Steven Hawkins and Time

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 9:32 am

I was stopped this morning by our security guard at work who had been reading Steven Hawkins's book about the universe and time. He had stated that his thoughts due to the information provided in the book are that "Time in a blackhole should technically stop due to the amount of gravity within it cause no matter can move and as a result there is a finite stopping point in the ever-expanding universe". I told him, well Hawkisn tries to define time as distance covered in space during a short duration of measured time. i.e. Time measured in finite increments (nanoseconds for example or just seconds for sake of arguement), for every second elapsed light is traveling a distance. That distance from point a. to point b. covered an elapsed amount of time and space and expendature of energy. So as a result perhaps time can be defined as the combination of E(energy) + e(elapsed increment of time)/D(distance) and so with that equation we can then attempt to measure the amount of gravity in a blackhole and with a measure of gravity define at what point gravity can stop or even possibly reverse time. Comments? Yeah I know, wtf Sylvos its 5:30 in the morning who the hell has these kind of conversations outside work. Any of you quantam physics people out there help me out here if I am using the incorrect formula.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 5, 2004, 10:25 am

Hawking. Almost came off as an intellectual there J!

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 10:37 am

dork =)
Hawking! fine!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 5, 2004, 10:38 am

Well if you really want to communicate here why don't you lay out your step by step construction of this idea in outline format.

Try to say it in a different way so that we can better understand you.

I "think" I hear what your saying but I'm not totally with you yet.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 5, 2004, 10:49 am

Hawking has stepped back from his view that black holes do not release energy, so i think that would suggest that nothing "stops" inside of them.

meaning, energy is released from black holes back into our universe, and as such, time does not "stop" at the singularity I don't think.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 11:34 am

ah, ok. I was reading his stuff today at work and he seemed to contradict himself in a few places. That was one of them, then that means he is stating that no line in space is an actual strait line which means attemps to measure distances is perhaps skewed?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 5, 2004, 11:39 am

Didn't Einstein believe the universe was curved? I have a vague recollection there is a theory the universe is supposed to be shaped like your standard cake donut. At my age all recollections are subject to scrutiny however!

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 11:56 am

at the moment I am not sure, it was rather unfair for our Security guard to unleash that logic beast on me at 5:30 in the morning when my brain was not even awake.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 12:47 pm

Metanis wrote:Didn't Einstein believe the universe was curved? I have a vague recollection there is a theory the universe is supposed to be shaped like your standard cake donut. At my age all recollections are subject to scrutiny however!

If I remember correctly, Einstein's interpretation can be mostly easily understood by imagining everything in two dimensions (description to follow).

Imagine an empty universe as a sheet of cloth stretched over a rigid frame. As matter is added to the universe, it is placed on the sheet. The local weight of each chunk of matter will cause a distortion of the sheet. If an almost weightless item is place on the surface near such an indentation, it will slide/roll/move toward the large mass. These "potholes" in the sheet represent an actual distortion of space that causes the effect of gravity. Although it is more difficult to imagine, take this analogy from two dimensions to three and you will have an idea of how Einstein speculated space and gravity were interrelated.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 12:54 pm

I have not read Hawkin's more recent works because I honestly believe that his popular material is reaching for understand without revolutionary success.

If I apply the reasoning that I understand from Sylvos' paragraph to the analogy applied above, it would look something like this:

Distance, energy, and velocity are the measurements that are interrelated to time. If the universe can be represented as a sheet where matter creates indentations in the sheet, then a black hole may, indeed, be a steep indentation with a hole at the bottom. This hole is "point of no return" where the fabric of space itself has been ripped. In such a locale, there would be no meaningful notion of distance. If no matter to energy conversion process is occuring that allows energy to escape from the hole, then one could argue that time does not exist in that space.

Having just explained it in this way, I think that it is a load of crap. Voronwe already mentioned one important point that makes this philosophical construct invalid, which is that energy may, infact, escape from black holes.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 5, 2004, 12:58 pm

and even if paths are curved you can still shoot a photon along that path, measure the time it takes the photon to reach the "end" and easily calculate the distance that way. regardless of how convoluted the path the photon must travel is, your measurement will be the most accurate humanly possible.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 5, 2004, 1:14 pm

Time is also not fixed, it isn't linear so to speak, take 2 clocks, not new ones but old ones that tick, put them in the same room, hopefully they don't tick in time, if they do find another damn clock. @ clock ticking not in time will tick in perfect time within 24 hours. Law of Entrainment I beleive, or maybe that's just the rule that says if there is a bard soloing in the zone stay away from the zone out.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 1:14 pm

Well that blows my entire theory out of the water if you allow energy to escape a black hole.
=(

miir · Post by **miir** » August 5, 2004, 1:17 pm

or maybe that's just the rule that says if there is a bard soloing in the zone stay away from the zone out.

The onl reason that bard was near the zone out was to pick up ranger trains and turn them into XP.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 1:17 pm

Voronwë wrote:and even if paths are curved you can still shoot a photon along that path, measure the time it takes the photon to reach the "end" and easily calculate the distance that way. regardless of how convoluted the path the photon must travel is, your measurement will be the most accurate humanly possible.

The results will not be the same for a "fixed" vector in space because of gravitational distortion of the length of that vector by local massive objects.

A better measurement would take in to account any such distortions, be they gravimetric, electromagnetic, or whatever.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 5, 2004, 1:31 pm

does gravity effect the velocity at which light travels?

i thought, at least on earth, the fluid media through which it travels could retard its velocity, but a photon in a vacuum on earth would get the same velocity as a photon in deep space.

yeah there is gravitational distortion of space around a dense object, that may make the "path" longer that a photon has to travel, but that doesn't change the velocity of it does it? or does the additional change in the properties of time at the vicinity of the dense object throw a wrench in what i'm trying to say?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 1:38 pm

shouldn't affect the distance only the velocity Voro

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 2:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:does gravity effect the velocity at which light travels?

i thought, at least on earth, the fluid media through which it travels could retard its velocity, but a photon in a vacuum on earth would get the same velocity as a photon in deep space.

yeah there is gravitational distortion of space around a dense object, that may make the "path" longer that a photon has to travel, but that doesn't change the velocity of it does it? or does the additional change in the properties of time at the vicinity of the dense object throw a wrench in what i'm trying to say?

No it doesn't change the velocity, but it does mean that your measurement of the distance could vary due to the presence of a massive object from one reading to the next. This property is how some massive objects act as a lens for bright objects behind them. It isn't that unusual in astronomy.

In summary:

As far as light is concerned, velocity=fixed, time=??, and distance is definately variable!

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » August 5, 2004, 2:16 pm

Sylvos wrote:I was stopped this morning by our security guard at work who had been reading Steven Hawkins's book about the universe and time.

I am more impressed that you actually have a security guard that thinks. Normally, every business I have been to has either sleeping guards or ones who think a Sports Illustrated is the height of literary achievement. Perhaps this security guard should be doing something than guarding a building at 5:30AM.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 5, 2004, 2:35 pm

You know, if you look at things in terms of energy levels and entropy, Is a black hole the ultimate state of entropy? Is the most "disorderlyness" found there in the core?

Everything degrades, but at some point where does it stop? What is the ultimate degragation? A black hole?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 3:19 pm

haha yeah mike i agree, this security guard is always reading which is good but god he's got to want to go crazy working from 12-8am. I know I would.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 5, 2004, 3:24 pm

I think a viewing of Walt Disney's "The Black Hole" is definately in order. It should help to answer virtually all of your questions, including what the center of a black hole actually contains. Just beware of Maximillian! He is not what he appears to be!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 5, 2004, 3:29 pm

I think you are all missing the real question here. Why is someone who is reading Hawking and understanding it working as a Security Guard?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 3:36 pm

job market in oregon = the shittiest

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 4:11 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:You know, if you look at things in terms of energy levels and entropy, Is a black hole the ultimate state of entropy? Is the most "disorderlyness" found there in the core?

Everything degrades, but at some point where does it stop? What is the ultimate degragation? A black hole?

Entropy is less like chaos, and more like order. Entropy can be explained in layperson's terms as "everything settles into a neatly ordered, evenly distributed, unchanging pattern given enough time."

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 5, 2004, 4:57 pm

Alright,

What is more "settled down' than a black hole?

It takes more energy to dislodge something packed in there than anything I can think of.

If this is the case are black holes the ultimate destination of the majority of celestial matter?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 5, 2004, 5:20 pm

Well, there are a couple of weird things about Einsteinian physics. If gravity does bend spacetime, then light passing through intergalactic space should seem to move much faster, simply because it is passing through a very uncurved portion of space, and thus is moving through time much faster than us, even if it's velocity is fixed.

We'll never know until we begin to climb out of not only our planetary gravity well, but our local solar one, and the massive gravity field generated by the Milky Way itself.

Also, IIRC, the donut shaped universe was a theory in Homerian physics.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » August 5, 2004, 5:28 pm

The fact the the guy is a security guard doesn't mean squat. My roomie works security because he can work nights so he doesn't have to deal with people, and the work is brainless. He's also one of the most intelligent people that I know. Some people are just under achievers, while still being very intelligent.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » August 5, 2004, 5:28 pm

Hawking stated long ago that black holes were releasing energy in the form of subatomic particles, smaller than quarks if memory serves. As our current knowledge of physics stands, time dilation (the slowing down of time caused by velocities near lightspeed or intense acceleration of gravity) cannot slow down to zero, but it can get so close that time is a virtual standstill to any outside observer. What happens is that black holes have a rotation (and therefor and electrical charge) and they throw off the subatomic remains of the atomic structures that their intense field of gravity destroys. As this occurs, the black hole spins more rapidly and throws off more and more mass. Its event horizon (any point around the center of the black hole where the acceleration of gravity is equal to lightspeed) gradually shrinks and more subatomic particles are exposed and thrown off. Eventually over an immesurable period of time, the entire black hole dissipates away. The time this process takes is long even in cosmic terms.

Incidently, the reason lights velocity is an absolute is because it is both a wave and a particle (photon).

The only possible environment where black holes would not release particles and energy would be a black hole with no rotation. So far, none have been discovered, though they are theoretically possible. They are just not statistically likely, based on our present knowledge.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2004, 5:30 pm

the entire arguement is null and void, since i just found out he disproved it!
back to sleep i go!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 5, 2004, 5:50 pm

I thought that black holes also sometimes collide with each other causing really big explosions.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 5, 2004, 5:50 pm

Your security guard reminds me of Dilbert's trash man.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 5, 2004, 5:59 pm

electrons are both waves and particles and they don't move at the speed of light. they also constantly dissemble into the quarks that compose them and reassemble. maybe.

in fact like photons they are neither. 'wave' and 'particle' are metaphors to describe certain properties that these manifestations of energy possess.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 6:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:electrons are both waves and particles and they don't move at the speed of light. they also constantly dissemble into the quarks that compose them and reassemble. maybe.

in fact like photons they are neither. 'wave' and 'particle' are metaphors to describe certain properties that these manifestations of energy possess.

All particles fit the bill of wave-particle duality; just go "ask" Heisenberg!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 5, 2004, 6:26 pm

ezacree

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 5, 2004, 6:32 pm

You know the Egyptians used to have their smallest division in math set at 1/8. They had horrible times getting exact math on numbers that weren't a multiple of 1/8.

It reminds me of our physics models today. As we speak, we have nothing that fits all behaviors.

If only we could slide our minds to the side a bit and look at what we see differently.

What does the universe look like if the viewer is removed from time for instance?

Pass a pryamid through a plane and you see a changing set of triangles. A 2-observer classifies what he sees as wave propagation. Locked in his current perspective he can't see that those triangles are all expressions of an extradimensional object.

Likewise I wonder about this universe. Perhaps everything we see and are, are just one thing, energy. Our observation of differences are mearly our comparisons of different energies propagating. We just happen to classify those differences as matter or light, or your pet dog.

If we could just step back a bit. I bet it would all lock into place as understandable. Or if we could recombine what we now think are unrelated events into a new sequence.

How can we tie all the triangles passing through the plane together and with our limited minds visualize the order that they communicate?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 5, 2004, 6:35 pm

I guess the first step is to learn the facts that we do know. And then go dream about them differently.

Throw a little randomness into our everyday assumptions. Perhaps we could connect the dots in a different, more unstandable manner?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 5, 2004, 7:19 pm

I think that Hawking is brilliant, but he is not 100% sure about anything, therefore using his point of view about an unproven hypothesis in a rgument is like Kyoukan equating all people who support file sharing with data thieves.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » August 5, 2004, 7:39 pm

Part of the problem is that you can only quantify what you can see. We cannot see the entire universe and we cannot remove ourselves from the effects of space/time to observe any part of it as a completely detached observer. These are the limits of our technology. We aren't even sure what the smallest subatomic particles are at this point. The entire idea of atomic structure as it is taught in high school is patently false, but taught anyhow because it is understandable by most people. We haven't even established the most fundemental assumption of the laws of mathamatics (1 +1 = 2, the one all other proofs are based on) under the very laws that govern that discipline.

That said, our knowledge has advanced exponentially faster this century. The only real barrier to our working physics is unifying all known forces under one theory, which at the moment gravity is proving the most difficult to integrate with the other other three forces. As our technology and information gathering ability expand, so will our knowledge. The concepts we now hold absolute (the lightspeed barrier, event horizons, entropy) may be changed as new information comes to light. The fact that the prevailing thought on blackholes emitting anything has changed is proof enough of that. Blackholes were only theoretical, themselves, until discovered relatively rescently. ITs all just a matter of time, assuming we don't blow us up or the fundies don't submerge us in some luddite style aversion to technology.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 5, 2004, 8:03 pm

An excellent book to read if you're interested in this sort of thing and want the information presented in a style that's understandable to non scientists is The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene.

The Elegant Universe

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 5, 2004, 9:51 pm

So.. basically.. we don't have a clue how all these jibber jabber thingies work.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 5, 2004, 10:39 pm

Jice Virago wrote:...We haven't even established the most fundemental assumption of the laws of mathamatics (1 +1 = 2, the one all other proofs are based on) under the very laws that govern that discipline.
...

Two points: Group and Number Theory supercede arthimetic as the basis for mathematics. And it is possible to prove that 1+1=2, I have seen a print out of the work and it is incredibly long.

VeeshanVault

Steven Hawkins and Time

Steven Hawkins and Time

Re: Steven Hawkins and Time