David George
The Force is Strong With This One
It appears to me that there are two kinds of "time" that we perceive; and we place one kind of time over the other, like overlaying a set of spatial locations onto a spatial map.
The first, more general kind of time is the temporal equivalent of the spatial map: it is the linear "river" of time - or the temporal component of the space-time continuum. But this space-time continuum map does not fit well into the spatial map of, for example, a graph, which has an origin in the center and three axes (both negative and positive) radiating from the origin. The time component of the linear space-time continuum has only a positive axis, radiating from somewhere close to its origin (T=0) but not touching its origin. (Whether this linear spacetime continuum is simply our measurement of a continuum of causal events, or an independently existing physically real continuum, we will put aside for the time being.)
The second, more immediate kind of time is found in the causal sequence of events. It cannot be said to be a "river" in the same way as the linear space-time continuum. Events in the causal sequence necessarily "follow", but there is no intrinsic linear "forward" component to them. They relate to each other by order of occurrence: cause precedes effect, and that is all we can say. But we then overlay these causal sequences onto the more general linear space-time continuum "map", and we place the causal events nearer the origin and the effects farther away from it. So it appears that there is a natural relation between the linear space-time continuum and the causal sequential time. But we might just as easily say that a causal event lies in the future relative to an effect. For example, a light source emits light, which is then detected. The light source lies in the future relative to the light it emits; the light lies in the future relative to its detection; and carrying on, the detection lies in the future relative to our "sense" (our brain processing apparatus, making sense of our detection). In this scenario, "time" flows from future to past. But we then have a mapping problem. If we say that this sequential time is how it is, we would have to place the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the prime cause, at T=0, in the future relative to all its effects.
But how real is the general linear space-time continuum we have constructed to measure events? Is it not simply a measurement device? We must ask ourselves whether the linear space-time continuum exists independently of the events that supposedly taken place "in" it. It is impossible to deal with physical reality unless we treat the space-time continuum as if it exists in physical reality - but we then come up against Einstein's general theory, in which the space-time continuum is only "a structural quality of the field": it has no independent existence. If the field (here the gravitational field) is removed, no space-time continuum remains. And, in the presence of bodies of matter, the field they create determines the form of the space-time continuum - which in turn determines how the bodies of matter move. ("Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.")
So according to general relativity, not only is the resulting space-time continuum warped, but it is entirely dependent on the presence of matter (or more generally energy). Nevertheless, we can still say arbitrarily that it moves, linearly, away from past and toward the future. But now if the field, the energy of the universe, is removed, then the space-time continuum is necessarily removed, and we then have only the event sequence scenario in which the cause precedes the effect. At this point we seem to be free to choose: does the cause lie in the future relative to the effect, or does it lie in the past? For example, imagine ourselves to be in the "middle" of nowhere, no time, waiting for something to happen. Relative to this imaginary spaceless, timeless, existence does the prime mover, the universal cause, lie in the future or in the past? Since we cannot easily (if at all) imagine such a nonexistent scenario, we are more or less compelled to start up a clock. So, say that after a few ticks (or a practically infinite number of ticks) of the nonexistent clock, space begins to expand. Does the signal for spatial expansion arrive from the future, or from the past?
Now we appear to have two choices: the signal arrives from the future, or it arrives from the past. It is integral to the current dominant scenario of universal evolution, the Big Bang scenario, that the signal for spatial expansion arrives from the past: the prime mover lies at T=0; an indeterminate length of time "later", the universe exists in a hot dense state and begins its inexorable journey to oblivion due to entropy: from perfect symmetry, the universe cools, and fields and particles "freeze out" by spontaneous symmetry breaking; and unfortunate beings such as ourselves eventually emerge, powered by temporary "entropy pumps" (stars), to ponder the eventual universal doom. Ignoring general relativity, "space" expands due to the radiation pressure of the virtually infinitely hot dense initial condition. But in this case, "space" is not a structural quality of the field; it is a component of an independently existing linear space-time continuum. This is because the early universe is described not by general relativity but by quantum field theory. It is assumed that, all the energy of the universe appearing spontaneously and at one time at T=0, general relativity breaks down (it predicts infinite gravitational spacetime curvature) and is no use here.
However, there is that other choice: that the signal for spatial expansion arrives from the future. And as the linear space-time continuum proceeds from the past to the future, the signal remains in the future, and continues to power the universe. To my knowledge there is no scenario such as this recognized by physics at the present time. It is a scenario for a universe continually under power. And in this scenario, there is no "spacetime-energy complex", only a universal field (with its initial condition being expanding space). And Einstein's description of the spacetime continuum as a structural quality of the field takes on a new meaning. The field is indistinguishable from spacetime. From the spacetime-energy complex we derive a fundamental understanding that spacetime = energy. (How this field creates pressure must be explained, later.)
How does this second scenario affect our previous understanding of "time"? For one thing, it provides us with an opportunity to examine the idea of the linear space-time continuum more closely. For example, does it exist in physical reality? And we find, not necessarily. We could do away with it and replace it with "memory". So the past becomes "memory" - and what of the future? In this powered universe, the future (beside powering "the present") is the source of memory, because in this powered universe, the creation moment, T=0, lies in the future.
This is as far as I can go at the moment.
The first, more general kind of time is the temporal equivalent of the spatial map: it is the linear "river" of time - or the temporal component of the space-time continuum. But this space-time continuum map does not fit well into the spatial map of, for example, a graph, which has an origin in the center and three axes (both negative and positive) radiating from the origin. The time component of the linear space-time continuum has only a positive axis, radiating from somewhere close to its origin (T=0) but not touching its origin. (Whether this linear spacetime continuum is simply our measurement of a continuum of causal events, or an independently existing physically real continuum, we will put aside for the time being.)
The second, more immediate kind of time is found in the causal sequence of events. It cannot be said to be a "river" in the same way as the linear space-time continuum. Events in the causal sequence necessarily "follow", but there is no intrinsic linear "forward" component to them. They relate to each other by order of occurrence: cause precedes effect, and that is all we can say. But we then overlay these causal sequences onto the more general linear space-time continuum "map", and we place the causal events nearer the origin and the effects farther away from it. So it appears that there is a natural relation between the linear space-time continuum and the causal sequential time. But we might just as easily say that a causal event lies in the future relative to an effect. For example, a light source emits light, which is then detected. The light source lies in the future relative to the light it emits; the light lies in the future relative to its detection; and carrying on, the detection lies in the future relative to our "sense" (our brain processing apparatus, making sense of our detection). In this scenario, "time" flows from future to past. But we then have a mapping problem. If we say that this sequential time is how it is, we would have to place the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the prime cause, at T=0, in the future relative to all its effects.
But how real is the general linear space-time continuum we have constructed to measure events? Is it not simply a measurement device? We must ask ourselves whether the linear space-time continuum exists independently of the events that supposedly taken place "in" it. It is impossible to deal with physical reality unless we treat the space-time continuum as if it exists in physical reality - but we then come up against Einstein's general theory, in which the space-time continuum is only "a structural quality of the field": it has no independent existence. If the field (here the gravitational field) is removed, no space-time continuum remains. And, in the presence of bodies of matter, the field they create determines the form of the space-time continuum - which in turn determines how the bodies of matter move. ("Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.")
So according to general relativity, not only is the resulting space-time continuum warped, but it is entirely dependent on the presence of matter (or more generally energy). Nevertheless, we can still say arbitrarily that it moves, linearly, away from past and toward the future. But now if the field, the energy of the universe, is removed, then the space-time continuum is necessarily removed, and we then have only the event sequence scenario in which the cause precedes the effect. At this point we seem to be free to choose: does the cause lie in the future relative to the effect, or does it lie in the past? For example, imagine ourselves to be in the "middle" of nowhere, no time, waiting for something to happen. Relative to this imaginary spaceless, timeless, existence does the prime mover, the universal cause, lie in the future or in the past? Since we cannot easily (if at all) imagine such a nonexistent scenario, we are more or less compelled to start up a clock. So, say that after a few ticks (or a practically infinite number of ticks) of the nonexistent clock, space begins to expand. Does the signal for spatial expansion arrive from the future, or from the past?
Now we appear to have two choices: the signal arrives from the future, or it arrives from the past. It is integral to the current dominant scenario of universal evolution, the Big Bang scenario, that the signal for spatial expansion arrives from the past: the prime mover lies at T=0; an indeterminate length of time "later", the universe exists in a hot dense state and begins its inexorable journey to oblivion due to entropy: from perfect symmetry, the universe cools, and fields and particles "freeze out" by spontaneous symmetry breaking; and unfortunate beings such as ourselves eventually emerge, powered by temporary "entropy pumps" (stars), to ponder the eventual universal doom. Ignoring general relativity, "space" expands due to the radiation pressure of the virtually infinitely hot dense initial condition. But in this case, "space" is not a structural quality of the field; it is a component of an independently existing linear space-time continuum. This is because the early universe is described not by general relativity but by quantum field theory. It is assumed that, all the energy of the universe appearing spontaneously and at one time at T=0, general relativity breaks down (it predicts infinite gravitational spacetime curvature) and is no use here.
However, there is that other choice: that the signal for spatial expansion arrives from the future. And as the linear space-time continuum proceeds from the past to the future, the signal remains in the future, and continues to power the universe. To my knowledge there is no scenario such as this recognized by physics at the present time. It is a scenario for a universe continually under power. And in this scenario, there is no "spacetime-energy complex", only a universal field (with its initial condition being expanding space). And Einstein's description of the spacetime continuum as a structural quality of the field takes on a new meaning. The field is indistinguishable from spacetime. From the spacetime-energy complex we derive a fundamental understanding that spacetime = energy. (How this field creates pressure must be explained, later.)
How does this second scenario affect our previous understanding of "time"? For one thing, it provides us with an opportunity to examine the idea of the linear space-time continuum more closely. For example, does it exist in physical reality? And we find, not necessarily. We could do away with it and replace it with "memory". So the past becomes "memory" - and what of the future? In this powered universe, the future (beside powering "the present") is the source of memory, because in this powered universe, the creation moment, T=0, lies in the future.
This is as far as I can go at the moment.
