<< Newer
Older >>

Pretending to be Super Smart - About Universe and Stuff

Sunday, May 17, 2009
Mass and Energy are equivalent.

Einstein said so. Or rather proved so.

And experiments (some of which killed many) showed so.

And there is a Law Of Conservation Of Mass-Energy.

Then again Space and Time are equivalent.

Einstein said so. Or rather proved so.

Infact he said so before he said the thing above.

And infact derived the thing above from this thing.

And experiments have shown so. (Though confirmatory ones are in the works I understand)

And perhaps there is a some Law of conservation of Space-Time too then?

Maybe we can get to it mathematically starting from Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy?

This is what my (perhaps baseless, or maybe not) intuition says the Law of Conservation of Space-Time may be like...

Total of Space and Time in the Universe remains constant.

So when there is more Space in the Universe, there will be less Time (or less Time Flow?) in the universe. So as the Universe goes on expanding (as it is currently known to be doing), the Overall Time Flow* in it is perhaps getting slower and slower, although we cannot notice it ?Scientists perhaps have not noticed it bcause just like there is lot of energy equivalent to a little mass, there is very tiny time slowing for lots of space expansion? And anyways, if all the clock (atomic too! especially atomic ones actually!) are slowing down at that small rate, how will we know unless we have one clock outside the universe? OK coming back to the original matter Expanding space perhaps means slowing time flow. And when space expands a lot (say infinite, or say something finite, just like the finite speed of light is for physics infinite!), time will stop. Effectively, Universe will be dead, or at least in coma, until (if at all) by some reason it starts contracting and time starts flowing!

OK so we killed the Universe. What about birth? Say there really was something called the Big Bang. Before the Universe 'unfurled' at the Big Bang, it was contained, compressed in some sort of an infinitecimal egg, so to speak. According to one prevelant school of thought, both Space and Time came into existence only at the Big Bang. Before that, there was Nothing. So then we reach the wall of what is this Nothing? What was 'really there' before the Big Bang? Here scientists find themselves internally fumbling and externally blabbering like Religion folks.

But if Law of Conservation of Space-Time can really be derived from Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, then we get a different perspective. (Eistein reached mass-energy domain from space-time domain. I am talking of trying a reverse idea. Applying reverse kinda mathematical transforms and physics equations, starting from mass energy conservation equation), then it would mean this:

When universe was packed into an infinitecimal space ( or maybe a 'finitecimal' space, like finite speed of light ;) ), time effectively flowed at an infinite rate. So basically, any given 'moment' was actually infinite time. So the state of the Universe 'just before' the Big Bang or 'at' Big Bang could have existed over infinite time, over 'reverse eternity'! There does not have to be anything before the Big Bang. A scientific perspective on the Nothing before the Big Bang!

There are lots of Conclusions, Corollaries, Criticisms, Ifs and Buts about this idea running in my mind right now. Many of them are hazy. But those clearly visible and audible in my head right now are these:

1) If this principle is true, then is the Universe we see is nothing but a process of conversion of all Time Flow into all Space?

2) One prevelant view is that all the known and yet unknown laws of physics came into existence a few moments after the big bang (Some of them also give exact picoseconds (or some even greater negative power of ten) or something after big bang when this supposedly happened!). They say that at the big bang, all known laws of physics break down. Which basically means any weird thing can happen? And everthing happens just so? Just so means 'divinely'? Ah folks isn't that the domain of Religion? If the law I described is true and can be proved, and we backtrack things without making (perhaps unscientific) assumptions of laws (including this law) breaking down, then we get a scientific, consistent perspective at the origin of the universe? All other laws could also be extended back within the framework of this conservation principle?

3) Universe need not be space+time only as is currently assumed. That Space+Time need not have come to existence all of a sudden at big bang. There can be an all space and all time universe. They are two boundaries of universe existence, beyond which it does not exist.

4) There are also existing notions of Universe cooling down as it is expanding, owing to thermodynamics. So there is this notion of Universe totally cooling down - Heat Death of the Universe. Wonder how the proposed Time Death (all time flow converted to space, only space left but no time) of the universe relateds to the Heat death. Are they two different things? Like Cancer, Heart Attack, Gradual Tissue Degeneration are all different causes of Death?

Damn how I am itching to try the 'reverse derivation' right now! How I wish I had more exposure to the mathematics of such physics. All I did was study Engineering and make myself into a Stupid IT guy, and presently provide my services to increase the Stupid savings of an Insurance company through computer solutions :P!

* I am saying Overall Time Flow because under relativistic phenomenon, time flows different in different frames of motion, but may be there is some way of its Overall mathematical treatment across the Universe? Hey I know thats sounding Classical Newtonish absolute kind of thing rather than Relativistic, but if it is such an absurd idea, then scientist talking about 'age of universe' and stuff are basically giving bullshit. If they are not bullshitting, then there is some weight to my idea, though I don't know the technicalities :P)

<< Newer
Older >>


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. you are in the right path.

    but lets remember: time is a man made notion, its not natural, neither does it have a beginning nor an end. time, however, does have a direction, hence your reverse probabilistic work (in your theory).

    //1) If this principle ...// no, the universe is a conservation of energy. time is not a quantity remember.

    //2)...// i dont know how to actually reverse or backtrack laws of physics. we can make mathematical guesses of what existed during the Plank seconds, but then im not sure if backtracking is all possible.

    //3)....// back to the quantity issue...time is not. an all time universe might only exists in our mind :)

    //4)...// hmmm....again...

    im not an expert in physics, not even an average dude right now considering ive deviated to a different path for a while. but i have always held on to one principle, if there is a possibility of something different evolving, its already being worked on in some lab by some fine soul who is living their dreams of physics :) not to say that we dont have a chance in proposing something new, the problem lies in the fact that, new physics are old physics now. finding something new in our space dimension is as remote as ever considering we are governed by proven laws of physics.

    im very very impressed by your line of thinking, and i hope you write more :)

    p/s: i dont know any physics experts who are civilized enough to address issues in a balanced environment. its the scientist ego that makes them go another day. hope u understand.

  3. Nope time is not a 'notion'. Its a very fundamental physical quantity. Remember space-time equivalence? Its the fourth dimension. Nothing real can exist unless it exists in space AND time. Existance can't be a matter of 'man made notion'.

    In fact in a way,everything is a mere 'notion'. Space, time, mass, energy, motion, light, colours, etc, everything is a notion. But neverthless notions which we humans rather were compelled to form based on a deep internal pull in our heads that yes, there seems to be bloody hell something 'real' like it. Of course to make those internal tugs and pulls of instinct scientific, we went about proposing very definite definitions of these. But these things don't exist because of our notional definitions. Our notional definitions arise because of their existance, or rather our belief in their existance.

    Sheesh! I am highly disappointed by your initial argument! Time is as natural as any other thing like space, energy and yada yada I menationed. If it is not natural, none of the other things are :P

    And whether time does have beginning or end is what scientists have been breaking their heads over since ages, with theories, mathematics and experiments! How can you just come along and make a strong claim without basis? And yes, time may be said to have a direction. And as per some school of thoughts, it can only go forward. Though as per relativity, it can slow down or become fast. My theory (if it is one) only has infinite fast and zero flow of time as extremes. It does not talk of time reversal, though nowhere does it rule that out either.

  4. //1
    By backtracking I just mean mathematical tratment, no magic.

    I am under the impression that scientists are of the view that space and time as we know it came to just at/after the big bang. That is when known laws applicable to this particular universe fell into place. Reverse playing this scenario, the problem is, what the heck were the laws before that?

    My new notion is, that time existed anyways and was at/just before big bang infinite in flow. Its the space that came into existance at big bang. And it was zero or infinitecimal, or at some finite fundamental lower limit (as hopefully some equation may shed light on).

    So by cleverly playing these limits into existing laws, we may get insights on what was there before it all began/when it all began? (remember, deriving limits of a function as its variables tend to a particular value was high school mathematics?)

  5. Oops! read the
    above as

    I don't need to comment on
    I already said a lots of things related to it in my very first comment. Though I may add.

    Science is not mind tricks done for our entertainment. Its not games ( though the spirit should be similar ;)). What it tries to do is very definitely describe the observed and try to very rigorously
    extrapolate to what it cannot observe, and then of course find new ways to observe what it earlier could not observe!

    Its search for the truth. Its through the mind, but not about the mind. It progresses through mental notions. But its not mental notions.

    Though of course one day it may get scientifically established what big dunces humans are and that all our estabished truths were after all baseless notions, cos they had missed some very fundamental thing ;)

  6. //different path for a while. but i have always held on to one principle, if there is a possibility of something different evolving, its already being worked on in some lab by some fine soul who is living their dreams of physics

    Arggggh! I am sickened by your attitude! Where's the washroom? I need to puke!

    Dude, Maxwell was a mere clerk in the university - Clerk Maxwell is the name if you remember.

    Einstein was technical expert third class (and later second class) at Bern patent office when he proposed a lots of fascinating stuff.

    Science is through the mind. Labs are mere support functions! Labs are pretty important, but not the most important!

    I am not saying I am Maxwell or Einstein here. This isn't about me. Its about your defeatist attitude!

  7. About your P.S.:

    True Scientists should be focussed on Truth, not ego :P

    Of course Newton did have a big bloated ego ;). And that took him places.

    And he used those places as well as still existing Ego to set Sole Lion's Share of Claim on lot of calculus stuff which he and another fellow (I think Lagrange or Raphson) both did independently at same time.

    But then we are going off the tangent of the ideal, discribing trifle realities.

    I say again: Science is about truth, not egoes.

    Of course when it comes to matter of credit, and you deserve it, bloat your Ego to mthe maximum to get it ;)

    Thanks for being impressed by my thining! (though it didn't really leave an impression on you ;) )

    I am compelled to write. Don't worry in that department!

  8. As far as usual blogging comment is concerned here it is:
    What a lovely way to start a Sunday! I loved this!

    Now commenting as a 'normal' human being (ya an Engineer, CS, studied physics and loved it more than the usual mathematics):

    Firstly, I also want to know what was there before time came into existence.. Bing bang must have happened with some kind of matter. How that matter came into picture.. What is a picture anyway? I guess time is seriously different for everyone. Speeds varies for everyone. I even think what I call Orange might be green for you which in turn might be red for me. And why is the speed of light a constant when everything else is not constant. I understand that a number of laws have been based upon the facts that speed of light doesn't change and anything else cannot attain the speed of light.

    I want to write more but ...!!

  9. lalalaaaaaa

    *too dumb to give any meaningful comment

  10. of course, without Mountain Dew all this time space shit wouldn't have been possible.

    All time is bunk and we all are on this planet just to fart around.

    Yeah. Stay confused.


    oh hey, and it IS Shish Kebabs, i checked in dictionary before writing that :P

  11. have you enabled comment moderation or are my comments really not getting posted? os is there something wrong with blogger? ..or with my connection ??

  12. oh .. ok .. so i was saying ..

    if i'm running late for something.. what does it really mean ?

  13. you don't have to ask questions when you have the answers. unless you're trying to provoke others into discussions. the problem is, i don't know much of anything, and anything of much.

    there was a time, when you troubled my symmetries ssor, its still paining me deep inside. everything else after those 'moments', and my interaction with your here is for me to wash away the pain.

    im not a defeatist, i just dont want to go into tirades with someone who I dont know the reason. but as I have always said, you are a very smart man, I admire you for that. And i would also, never forgive you for that.

    my life is an endless cycle of futile glories. thank you for contributing to it.

  14. bhaut bada hein yaar .... isko padhne mein tu atleast 3-4 sittings lagegi ...

  15. *Pretending to be extra clever :P *

    I haven't studied this, whatever I make of this, is from your post :D

    So here goes,

    If I'm getting you correct: You're Wrong, but then, i mayn't have gotten you correctly at all, I sincerely don't your concept of 'time'
    Suppose everything stops ---> time=infinity and time flow=0

    "When universe was packed into an infinitecimal space, time flow was infinity"

    when the space was nothing, time was infinity, time flow = 0;

    Then one thing more: what if everything stops now? If it does, time will become infinity, and there will be no time flow. In that case, I'm correctly thinking of an absurd phenomenon, so yeah, all the space must get 0, so yay! nothing happens to me right now...atleast not right now...

    What if all known physics rule break down? Simply because something is indeterminate, does not mean it is absurd! Thats what I call nature, and thats why I'm not a believer.

    I somehow like your fourth point, maximum time(though you call it time death) =minimum heat. My instinct are somehow at peace with it...

  16. *yawns* see...i have so many ways of wasting time...
    i'll just comment senselessly on somebody's blog just to waste their space...
    btw,be careful while applying this reverse law(simple eg: antiderivative in concept is different from integral).

    I think my 's' key is not working properly :S
    It looks like I made grammatical errors(as if sp & logical ones were not nuff!) all the time in the above comment x-(

  17. "Total of Space and Time in the Universe remains constant."

    Your entire theory starts of with this assumption.

    If they are NOT finite...? Then there is no point in talking about inverse proportionality between space and time, is it?


<< Newer
Older >>