Can the space-time continuum end in ANY way?

Question

I just came out with this question when I read an article in quantum physics...Anyone can answer this? Take in consideration imaginable and theoretical facts please. I need a very convincing answer!!

I just came out with this question when I read an article in quantum physics...Anyone can answer this? Take in consideration imaginable and theoretical facts please. I need a very convincing answer!!

If the space-time continuum does allow conscious thought to be processed (in otherwords; if there is no space-time continuum, there is no "soul"); what would happen if it all ends?

Answer 1

Yeah, it can and probably will end with heat death. When all points in the universe reach the exact same energy level then obviously no transfer of energy will be possible. That means that no movement through space will be possible, and with perfect entropy there will be no way of gauging a direction for the flow of time.

The space-time continuum willl have ended simply because all points will be energetically indistinguishable.

Answer 2

To put it in very simple terms, the space-time continuum is our universe. When most people think of dimensions, they only think in terms of spacial dimensions (up-down, right-left, forward-backward). These are the dimensions through which we have a certain limited amount of control over our movement. However, there is another dimension through which we have no control of our movement, time. Excluding relativistic effects, time just keeps moving forward. We can't slow, stop, or reverse it, but it is something with which we must deal. Whenever we describe an object's place in the universe, there is a time factor involved as well as a spacial location. For example, if I give some one my address, that assumes that I am living at that address right now. It's not the same address at which I was living just a year ago. So, space and time are both parts of our universe. However, since most people tend not to think about time in this context, the term space-time continuum was coined as a means of emphasizing times importance. Einstein stated that space is finite but time is infinite. The problem here is that infinite is not calculable. We need to make it finite in order to progress. We can do this for time.

For practical purposes, time for any given object (such as a particle, an atom, a molecule, a person, a planet, a star, a galaxy, a universe) begins from that object's coming into existence and ends when that object ceases to exist in that form. (Never mind the fact that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form. We are dealing here in non-precision in order to get a finite value for the initial attempts.) If the object's existence in time was exactly linear, the object's existence would appear to a fourth-dimensional being as a perfect sphere. However, to the third-dimensional being, time seems like a straight line going on forever. Both are correct from their individual points of reference. A fourth-dimensional being could traverse this time continuum simply by going from point A to point B, because that being can perceive that dimension. The third-dimensional being cannot.The space/time continuum is a collection of parametric specifications that attempt to define is. The specifications can be as single values and thus define a specific point in space/time, or they can be continuous and define an entire entity.

Answer 3

NO.. you know how in cartoons they have a small black circle that they lay on the ground and then it becomes a real hole that they can fall into?well thats how i think of the universe. we have our universe because thats all we can see, and outside those stars and planets theres a black layer..... right? well thats my cartoon circle if you could go through that then wouyld there be another universe?if there was and you went through the black of t that would there be another? and this goes on and on.

Answer 4

tough one, there.

If it did, what would happen. Would time freeze? Would anything matter anymore?
I'm sorry about my answer, but my knowledge of quantum physics is limited. But if this could happen, it sounds catastrophic

Answer 5

Early in the twentieth century Albert Einstein set the scene with his relativity theory.
He expressed his relativity theory in two parts called SPECIAL RELATIVITY describing the behaviour of space and time in situations where forces of gravity are negligible compared with the effects of other forces, and GENERAL RELATIVITY which is Einstein's theory of gravity.

All of Einstein's equations of Special Relativity have been proved correct beyond any doubt whatsoever, by perfectly repeatable experiments observing the behaviour of Nature, which always gave results in agreement with these equations. But the physical explanation for the contents of these equations, namely their correct description of the shrinking of geometric size and slow-down of time when the relative velocity between an observer and the object he is observing becomes very large, proposed by Albert Einstein and still believed by physicists ever since, is that "time is allegedly a fourth dimension constituting, together with the three space dimensions, the so-called spacetime-continuum metric for a geometric concept of the Universe".

This interpretation is fundamentally incorrect. It took me 20 years to find the correct physical reason for Einstein's equations of Special Relativity and to become quite sure that my interpretation is correct. Most of this work was to become sure that it is correct. The idea itself came as a flash of inspiration at a very early stage nearly 20 years ago. It is amazing, unexpected and highly revolutionary for cosmology, so I had the same difficulty in my mind to accept it 20 years ago, as cosmologists have today to come to terms with it. Like them, I was educated in orthodox relativity theory and believed it exclusively 20 years ago as they still believe it today. Presenting the revolution, now "served on a plate" in great detail on this Website, I hope it will not take another 20 years for the scientific community to understand and accept (or present conclusive arguments disproving) my explanation which is called

Akinetic Relativity Theory = Quantum Gravity.

My work of the past 20 years has been to study the findings and writings of research cosmologists world wide (and to write and talk with them), gradually becoming convinced myself by following with amazement the extent to which new discoveries by astronomers and high energy particle physicists during these 20 years produced facts of Nature speaking against the four-dimensional spacetime-continuum, but to the same extent increasingly in favour of my interpretation. All that is left today of the four-dimensional spacetime-continuum idea is a devotedly dogmatic patchwork of exotic speculations, mostly mathematics logical in itself but largely detached from observable physical reality. Yet it is, amazing for me, still staunchly believed and defended by the theoretical cosmological community world wide - in spite of books like "The Controversy of Cosmology" by Hans-Jörg Fahr, Astrophysics Department of Bonn University, Germany, vividly presenting the huge discrepancy today between what astronomers see and what theoretical cosmologists unfortunately still believe. It is time to make a shift of the paradigm! Hans-Jörg Fahr gives one of the most lucid presentations of this discrepancy which I have ever read, but the alternative theoretical background which he suggests at the end of the book, is muddled in sharp contrast to the presentation of the observed facts in the major part of the book which is eminently clearly written and presented.

Steven Weinberg continued the historical story in the 20th century with his famous best-seller "The First Three Minutes" adding to Einstein's theory a detailed description of how the Universe allegedly started with a huge explosion of a point of no size which brought the entire contents of the Universe into existence out of nothing in a single moment.
That idea is totally incorrect. But in spite of all the tremendous evidence accumulated against it, most cosmologists today still believe and staunchly defend this BIG BANG idea of the birth of the Universe. That is amazing, considering that science is supposed to be a balanced weighing-up of evidence for and against a theory, to steer the evolution of theories and public paradigms based thereon.

My Akinetic Relativity Theory definitely shows that the accumulated evidence proves that the Universe did not start with an explosion, but instead the evidence is now fully consistent with a quantum mechanical fluctuation of the vacuum producing N phase-coherent primary neutrons as virtual particles which therefore became real because it takes N time quanta for them all to disappear again instead of a single time quantum for most virtual particles produced by the vacuum without phase coherence to others. In our Universe N is of the order of ten to the power 80. They did not all appear instantaneously, but distributed over a period calculated to be the first 1400 million years of the Universe in a quantum mechanical matter creation process which was completely homogeneous without any structure whatsoever. At the end of this long creation period structures appeared because slight inhomogeneities grew by local gravitational collapse finally producing billions of quasars which exploded, imparting to the surviving matter the colossal magnitude of distributed angular momentum needed to explain the genesis and dynamics of pan-cosmic structures we see today. All this has no resemblance to the contents of Stephen Weinberg's book, but the quasar explosions suffice also to explain the hot state for whose existence in the early universe at some stage there is compelling evidence of observations made by astronomers. It just does NOT have to be the moment of birth of the Universe in a way there flouting all reasonable principles of physics!

About one decade ago Stephen Hawking gave us a summary in his famous book "A Brief History of Time" which sold millions of copies in many languages.
This is an excellently written presentation of the Einstein concept of the four-dimensional spacetime-continuum and the increasingly exotic speculations cosmologists world wide, including Stephen Hawking himself, have been making since Einstein in order to fit facts of observation and theory together. This book presents what is called the "standard model" in a concise form which is a literary masterpiece. However, recent observations of astroners show that it is getting out of date.

In his book Stephen Hawking does not present any clear-cut concept of what time really is. It is more a scholarly comparison of various ideas, without clearly taking sides for a particular one or proposing an underlying principle entailing them all (which is actually the case). Stephen Hawking champions the concept of black holes as the final gravitational fate of matter, a state in which it allegedly ultimately collapses to a point of no geometric size but arbitrarily large mass and therefore infinite density. Stephen Hawking has constructed many theoretical developments of this idea which are mathematically ingenious and logical, but correspond to nothing which is possible in physical reality. This is just the extreme case of speculations based on Einstein's idea of the four-dimensional spacetime-continuum instead of fundamentally questioning the validity of the four-dimensional spacetime-continuum as observational evidence speaking against it grew.

The press reports that Stephen Hawking is working on a sequel to the "Brief History of Time" to be published in this year 2001 explaining the Universe in a nutshell. Although I have read many dozens of books by cosmologists trying to do that, I have never yet come across one which is really consistently comprehensive in the sense that it accommodates all known observational evidence instead of more or less deliberately choosing the bits that happen to fit a pet idea, ignoring the rest. I think the presentation of my Akinetic Cosmology = Quantum Gravity is the only interpretation of ALL the observational evidence giving a fully comprehensive curriculum vitae of our Universe from birth to death without violating any fundamental principle of known physics. It does not ignore any available information. It does not resort to exotic patchwork theory. Instead it champions the most plausible course all along, instead of elaborating untenable alternatives confusing the issue. I think that Stephen Hawking should very carefully read the essays on this website in the order set and recommended under the "COSMOLOGY" heading on the HomePage of this website and either tell me what fundamental fact(s) of observations made by astronomers and experimental physicists he gets the impression that I am not aware of and which in his view would invalidate Akinetic Relativity Theory, so that I can reply on this site and either admit defeat if that is the case, or - if Stephen Hawking cannot find evidence refuting my ideas, or if I can successfully point out how and why his objections are untenable - we should get together and write the sequel book jointly. I do not see how Stephen Hawking could do it alone this year 2001, unless he can prove that what I write on this website is wrong so that it is scientifically legitimate to write a quite different story professing to be the story of cosmic physical reality in a nutshell. Twenty years of study and conversation with cosmologists, none of which so far have been able to bring even one watertight argument against Akinetic Relativity Theory as now presented on this website, have made it highly unlikely that I am fundamentally wrong. Further compelling evidence is that recent finding of astronomers fall into line with expectations of Akinetic Relativity Theory, whereas the extent to which they speak against the "standard model" which is the subject of Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" is getting more and more embarassing for cosmological science. So the nearly 100% chances are that if Stephen Hawking wishes to write a sequel to his famous "Brief History of Time" which will become established in history as the authentic story of the physical reality of the cosmos, it will have to be along the lines of the contents of this website.

I have the absolute priority on that, so Stephen Hawking cannot put it into a book all on his own or together with other persons, without full acknowledgement of my absolutely dominating contribution of the fundamental physical ideas. All my attempts at establishing direct contact over the twenty years have failed. I am not insinuating any particular reasons for that, whatever they may turn out to be, but it means that this statement, here on this website, in this form, is the only route it has left open to me. Of course I will still be pleased if I am contacted, and my cooperation can of course still be negotiated on sensible conditions and remaining possibilities at the time of such contact seeking.

I request all visitors of this website who have downloaded this essay which they are reading right now, to consider whether they personally have a direct contact to Stephen Hawking and, if so, draw his attention to this website through their personal channel. All my attempts at establishing direct contact have failed over many years. Sometimes I got polite machine replies from automatic Email-answering machines, or human secretaries, pointing out how busy Stephen Hawking is. At least one of the problems at the root of that is probably the fact that whole armies of lay persons throughout the world write "imaginative theories" for or against Einstein's relativity theory which reflect the lack of knowledge of fundamental physics on the part of their authors, so that busy scientists would be wasting valuable time attending to all that in detail. Unfortunately that has the undesired side-effect of also losing the few good ideas coming in among the majority of useless ones. Akinetic Relativity Theory really is an exception. So when you are reading this and have not got any personal contact to Stephen Hawking, but perhaps to some other cosmologist in a position of authority, I request you to activate that channel. First of all it is important to get persons of rank and authority to read this website at all. The normal first reaction is namely: "If that guy Michaelis is saying something which questions General Relativity, or which questions the "standard model" in any other major context, then don't bother". It may need some persuasion to overcome that hurdle, pointing out the growing evidence against the "standard model" from recent observational astronomy. Instead of continually writing more books and papers pointing out the mysteries and lamenting that we do not know the answers, it would pay off if trained cosmologists would start to read and listen when the answers are being presented consistently, completely and in proper keeping with fundamental principles of physics on this website. I have sometimes succeeded in overcoming the first hurdle that a conversation partner of rank was at first unwilling to read and listen at all. The next hurdle was then the rage and infuriation when the conversation partner was unable to find an argument speaking clearly against Akinetic Relativity Theory. This happens because it is frightening, once one becomes aware as a specialist in a position of authority, that such a major change of the paradigm with such tremendous consequences is very likely going to be necessary. Perhaps it is easier to get over that second hurdle if you reading this right now are a physicist, cosmologist or teacher of lower rank at present, but with close friendly relationship to one of top rank. Perhaps that is the route to get past the hurdles and start a proper discussion. Remember, please, the purpose of the Internet is to bring scientists together in this fruitful way. Please make your contribution, if you are in any position to be able to do so. My daily logfile reports show that many hundreds of persons throughout the world are downloading and reading these essays. Interest is great. Please also contribute to promoting human connections on the subject, if you are in a position to do so. Thank you.

The use of concepts of Akinetic Relativity Theory in a book or other publication of any kind on any kind of medium if without my solicited cooperation, by anybody, must be fully acknowledged and not any main theme of the publication. Furthermore, I claim and request a file copy of the relevant passages by Email before publication. Publications of any kind with Akinetic Relativity Theory as subject, including press articles and productions on radio and television in any language in any country of the world, require prior negotiation with me in order to be legal.

The concept of the birth of the Universe as a coherent fluctuation of the vacuum producing N instead of just one primary virtual particle, is a subsidiary consequence of the main idea of Akinetic Relativity Theory, which is the true physical interpretation of Einstein's experimentally proved equations of his Special Relativity.

I have called the main idea of Akinetic Relativity Theory the AKINETIC PRINCIPLE stating that all visible relative motion in the Universe of any kind at any distance from the observer in any direction relative to the vector from the observer to the observed object, at any speed up to c, is an effect of the incessant expansion of the space of the Universe at constant velocity c .
This is the principle I propose as replacement for Einstein's incorrect idea of a four-dimensional spacetime-continuum. The Akinetic Principle is known to be true for the radial recession velocity components of distant galaxies, expressed as the familiar Hubble equation for this effect. I have shown that extension of Hubble's Law to cover all non-radial relative motion too, as well as relative motion with discrepant velocity/distance relationship in terms of Hubble, simply produces Einstein's equations of Special Relativity. Since these equations are experimentally proved true, I take them as experimental proof of the Akinetic Principle. This also has the satisfaction of making c a constant whose value is given by the theory instead of having an empirical value to be determined by experiment as in Einstein's incorrect interpretation as fourth-dimension time.

Equally central to the concept of Akinetic Relativity Theory is the physical reason for the Akinetic Principle, based on the taken fact, plausibly supported by observational estimates, that the Universe is not a geometric process, but instead a quantum dynamical process characterised by the rule that Newton's G auto-adjusts to keep the physical radius cT of expanding space exactly equal to the gravitational radius of the total fermionic mass M of the Universe expressed as 2MG/c2. This equality:-

R = cT = 2MG/c2

is in fact a formula showing that

G = 0.5 c2 x R/M

is the parametric age coefficient of the constantly expanding Universe in any state in which M is constant after creation. The factor 0.5c2 is the lowest possible gravitational potential at the surface of a critically compacted mass (on a renormalised scale extending from +c2 to zero), when the centre of that compaction reaches zero potential and must then explode. This is the reason why it is physically impossible to produce the negative gravitational potential required on this scale to get Stephen Hawking's black holes. Their mathematics is consistent, but compelling physical principles definitely prevent their appearance in reality. In general throughout science, mathematical consistency is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for theories about any aspect of physical reality.

What is physically preventing the realisation of the mathematically consistent black holes? This question turns out to be the same as asking: What is the "substantial" difference between matter and space?", and the answer to that is an amazing "in principle, none !"

Matter (fermions) is space in quantum mechanically excited states. Space (of astronomy) is the quantum mechanical ground state of the entity "Space" and consists of the ground-state force mediating bosons "Photons and Gravitons". This is the quantum-gravitational complete replacement for Einstein's General Relativity, leaving the latter valid as an excellent numerical approximation (but no more than that) for the observable behaviour of space and time in regions of the Universe less than the whole, i.e. provided that General Relativity is not applied to questions concerning the beginning and/or end of space and/or time. General Relativity is fundamentally incapable of answering any such questions, always producing mathematically consistent physical nonsense in any attempt.

The boundaries of Space and Time can only be described quantum dynamically. The fact that the physical radius of the expanding Universe and the gravitational radius of its total fermionic mass are always exactly equal, implies that gravitational potential is maximum +c2 anywhere inside the Universe where an observer is arbitrarily placed, and is always seen by that observe to decline on a downhill gradient to zero potential at the extremity of his space view. This ubiquitous quantum mechanical potential gradient causes the compact state of quantum mechanically excited space (fermions of matter) to gradually revert to the ground state by emitting gravitons in succession as the individual passage of time (ageing) of each existing fermion. When each fermion has emitted all the 10exp80 gravitons originally compacted into its internal space, the life of the Universe has come to an end.

Gravitons play two roles, namely emission by one fermion and capture by another fermion elsewhere to mediate the gravitational force between these two fermions, or emission by one fermion and contribution to expanding space of the Universe and passage of time by not being captured by another fermion. It is easy to visualise how and why this true physical explanation of gravity gives rise to Einstein's General Relativity as an excellent numerical approximation (but no more than that) for the space-time behaviour of any part of the Universe less than the whole, i.e. omitting the boundaries.

Einstein's equations of General Relativity describing the geometric curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of large masses are an excellent formal approximation to the local constrictions of space caused by the gravitons these large masses are capturing, and the dilation of time caused by the deduction of these captured gravitons from the ticking of time in that locality. But the General Relativity formalism obviously cannot work in a scenario including the boundaries of space and time, because the phase-coherence of the 10exp80 fermions originally created means that all except one in 10exp80 of all gravitons emitted by all fermions throughout the universe will succeed in running the gauntlet of getting to the periphery of space without being caught on the way. This makes the expansion of space, done only by these "gauntlet-surviving" gravitons, the collective coordinated process of all existing fermions through their gravitational linkage by the remaining majority of continually emitted gravitons. This huge factor of 10exp80 is also a measure for the inaccuracy of any attempt to explain the boundaries of space and time by General Relativity's scheme. It is bound to fail! Stated more simply, the reason why General Relativity is bound to fail as an ultimate cosmological theory is because it is unaware of the ubiquitous downhill potential gradient of gravity from any observer to his view of the periphery of space, and because it ignores the familiar rules of possible quantum mechanical measurements, illegally expecting exact transformability from the reference frame of one observer to that of another observer.