|
 Return to Home Page. |
 |
About Time and the Universe By: Tony L. Lamia
My observations about time and the universe lead me to the inescapable conclusion that some people are hallucinating about time travel and wormholes and are overlooking the obvious about the universe.
After writing the following opinion, based on my reading many books and magazine articles on physics (I'm not a scientist - just a geek who is curious about what makes everything tick), I recently read several articles in "Cosmos" magazine, Issue 16, published in the summer of 2007. These articles are the best I've seen in which many of the theories on physics are summarized in a manner that we laymen can understand. I highly recommend this Cosmos Issue 16 for all you other geeks similarly interested.
After reviewing what I had written prior to reading Issue 16, and comparing my conclusions to theirs, I felt compelled to make only a few additional comments, but hold fast to my original thoughts. Not all of the theories that I discuss below where covered in Issue 16, so I retain my beliefs until such time as I read scientific evidence to the contrary.
Time
Travel through space, water, or other mediums by humans, vehicles, sound, electromagnetic waves and other natural forces are possible where the medium is conducive to such travel. For example, sound waves can travel through air, water, and even solid objects such as windows and paper thin walls of your neighboring apartment. But, sound cannot travel through space without air; while electromagnetic waves can. Radio waves, including light, can travel through space; as can space ships. Thus, outer space is a medium through which we can travel.
One theory of time travel is that space and time are related. Since (the theory goes) the time it takes light to travel through space is at a fixed rate of speed, then there must be a space/time continuum where one could travel forward or backward in time relative to the traveler's starting place.
Time is a unit of measurement of the duration of a natural event -- it is not a medium through which travel is possible. Time is relevant only to an observer with an awareness of it. Most natural events have predictable durations, which are conducive to the making of mathematical formulae. For example, if one travels at a speed of 100 miles per hour for two hours, then the event (traveling from point A to B) covers a distance of 200 miles. Chemical reactions, radio-active decay, and most physical events recur with mathematical precision. But, the fact that durations of events are predictable does not lead to the conclusion that a space-time continuum, or fabric, exists (one which would permit time travel).
Once an event occurs, its duration may be measured by an observer with the use of some device, such as a stopwatch in units of, say, seconds, minutes, and hours. But, that unit of measurement could be any length of time as far as the natural event is concerned, because, to the event, the unit of measurement is irrelevant. In fact, under the new physics, there is a theory known as "nonlocality" where communication between two particles can occur instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them, thus defying our understanding that time is always measurable by our existing means, or that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit in the world of physics.
And, what about the speed limit of light? Who's to say that nothing can travel faster? Here's a quote from the Rockford Register Star: "Researchers at the NEC Institute in Princeton, N.J., have set a new speed record. In a recent experiment, they sent a pulse of light through vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it was finished entering. The results of the experiment are published in today's edition of the journal Nature. Nobody has yet come up with a practical application of this remarkable achievement, but at least they've disproved the long-held theory that nothing is faster than the speed of light. As for the notion that this new light effect might be used to send information back in time, researchers say that's out of the question."
Thus, when the medium through which light traveled was changed to one that hadn't been tried before, its speed increased to a faster rate than when it travels through air or space. Indeed, it is known that the speed of light does slow down and its direction changes when it passes through water, glass, and other mediums. Space is not empty. There are cosmic gasses, dark matter, fluctuations in radiation, and probably many other phenomena that could change the medium, and therefore, the speed of light (as well as its direction of travel) through space. Thus, it seems that the space-time continuum theory, which is based on the constancy of the speed of light through outer space, is flawed, and so is any theory of time travel through a "warp" in the space-time continuum.
So, let's say that our average lifetime is eighty years as measured by our clocks and calendars. However, the Supreme Being (assume One exists) may "think" of our life time as being only a moment by His clock.
If, by our measurement, it takes four years for light to travel from the nearest star to Earth, some other beings in the universe may "think" it takes one week when measured by their clocks and calendars. The Supreme Being may "think" it takes no time at all.
Change the observer to one who has a different "clock" than we have, then all mathematical formulae must be changed to accommodate the new unit of measurement of time, and the so-called "space/time continuum" would have to be recalculated. Change the speed limit to accommodate nonlocality (instantaneous travel across the universe), or the fact that light may travel at different speeds as it passes through different mediums it may encounter in space, and there goes the space/time continuum.
Once a natural event has occurred, it cannot be erased by going back in time. A natural event can only be reversed through another, subsequent event. For example: freeze water in an ice cube tray, and you will have ice cubes. Allow the ice cubes to thaw, and you will have water again. But, you cannot go back in time so that the ice cubes will not have been formed in the first place.
Light from a far away star takes years to get here. We see the star as it was when the light first left the star (years ago). Let's say that we could travel from Earth to that star instantaneously, bypassing the light rays on the way. Upon arrival, we would see the star as it is today. This does not mean that we went back in time. We would see the star as it is today. We would only be missing the light rays along the way. Thus, we would only be missing the history of the star (what occurred between today and years ago when the light we see from Earth first left the star), but we would not be traveling back in time relative to the star's present existence.
No one will ever be able to go back in time to a previous life, or to start life over again. I have lived my life up to this point in time, and that natural event cannot be taken back. Actual time travel, I say, is virtually impossible according to my unimaginative, unscientific observation of the laws of nature.
What happens to time when you sleep? Haven't you slept soundly through the night and awakened "in an instant"? When that happens, do you have any recollection of time passing? So, does that mean that while you were sleeping, time disappeared in the universe? Of course not! Time only disappeared to you --- the observer. When you die, time will disappear forever to you. Unless, we have a spirit that lives on and that has a conscience awareness of time, then time would exist, but at what speed? What would be the unit of measurement of time to spirits? Would the so-called space-time continuum be different for spirits? Can there be various space-time continuums? If there is no such thing as an immortal spirit, then to those who die, eternity would be instantaneous.
I suppose one could say that time travel could take the form of being put to sleep for a long journey, say, to the next solar system that may harbor life. But, no matter what the duration, would that constitute time travel? I think not. Just as sleeping overnight does not change time for anyone else, sleeping for ten years wouldn't either --- except to the sleeping traveler.
Time is a figment of the imagination of the observer, which is the only place where time travel is possible. One cannot go backward or forward in time. One can only imagine it.
The Universe
There exist only three dimensions in the universe. These are represented by the X-, Y-, Z- axes. The universe is not a sphere, has no surface, is not curved, and has no end. An axis can be placed anywhere in the universe, and each dimension will extend into infinity. The location of the axis is relevant only to an observer who has an awareness of its presence. All that exists is contained within one, endless, three dimensional universe. Time is not a fourth dimension.
I do not believe that the universe is limited to only those galaxies which we can see or measure by our current methods. There is no limit to the number of galaxies. There is no limit to the number of areas of the universe which are created in a big bang and ending in a big crunch. Time was not created at the time our area of the universe was created. Big bangs and big crunches have always occurred everywhere, and will continue to do so forever.
"Cosmos," Issue 16, page 58, shows three possibilities for our universe: a) expanding at an ever increasing rate of speed, b) a steady expansion, or c) an initial expansion, then contracting into a big crunch. The article makes it clear that the theories about the creation and future of our universe are uncertain.
The Big Bang theory would have us believe that everything in the entire universe collapsed into an infinitesimal point, and then exploded, spewing matter outward from this one point during the past fifteen billion years or so, forming the stars, planets, and life forms which we now observe.
Why is it not possible that an infinite number of areas of the universe could follow this same pattern? There could be a certain quantity of matter (stars, planets, etc.) which reaches a critical mass that expands and contracts at a different time and in a different area of the universe than other such critical masses which are doing the same thing, elsewhere. Some may even overlap, causing an exchange of matter from one area to another.
An article in Time magazine, dated June 25, 2001, explains the latest theory on the universe as being one big bang, followed by an ever expanding universe until all matter becomes so dispersed that "all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black." This conclusion is based upon measurements of all matter in the universe, including "dark matter" which scientists say can be measured even though they don't know what it really is. But, how is it possible to assume that we have the technology to measure a universe infinite in size? It seems to me that that task is impossible.
But, what the article does conclude is that the universe does not have a positive or negative curvature, and that comports with my belief that there are only three dimensions. If space were curved, then one could get from point "a" to point "b" faster by following the so-called curvature of space than one could by traveling in a "straight" line between the two points. To me, that would violate my understanding of the "x" "y" "z" axes of three dimensional space. My point is that I do not believe it possible that a "parallel" universe of a forth dimension exists. Movie makers have wild imaginations when it comes to time travel and parallel universes that we could visit by passing through some sort of warp in space. This so-called warp would only be possible if there were a forth dimension that we cannot see until we leave our three dimensional space.
I picture the universe as an unending number of expanding and contracting areas of matter (or unending number of points that burst into areas that decay into nothing). It could look like bubbles in an infinitely large bubble bath with an endless supply of soap --- bubbling up and collapsing (or disappearing) in a universal caldron infinite in size.
Gravity and the other forces of nature
Gravity is important, not only to allows us to keep our feet on the ground, but also because it is the force of nature that caused the formation of stars, planets, and all other celestial objects.
I do not believe in the "bowl" ("general relativity") theory of Einstein, because of "nonlocality" and other observations discussed below. I do not believe that there exists a space-time fabric, which is "warped" around a massive object, such as Earth, where, as another object approaches, it "falls into" this warped space, thus being drawn down onto the surface of the Earth. Instead, I believe that all things are attracted towards each other by the invisible force of nature. No one knows where this force comes from - what causes its existence.
The fundamental objects of which all things are made are called fermions (particles that make up solid matter) and bosons (of which the binding forces of the universe are made).
The forces of nature are 1) strong force, binding protons and neutrons within the atom, 2) weak force, responsible for various forms of radioactive decay, 3) electromagnetic force, acting between electrons, and 4) gravity, acting between massive objects where the greater the mass, the greater the gravitational force.
These forces of nature operate differently from one another, but have the following in common: A) all four are made up of bosons, and B) bosons cause matter to be attracted to other matter by occupying a single quantum, or energy, state. In this state, large-scale forces can exist and bind things together.
Bosons are exchanged back and forth between particles (like two soccer players tossing the ball back and forth as they run toward a goal) and this constant exchanging alters the momentum (direction) of the particles (attracts them together). I read about the forces of nature and this concept of soccer players in the book, "Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat?" Thus, although there are four forces of nature operating for different purposes, they all depend on the mysterious ability of bosons to alter the momentum of particles in such a way as to cause them to be bound together. It is my belief that no one knows why this occurs.
The effect of gravity is that all things within its reach are drawn to each other. It exists within matter, thus where there is no matter (outer space) gravity is not produced. However, the force of gravity from matter extends beyond the boundary of the substance in which it is generated. For example, if you were in outer space (far away from the gravitational influence of any massive object like Earth) and placed two wine glasses in front of you some distance apart and let them go, they will float towards each other until they collide. Absent other forces, they will remain together. This attraction has nothing to do with "warped space" surrounding each glass.
I wouldn't try to pour wine into the glass, because there probably would be insufficient gravity to pull all of the wine into it, thus much of the wine would be wasted - floating in space. If the glasses are too far apart, their movement might be influenced by surrounding celestial bodies, preventing them from coming together.
General relativity is based upon Einstein's belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). Therefore, he concluded, that space and time depend on each other, thus being space-time (a four-dimensional space). However, the "nonlocality" theory of the new physics stands for the proposition that an electron can be in two places at the same time. Specifically, if given two paths to take, it can split itself into two components which occupy two separate places in space at the same time while remaining in instantaneous communication with each other. This instantaneous communication occurs regardless of the distance between the two components, thus it must occur at speeds greater than the speed of light. Nonlocality proves that Einstein's theory of space-time is wrong, because its premise (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) is wrong.
Since time is only a unit of measurement of the duration of a natural event, it is not a dimension and cannot combine with space to form a fabric of space-time which can be curved by a massive object.
If the proof of Einstein's theory is the fact that light bends as it passes close to the sun, I still do not believe it is caused by curved space. Light has both particle-like and wave-like physical characteristics. Since light bends as it travels through our atmosphere, through water, and through glass, it would seem to me that the solar energy surrounding the sun, as well as its gravitational pull on objects (particles) would also cause the bending of light. No curvature of space is needed to explain the bending of light rays passing the sun.
In the Discover magazine, August, 2001, there is an article about curved space. The theory is based on a photograph of a distant galaxy whose image has been split and magnified by curved space around the nearer cluster of galaxies in the line of sight, presumably caused by the gravitational warp of space. But, as I discussed above, light changes direction as it passes through various mediums. Is it possible that there exists cosmic gasses and radiation that cause the bending and magnification of light emanating from the distant galaxy?
In the same Discovery magazine, another article about neutrinos contains information about the forces of nature and the possibility that all four are really one. The unification theory of the forces of nature is regarded as the ultimate, correct one. If such theory applies to gravity as well as the other forces of nature, then how could the "curved space" theory of Einstein remain intact?
In Cosmos, Issue 16, pages 62 - 65, the article, The Whole Shebang, shows what everything is made of and that the theory of gravity is still uncertain. If the force-mediating particle "graviton" is finally detected, will that replace Einstein's theory of General Relativity? Will that discovery unify all four forces of nature? I believe it (or some other theory of gravity) will do just that.
And, what about magnetic levitation? If you create a magnet in the form of a ring, you could suspend a metal object in the magnetic field. What is holding the object in space? Is it curved space, or the magnetic force? If it is the magnetic force, what's the difference between it and gravity? It seems to me that there is no difference, and that curvature of space is not involved in the levitation of the metal object.
Levitation also occurs in an airplane that drops quickly. Astronauts train for weightlessness in space in aircraft. Does the changing of direction of the aircraft to counter gravity alter the curvature of space within the plane? It doesn't seem logical to me that gravity is caused by a curvature of space.
Gravity is the invisible, natural force that attracts matter to other matter. It is the same force that confines the random movement of the fundamental particles within a defined area that form the elements of atoms. It is the same force that binds atoms to each other to form molecules, and binds molecules to each other to form substances. And, finally, causes massive objects to be attracted to each other. Yet, its source remains a mystery. Gravity appears only where matter exists, thus one could say that it is generated by the matter, but no one knows how.
One possibility is the "space resonance" theory of all things. The concept is that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms. Quarks (the smallest particles of which all things are made) are really just waves of energy emanating from a central point, similar to what occurs when you drop a pebble into water -- a ring of waves appears. Energy could take on various wave forms, thereby creating various fundamental particles which, when acted upon by the forces of nature, form into all things that we see. Matter can be converted back into energy, and energy can form into matter. Einstein established a formula which calculates the effect of conversion. It is E = MC².
String theory appears similar to space resonance; the particles consists of various vibrations of energy. In an article in "Cosmos," Issue 14, March, 2007, the theory includes the apparent existence of dimensions in addition to our observable three. However, I see no plausible explanation for these extra dimensions. The article mentions the possibility that this theory could unify the four forces: electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
In "Cosmos," Issue 16, a scientist wrote an article titled, "Why it's time to dump string theory." Thus making it clear to me that this theory, which is based upon the existence of extra dimensions, leaves my with my belief in only three dimensions.
Gravity, then, is one of the mysterious forces of nature that cause all things to exist by allowing the formation of objects (stars, planets, and life), yet that same force could ultimately destroys all things by causing everything to eventually collapse into one extremely dense object (the "big crunch").
Black Holes and the Big Bang
The force of gravity works its diabolical destruction upon all objects which are losing velocity generated by the big bang, or on objects that are near each other and lose the momentum that has kept them apart. As bodies with mass slow down, they will eventually be attracted towards each other on collision courses. As they collide, they form an object with increasing density. As this object increases in mass and density, its gravitational pull extends further outward, pulling in more objects. This process continues until the resulting mass becomes so dense that not even light can escape its gravity. At this point, it is called a "black hole."
Let's say that I am an observer on Earth, and I point my telescope at a black hole. I will not be able to see it because no light can escape its surface, however, lets say that my scientific instruments are capable of identifying it correctly as a black hole. How is it possible to believe, as some do, that any object could pass through it to another universe or another time on the other side? Wouldn't an observer on the opposite side of the black hole from Earth be able to think the same thing? From any point of observation around the black hole, it would appear the same on our instruments. How, then can there possibly be an "other" side? There can't be.
A black hole is an object, which absorbs any object falling into it.
As black holes appear within an area of the universe where objects are losing their velocities, an increasing number of these objects succumb to the gravitational force and become part of a black hole. Then, the black holes themselves begin to collide with each other to form bigger ones (which could ultimately result in the "big crunch"). As matter collides, the density of the resulting mass increases, causing an increase in the temperature of the black hole. Once the temperature reaches a critical point the matter will explode (the "big bang") and spew the matter outward into space. As the matter travels outward, galaxies, solar systems, and life are created.
Since the universe is infinite in size, there must be many areas within which such creation and destruction of habitable planets exist.
Wormholes
This brings me to the question of whether there can exist a "parallel" universe - an invisible (to the human senses and scientific instruments) world within the same space we call the universe. One in which we can "fall" into by happenstance upon a "wormhole." This would be (in the imagination of some) a warped area of space through which one could travel between parallel universes or into other dimensions than the three which define our universe. There, other life forms would exist, even within the same space we occupy, without our sensing this other existence!
Some even believe that one can travel faster than the speed of light, (thus defying our observable law of nature that we cannot travel faster) by entering a wormhole, say, at the edge of our solar system, then exiting the wormhole millions of light years away to the far reaches of the known universe within seconds!
Poppycock!
All existence is within one, endless universe, wherein all things, including life, are created and destroyed according to immutable laws of nature. There is no "warped" space --- no "parallel universe." Since I can accept the concept of an infinite universe, I also believe that these natural events have been going on, and will continue to go on forever, thus, there is no such thing as the beginning or ending of time.
I read an article (and can no longer find it!) that tried to explain the wormhole theory by showing a universe that is folded - bringing an area far away up close to the observer's area. The theory goes that a wormhole creates a shortcut from one area of the universe to another that is many light years away, but due to the shortcut, one can get there many times faster than the speed of light! Now, if one could only fold the universe….
Not being a scientist, I can only reach my conclusions based upon books that I have read and by my own reasoning. The new (quantum) physics contains many things that appear to defy logic, but I believe that natural laws are immutable --- once scientists know all of them.
Books that I recommend for reading by non-scientist, physics geeks, who have a childlike wonder about all things as do I, are: "The Cosmic Code" by Heinz R. Pagels, Bantam Books, "Nothingness" by Henning Genz, Perseus Books, and "Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat?" by Ian Marshall and Danah Zohar, Quill. Discover magazine, August 2001, has an article on neutrino's and the forces of nature that I believe you would be most interested in reading. "Cosmos" magazine, Issue 14, March, 2007, has several great articles about String theory, Intelligent Design and the possibility of multiple universes, and the formation of Earth and life on Earth, and "Cosmos" Issue 16, summer of 2007.
Rev. January 10, 2008 Copyright 2001, 2008 Tony L. Lamia