sintegral t1_j1dnoh2 wrote
Reply to comment by boomdart in Can we truly know the age of the universe? by Geodad478
And here is where the balloon analogy of vector dimensionality breaks down for a 3D intelligent lifeform bound by time.
If you are asking:
What is outside the “balloon”?
From OUR perspective, it hasn’t happened yet, so nothing….maybe…..(your guess is as good as anyone else’s.)
What is inside the “balloon”?
Previous stages of the universe’s development. The closer to the “center” of the balloon you get, the further back in time you go, from our perspective.
As for the geometries:
“Flat”, as in the rubber substrate of the balloon to us, encompasses ALL of spacetime. So the “rubber layer” you can consider all of three dimensional space. So, yes, we are on a “layer” in which all three spatial vectors are spreading due to an ever increasing “metric”.
boomdart t1_j1dt5ek wrote
We're on the same page about outside the balloon, it's non-existent.
So you would say, there is no traveling outside the "rubber layer.". What is under the rubber layer, the "inside" would be... The past. But that's a little simple to say isn't it? Is that to say yes you can travel there but there will be nothing there when you get there; we are for sure no new matter is being created anywhere.
And if we're on a balloon, we are only seeing a tiny tiny spec of the part of the surface we are on, we aren't assuming we can see through to the other side of the balloon, right? Like I can't see China from where I am even if earth was invisible. But we know that area exists and there should be stuff there?
I have trouble thinking our observable universe is it's own balloon, I believe we would have to be a part of a much bigger balloon.
sintegral t1_j1duwjr wrote
The previous configurations of matter, energy and spacetime are “under” the rubber layer, because it’s where the rubber layer used to be in terms of entropy. You can’t take a ship and just fly to it. It would have to be a space-time machine capable of reversing entropic systems either globally or locally. Yes, the balloon analogy is simple to say, that’s the trade off. I am not going to be able to describe to you the capabilities and perception of any trans dimensional perspective, because I do not and cannot have that vantage point. The rubber layer is all you will ever be able to physically “travel” within as a being bound by length, width, height and time. So “under” the rubber layer… IF you could reverse entropy, you would simply arrive at the universe in what entropic state the universe happens to be in at the time you “stop reversing time”.
Seeing “through the rubber layer” would be akin to saying you have the power to see matter in superposition at scale. It would appear as nonsense multiple output for few input. Nonlinearity, etc… The more finely we tend to look at the universe on a small scale, the more “elephant in the room” this conversation becomes. Imagine watching a movie and seeing every single frame transposed onto one another at once… whatever that would even mean or look like. It’s important to point out here that the movie would lose all narrative meaning in this configuration. Which should prompt you to ponder what narrative in the abstract even is and if it’s somehow transcendental. It is information we might would actually lose by GAINING transdimensionality. Total conjecture but worth thinking about. Usually it’s the other way around; We gain information going up that ladder. Going down usually forces us to give up a little bit of “true” information about the higher rung.
As for saying it would “just” be the past is a little insufficient, depending on your definition of the “past”. You have to remember to account for the spatial distortion as well. So it’s not like the Langoleirs from Stephen King, where you go back to the past and all the structures and inanimate matter just is “left behind”. All of that matter is subject to entropy as well. On that note, I have a serious hunch that quantum computing and the recent work with local realness and entanglement will drastically redefine our capabilities regarding this issue. I could absolutely be completely wrong as well.
Another note on your question of whether or not there is anything happening at the “center” of the balloon still:
From OUR perspective. No, it was the Big Bang. From outside the perspective of time, who knows? Extrapolating (which is NOT necessarily the correct answer!) from an unconstrainment of the time vector, it could be a permanent ON switch eternally happening. This is nearly alllllll conjecture at this point, but in the words of Richard Feynman, it’s fun to imagine.
To use an even less understood phenomenon and an even poorer analogy:
You would be a particle within that rubber layer. It would take more energy than we can currently generate and use to rip you out of it. And it would absolutely require you to not be constrained by any time vector, which isn’t the case. What would that look and feel like? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else has a fully proven idea of what that is like. Much like the ink cannot just float off the page of your paper, what use is that ink without paper? Will it even keep its spatial configuration so you can read it? Would your brain even be able to function without an entropic “inertia”? Etc? Now you will have to borrow more and more from philosophy to arrive at a conclusion that you and every other human might never be able to prove… but it’s important that we keep trying.
boomdart t1_j1fsdbe wrote
I have an out-there theory, if you're up for hearing it. I promise a good award.
I believe each galaxy has it's own cycle, we know they have their own black holes (maybe not all of them?) But I believe that black holes condense matter to a point that it is torn apart right down to the muons and quarks and eject those bits back into the universe alone, so there are free quarks or maybe smaller floating around in the space of a galaxy, these free floating quarks or smaller eventually find themselves partners and become matter again, or it doesn't, I don't have anything to say it can or does, but I presume it either does or doesn't but ultimately it doesn't create enough matter to keep the universe from it's ultimate death, but the universe does fill up with these quarks without homes so to speak. The cycle continues as the black hole will repeatedly take these in and eject then again but it doesn't have any gain, the cycle isn't fast enough.
I'm sorry for the way I communicate, it's very hard to get what's in my mind on paper without more effort than most. I can continue on and flesh it out more but I need to be on my computer and a keyboard to start lol
I have been proposing this since 1992. I keep getting "keep working on it" as a response and little else.
sintegral t1_j1fwsda wrote
Have you looked into the recent “reverse sieve black hole theory? Similar to your idea. Also, have you checked out Calabi-Yau manifolds? Conjecture at this point, but you might get some original ideas when reading about them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold
Seriously, keep thinking about this. Also it would be good to read about virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuation if you haven’t already.
boomdart t1_j1gjpo4 wrote
Thanks!
I'm going to take a look at everything I can, I will look at your suggestions post haste!
The manifold is interesting - I'm definitely going to look at that carefully. I think it can help describe this general leftover of mass/matter I want to have, it seems immeasurable now but that hasn't stopped our pursuits before or yet.
The reverse time idea is interesting for sure as well... very interesting. I hadn't considered it but I'm going to look at the details, see if there's anything I can use. edit: I've seen similar stuff to this extent, I think usually involving niel degrasse tyson. It's all very interesting. I need to look at the actual works because through NDT's eyes it sounds like comic book stuff.
Thank you again!
boomdart t1_j1fqsz6 wrote
Thank you very much for your detailed response. I was blown away that you referenced the langoliers, that's my favorite Stephen King movie.
You've closed the book as far as I'm concerned, I have no more questions at this point and I'm very satisfied with what you've said. I only wish I did have a question because you would be the man to ask it.
I'll see if I can't muster up an award for ya, just not this moment.
sintegral t1_j1fwedm wrote
Absolutely anytime. There are far more qualified people than me that can really get into specifics and special cases with you, but I think we had a good start at opening further roads. I am glad to see that I was able to help you in some small way!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments