?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Time Sombrero

Brain no want to work! :cry: So spent day mostly vegetating.. and some napping, 'cause body was sooo cranky. oof.

Belly doesn't want to work any more than brain does, mya.

Although, my brain has been liking to come up with strange things lately.. like hypotheses on temporal physics. Which is funny, 'cause have never taken a physics class, or anything. Am curious to do research on seeing what theories on time already exist, and see how my ideas compare.. but brain went on strike today, so nonna that, mya.

Here's a sample of my chart for 'events', which by current definition, is basically a specific point in spacetime (IE, specific coordinates on the X, Y, Z, and T planes). Ah like to call it my Time Sombrero:



Fear my sombrero of time! ee..

Okie, is time for ni-night. :nod nod:

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
sablemoonsilk
Jan. 5th, 2005 04:19 am (UTC)
*cringe* I can see why your brain doesn't want to work...
aekiy
Jan. 5th, 2005 09:36 am (UTC)
ehe.. (^*^); It does get abused alot. But it's really quite simple!

You see, the central point, the event -- any given thing that happens -- is surrounded by an area of 'Critical Time'. This critical time is the portion of spacetime that directly relates to (either causes or is caused by) the event itself.

Then, there is 'Observation'. This is the much broader area of spacetime which can conceivably be said to have been in some way linked with the event in question.

Beyond that, is the 'Temporal Event Horizon', or the very edge of the events ability to effect the spacetime continuum at all. Much like the normal event horizion of a blackhole -- the point at which the incredible gravity of the blackhole can no longer draw on its surroundings, and instead begins releasing Hawking radiation. Nothing outside this boundry either effected, or was effected by, the event in question.


The curious thing about the hypothesis is that, if it's accurate, could mean that we may never know the size or age of the universe itself. Because anything we can currently observe has only been effected by a certain range of events, rather than all the ones preceding this point in time, as many would suspect. This would make observations of what could be near to the beginning of the universe inaccurate -- rather than the beginning of the universe, what we see would simply be at the edge of the horizon. There may have been more before it which has simply been lost to time.

On the other hand, it makes more sense to me than the quantum physics theory, suggesting that as time progresses, the universe branches off into an ever-growing number of parallel timelines. This idea in and of itself denies conservation of energy, and could only be resolved by the universe simply fizzling out of existence. Instead, this hypothesis would suggest that while parallel timelines may branch off, eventually, the event which caused the branch will have been left behind its horizon, and no longer have mattered. Thus, the parallel timelines could then collapse back into each other, with minimal effect. This way, the universe could actually sustain itself.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

lilga
aekiy
Gorotsuki Tenshi
miniverse.nu

Latest Month

August 2012
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner