Jump to content

Is time a closed loop?


daniel l.

Recommended Posts

Well, you'd have to reconcile that with the non-cyclical processes that we know about, most obviously the expansion of the universe and its acceleration vis a vis dark energy. If the universe expands continuously, faster and faster over time, then how does it end up returning to the ultra-compacted singularity that started it all? Roger Penrose has made some statements about this but I'm not convinced he's serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Well, you'd have to reconcile that with the non-cyclical processes that we know about, most obviously the expansion of the universe and its acceleration vis a vis dark energy. If the universe expands continuously, faster and faster over time, then how does it end up returning to the ultra-compacted singularity that started it all? Roger Penrose has made some statements about this but I'm not convinced he's serious.

Well. It's theorized that time will eventually end regardless. What if when it ends, it snaps right back to the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the time is a short-range loop, you can deposit your money under small annual interest and gain enormous profit just skipping a hundred of loops.

If the time is a long-range loop, you can watch same TV series many times, once per loop, and still find it interesting.

Anyway, you win.

P.S.
Time is

Spoiler

dominican-republic-los-haitises-mangrove

P.P.S.
Time is a loop, and its diameter decreases with age.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the time to be a loop, there would necessarily need to be another time dimension in which that loop would occur.

Is that dimension also a loop, but on a bigger scale? That would require yet another dimension. Where does it stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something something light cones something something impossible to curve around on itself?

***

I think that there is some concensus that our universe is one of many - not necessarily like the "many worlds" interpretation, but literally many universes. Something about "branes"? For time to be a loop, it might need to be a loop for all of them, which seems less likely.

***

Also this stuff really bakes my noodle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, daniel l. said:

What if, time loops itself. Is our universe is like a movie, playing over and over again? Each time it ends, it begins again, and plays exactly the same way it did before. Is this possible?

Second law of thermodynamics says:

No.

Edit:

Puts on inquisitors hat, gets thumbscrews and iron maiden: "Are you questioning thermodynamics ?"

:-)))

 

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Theorized by whom? End how? What are you referring to?

@HebaruSan

I Think this is what he means maybe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

The BigCrunch postulates there Must be a end where the Entropie is at maximum and time is slowed down (frozen?) Untill anything will colapse into a singularity and produce a BigBang again. But if i see it right and how i understand it it is a new Prozess not a Replay?

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

Edited by Urses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Urses said:

@HebaruSan

I Think this is what he means maybe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

The BigCrunch postulates there Must be a end where the Entropie is at maximum and time is slowed down (frozen?) Untill anything will colapse into a singularity and produce a BigBang again. But if i see it right and how i understand it it is a new Prozess not a Replay?

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

I don't it's that. the big crunch was debunked years ago. I recall hearing recently that after a mind-boggling amount of years after the universe goes silent. Time itself would come to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@daniel l.

I only Stated your Thema triggered a big Kling this way:wink:

But like i said the idea there is, oppsed to yours, a endless Loop but not a replay.

And back zu OP. Your idea implikates a break at casualitie. Because your reactions are preprogramed. And this implys all reactions in your LoopWorld forces actions to hapen.

For looping you need a similar Outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Urses said:

@daniel l.

I only Stated your Thema triggered a big Kling this way:wink:

But like i said the idea there is, oppsed to yours, a endless Loop but not a replay.

And back zu OP. Your idea implikates a break at casualitie. Because your reactions are preprogramed. And this implys all reactions in your LoopWorld forces actions to hapen.

For looping you need a similar Outcome?

Well... From what I can gather, you are asking if I believe that all actions of the universe are predetermined? yes, I kind of do. Free will can easily be an illusion, perhaps everything we think, say, or do, is all pretermined. It's like a mental illness almost, you don't know you have it because your distorted thoughts seem fine to your distorted mind. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

Well... From what I can gather, you are asking if I believe that all actions of the universe are predetermined? yes, I kind of do. Free will can easily be an illusion, perhaps everything we think, say, or do, is all pretermined. It's like a mental illness almost, you don't know you have it because your distorted thoughts seem fine to your distorted mind. :wink:

Well, science cannot and is not meant to compete with belief ... :-)

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Second law of thermodynamics also says "no" to a process reversibility, as the entropy would not decrease.

Yep, that's why time has only one direction in the observable universe and wasn't that OP's question ?

 

Highly theoretical models like string- or m-theory (which are far beyond my understanding) can in principle explain any sort of universe with any combination of laws and forces and whatever, but what is the relevance of such a theory ? Maybe i am a little too down-to-earth ... :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Urses said:

You implicate there is a Entity which works as a instance and decide which outcome is prefered for looping.

I wouldn't say that. I'm merely proposing that everything that ever happened and ever will, was preprogrammed. The singularity from which our universe emerged, was not just all the matter that would compose the universe, but all history as well. It makes sense that the 4th dimension would be compressed into singularity with the other three. And that when the predetermined history comes to an end, it all snaps right back to the beginning in an instant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, daniel l. said:

I wouldn't say that. I'm merely proposing that everything that ever happened and ever will, was preprogrammed. The singularity from which our universe emerged, was not just all the matter that would compose the universe, but all history as well. It makes sense that the 4th dimension would be compressed into singularity with the other three. And that when the predetermined history comes to an end, it all snaps right back to the beginning in an instant.

Consider reading the link I gave. There are alternatives, which are equally strong so far and needs further questions answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

I wouldn't say that. I'm merely proposing that everything that ever happened and ever will, was preprogrammed. The singularity from which our universe emerged, was not just all the matter that would compose the universe, but all history as well. It makes sense that the 4th dimension would be compressed into singularity with the other three. And that when the predetermined history comes to an end, it all snaps right back to the beginning in an instant.

But you imply a concept behind and a concept need a conceptor and this will be a Judge Instance. And for everybody Inside the System it is a godlike Entity?

Edited by Urses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, YNM said:

I am not sure whether i understood it, but at least number 4.) makes a common mistake: it assumes that the universe exploded into something. That is not the case. As the universe expands it creates it's own space, not like new points in a fixed coordinate system but like a balloon that is being blown up, distances between existing points become greater. There is no "around" or "outside".

Number 1.) is deprecated, as is 2.), 3.) was Einsteins favourite but Hubble's objection made the idea obsolete :-)

 

Also i am missing the widely accepted concept of an ever-expanding universe that get's ever darker over time (!) without an end.

Of course, views on this may change over time (!) as knowledge increases ...

Again: Cosmologists (i mean real scientists :-)) have written books on the topic ... :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...