Blackholes as timewise U-turns

What are the implications of relativity? Can time travel exist? What is a closed timelike curve? Basic and advanced discussion of everything related to physics, philosophy, and technology of the future related to Achron.

Blackholes as timewise U-turns

Postby Shalkka » Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:30 pm

I currently kinda suspect that this is how it works but I invite anyone that has relevant input to rectify what I get wrong.

First is a conception on how speed works out.
Speed is the rate of spatial displacement per unit of time that has passed.

Now if you increase the displacement that you archieve you get a bigger speed.

If you get a very big displacement you would get a very big speed

However this doesn't work out because there is no such thing as a global now. Indeed this is what it looks like form the view point of the mover.

If you track outside the mover it rather looks like this.

Now let's focus on the first point of measurement and superimpose how we get a different understanding of the motion with and without global present.

We kinda agree on where the mover goes through. However it seems that notions disagree on when the time duration limit is crossed. By the dark blue notion after the yellow portion the time limit hasn't been reached yet. Yet the ligth blue limit says that yellow is everythign you need to travel. The dark blue wants to cross the red portion in addition. After the red portion the ligth blue notion of time says well that it's well past the time limit while the dark notion says that it's exactly the time limit.

For dark blue times at distant places happen later while for ligth blue everything happens at a global clock tick simultanouesly anywhere.

For the "globalist" notion Here is where the present is.

For the "localist" the present is here.

For measuring nearby times the notions agree with each other. However the localist has huge chunk of the diagram as not happening at the present, before the present or after it. For what she is concerned with my clock has nothing to do with those clocks, it doesn't make sense to compare them.
It's also funny that the localist denies presentness from a lot of thing the globalist things are the present. They only agree that the nearby environment is now, only at the point of origo.

For the globalist here is where here is.

For the localist it's here.

Again the locaslist has this silly notion that a whole lot of the diagram is "nowhere" that his measuring stick are irrelevant to those times. And again they only agree on the local environment on being here.

But a funny thing for the localist here and now are the exact same thing but for the globalist they intersect only in one place.

It's also curious that disregarding the herenow for the localist exactly where it's elsewhere you can't define as what the relative time is and exactly elsewhen you can't define how far it is.

And infact the localist comes out and says that he really doesn't like to thin of them as separate things. For him there is only one distance two things are apart. He doesn't like to refer to the past in negative number. He rather uses positive numbers for time and negative numbers for space liking to make future and past distinctions of direction rather than sign. So for him -10 units ago is 10 units to the left and -10 units to the right is in 10 units (except it's ambigous on which of the more than 2 spatial direciton one is referring)

Now the localist has is asked about moving objects.

He doesn't disagree about the trajectory. However a very speedy object in her mind takes a trajectory like.

Well we have a disagreement here with the localist and globalist. Localist says that it takes more effort for already speedy things to go faster why globalist thinks that a push is a push and will make stationary or already fast moving object equally move more.

Well the buddies make an experimental test. Turns out fast objects are harder to nudge. The globalist has hard time recornciling why it is so while it is very natural to the localist.

edit: the horror story section I have later found conceptually malformed. It makes only limited sense to patch both parts of the cone together. Instead two separate trackings should be made. Also the conclusion of discontinuity doesn't hold. Reader discretion on skipipng this part is adviced and marker for resuem reading is provided.

Next the globalist tells the localist a horror story. "Imagine if a object could go backwards in time". He tells the story in his coordinates.

Well the localist doesn't understand those coordinates so he takes some measurements.

And figures out where those points actually are.

Something worries about the localist in this picture. He decides to move the A and B points closer to the present line. This makes it clearer even when A and B are neighbours in the origianl map in the real map they are far apart. The localist tells the results to the globalist. "Hey dude, this horror sotry you told is totally unrealistic. The object would disappear from one time of the universe and appear on another totally unrelated time. It's a deep principle that object moments need to be next to each other. Thus it's totally unrealistic. Beside the E part isn't the future peak of the Uturn it becomes a little after it. Similarly the F isn't not the deepest past end of the curve either. Nor did G hit in any particualry intersting part of the curve." The globalist concedes: "ah you got me. But I bet you can't tell any better story". The localist accepts the challenge. "okay this should atleast be within plausibility".

"You got no originality my friend. That is simply the tale I told you phrased in your view of the world". The reply was sharp: "Ha, but I just need to not do any mistakes". Grudlingly the globalist tries to make sense of it.


However the globalist is surprised. "I can't find where BC E and F are supposed to be. Beside this curve has gaps. You ain't no better I won't accept this teleport nonsense. And you don't get the curve extremeties any better either".
The buddies agree that the horror story competition was a tie.
"I bet that if I had drawn an object that went past the highest speed, you would have thought it disappeared for a time" told the localist to the globalist "Yeah but I would have still objected by the very same reasons".

The horror story section ends here

The next morning a new visitor comes along. Soon the talk turns into velocities. The new guy calls herself the directionist. He seems very aloof and very untrustworthy but rather amusing. "I heard you localist saying that fast moving objects need more energy to be pushed around. How you came to taht conlusion". "Well I have this method of telling how the kinetic energy turns into relativistic mass". "Hmm that seems strange, can you show me on paper?".


"Here we accelerate the red ball and the green ball the same amount. We use the kinetic energy from the yellow and the orange ball. As you see the yellow ball stops completely and the orange ball slows down to exactly how fast the green ball ended up going. That means the orange ball had twice the force of the yellow ball colliding with the red one. After the collision it dropped down to exactly the same the yellow ball had meaning hte differnce was just as much as the yellow ball. Therefore the red ball was punched with equal force. But the red ball is going slower than twice the green ball speed. Therefore the same force nudge resulted in less speed boost. "Ah", however the directionist has an angle on it, "could you show me the same thing from starting frame of the yellow ball". "Oh sure".

Now everything looks symmetrical. "now that you have rotated the time direction...", the directionist was cut off abruptly by the localist, "say what! I only skewed it". Not arguing terminology the directionist continued "well you can see now that the fast moving object red is in equal state of motion as the yellow one, just in opposite direction" Since each straigth line is equally valid as being declared the inertial reference frame there should be no concequence on where you choose to begin. "What I am really surprised is that why you localist are only limitng the measurement of speed to the globalist notions?". The localist reply, "What do you mean?".

"Well would have this measure defined"

"Ah that's a horror story. There are so many things wrong with that let me just how you. First off you don't bend the measuring sticks. Second the units are all off it would have units of meters per meters. Third that thing would be a pretty alien thing because notice in that picture how it cuts time only at one place. Normal objects are extended in time. They hang around for a while to interact with. This one would have a point like time extrusion. It would be created and destroyed in an instant by globalists notions the only place globalist would be able to see it is at the origo. Beside normal objects have point like or (pretty finite in case of composite objects) spatial extension. This would have a continous spatial extension. Plus the only thing I know how to accelerate thing it to hit them with other speedy normal time-extended objects. This sure ain't a timeline of a ball".

While localist was almost gearing up to a rant. Silence fell as he was suprised that no-one was showing any anger. After an extended silence he apolised. "Sorry. There was this taboo concept of tachyons. I was scolded pretty bad for at my school for looking it up."

"Alright" looked the directionist at the localist now with increased alertness. " I don't get all that but I drew you a diagram on how you could get this accelerated".


"Well the red one is an ordinary collision but the green and blue particles are likewise those odd kind of object. You can't assume that kind of particle in creating them"
"Okay let me try another"


"This is just two ordinary particles colliding at low speed... wait a minute you got the colors wrong. Oh. I see. You end the existence of the orange object at the origo and start the existence of the red object".
-"Actually I rather thought that the orange object first headed futureward and then pastward"
-"Well that's absurd. Objects only go futureward I have never seen an object go pastward"
-"Well how would you know? If your first learn the last moments of the object wouldn't it seem like an ordinary futureward object but just played back to front. And in fact that we know that nature is CPT symmetric any object that was mirrored and had opposite charge could be a unmirrored ordinary charged particle travelling backwards in time. We would know the back-to-front replay would be indistinguishable from what twe ordinary encounter. And haven't you seen many of these annihilation and creation operation. Where only psotirons and electrons go in and only photons leave. Aren't these always happening in what woudl be time forwards and backwards versions that is particle and antiparticle"
-"What are you saying that the electron is a different temporal version of the positron and it annihilates itself. Nonsense!"
-"With all these paradigm chances goign around I would not be surprised by anything. Look at how furiosly globalist scracthes his head. I would assume I have not reached the pinacle of physical thoguht. at some point I may end up scracthign my head with equal furor"
-"Well anyway that is a redundant case of viewing the thing we get along with oridnary interpretation just fine"
-"Well actually..."

The directionist lifted his body up and took a firm stance as if expecting to keep it for a long time. "I have been thinking about those black holes. You know that everything only goes in them. And recently we thought that they could only grow bigger never dimish."
-"Yes but Hawking was smart enough to to come up with a model on how even black holes radiate. This way we are safe in the knowledge that if we ever generate a black hole it will soon evaporate. And not engulf the whole planet."
- "But even in Hawking radiation things only fall in to the black hole. It is the negative energy partner of a ex nihilo created particle-antiparticle pair that falls in"
-"Yes but the positive one gets away from the event horizon"
-"It was a little concerning that these negative energy entities are not so popular elsewhere. I guessed that if it only happens within near event horizons it wouldn't be a worry. Althought it woudl be neat if it could be used to construct negative energy density matter. That's the stuff needed for wormholes."
-"rigth but harvesting anything near a blackhole isn't going to be easy"
-"I guess not"
-"However playing with these odd timepoint like particles made me wonder whether gravity is a 4D force"
-"Gravity does bend space and time that's nothing new"
-"Yes, but ordinarily I get gravity described to me as stuff pulling other stuff towards it. How it spatially matters. And see here"

"Normally orbits form around massive bodies. And the main effect of gravity is pulling the object towards the massive body. Massive bodies are normal objects and quite stable. They tend to be extended in time."

"However if the gravity would also have components that work across different times they would be canceled out. For a line looks pretty even on either direction. This could be that if the massive body was moving the future state could be different than the present state. however because objects are continous in time and heavy objects are hard to knock around the future state is bound to be pretty close to the present state. It's also evident that a line can't provide "vertical" acceleration too much for the lien is pretty much time symmetric with any resultant force not knowing whether it should pull futureward or pastward"

However if you had a massive body that ended there would be a time assymetry and a timeward force could build up. If one only cared about the spatial relation (blue arrow) it could mask the tiem workings "green arrow". For a weak pull the object would still appear as completely time extended.

However for a very massive puller and very close proximity the puller could end the time extension of the orbiter. So where would massive things that end be produced?


Well we know that in a particle accelerator you could archieve a dense enough mass and that it would decay very short after. Similarly we know that while it may take millenia wormholes in the nature will decay, if ever so slowly. However for most part a black hole is similar to a stable massive object.


In the beginning a black hole grows which causes previously un captured matter to first orbit is and then potentially ever thighter where it has the unfortunate chance of colliding with something canceling out the radial velocity leaving only inward motion enabling the balck hole to engulf more material. Once the matter enters a line like section fo the hole it will travel to the end of it as if a regular orbiter however locked away beind the screen of the event horizon.


Once the particle has travelled to the end (and there will be a end because we know black holes can get smaller). The time assymetry will pull the particle into a nontimelike part only to direct it downwards into a return path to the line section.


When the particle return the situation is actually a scattering. The pull of the black hole gets weaker and weaker allowing ht eparticle to archieve a wider and wider orbit. Even almost to the point of completely escaping it's orbit. But hey wait a minute. Now even a small nudge is able to free our particle from the inescapable prison! However this escape attempt will seem to outside world as if the particles anti-particle is falling in. What if everything that falls into a black hole escapes the same way? And in doing the U turn at the end the particle will "funtion as the end of the line" for another particle to use that particles mass to hoist itself back / lengthen their travel to the end. Thus we have explained why nothing seems to escape a black hole if inspected only one way timewise.


This solves a couple problems with black holes. First they seem to destroy information. Once a particle falls into a black hole it's like a cause without any trackable effect, sppoky at the very least. However with this understanding we get a nice info goes in info goes out picture. It just holds in 4D. Also adding stuff to a wormhole makes it smaller. We demonstrate how the mass is able to reduce itself wihtout needing to reference how it plays hokey pokey with uncertainty principle. This picture of the worm hole is time reversible (and it doesn't turn into a white hole). If you really want you can do the "appendix" into the past too if that is what you like. The princple of getting sucked in and ejected at elsehweer in space-time still holds. This also explains a lot why wormholes are so effective scramblers. This also solves a big part on possible "information creation" paradox The hawking radiation is not predictable using local causal information but having more knowledge on where in distant spacetime matter might have in fall gives a history to the information. It is not created ex nihilo. Things also work locally causally. There is no mysteroius point of where the laws of nature break down. The "singularity" only means that assumtion that matter must continue to the future the coordinates of an outside observer is not upheld. Asking after that point in time (picture lost contact) "where the particle is now" is an ilformed question. It is nonow despite what we have come to expect from time-like extended objects.

The reason on eof the characters was called "directionist" was because I meant to equate speed with direction on where the future of the objects points. In particular some have trouble in whether you can turn it beyond some "future direction". While acceleration that is based on increasing horizontal displacement can't do u turns one that is defined on rotation of the future vector migth.

If it wasn't explicit enough this is all highly speculative. A lot of simplifications and hidden details. But that's waht detailed disucssion is for :D .
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Only combined performance counts
User avatar
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Blackholes as timewise U-turns

Postby Shalkka » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:26 am

The horror story sections of the above post are very likely misleading. The separation into future and past is mixed up.Here is a better take.

Here we form each frame of how a stationary observer looks at "overspeeding" object. The diagram is in localist coordinates.

When we retrace the points from the "pictures" into diagrams we get a trace in globalist coordinates.


Now the blue picture and trace has a pretty good interpretation. It's what causes the eye input to the brain and thus is likely what one would see. However the light blue picture and trace I am not familiar with. It would seem to be associated with the future light cone and thus consequences. That would be how your brain outputs effects into the world throught your hands.

There are some frames where there are 3 orange spots simultaneously in the frame despite there being only one traveller. One can also think of a particle creation effect beind made into the direction of travel and the overspeeder getting annihilated. If you would remove the leftward moving particle the situation would be very akin to Achron's discontinous chronoporting.

Thus there would be an upper speed above which a particle is sure to annhilate even in the absense of other particles.

It's aslo very interesting to note that the "overspeeding" is a very drawn out even both spatially and temporally in the ligth blue version but very located in dark blue version. This seems to tell about complementary. The resultant "law" would be something long the lines of "a well isolated effect has poorly isolated causes" and "a well isolated cause has poorly isolated effects".
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Only combined performance counts
User avatar
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:37 am

Return to Time Travel, Physics, Philosophy, and Future Technology