Question on end of time

[tdamskov]

I've been thinking about how time and causality works. It seems to me causality is directly linked to the speed limit of light. Nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light and we cannot imagine causality flowing without interactions of energy/mass and thereby providing us with the passing of time.<br /><br />According to the theory of an 'open' universe it will keep expanding forever, the 'content' diffusing into an ever-thinner soup of particles and energy.<br /><br />Now here's my question. At some future time, it would seem to me that all mass and energy will be receding from everything else at close to or exceeding the speed of light and thus prohibit any further interaction between particles or radiation.<br /><br />Can time be said to pass with no interactions of energy/mass whatsoever? Is this state of the universe also the end of time?<br /><br />Or am I simply asking if trees falling in the forest make sound if no one hears them?

 

[vogon13]

A similar state existed before the Big Bang, without matter or energy, time didn't pass, there being nothing by which to note its' passage, or even for its' passage to have anything to act upon.<br /><br />Therefore, the Big Bang occured instantaneously, without any prior interval that was 'Big Bangless'.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

time stops every day for everyone when they're at work and wanting to leave. <br /><br />

 

[nexium]

We think the average density of the Universe is decreasing, but the expansion is typically not occuring within groups of galaxies, nor individual solar systems. Our group of galaxies is likely moving toward the Great Attractor, so there are exceptions large scale. If interactions occur once per second per cubic centimeter in the thinest part of the Universe; million times reduction in density, will mean one interaction per cubic meter, instead of cubic centimeter. Another billion times reduction in density will mean one reaction per cubic kilometer. That is assuming a linear relation, which likely is at least slightly in error.<br />Do we have reason to believe expansion will eventually exceed c at the kilometer size? If so, the photons MAY not be able to catch the faster moving sub atomic and bigger particles. Some of the sub atomic particles will decay to photons, but we have been trying to catch a proton decay for decades without success, so perhaps the protons will persist for a google years and time will also persist for a google years at least in locals with many protons. A google years is such an increadible length of time, it seems silly to guess what might happen in several google years. Please comment, refute and/or embellish. Neil

 

[5stone10]

Time is divorced from energy/mass, i.e., space - it is its own distinct dimension.

 

[bonzelite]

time is an illusion of sentient perception. time does not even really exist, and is subject to personal experience and opinion. before birth, there is no experience of time, as well as in a dream state or hypnosis; time shrinks or does not exist at all. <br /><br />time is overrated and given too much importance as it is the primary motivator for deadlines and investment cycles in material existence only. so in this way it is very "real." and you would not want to miss the bus or the next flight out of town, as all are time contingent.

 

[thebigcat]

While the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, galaxies are not. In fact, each galaxy will eventually collapse down into it's central super black hole until it reaches a state of equilibrium between mass gained from attraction of matter and lost through energy tunneling, the true perpetual motion machine of the ancients, if you will.<br /><br />While there is no equation to state just what this equilibrium point is for any given galactic mass it is possible that our own galaxy could have already reached it, and we are therefore in the middle of a giant eternal fountain of coalescing energy. Won't the citizens of Rome be jealous? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

Okay, so what if we replace all the instances of "time" in your post with "distance"? You could make the same remarks and come to the same conclusion. Distance is perceived, as is time. You can argue that time is measured with manmade devices, but then, so is distance. Perhaps neither is real, but your reasoning doesn't do anything to prove it. It's sophistry. Like the "what if we're all brains-in-jars" argument. Color is something perceived by people as well, but it doesn't mean it's not real. We have a standardized method for measuring that as well. You can measure its wavelength. So what's your point?

 

[contracommando]

Time and matter/energy are intertwined, i.e., the term “space-time.” Example: presence of matter/energy results in gravity, which in turn affects the flow of time (large gravitational fields can cause time to slow from our perspective - if we could observe a watch falling towards a black hole from a distance, we would see it tick more and more slowly until it eventually stops; because the gravitational field intensifies as you near the event horizon). They are no more divorced from each other than the 3 regular spatial dimensions; they are related, especially in higher dimensional string theory were all the dimensions are united.

 

[bonzelite]

you're a smart guy. you know well my point. it is very plain. time is not necessarily in existence everywhere. in conventional day to day life, linear time is very real. we depend on it to give us a semblance of structure. in this way it is very valuable. chaos would ensue without it in this context. <br /><br />in other levels of observation, time ceases to matter or even exist. at the very least it is changeable. this is very simple. it is not sophistry as you suggest. a simplistic example is the dream state, at least deep sleep. you awake several hours later, as the clock says you have. but you do not feel the passage of the moments as you would have if you had insomnia. <br /><br />as well, you can be fully awake and perceive time to elapse at different rates. you can also perceive events that have yet to happen [maybe not you literally, but others can and do with regularity]. it is because all time is really happening all at once. there is no future or past. you can say that time is a singularity of simultaneous and spontaneous occurrence. <br /><br />you suggest an interesting point about distance that is also true. distance can be narrowed or done away with entirely in some cases. to the extent that it no longer matters. time can be, in a way, considered a measure of distance. experiments in teleportation somewhat address this. for example you can arrive at a point before leaving, in essence, truncating or rendering distance irrelevant as well as time. you can as well occupy different places with the same object, creating a simultaneatity of existence, ie, parallel existences. this is a physical level manifestation example of the principle of simultaneous time. <br /><br />

 

[raghara2]

Look on Chrono trigger. There was end of time.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

it is logical to say :<br /><br />If we end today (die), it is the end of our time...<br />if time ends today, it is our end today<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Or am I simply asking if trees falling in the forest make sound if no one hears them? <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />in case of Bhole distorting time, I believe time does'nt matter inside the hole..<br /><br />for there is no one there to make itself aware of itself..<br />so making time outside the hole, irrelevant to the inside of the hole... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[scull]

This thread looks like the other thread...<br /><br />Parallel planes? .... I ask you.<br /><br /><br /><br />--

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

same food to the same people....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[scull]

Yes, so true.<br /><br />We need to keep chewing it until we can swallow it. I just hope we don't choke on it.<br /><br /><br /><br />suppertime--

 

[tdamskov]

Now I'm confused (and a bit hungry - what exactly do you want me to chew on?) .. We were discussing how the propagation speed of energy in our universe corresponds to the flow of time. My argument is; if every particle in the universe were statistically one light second away from any other particle, time would effectively be defined as 'slower', since interactions could not take place very quickly. But until proton decay has completely dissolved all matter in the universe, energy interaction will still keep time ticking at it's usual rate - or that is my metaphysical argument.<br /><br />After the end of proton decay, the only thing to measure time in this universe would be the average distance between particles. Unless the inflation rate is changing too. Now that would make things confusing.<br /><br />Anyway, I acknowledge that my question is really of a metaphysical nature. When all matter has been dissolved in the universe, it will be quite an uninteresting place whether time passes or not. But I do find the link between the flow of time and the speed of light very interesting.

 

[bonzelite]

"<br />Now I'm confused (and a bit hungry - what exactly do you want me to chew on?) .. We were discussing how the propagation speed of energy in our universe corresponds to the flow of time. My argument is; if every particle in the universe were statistically one light second away from any other particle, time would effectively be defined as 'slower', since interactions could not take place very quickly. But until proton decay has completely dissolved all matter in the universe, energy interaction will still keep time ticking at it's usual rate - or that is my metaphysical argument. "<br /><br />to me, that argument is not metaphysical. it is physical. you're talking about hard core things like proton decay, light seconds, ie, status quo model stuff. <br /><br />the question itself, as you say, is indeed metaphysical; it invites a variety of debates from differing points of view, as such a premise is practically untenable. <br /><br />and just a question. in the assumption that all matter in the universe will be ultimately dissolved --you mean due to entropy? <br /><br />and, yes, the flow of time and the speed of light are apparently very intimately linked, if not really facets of the same phenomenon. the more i hang out here and read the stuff from the people who are keen on relativity, the more i see this becoming clear. moreover, the separtion of these facets from one another may be a function of definition, or utilitarianism, for explanatory reasons.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

I will try to dissect one your questions:<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />My argument is; if every particle in the universe were statistically one light second away from any other particle, time would effectively be defined as 'slower', since interactions could not take place very quickly.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />if you saw a water droplet falling down from a faucet, in it's normal speed of movement, you can say "who left the faucet dripping?" <br /><br />now CONSIDER you saw again the faucet dripping. But this time the water droplet falls very, very slow; about 3 seconds before it touches the sink. <br />I guess you might say:<br /><br />"what the hell is happening? is time stopping or slowing?"<br /><br />how do I make the argument go around here?<br /><br />before we can say this (example) book is incomplete, first we must know what is its complete version. like for example in a classroom, before you can say someone is missing/absent, you must know first the whole/intact number of the students in that room.<br />so you can say the book is 7 pages short of 100.<br /><br />otherwise you can never tell if something is missing.<br />we need to compare.<br /><br />About time...<br />if something is moving very slow or interacting very slow, but your wristwatch still moves precise, it is logical to say that it is just the reaction that is slow and not time...<br /><br />but..<br /><br />if you saw a water droplet falling at a very slow pace then you look at your watch and you saw it moves obviously slow, you can conclude time had slowed down and "you are the only one moving fast" . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>