous ``nows'' when we are in the exact same location. If I travel away and then back to you at relativistic speeds, we will have simultaneous ``nows'' at the start and the end of my journey, but in between more time will have elapsed for you then for me.

[StarMountainKid]

How could it? We only have simultaneous ``nows'' when we are in the exact same location. If I travel away and then back to you at relativistic speeds, we will have simultaneous ``nows'' at the start and the end of my journey, but in between more time will have elapsed for you then for me.

Yes, more time will have elapsed for you than for me. Even though during your journey our clocks are ticking at relatively different rates, we both have the same experience of "now-ness". Your "now" would not be in my future, nor my "now" in your past. The 'duration' of your "now" would be shorter in relation to the 'duration' of my "now", but we would both experience "now" simultaneously.

If, during your journey, your "nows" were different from mine, when your returned, how could our different "nows" correlate?

More time will have elapsed for you than for me, yet both our "now" is the same when you return. I think this indicates that "now" is universal under all conditions, even during time dilation.

In the case of non-simultaneity, even though we observe the same event at different times, our continuous sense of "now" remain the same for both of us.

Edited June 23, 2012 by StarMountainKid

[sepulchrave]

More time will have elapsed for you than for me, yet both our "now" is the same when you return. I think this indicates that "now" is universal under all conditions, even during time dilation.

In the case of non-simultaneity, even though we observe the same event at different times, our continuous sense of "now" remain the same for both of us.

I think we are saying the same thing, just interpreting it differently. Reading your words above leads me to conclude that ``now'' is only a local effect. I might assume you have the same sense of ``now-ness'' that I do, but I can only check this when you are right next to me.

To me, ``now'' only makes sense as an origin for space-time coordinates. If you and I meet today, and make plans to have lunch together at Bill's Diner in one week from ``now'', but then I decide to go on a merry 99.99999%-of-light-speed trip to Alpha Centauri tomorrow (and come back the next day), while you stay put on Earth, then ``one week from now'' will be quite different for you and me and we would both end up eating alone.

[chezarelli]

Phenomena is an observable event or occurrence. Perception isn't the same as a reference frame.

i know one is only unique to the person experiencing it that is perception how else can we

even comment or speculate on something we haven't perceive yet

[Rlyeh]

i know one is only unique to the person experiencing it that is perception how else can we

even comment or speculate on something we haven't perceive yet

How are you not understanding the meaning of phenomena? Do you understand the concept of verification?

A scientific phenomena can be tested, verified.

[ranrod]

I kind of have a problem with this theory. Time only exists because we exist. Doesn't it? I mean, who's telling any kind of time if there's not someone there to count it? What would time be without someone or something to count it? Questions, questions, questions. Maybe the question should be - Does time really exist at all?

Time effects seem real from all the experiments we've conducted. Many of today's technologies rely on it. For example, the GPS in your phone and the navigation systems in cars would be off by about a meter a day if the satellites used to calculate GPS coordinates didn't compensate for time dilation. Those satellites are moving so fast that time runs slower in their frame of reference than on earth (there are no people on those satellites). The same time dilation can occur due to high gravity rather than speed. Although for an outside observer time would seem frozen for a large enough mass, within it movement would continue.

[ranrod]

I understand your point about simultaneity, but what I'm trying to get at is, even though two observers would not agree when an event happened, their "nows" would always be the same. It seems to me "now" is independent of relative time frames.

Two observers at different distances from a super nova explosion would not agree when that event happened according to their clocks, but they would always agree on when "now" is occurring. This would also be true in time dilation. One observer's clock may be ticking at a different rate relative to another observer's clock, but for both observers, "now" would always occur at identical moments in their relative time frames, irrespective of what their clocks say, and irrespective of their relatively different rates of elapsing time.

Here I add Disclaimer.

Just to clarify. One event's occurance in time would be agreed upon by all observers regardless of frame of reference. If you're going at 99% the speed of light and I'm stationary on earth but we are near each other, we would both see the super nova happen at 3:00pm for instance (both our clocks would say the same exact time). Simultaneity talks about *separate events* at separate spaces for different observers. That becomes more tricky when talking about relativistic effects.

[chezarelli]

How are you not understanding the meaning of phenomena? Do you understand the concept of verification?

A scientific phenomena can be tested, verified.

Do you want me to type slower ? my statement was about personal perception awareness understanding feeling

not a scientific fact that can be measured people experience time in different ways. Their is no grand unified theory of

time only symptoms of the reality of it we perceive and measure which lead to aspects of it being verified.Phenomenon

can also be unexplained untested but still occur that the bit your confusing yourself on