Light Cones, Onions, and Time

Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Jumping ahead to prove to myself getting an image up was not a fluke!

NB the whole of a hypersphere surface is our 3d space : suggested

 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
An issue from 3DFlatlanders is addresssed here.

Light-cones1.jpg
[/url]
I think thats enough to start with.
 
Gibsense,
I can't be sure but I think that like many others you are missing something in your mind's eye view of SPACETIME's past-future histories light cones.

The SPACETIME past histories' light cone goes to an "observed" apparent finite end point "at a distant." The arrow of time points to that "observed" apparent finite end point.

The SPACETIME future histories' future light cone begins at the point. BUT that point [IS NOT (IS NEVER)] 'there-then" . . . that point [IS (IS ALWAYS and FOREVER)] "here-now"! Endless beginning! There is no limit to it because its limits are entangled, entangling concurrent REALTIME instant (t=0) and, though, always limitlessly destined, is never observed except as a frontier constant of "next destination."



If you'll notice, both arrows have no "observable" end point and that is wrong, relatively speaking, for the past histories' past light cone, though right for the future histories' future light cone. The balancing act the illustration tries to illustrate most wrongly, if balance there is, is [at] and [in] the local-relative observer! Both the cone point of the future light cone and the future histories' arrow point, should point to the observer in the center FROM OUT OF "NOWHERELAND"!!!!

And, it is into that hyperspace, warp space, JUMP SPACE, wormhole-straight-line "NOWHERELAND" that all unobserved REALTIME travelers will always un-observably travel while their light's coordinate points past histories' past light cone and arrow of time curves out in direction and magnitude going away, or equally but oppositely contracts oncoming, in "observable universe (u)"! Opening, or anti, asymptote (into "NOWHERELAND"), so to speak, realization in expansion going away . . . asymptote (from out of "NOWHERELAND') realization in contraction oncoming.

-----------------------------

There has been a world, a land, of "nothing" and "nowhere" for astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists, for nearly a century and I can take it from them for my own!
----------------------------

"Brevity may be the soul of wit but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gibsense
Regardless of all I tried in post #4 to make clearer, I'm still not sure all understand the relationships, so here is one more pointer to a relationship between unobserved un-observable open systemic asymptote universe and observed "observable" closed systemic hypersphere universe, done in 2-d cut out (2-d cutaway):


(((((((((( || ))))))))))
(Curvature and relatively straight line between points . . . the long and the short of it!)

The straightest, most direct line:

 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Alan0001, Hi !
You make an excellent point about light cones, per observer. The individuals ABCD in the previous illustration have their light cones overlapping to produce the same result. Maybe I should have attempted to draw them all in and included the past light cones.
Conceding your points perhaps it would have revealed something new.

The illustration though has the purpose of showing what our Observable universe is. Cat's point of getting definitions right! The light cone illustrated shows an "observable universe" defined by the explosion.
Perhaps it would be useful to draw the situation shown on Wikipedia and everything next. So we can all be on the same page!

Past-Present-Light-Cones.jpg
[/url]
Alan, you said :
"And, it is into that hyperspace, warp space, JUMP SPACE, wormhole-straight-line "NOWHERELAND" that all unobserved REALTIME travelers will always un-observably travel while their light's coordinate points past histories' past light cone and arrow of time curves out in direction and magnitude going away, or equally but oppositely contracts oncoming, in "observable universe (u)"! Opening, or anti, asymptote (into "NOWHERELAND"), so to speak, realization in expansion going away . . . asymptote (from out of "NOWHERELAND') realization in contraction oncoming."

The surface, the Hypersurface, is progressing with time radially outward. The volume of what it leaves behind (inside the surface) is where the past light cone is looking. This is what you are saying I think. You pointed out something there I had not thought about. Yes, it is "NOWHERE LAND"; not of our universe.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Alan0001: "The SPACETIME future histories' future light cone begins at the point. BUT that point [IS NOT (IS NEVER)] 'there-then" . . . that point [IS (IS ALWAYS and FOREVER)] "here-now"! Endless beginning! There is no limit to it because its limits are entangled, entangling concurrent REALTIME instant (t=0) and, though, always limitlessly destined, is never observed except as a frontier constant of "next destination."

You make the point that the origin/start of any Light cone is always carried forward in time. At any time the cone origin is where an observer is at. Yes, I cannot argue with that. Consider:

Once an event has happened who can see it and when?

Does an Observer's light cone overlap the event light cone?
 
Gibsense,
I look and I still see that you are probably still missing a very important point! Quantum entanglement microcosmic and macrocosmic, both! You, Cat, Questioner, me, everyone else and everything else in and of Hawking's Grand Central Station of the Universe (U) is in two places at one and the same time! In the exact center point of universe (every point, period, of universe being the exact center point) . . . and on the rim, the hypersurface of the hypersphere, all at once and always! There are two Klein bottles, one to exhibit us in our standing, our horizons (just stated), in the universe , and one for the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (Big Bang) Mirror Horizon. The two the two superposition horizon levels, planes, of Chaos Theory's self-similar fractal zooms structure of the universes.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Here is an example.

Abstract We address how to construct an infinitely cyclic universe model. A major consideration is to make the entropy cyclic which requires the entropy to be re-set to zeroin each cycle expansion → turnaround → contraction → bounce → etc. Here were-set entropy at the turnaround by selecting the introverse (visible universe) fromthe extroverse which is generated by the accelerated expansion. In the model, theobserved homogeneity is explained by the low entropy at the bounce, The observedflatness arises from the contraction together with the reduction in size between theexpanding and contracting universe. The present flatness is predicted to be veryprecise

And this is attributable to Roger Penrose: Wiki.

He made several conjectures about C and the WCH, some of which were subsequently proved by others, and he also popularized his conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) theory.[59] In this theory, Penrose postulates that at the end of the universe all matter is eventually contained within black holes, which subsequently evaporate via Hawking radiation.

At this point, everything contained within the universe consists of photons, which "experience" neither time nor space. There is essentially no difference between an infinitely large universe consisting only of photons and an infinitely small universe consisting only of photons. Therefore, a singularity for a Big Bang and an infinitely expanded universe are equivalent.[60]

Cat :)
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Gibsense,
I look and I still see that you are probably still missing a very important point! Quantum entanglement microcosmic and macrocosmic, both! You, Cat, Questioner, me, everyone else and everything else in and of Hawking's Grand Central Station of the Universe (U) is in two places at one and the same time! In the exact center point of universe (every point, period, of universe being the exact center point) . . . and on the rim, the hypersurface of the hypersphere, all at once and always! There are two Klein bottles, one to exhibit us in our standing, our horizons (just stated), in the universe , and one for the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (Big Bang) Mirror Horizon. The two the two superposition horizon levels, planes, of Chaos Theory's self-similar fractal zooms structure of the universes.

Alan, maybe you miss the point that: The anywhere place in the universe (our NOW universe) IS on the hypersphere because that is what I suggest the universe is! The universe is confined to the hypersphere - The 3D space. All our universe exists as the skin surface of Cat's Balloon (not 2D but 3D as per a hypersphere (which is the surface of a hyper ball)
A hypersphere is to my mind what our universe is. It fits the fact that the Hubble Constant can be derived directly from the age. We can even offer a clue as to 'Hubble Tension'. maybe I should post the numbers in a new post "Hubble Tension" to convince you in this debate.
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Here is an example.



And this is attributable to Roger Penrose: Wiki.





Cat :)
If you agree with the posted diagrams, your suggestions look good to me. If there are some issues with the posted diagrams we may not be on the same page and would need a debate. The possibilities regarding cyclic look feasible, especially using new ideas on time (already indicated) and the repulsive force that occurs near plank level. Entropy upon time reversal maybe.

Are you happy with that already posted or do we need a debate? Alternatively, or in addition, you may prefer another route with some ideas you have....
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I am getting a lot happier. Nearly there, I think.

My fault earlier, when I think I said that my analogy was not based on a mathematical surface, i.e., having no thickness. I also thought that a bubble was a good model, but, no, it does have thickness. So you have forced me to think more carefully. I need comparison with a mathematical, theoretical, if you will, 2-dimensional spherical surface. Thank you. There are really advantages in being persistent. Even a tiny bit pedantic :)

Are you willing to accept my revised, 2-dimensional spherical surface?
If so, we can go ahead. :)

I am not happy about hypersurface, for reasons above, but I don't think it will interfere with the discussion. I don't like thickness to the surface because, as you stated (yes?) this thickness corresponds to time. This to me would indicate thick segments of time (instants), and this, to me, would imply slow moving chunks of time giving staggered slow movements.

My idea is different. The 2-dimensional spherical surface (short instants) are consecutive "units" of space-time - not time. That is, the 2-dimensional spherical surface represent the observed universe, including time . However, if we each keep to our own representation, I don't think it will affect the discussion. It does come to virtually the same in the end.

For me, increasing radius indicates expansion, which does include time.
No problem, I think.

Is that OK with you to proceed?

Cat :)
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
I am getting a lot happier. Nearly there, I think.

My fault earlier, when I think I said that my analogy was not based on a mathematical surface, i.e., having no thickness. I also thought that a bubble was a good model, but, no, it does have thickness. So you have forced me to think more carefully. I need comparison with a mathematical, theoretical, if you will, 2-dimensional spherical surface. Thank you. There are really advantages in being persistent. Even a tiny bit pedantic :)

Are you willing to accept my revised, 2-dimensional spherical surface?
If so, we can go ahead. :)

I am not happy about hypersurface, for reasons above, but I don't think it will interfere with the discussion. I don't like thickness to the surface because, as you stated (yes?) this thickness corresponds to time. This to me would indicate thick segments of time (instants), and this, to me, would imply slow moving chunks of time giving staggered slow movements.

My idea is different. The 2-dimensional spherical surface (short instants) are consecutive "units" of space-time - not time. That is, the 2-dimensional spherical surface represent the observed universe, including time . However, if we each keep to our own representation, I don't think it will affect the discussion. It does come to virtually the same in the end.

For me, increasing radius indicates expansion, which does include time.
No problem, I think.

Is that OK with you to proceed?

Cat :)
Hi Cat, I am willing to go along with you but am puzzled. The 2d spacetime surface on a sphere must represent something to our reality. Reality is 3D+time (spacetime). That is 3D not 2D time to give spacetime. If it is to be real it needs to be 3D + time. But here is a clue as to why we might differ:

You state I proposed time was the thickness of the "skin". I must apologise for that impression. No the surface of a sphere is 2D (no thickness) but the surface of a hypersphere is 3d (and no thickness as best presented by dropping a dimension.)

Crucially in the hypersphere model, time is the distance (radius) from the centre of the ball (the surface of which is the hypersphere) but described with 1 less dimension; Just as your Balloon is dependent on a ball (the shape) to give your 2d surface.
I agree with you that there is no merit in assigning thickness to the hypersphere (the skin). Sorry to have misled you. As you say it is crucial to say what you mean in the best possible way. I have just finished posting "Hubble Tension" and therein is a step-by-step arithmetic explanation you may find interesting to clear up "Time".

Issues around time are crucial to support a cyclic universe I think. But you include time as a radius in your model so that is close enough. I use a hypersphere for reasons shown in the diagram in 3D Faltlander's view of a 4D spatial universe in which you can see the distortion as t=0 is approached (which is not the BB in that modelling) as that has gone/past/no longer part of the universe. That is also the case for yours except as you say spacetime is the surface and time is the radius (is this a contradiction?). I'm tired! Maybe you can straighten us out.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, thanks for that. I think you will find - re-reading the above - that you have already agreed several times without noticing, perhaps.

Part of how we got here is to do with the model of a sphere and its surface.
In fact, buried in the above, I think, is that mathematically, a sphere is the surface. You, yourself, realised this when you distinguished it from a ball.

A sphere is a geometrical object that is a three-dimensional analogue to a two-dimensional circle. Formally, a sphere is the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point in three-dimensional space. That given point is the center of the sphere, and r is the sphere's radius. Wikipedia

Mathematically, a point is just that - no thickness - and the sphere is the shell so formed - excluding the air in the middle. Try googling "definition of sphere.

There have been difficulties. I can see that it is difficult to understand that a sphere has (is!) a curved 2-D surface, existing in a 3-D space. Perhaps seeing that the sphere IS the 2-D surface helps, even if it exists in 3-D space.

In higher mathematics, a careful distinction is made between the sphere (a two-dimensional spherical surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space) and the ball (the three-dimensional shape consisting of a sphere and its interior).

O well! Now we are ready to start - tomorrow. I am now a little tired.
Incidentally, I guess that you are also in the UK, so that eases timing for communication. I chat with some N Americans, and that is a bit inconvenient timewise.

I'll write tomorrow. Bye for now.

Cat :)
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Just a quick extra:

I am willing to go along with you but am puzzled. The 2d spacetime surface on a sphere must represent something to our reality.

Mathematics, as opposed to simple arithmetic, does not have to be congruent with reality. See my posts on infinity, for example.

That is also the case for yours except as you say spacetime is the surface and time is the radius (is this a contradiction?).

No I don't. I think I said that one way of looking at it is that it represents the Universe. It is all spacetime. What I meant, if I was not sufficiently specific, was that, whilst I saw it as specific (sequential) states of the Universe undergoing expansion - successive states of the Universe as it expanded - it could be regarded as successive states through time - time being a slice through spacetime.

I don't see that as a contradiction, since the successive states which I see as changing (expanding) do expand in time. So it is impossible to picture expansion without realising that the expansion takes place in time.

It is not quite the same as picturing successive representations of an expanding universe, but it is allowable to view it as the successive states as being at progressing times.
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
I have been familiar with the concept of a sphere as the surface of a ball for about 60 + years so there is no difficulty there.

My issue is this: Time is not explained - anywhere. I believe it is possible to show time for what it is (for very many years now).

Most of my posts use time. If applied to, say, black holes in a particular way it makes easy sense. If applied to gravity in general it makes sense. Instead of blurting it out loud "The Universe is a Timewave" I am trying to demonstrate it instead of putting it aside as if impenetrable.

I will try again perhaps in a post "Black Holes & Time". People with better brains than mine probably are there before me but somehow have not stated the obvious. Or, perhaps it is ignorant of me missing the ideas.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense,

The 2d spacetime surface on a sphere must represent something to our reality.

There are two points here. Mathematical and practical.

The mathematical is allowed to have a sphere with "walls" of zero thickness, which do not exist in practical terms. In practical terms, the nearest you can get is a bubble, with very thin walls.

As I see it, the problem arises if one tries to read meaning into my analogy.
The important point, in my view, is to consider a sphere, or 2D surface thereof, as representing the entire Universe (or observable universe, This single sphere represents an entire universe, so includes time.
Here the analogy, like all analogies, has a weakness. If time is included, we cannot really represent it, or expansion, by picturing another larger version.

However, by picturing another version to suggest expansion, we are actually invoking an unreal situation, one disadvantage of which is that we try to read meaning in having two versions of ONE universe, in which time itself is already included. That is why I said "Forget time, in this picture".

The ONLY point I am trying to make, unfortunately having to use an imperfect analogy, is that (accepting this limitation) one can try to understand expansion of the universe ("into itself"???) as requiring a being (us) able to perceive a higher dimension than the flatlander - and to extrapolate this "one dimension higher".

All this complication is simply untangling the weakness of the analogy, without trying to see its rather facile utility.

Does this help at all?

Cat :)
 
Gibsense, or Space.com artistic staff, whichever,
This is getting awfully tiresome and I'm getting angrier all the time at ME, MYSELF, and I!

I see that you can draw and diagram geometry quite well! COLGeek is very wrong in his usual closing statement that, "The only thing larger than the universe is one's imagination." I would like you to draw it up to show it for me to the forum, among others! That is, unless one of the more artistic members of the staff of Space.com would like to take it up and do it.

The light cone illustrations, including your own, are all wrong in directions and magnitudes! Hopefully I can explain this well enough for you to draw up . . . and if you would (if you choose to do it), please, place it in, or copy it to, the thread "From a drop of water...."

The points of the two light cones should not come together but be to the outside of the universe with the openings turned around and centered to the inside upon the largest object in the picture, the observer / space and time traveler, either a man-figure or a stick figure of a man.

The light cone to the front, the foreground front, of this figure, opening up to the figure, who is centered inside, from the point outside, being the future (histories) light cone, with its arrow-line going from the outside point to COLGeek's "larger than the universe" figure at the center of the illustration (the centered-in-the-cone, and circle opening, arrow point pointing to the figure)! Along the line of the arrow, just above it, if possible, mark 'Future line'.

The other light cone to the rear of the figure will be open ended at COLGeek's "larger than the universe" figure and closing to the outside point of the past light cone to the rear of the figure. The circle, or circles, of the open ends will ring the figure inside the circle(s). The arrow-line will begin at the figure, only very slightly spaced from the figure and centered upon the circle, and point to the closed end point of the past (histories) light cone to the rear of the figure. Along the line of the arrow, just above it, if possible, mark 'Past line'.

I just now thought, putting arrow heads pointing in opposite directions on both arrow-lines, front and rear of the figure, might better realize the bi-(di-)directionality. Also marking the cones themselves "future light cone" and "past light cone". And the outside end-point of each cone (both cones), "Planck (Big Bang) Point".

Do you think you can do it? Would you do it? And I ask if you would put it in, or copy it to, the thread, "From a drop of water...." (maybe not just there, but there for a start!)?
--------------------------------

"The only thing larger than the universe is one's imagination" -- Herein on the forum, COLGeek.
 
Last edited:
Tying space to time is nonsense. They are unrelated. Time is a requirement and product of motion. And space has no motion. All motion has length and time. And all is in perpetual motion. All mass and all fields are in constant motion. Space is motionless and infinite. Infinity is full and can not move. Only zero can fill it. Zero is the only infinite supply.

The only motion that does not take time, is emission. This property is our most valuable tool.

The propagation has length, velocity and duration, but the emission was instant....and has only a point....from where the chunk of light came.

It's the only way to define and plot a stationary point......in a perpetual universe.

And it's the only accurate way to determine relative velocities.

If only we knew how to use it. With it's inverted duty cycle. Space-width modulation shifts, from relative velocity.

Light ripples thru space with presence not polarity. It blinks.

We see and measure it but are still blinded by it.
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Tying space to time is nonsense. They are unrelated. Time is a requirement and product of motion. And space has no motion. All motion has length and time. And all is in perpetual motion. All mass and all fields are in constant motion. Space is motionless and infinite. Infinity is full and can not move. Only zero can fill it. Zero is the only infinite supply.
The idea of "Spacetime" says it all, surely? Spacetime is one thing. Or are you challenging Relativity?
 
I challenge it all. Spacetime is the study of an unconsidered measurement error. And it is compounded by a misconception of light, leading to the theory of space expansion.

When we accelerate a single pole charge and detect the emission from it, we detect the pole polarity emission, but also the opposite pole alternating with it. But the emitter only has one pole. Yet we always detect two poles. Where does that opposite pole come from? A single pole should be a one pole emission.

All of my posts smell like this. I only would refer to a spacetime/expansion scenario to point out a contradiction. Like a space expansion would cause is continuous shift in star light.

Space is an empty area for all this supposing to carry on.
 
We’ve all seen the animations of EM propagation. An alternating E field and an alternating M field as it flies thru space. Light. Or radio. All the same thing except for frequency.

Particles are mono-field. But when they emit, we still detect an alternating polarity field.

Why is that? Where does the opposite electric pole come from?

I believe it comes from detection, and was not emitted.

Light is EM, but it is intermittent and has a duty cycle, not a wave frequency.

The wave frequency is the dynamic mass produces in response to that intermittence.

Action-reaction response. From inertia.
 

Latest posts