It makes sense a baunch of solid information quanta inside the pin hole. But let's not forget about Hawkins legacy, this amount of solidified quanta information will evaporate some time, returning to outside cosmos again
To answer the question of whether time can exist without light, we need to consider the fundamental nature of time and its relationship to light and other physical phenomena. Given: 1. Time is a dimension that allows for the ordering of events and the perception of change. 2. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon that travels at a finite speed, setting a limit on the maximum rate of information transfer in the universe. 3. The speed of light is a fundamental constant in our current understanding of physics, being a key component of Einstein's theory of special relativity. Proof: 1. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, the speed of light (c) plays a crucial role in defining the spacetime interval (ds) between two events: ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 Here, dt represents the time interval, while dx, dy, and dz represent spatial intervals. 2. The spacetime interval is invariant under Lorentz transformations, which means that all observers, regardless of their relative motion, will agree on the value of ds^2. 3. If we were to hypothetically set c = 0 (i.e., remove light from the universe), the spacetime interval would reduce to: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 In this case, the time component (dt) would vanish, and the spacetime interval would only depend on spatial separations. 4. However, this hypothetical scenario would lead to a fundamentally different universe where the concept of causality and the ordering of events would break down. Without a finite speed of information transfer, there would be no limit on the propagation of signals, and events could influence each other instantaneously across arbitrary distances. 5. In such a universe, the notion of "before" and "after" would lose its meaning, as there would be no way to establish a consistent ordering of events. The flow of time, as we understand it, would be fundamentally altered or cease to exist. 6. Furthermore, many physical processes and interactions that depend on the finite speed of light, such as the propagation of electromagnetic forces and the dynamics of particles, would be drastically different or impossible in a universe without light. 7. Therefore, while it is possible to mathematically conceive of a universe without light by setting c = 0, such a universe would have fundamentally different properties and may not be physically realizable or consistent with our current understanding of time and causality. Conclusion: Based on the given assumptions and our current understanding of special relativity and the role of the speed of light in defining the spacetime interval, it can be argued that time, as we understand it, cannot exist in a universe without light. The finite speed of light is a crucial factor in establishing the causal structure of the universe and the ordering of events that give rise to our perception of time. In a hypothetical universe with no light (c = 0), the concept of time would be fundamentally altered or cease to exist, as there would be no limit on the propagation of signals and no consistent way to establish the flow of time.
'a single mass' of POTENTIAL light... & there might be enough S/T for weak force to allow instability rather than irreversable disappearance, just not enough for anything to move beyond such points of instability (think virtual particles) hence singularity may have potential for infinite mass, but never be able to maintain that potential ...potential light could therefore be sharing that non-space with potential other-stuff
Just shootin' the breeze. If BH's are holographic, then naively the white hole idea cannot apply? It'd be a loss of information, no (naively)? But BH's are stores of all the information, via their stretched horizon. So more of the story needs to be told.
Ah but you are assuming black holes are massive? I beg to differ on this. You can warp time but it’s not as you expect it’s something you bring to you and you don’t evaporate or implode but you will be left wondering how and why it chose that particular moment in time. J
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics. TOE IDEA: (Short version): [currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test]: The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own. GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version): Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
This is pretty out there. From a logical sense. Does that mean the singularity itself is solid? A solid what? There is no time. It's literally impossible to ever find out. Mathematics isn't enough.
@frun You said it yourself, hints. I think you want to believe more than anything. I prefer the work of Leonard Susskind. He's the man I go to when referring to a singularity. He talks about phase transition also. He doesn't claim to know anything of that sort. If it's good enough for the man who lectured hawking on black holes, it's good enough for me. The infamous "black hole wars" Watch his free lectures from Stanford. They have great diversity. ER=EPR in particular.
@@richross4781 We don't have a full picture (high energy behavior). But analog gravity has a clue 🗝️. I studied physics from Susskind YT lectures and viewed a ton of his lectures.
@frun until a serious theory for quantum gravity is established, it is highly unlikely to be resolved. Quantum computers may hold the key. Entanglement is better understood today. That is also physics that may hold some sway in the argument. Nice talking to someone with a mind of their own for a change. Physics is the winner here.
@@ronaldkemp3952 No. It’s speculation. And not just idle speculation, but speculation based on empirically observed phenomena, which we encode with mathematics.
It makes sense a baunch of solid information quanta inside the pin hole. But let's not forget about Hawkins legacy, this amount of solidified quanta information will evaporate some time, returning to outside cosmos again
To answer the question of whether time can exist without light, we need to consider the fundamental nature of time and its relationship to light and other physical phenomena.
Given:
1. Time is a dimension that allows for the ordering of events and the perception of change.
2. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon that travels at a finite speed, setting a limit on the maximum rate of information transfer in the universe.
3. The speed of light is a fundamental constant in our current understanding of physics, being a key component of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
Proof:
1. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, the speed of light (c) plays a crucial role in defining the spacetime interval (ds) between two events:
ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Here, dt represents the time interval, while dx, dy, and dz represent spatial intervals.
2. The spacetime interval is invariant under Lorentz transformations, which means that all observers, regardless of their relative motion, will agree on the value of ds^2.
3. If we were to hypothetically set c = 0 (i.e., remove light from the universe), the spacetime interval would reduce to:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
In this case, the time component (dt) would vanish, and the spacetime interval would only depend on spatial separations.
4. However, this hypothetical scenario would lead to a fundamentally different universe where the concept of causality and the ordering of events would break down. Without a finite speed of information transfer, there would be no limit on the propagation of signals, and events could influence each other instantaneously across arbitrary distances.
5. In such a universe, the notion of "before" and "after" would lose its meaning, as there would be no way to establish a consistent ordering of events. The flow of time, as we understand it, would be fundamentally altered or cease to exist.
6. Furthermore, many physical processes and interactions that depend on the finite speed of light, such as the propagation of electromagnetic forces and the dynamics of particles, would be drastically different or impossible in a universe without light.
7. Therefore, while it is possible to mathematically conceive of a universe without light by setting c = 0, such a universe would have fundamentally different properties and may not be physically realizable or consistent with our current understanding of time and causality.
Conclusion:
Based on the given assumptions and our current understanding of special relativity and the role of the speed of light in defining the spacetime interval, it can be argued that time, as we understand it, cannot exist in a universe without light.
The finite speed of light is a crucial factor in establishing the causal structure of the universe and the ordering of events that give rise to our perception of time. In a hypothetical universe with no light (c = 0), the concept of time would be fundamentally altered or cease to exist, as there would be no limit on the propagation of signals and no consistent way to establish the flow of time.
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
I think we have a winner for donkey of the year.
'a single mass' of POTENTIAL light...
& there might be enough S/T for weak force to allow instability rather than irreversable disappearance,
just not enough for anything to move beyond such points of instability (think virtual particles)
hence singularity may have potential for infinite mass, but never be able to maintain that potential
...potential light could therefore be sharing that non-space with potential other-stuff
Just shootin' the breeze. If BH's are holographic, then naively the white hole idea cannot apply? It'd be a loss of information, no (naively)? But BH's are stores of all the information, via their stretched horizon. So more of the story needs to be told.
Possibly... It's the same concept of a kougablitz. Though that's a lot of energy through.
Ah but you are assuming black holes are massive? I beg to differ on this. You can warp time but it’s not as you expect it’s something you bring to you and you don’t evaporate or implode but you will be left wondering how and why it chose that particular moment in time. J
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
TOE IDEA: (Short version): [currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test]:
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own.
GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version):
Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
Beautiful guys. Who loves you baby ;)
This is pretty out there. From a logical sense.
Does that mean the singularity itself is solid? A solid what? There is no time. It's literally impossible to ever find out. Mathematics isn't enough.
Solid ether. Light is a wave in ether. When ether enters a solid state light becomes solid(wave in a crystal 🔮, rather than in a liquid).
Watch Thorn lectures on black holes. Physics hints there's a phase transition at a boundary of a black hole.
@frun You said it yourself, hints.
I think you want to believe more than anything.
I prefer the work of Leonard Susskind. He's the man I go to when referring to a singularity. He talks about phase transition also. He doesn't claim to know anything of that sort.
If it's good enough for the man who lectured hawking on black holes, it's good enough for me.
The infamous "black hole wars"
Watch his free lectures from Stanford.
They have great diversity.
ER=EPR in particular.
@@richross4781 We don't have a full picture (high energy behavior). But analog gravity has a clue 🗝️. I studied physics from Susskind YT lectures and viewed a ton of his lectures.
@frun until a serious theory for quantum gravity is established, it is highly unlikely to be resolved. Quantum computers may hold the key.
Entanglement is better understood today. That is also physics that may hold some sway in the argument.
Nice talking to someone with a mind of their own for a change.
Physics is the winner here.
But tomorrow becomes today....
God is the light. In Him is no darkness at all.
Sorry, this isn’t Dungeons and Dragons with fantasy and faery tales. Take it to some DND comment section please.
@@chriscurry2496 and solid light called a singularity is not a fairy tale?
@@ronaldkemp3952 idiot
@@ronaldkemp3952 No. It’s speculation. And not just idle speculation, but speculation based on empirically observed phenomena, which we encode with mathematics.
God hates us all