This is really a meaningless blabber about things I don’t know anything about. So don’t buy too much into it. But here’s the pattern.
In theory . . .
Time and space are jointed and curve around matter, as einstein’s relativity explains.
The universe extends . . . around itself beyond the third dimension so that if you travel in what feels like the same direction in the universe, you’ll end up in the same place you started.
Some recent theory suggests that size is also the subject of an infinite loop in which things can be discovered infinitely small (we just don’t have the power to go beyond quanta / planck distance, neutrinos, and whatnot) - and could lead into the infinitely large.
So . . . what if the universe is just a giant loop in all of its fundamental concepts? Time is in a loop. Size is in a loop. There is finite structure, just as a loop doesn’t extend forever and ever, even if to an ant travelling around it it can seem forever and ever, if the ant simply can’t travel far enough to reach its original point.
If you were too look into the smaller and smaller, you would end up in the unusually large. If you travel in one direction, you would end up where you started. If you could remain like a time capsule all through the universe time, you would return to the big bang.
And this loop is twisting, stretching, extruding, throughout the multiverse. So we are somewhat trapped in this exploration that leads back to square one -but- also interacts with other loops much the same.
I say this with the hope that some interesting ideas in physics can grow with those almost blind to it.
An interesting bit of minutiae to add to the idea of “loops” is that a positron looks an awful lot like an electron going back in time. So it has been suggested that there is only one electron that has been bouncing back-and-forth between the start and end of time and all electrons are just that electron at different times in its existence.
As to the OP, I’ve had very similar thoughts on the concept of scale (or size). I’ve actually written an idea I’ve toyed with for a while whereby time and scale “curve” into each other. It’s kind of a complex idea - difficult to explain fully in this post - but essentially, I would have it that as one goes up in scale, approaching the universe as “whole”, one also goes back in time. In effect, the whole and the event we call the Big Bang are actually the same thing. Just as the supposed singularity that existed at the beginning of time cannot be decomposed into smaller parts (and therefore scale is inapplicable to it), time doesn’t go forward at the highest scale.
This is just an idea though, and very hard to explain without going full into it.
Again I have similar ideas…Like the idea that when you get to small scales of matter in a confined space like black holes or the bigbang you could start viewing particles momentum and positions as being inverses of each other. So the verysmall universe becomes an inverted very large universe. Bit wierd though becuse what we see as time would be energy in the inverted universe. Bacically all physical concepts become inverted. But then theres all the reltiistic effects aswell.
Don’t forget the 2nd law of thermodynamics though…The universe must always increase in disorder so the idea that the universe could come back around to here again is not allowed.
Its a beuatiful law really it means time has direction its we we are born and then we die…seems like common sense really and it is. But it has far reaching consequences.
Ofcourse theres no reason to believe that the 2nd law cannot be violated that more order could come. But for this to happen a the universe would have to fall into a very special state.
real dope ideas here. I see time as being relative only to the observer and his watch; 5 minutes is 5 minutes, but what takes place, and what can or cannot take place between A and B is no measure of time. Life happens until death does, and the universe expands. “Time” is “God”.
The 2nd law is a probablistic law, isn’t it? I mean, it says that given a system with a lot of internal order, it is highly likely this it will merge into disorder. Is this correct?
^^ Not exactly…the second law says entropy (disorder) always increases if work is done in a system. You can derive it using statistics, but the outcome is the same: entropy always increases. I think the probabalistic side is more about, for example, the probability of a shattered teapot putting itself back together, or a single shot on a billiard table putting all the balls back into the original racked position after they’ve been broken. It’s about the probability of entropy decreasing; it could happen, but it’s unlikely.
There’s some crazy theory that if the universe starts to collapse in on itself time will run backwards, I guess because entropy is linked so closely with time’s arrow. If the universe were to collapse back to a singularity in a Big Crunch then things would be getting more ordered, so time itself would reverse so that the second law would still hold true.
Yeah i think its silly if the universe collapsed due to gravity why would time reverse? If it did collapse then the entropy would still increase so you would get a giant black hole not a big bang.
Its a statistical law yes but the more particles you have in your system the closer it becomes to an exact law. So for the whole universe it is an exact law. the chances that it would be violated are unimaginably small. Consider getting a shattered glas and throwing all the pices at a table. Whats the chance that uou get a perfectly formed glass sitting on the table? and thats just for a glass the universe is billions maybe trillions(probably more) of times bigger so the chances of the 2nd law being broken really are 0.
I think the interesting thing is that because of the second law you can say that order must always increase as you look back in time(assuming there are still a large amout of particles in the universe). So the baig bang must have been highly ordered.
Next year im doing a course in the physics of the early universe so i should find out if the 2nd law goes all the way back to the big bang. Roger perose seems to think it does. But who really knows?
I guess I was saying it’s not really a probabilistic law because for anything above the size of a few atoms it always holds true. It is explained by showing the improbability of a particular event happening (shattered glass coming back together), but the probability of that happening is essentially zero, which essentially makes it not a statistical law.
On a large enough scale, yes. I guess I’m going to have to rescind my earlier statement and say it is a statistical law, but it’s pretty useless to think of it that way on a macroscopic scale.
Circle’s are not found in reality, reality is ellipsoidal. The propagation and states of light are ellipsoidal. Infinity is a speed, not a location or a number.
I oversimplified, as I was aiming for the “saddle shape” or the mobious strip you get from the infinity sybmol, which for some loses the emphasis that it’s a system continuously leading back into itself.
I remember that there was a formula being passed around the net for mathematicians to actually boil down the basic shape of the universe. Did anyone hear progress for that?
