Is the Past Infinite?

[deleted]

past is not infinite, universe is an atemporal phenomena, past and future belongs to the human mindAttachment #1: THE_THEORY_OF_ATEMPORALITY__SORLI_2008.pdf

[deleted]

yes past is infinite

and is all contained in the present moment

present moment is the only one that exists,

humans we experience atemporal space as a present moment

ETERNITY IS NOWAttachment #1: 2_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_sorli_2009.pdf

[deleted]

according to my research universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning, no end

see more on web site of CRONOS INSTITUTE - LOMONOSOV UNIVERSITY

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynamic.html

[deleted]

In a top-to-bottom approach, if we consider universe as a triplet cluster of Heterogeneous matters with embedded such sub-clusters of Heterogeneous matters up to a stratum at infinity, we can perceive that the past and future of the Universe are infinite, though there is oscillation of inflation and deflation of the Universe.

[deleted]

Because time is a perception we put a measurement on. Based on changes in matter by physical and chemical reactions applied to a frame of reference. Time would not have exised before the creation of the first particle of matter. Therefore the past is not infinate.

[deleted]

Some very interesting concepts here. I developed Fractal Physics Theory, soon to be published In CS&F.

Please see my Infinite universe theory.

Regards,

LenAttachment #1: CSNuclear_Explosion.doc

[deleted]

Time, as a dimension or line of measurement, along which past, present and future all exist as physical reality in the space-time continuum is imaginary or fictional. This is a "artificial" concept derived from brain function and storing of memories, imagining those things still exist in reality and imagining the future. It makes for interesting paradoxes and fantasy films.

A 3+1n spatial continuum, in which our universe moves along the 4th dimension, gives rise to the subjective experience of time. But time does not exist of itself within objective reality. There is no past or future only space that has been passed through or is yet to be passed through.

This incidentally solves the time travel paradoxes.

This does not conflict with relativity since relativity only applies to subjective reality and not objective reality. Subjective reality obeying the rules of relativity, objective reality being Newtonian. Separated by the Prime reality interface.

Einstein showed that time is an emergent phenomenon but did not then go on to explain what the 4th dimension actually represents. Although he did have doubts about the fundamental necessity of time.

[deleted]

Hello Georgina. I agree with your sentiment, though as I speak I don't know if I would concur with your detail. But meanwhile can I offer this:

You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. IMHO the 13.7 billion years since the beginning of the universe is a measure of how much motion has occurred. It's 13.7 billion light years worth, compounded by the expansion of the universe. That's not to say the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. For all I know it might be a local phenomenom. It is otherwise for me a puzzle, because I don't know how to get something from nothing.

[deleted]

I don't think it is possible to get something from nothing although some very clever mathematics has been done to show just that. I think it involves lots of assumptions about initial conditions and so allowing rule breaking.

It is far more plausible to me to assume that there was no absolute beginning. We see other objects around us have beginnings and endings,because of the occurrence of spatial changes in the arrangement of the matter comprising those objects.. from life forms, to rocks, buildings, volcanoes even planets and stars. So it is natural to assume that the universe must also have a beginning and end. This is not necessarily so.

A classic car left out unattended in the elements will rust and cease to function and eventually little will be left. However if it is protected and continuously maintained and restored it remains pristine. One car may be dismantled to provide parts for another. One beach may be eroded another formed and built up from the same sand.

If the universe through continuous change builds up and destroys structures recycling energy and matter then this process can continue without end. Far more like the simultaneous erosion and deposition processes we observe on the earth. Rather than the imagined one way street of entropy winding down the energy of the universe into a cold dead future. There is as much reason for it to be in a state of continuous eternal change giving a balance of destruction and organization as there is for it to be absolutely static and dead or non existent.

We see other objects come from somewhere or being made from other things and apply that to the universe, saying where did it come from? or what was it made from? Even who made it? This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the material universe. There may be intermittent local vastly destructive events that lead on to a new creation process whereby dust accumulates into new planets and stars etc but this need not encompass the entire material object universe simultaneously.

[deleted]

John,

Yes we agree, you don't need time to have change in position in space, that is objective reality. You do need motion to have time as experienced in subjective reality.

If there is no time in objective reality the structure giving rise to the universe is eternal.

In my opinion there are two possible beginnings for the universe, either a big bang when the universe has contracted to a critical mass, which re inflates the universe for a new cycle or there is a process of continuous recycling. That would release the energy of the universe gradually back to the exterior of the hypersphere rather than all in one big bang.

If this is mathematically possible, matter would reach the centre of the hypersphere and continue on to arrive back at the outside of the hypersphere having been disintegrated. The centre of the hypersphere would be akin to the singularity and the arrival back at the exterior of the hypersphere the elusive rapid inflation of the universe. From there it would be another cycle of coming together due to motion along the 4th dimension, as seen in the manifestation of gravity, development into matter and structure of greater complexity.Increasing order not entropy.

All energy is change of position in space. Therefore the distances observed reflect the energy of the universe at the time the light was emitted rather than directly reflecting age.

Also it is an electromagnetic image of the universe that is observed not the objective material universe itself, which can not be observed. That image is prone to distortion of various kinds. The age of the universe is based on the big bang cosmology model and dating of stars from observed luminosity. If either is an incorrect model or if distortion of the electromagnetic image gives incorrectly interpreted data, then it will effect the estimated age of the universe.The age of the universe is therefore a calculation informed by currently accepted models, which may or may not be correct.

[deleted]

It seems nature, by it's very nature, cannot be 'finite' as we understand it. I've been developing a 'triple helix' analysis and model development technique from morphology and other sources, and working on interlinked models with interesting results. They mainly rely on no 4th vectors or higher dimensions.

If space is expanding the more time light spends within it the greater it must be red shifted. Reason McLucas wrote above of the logic that increased red shift with distance did NOT demonstrate acceleration. Even without the 'greater time spent' element simple geometry proves it. Acceleration is purportedly over time. The light we see from a galaxy 10bn light yrs away left it just as light from one 12bn yrs away was coming past it. It therefore takes 2bn yrs longer to reach us from it's source. Let's say it's twice as red shifted as the light from the closer galaxy. This means that 2bn years AFTER the first light was emitted the rate of expansion as indicated by the 2nd galaxy is actually much LESS.

Assuming the expansion rate is even and geometry finite, like the expanding balloon, the expansion rate will increase with distance. Using our two galaxies we can then calculate the 'gradient' of increased expansion with relative distance. This in no way demonstrates 'acceleration' any more than it does with the inflating balloon.

If the dark energy field of space itself is also expanding, and the speed of light remains constant, the additional red shift element due to this must be added. Again, the longer light travels through the field the greater the red shift. It's nothing to do with 'tired light' as I propose energy wave information can only logically be propogated at a constant rate over that time/space using energy from the the medium itself.

This has a good number of other implications which it seems could address some of our remaining key paradoxes. Or, to paraphrase Einstein, perhaps I'm going mad. Is it me or them?

[deleted]

Pressed the button too early. Forget the 'twice as red shifted' bit! Just'more red shifted' will do fine.

And some among you will recognise the similarities with the luminiferous ether. Much more to follow, if anyone's the slightest bit interested!

[deleted]

I see inflation as a process of transformation of space energy into energy of matter. In the universe energy cannot be created and not destroyed; universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium.

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynamic.html

yours amrit

[deleted]

William Orem said "An infinite past just seems wrong, but is it?"

Yes.

What is changing is energy and position of matter in the 4 dimensional spatio-energetic continuum.Potential energy is being changed into mass energy and kinetic energy. Matter is coming together as it moves along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.Structures are forming. Potential energy is continually being transformed, giving a direction of change that has been called the "arrow of time".

Time is not a parameter of the universe itself. The universe exists without time, not eternally. There is an origin in 4D space and end state in 4D space. Not a beginning and end in time.The end state of the universe is the origin of its successor.The mind demands that time is applied to the concept of universe because that is how the mind processes information to build its subjective reality.

There is no past as a physical reality. Only space. There can be no time travel, so there is no paradox there.The energy changes that happened when the matter of our universe was at a particular 4th dimensional position in the spatio-energetic continuum have no continued existence, as the position of the matter of the universe moves afore wards towards the centre of the hypersphere.

William, I think the Perimeter Institute would actually like more academic hoop jumpers to sit in an armchair and think for them. I hear that concerts and pleasant non academic environment is provided to aid inspiration.

[deleted]

Yes Georgina, universe has no past and no beginning. Universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilbrium. Change of density of quantum space generates expansion and contraction of the universe.

You can read more on my article on file attached.

yours amritAttachment #1: Timeless_Quantum_Universe_in_Dynamic_Equiilibrium_FQXI.pdf

[deleted]

I speculate that the universe is analogous to one of the virtual particle pairs thought to appear in empty space (the quantum froth); where particle pairs appear (an alpha point), then mutually annihilate (an omega point). At a larger scale, perhaps our (and other) universe(s) are simply members of virtual particle pairs (at a far vaster scale). A universe appears as a quantum fluctuation along with its "anti" universe: both evolve (perhaps by accelerated expansion) until they mutually coalesce and annihilate retuning the vacuum to the zero state from which it began.

I envision a sort of fractal existence in which the quantum froth of our universe mirrors identical "froths" at vastly different scales perhaps extending in both "directions" of which we are aware of only the microscopic (quantum) and (for one pair member) the universal. Time then is a property reflecting the evolution of each "particle universe" independently. It may be interesting to investigate to what extent the quantum physics of virtual pair production could be applied on a universal scale.

As an aside, could the dark sector be related to the "anti" member of our "particle universe pair"?

[deleted]

Dear Sai,

It is wonderful that you have a passion for physics and that you like to speculate about it. I would strongly encourage you to keep learning physics and math. I do not want to discourage you by criticizing your speculation, but as you learn more and more, your speculations will become better and better; the key is to never forget to speculate and dream big. However, speculation alone is never enough. Hard work is required in learning what other people did before you.

Good luck in learning physics.

[deleted]

thanks sir/madam for your valuable advice.but i request you to tell me what was wrong in my speculation so that in future i may take care of my mistakes. also do check one of my other speculation in the topic DR. EDT'S THEORY given in the major topic HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS which is about the speed of light. do send your replies again .

M.SAI VARUN REDDY

[deleted]

Have a look to my threat (model) appearing in the topic:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/391

according to this the slice (of "conceivable space universe") is moving like a pendulum from one pole to the other of a spherical unchasnged "space universe".

[deleted]

Can anyone speculate when the pendulum started and when it will stop?

For an answer the "physical laws" of a super-universe is needed.

In other words, NO answer is possible whithin our universe.

[deleted]

Dear Sirs,

From the nothing, nothing can emerge or arise. So, it's not intelligent thinking that from a past time where supposedly nothing existed, anything like our universe has come to light.

So, the idea of a starting of matter existence is a fake idea, without any basement. There are no reason to think that the intrinsic and perpetual nature of the cosmic fabric is not exactly what is shown.

Simple like that: The nature of the cosmos is what you see: energized matter. There has never been any past time when the "nothing" existed, so the past is really infinite.

« Previous Page Next Page »