Physical aspect of time??

[Tarantism]

this may be rediculous and i apologize for my lack of understanding of time, but because we see time as a spacial dimension, would it be overly radical to wonder if you could apply a yet-unditected piece of matter to time??

 

yeah sorry if thats stupid, :cup:

[sanctus]

Do you apply a piece of matter to space?

I think that space-time is the place where events take place, for example the interaction of 2 photons at a given point in space-time.

[Tarantism]

Do you apply a piece of matter to space?

I think that space-time is the place where events take place, for example the interaction of 2 photons at a given point in space-time.

 

so in that sense would space-time be considered any place where the known (and unknown) laws of physics can apply? its seems strange to think of an expanding universe is infinate. as far as i know we have established a beginning to the universe without establishing an end, leaving room for the universe to be infinate. also, as far as i know according to one of the Friedmann models of the universe, gravity can halt the expansion and cause it to contract...or would it stay steady? so is the gravity in the universe getting stronger or staying steady?

 

also, what if space-time was based upon an elimentary and invisible "particles", though having no mass and therefore not meeting the technical definition of a particle...i only use the word particle for clairification...these/this would be self-reproducing and supplying the stage for physical matter...hence time is the only thing that can continue itself without chemical or physical reaction, but simply continuing based only upon what happened before.

 

that would meet your definition of space-time being "the place where events take place", and providing an answer to my wondering about how the universe could have existed forever and yet is expanding. the expansion suggests a beginning, at least in my simple mind.

 

just looking for some clarification...:)

[EWright]

this may be rediculous and i apologize for my lack of understanding of time, but because we see time as a spacial dimension, would it be overly radical to wonder if you could apply a yet-unditected piece of matter to time??

 

yeah sorry if thats stupid, :)

 

Actually, this is not a stupid idea at all. It's called "thinking outside the box" and the seed of many scientific inquiries. You somewhat touch upon a point I'll expand on when I continue my discussion on my "Theory of Temporal Relativity." I'm feeling a bit under the weather at the moment, so I won't get too into detail. For now, you can click on my signature at the bottome of the page and read what my theory (posted here on Hypography) has to say about time thus far. I hope to continue with and advance the discussion in the near future.

[watcher]

how the universe could have existed forever and yet is expanding. the expansion suggests a beginning, at least in my simple mind....:)

 

hi tarantism,

 

as far as i understand, some postulate that the structure of the universe is fractal . timespace (maybe also charge, to make the expansion of the universe in equilibrium) could probably came from a multidimensional quantum plenum and iterate it self (self-similarity) infinitely number of times and yet can be perceive with finity.

 

does it make sense?

 

.

[sanctus]

so in that sense would space-time be considered any place where the known (and unknown) laws of physics can apply? its seems strange to think of an expanding universe is infinate. as far as i know we have established a beginning to the universe without establishing an end, leaving room for the universe to be infinate. also, as far as i know according to one of the Friedmann models of the universe, gravity can halt the expansion and cause it to contract...or would it stay steady? so is the gravity in the universe getting stronger or staying steady?

 

AS you say we have established a beginning so you can mesure the size of the universe (or equivalently space-time in my definition) by calculating how far a photon could travel in that time.

 

I actually have problems to see how one can apply a particle to space-time?

[Tarantism]

the time peice is not a particle at all...but rather a place where matter can form.

[sanctus]

In your first post you talked about a piece of matter appliable to time...

[Loricybin]

as far as i know we have established a beginning to the universe without establishing an end, leaving room for the universe to be infinate

i would like to point out, and possibly discuss, that in my own view of existance, the presence of a beginning would not cooperate with true infinity. that is, i understand that the universal laws of physics were born when the big bang occured, including the birth of time as WE know it, but i would imagine that if existance were infinite, first of all, there would be no end to the number of bodies outside this one particular universe, and that would mean that different timelines were starting and ending with the fluxuations of those other bodies, allowing both time and space to be truely infinite.

 

is this what the multiverse is?

 

edit:

and further, wouldn't this mean that time could be infinite in that it is born in other places (other universes), even after it has ended in our own particular universe?

[Tarantism]

loren: that is what i said...do you remember oour conversation. and what would be the point of concerning ourselves with timelines besides our own? i mean, besides for pure discussion, there isnt any practicality.

 

sanctus: i dont think i have explained myself at all. apparently i have contradicted myself, but yes what i meant is that tiem woudl simply be a place for matter to form an interact with itself.