The cradle of Time
By theory, inflation is the longest blow in the evolution of Cosmos - Alarmingly precise as well - Even though Planck time is the shortest timespan within the Universal clock work where also most things takes off live - it is the cradle of reality - as every natural wonder in the world is linked to this point in the history of construction.
Theory has, that energy immediately was flung in all directions by the speed of light - at a takeoff temperature at the bang at, say - a 1000 trillion degrees - and expanded - and stretched - space itself out of nothing - thus became our expanding universe in a titanic flood of quarks, leptons - mostly like photons - and as the subsequently cooling just a short while later began solidifying energy to matter, within the same second started forming protons and neutrons, that within the minut would stick together as the first hydrogen - and some helium.
From here it will take hundred of thousand of years to form the rest of the atoms.
It's an hypothesis that cannot be proven, and it's very unlikely that it will ever be possible to demonstrate a probable connection to the origin of everything directly in the real world of today anyways, other than well prepared theory and adequate math.
Cosmic evolution: A blueprint of Reality
Observing the space today we see the solar system, our galaxy, and our local group of galaxies, today we encounter significant numbers of large well-formed galaxies in our local supercluster and nearby filaments of superclusters.
The farther out we look, the further back in the past we see. And the longer duration we follow, the more we notice a reduction in the size and structure of the galaxies. Eventually, we reach as far back as the first galaxies to ever form, from the first stars that started to shine. Before that, there was just hydrogen and dark matter. No light was yet released for us to see.
As we look back, we are also observing an ever shrinking volume because the Universe was getting smaller. And the temperature is getting hotter. Eventually, it reached 3000 K. At that point, hydrogen atoms began to disassociate into protons and electrons, and space became opaque.
Coming back the other way, the surface where the transition from opaque to transparent occurred is called the Surface of Last Scattering. At that time, all the photons in the Universe were released.
Those photons are still with us today. We see them all across the sky in tremendous numbers. They are the Cosmic Microwave Background photons. And they tell us a lot about the past, present and future of the Universe.
The most important hypothesis that relates to time is that concurrence in general must be perceived in relations, and since the equations of physics does not inform us which events are occurring right now – they are in fact like a map without the “red dot”.
All moments are equally real
Past and future are no more physically distinguished than left and right.?The present moment does not exist in any relations, and therefore neither does the flow of time...
This means that all moments are equally real, and past and future are no more physically distinguished than left and right as directions of time.
But if all moments are equally real does it then mean that there is no time?
The answer is: Yes, and ... no.
There is time. Right now. Everywhere. Locally time maintain duration. But as (enough) time goes by - even space has left and even the cosmic reality has changed. Of course you can cast a glance at your timepiece and determine just how many portions of units has been. By that you are confirming one frame of (space)time with another - perception of (local) time.
But if time is an illusion, why did we interwine time and distance in our framework of understanding of how the Universe works?
Time as a common denominator
Today, it is possible to construct an atomic clock that only loses a second of 138 million years, and this state-of-the-art timepiece is revolutionising human possibilities, because this is a precision adequate to synchronise across time and space. Gravity is still central to timing devices. Today, however, today it is the oscillations of falling atoms that are measured.
This precision has made it possible to define 1 meter to the length the light travels in a certain fraction of a second, and thereby summarising time and space within the same measuring unit.
The problem that nature is inaccurate, and our perception of time at largely is subjective. But through abstract algorithms and advanced technology we can produce sophisticated measuring equipment that provides us with the precision tools that enables us to make use of time as a common denominator.
Time can in this role - as a common denominator - explain the organisation and development of the Universe down to the smallest fraction of duration. But nothing - in this universe of events in an untimely fashion - can explain time.
This is because time is in the scale of events, not the line of events.
Time is limited - but connected with space it provides a certain continuity.
Imagine ordinary, subjective, time like a horizontal line. Behind the past, and in front of you, the future. It's not a difficult construction – this is the way we perceive time subjectively at a daily basis and ourselves have the role of timekeeper, reflecting over the way life progresses.
The three directions in space and one direction of imaginary time makes up what is called a Euclidean space time.
Einstein's theories insist that light always travels at the same speed, and since speed is distance divided by time - for the rate to remain the same with the distance increased - time will thus also be increased. Then time is stretched.
Scale on the other hand runs freely:
Space literally emerged from the The Big Bang - according to the standard model - there was a time where space is folded out from the singularity, suggesting that the expansion is closely tied with events taking place in the very first tick of time, and ever since have pushed the boundaries away from what can be registered within the spectrum of light (outside the 4.0 × 1032 cubic light year time bobble we theoretically can measure.)
Time breaks down as a concept when there is no longer anything to measure.
This means that Big Bang and singularity in real time not are optional.
And the real time will have both have a beginning and an end.
As will this universe.
Measurability and predictability
Regularity and predictability is a secondary property linked to method by theory:
Eg. The metric system and measure of all things. A meter is a lot of things, but only apply regularity when linked to a natural observable, and in every aspect only makes sense in relation to a constant like the speed of light.
And without the 7 fundamental units of S.I nothing is predictable.
Hence a Theory Of Everything (TOE) must be able to define certainty by the quality of scope - and - limits of both quantum realities and observables.
A theory that explains everything (TOE) is at best an approximation of "reality" - since we can only explain and return the theory logically to explanatory models that confirm what we already know - and that is that we miss a model that includes everything.
This leaves us with the standard of approximation. But if we go with energy we follow the long way home as we can already see that S.I is following that path.
Since we cannot include everything we do not yet know or have thought of, a quantum reality is a still a realm that fits in every way within the meaning of the explanatory model.
Time, size and distance are derived from the preconditions and theories of the initial state that lead to "everything" evolving in this direction and being governed by these fundamental forces with the legacies that can confirm this state.
Scale is the underlying reality that governs the realm of Cosmos
Considerations of a more dense past
As our technology improves by standard of certainty and excellence, our ability to observe is going through a series of improvements. As we encounter elder sources of light we have a look into the past due to the advantages of better technology and greater insight.
The new sources - of radiation from the brim of the dark ages - unfortunately does not stretch as expected in the spectrum of light.
The model could be wrong, what we know could be questionable.
领英推荐
We must take into consideration that the reality from which this new sources origin, is a Universe of a far less size (down scaled). A place where everything is closer, gravity will have a lot more to say about traversing space than today.
Since our understanding of how Cosmos is based on the Standard Cosmological model (Lambda-CDM model based on redshift, Hubbles Constant/Cosmological constant, Dark energy and a modification of Einsteins field equations), the field-change from dense to sparse and hot to cold can explain the irregularities in results to a certain extent, in combination with far more advanced technology and still more advanced application of methods in utilizing a growing data set.
Certainty is still based on a variety of ways to obtain similar results, or confirmation by mass of evidence.
We have a hard time imagining space-time in 4 dimensions. In the vicinity to earth, our life tells us that dimensions are direction-like - this also makes pretty good sense in a reality of up-down-right and left with a little twist of here-and-now, yesterday and next month.
We also have come to an understanding that gravity works in a way, that over time our shoes potentially become so-and-so elder than our hat, and that time in motion to an observer is dilated, and that relative concurrency makes no sense at astronomical distances.
That the path of light follows the curvature of space-time, which is determined by gravity, and that increased mass takes up more space-time, and that space expands in an unknown medium driven by dark energy, and consequently time is stretched per se. Not very useful information.
In the vast space, our 3 dimensions makes no sense, and 4 including imaginary time far less. In vacuum, movement and course makes sense.
From a photon's point of view, motion consists of intermittent stillness interrupted by motion - in a world of vacuum and particles, excitements, fractional scattering and continued motion. Regardless of gravity and density by a constant velocity in an imperceptibly changeable straight course of time from time frame to time frame.
Consider that the eldest light have traversed a path in a scale-changing universe, thus have had expanded with a much denser universe - with matter and objects in space significantly closer than today - influencing the path with a much more significant gravity effect, as in more curved before and much more straight today with the expanded scale (fewer galaxies and less dense space).
This did not apply in the field of gravity from which the light originates, since everything happened slower - because of the stronger gravity fields.
Since light always follows in straight lines in space, and if space has a more steep curvature - as a result of a more dense topology within a smaller space, the path of light - seen from here in cosmological time - will be perceived as curved (hence gravitational lenses). Distances near large mass bodies such as e.g. black holes and galaxies and clusters become significantly longer, and the same applies to time intervals: Time appear slower (relative to an observation with much "faster" time conception), the stronger the gravity field.
All in all the down scaled Universe causes a significant “field”-difference, that can lead to the misinterpretation that the expansion rate has changed, when in fact it is a change of conditions that has led to the differences in todays observables.
But even if we doesn't consider "field-changes" a source of error, the fact that we are left with data from a few locations in a vanishing small spot - in a vast space - makes the results highly questionable.
The present now is all we got and is only related to duration in every now and then (by observation).
The line however is a figurative ruler that show how far stretched by +1 the stretch goes - representing The Universe in all directions - as a placeholder for everything in space and time
According to our theories dark matter and dark energy are the structural foundation of this universe. But dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) are named "dark" from a reason, it can only be quantified by the effect it has on the realm - which is close to nil in the smallest of scale - but at the largest of scale it dominates by the force of abundance and can only be detected by the "foot print"
Objections to the model
The “ghost”-effect from dark energy (and “ghostly”-dark matter), is 'more likely' a "machine-dependant" effect from a "broken" model.
No one has yet proven that neither dark matter nor energy actually is a real thing. It only exists as a hypothetical explanation for why the standard model cannot explain reality.
Dark energy allegedly works by exerting of a negative, repulsive pressure, behaving like the opposite of gravity.
Dark matter allegedly works as a kind of "super glue" that keep structures within and between galaxies constant
Cosmological observations tell us the?standard model?explains about 5% of the?energy?present in the universe. From the behaviour of light we can deduct that about 26% then should be?dark matter, which would behave just like other?matter, but only interacts weakly (if at all) with the?Standard Model?fields.
As the Standard Model does not supply any fundamental particles that constitutes good dark matter candidates, ever since this postulate, the brightest minds have tried to figure out what that matter could be.
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is regarded an?unknown?form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales.
It has been hypothesised to account for the observational properties of distant type Ia supernovae, which show the universe going through an accelerated period of expansion. As the force that is causing the light waves to stretch - by inflating, yeah.. space.
Theory is that it is caused by the result of the complete universe is expanding, and in the proces stretching the light waves. It is a rather good explanation - a sort of dobler effect - and even most likely to be true, since it is almost bulletproof by countless observations.
As the first observational evidence for its existence came from supernovae measurements, which showed that the universe does not expand at a constant rate; rather, the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
There is a general consensus that a hypothesis should be falsifiable in order to be scientific, and as the natural sciences are empirical, it is based on experiences and observations in the real world.
But as science is made up by humans to understand the world, it is shaped by the spirit and culture from which it originated, as we try to be as objective and neutral as possible, we tend to value a theory by how well it predicts reality and measure the quality by describability of the world.
Predictability and accuracy are a must if a theory is to be regarded able to model what is happening in real life. It may be a premis for abstract models, but it doesn't not make it less problematic that science not necessarily need to be evident.
Considerable efforts have been taken place in providing rule sets and mathematical explanations about invisible topology to claim an establisment of what space is really about - and for what reasons it probably is growing at superscale in an unchained run against eternity - we also have invented 'mysterious' forces like 'dark energy' to set space, and hidden objects like dark matter to explain the fact that space is set for a wild run in form of stretching the fabric of space between the cosmological objects and explain why galaxies doesn't fling apart in the proces.
The world becomes from understanding - insight regarding natural contexts makes knowledge plausible, and it is by demonstration of coherence in between assumptions, events and constraints models are sprung.
The empirical layer of hypotheses makes it probable that reality has a character which follows the model that makes it evident.
Evidence can only be regarded as general and universal without context-dependent conditions.
When evidence is - apart from everything else - the context is disconnected from the reality they must confirm and thus becomes true only because it can be considered probable. Absence of reality is then not a constraint.
There can be many reasons why we choose to make interrelationships more likely to be true.
It can be the only option to include a necessary condition?impossible to obtain evidence about based on the nature of the conditions, or it may be?unlikely that it will be possible to demonstrate the relationship directly.
When we choose to base models on the basis of axioms, theorems and constants, it is because it is not possible to directly confirm it:
After all, science it is all about understanding, insight and probability, and evidence then grows out of how well the theory is anchored in reality to confirm the hypotheses.
Theories, hypotheses, models and the underlying proof of the models is then confirmable by observations from the real world.
We tend to evaluate a theory by how well it predicts reality and measure the quality by describability of the world.
Predictability and accuracy are a must if a theory is to be regarded able to model what is happening in real life.
Theories - under construction
Considerations whether the natural forces can support other atomic structures than currently known - or in fact the basic problem is a misinterpretation of informations derived from outdated scientific methods - due to the fact that the actual universe they are explaining, fundamentally has scaled out of comparison to the tiny solar systems the theories initially was intended for.
The fundamental forces of the Universe: Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the weak and strong nuclear powers are the bonds that provide the universe with the power of expansion - and viability - from the invisible tiniest relationships between matter and energy to the unimaginable cosmological contexts that we may or may not yet have fully understood, or even discovered.
The existence of observables - objects and events - in the real world leads to the impression that time and space is a universal premise, and as long as events exhibit processes predictable within the constraints our models projection of time and space, they will confirm the model.