First, I am not claiming to have a new theory, I don't even know if it is ATM.
Just some of my thoughts, after reading Einstein's paper about special relativity. (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper, Einstein, Albert, 1905)

One of the first things that Einstein explanes in this paper is simultanity.
Or, how can you tell that the clocks in point A and point B run equal.
Einstein says the following about this (in my own words):
Point a light beam from point A towards point B during Ta. This beam of light will be received in point B during Tb. Now reflect the beam of light towards point A during Tb, which will be received in A during Ta'. The clocks run simultanously in A and B when Ta+Ta'=2Tb.

What does this mean physicly?
From A, I'm bombarding B with some photons. This will be experienced in point A by a loss of energy(E=hf) and in point B by an energy gain, the same goes for momentum (p=h/Lambda).
The only way B can tell that something is happening is by a step increase in energy. From this he can define a time unit. Lets say: dt=h/dE.

What about distance?
Again I'm going to bombard point B with photons which are reflected in B towards point A again. At the moment the first photon returns, the energy in A stops to decrease. Then I count the total numbers of the photons, n. My unit of measurement will be dL=hc/dE. And from that, the distance between A and B will be n.dL/2.

So my "theory" is that, it is the change in energy that defines space and time.
Everything is what it looks like, but not what you think it is.

What do think about this? Total non-sense or maybe the starting point of a real theory?

Thomas.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

im not a scientist, but seems to me your using light to verify that the clocks run equal, not to affect how they have been running.

When I read it correctly, Einstein uses also light in his definition of simultanity.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

To consider all an illusion is OK because in a universe of illusion, all illusions are real. All illusions must have an observer, if that observer is itself an illusion the relationship between the illusions is real. Unless, there is an outside observer who is "Real", the idea of illusion is philosophically irrelevant.

I agree with you except for the last part. But it was not my intention to discuss philosophy at this moment. I like to have a discussion about the physical meaning of space and time. To find a good theory IMO these two entities need to be defined well, need to be understood well. E.g. what observation justifies the assumption that time is continuous? What are the consequences for current theories, when it is assumed that it is not?

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

You said:

"Existance of space time is the change from one form of energy to another"..

I buy that 100%...Conservation upheld.

Questions

1. How did the form of space/time we have now change in the past to become observable space/time now? (theory)

2. What will it become in the Future? (Predictions)

3. How can we test the first 2 assumptions? (verification of Preditions)

This is the hard part.....

Maybe I can give a sort of explanation, but I must stress this is not physics, but philosophy.

Very similar to dreaming. You fall asleep and suddenly you dream. There is a lot of space and time you observe, very real sometimes. You open your eyes and suddenly it is gone.

Will not be very easy to test though.

I think it is best to try to understand concepts as time, space and energy first. In a scientific way.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

You are working your way to "I think therefore I am", read some
Descartes....the father of modern philosophy. You are correct, this is extremely philosophical and in such a reality, scientific method is useless. If you are getting at the laws of nature bring order to a dream and that when we sleep these laws are shattered or manipulated....that is interesting. It has little use to science however and any description of the universe using such a logic would be perhap intellectually stimulating, but would be of little use to the scientific study of our Universe.....Unless, that is you have thought of some observable aspect of the Universe that could help verify such a world view.

I suppose you could say that in the plank era such a dream like anything goes reality applies and that through expansion order and the four forces emerge and take control. I need more to go on.

Ok. Lets see if I can give you some more to go on

Our dreams play in a small brain. Now suppose you would have a very big brain.
Big enough to project everything that is going on in the universe.
You also have all the mathematics that describe the universe. You close your eyes and start to project the equations from t=0.
Do you think that this would give a universe as real as we live in now?
For me the nice thing of this vision is, that truth and reality are not absolute.
Like in your own dreams, laws can be broken.

So far, the philosophical part.

There are some scientific facts which make my idea not as ridiculous as it may seem:
1. We observe a limited speed of information, the speed of light.
2. When trying to observe the very small things, our observations get uncertain. It looks as if the universe has a resolution, like the pixels when you zoom in on a digital photo.

Maybe the people who read this like to give some scientific facts, that are in pro of this idea or against of course. In particular, I am interested in the development of time. The dynamics of the universe.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Have you ever heard of the holographic principle? http://www.answers.com/topic/holographic-principle
http://www/crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html

It is quite possible that what we perceive as space and time are just illusions projected onto a 2-D surface out in "space" somewhere.

No. Thanks for the links (the second one doesn't work for me). I had a quick read and it looks they are very useful to me. It seems as if this idea is not all against the mainstream.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

I don't think you can necessarily separate philosophy and science when you get to questions like this.

Just as a couple of interesting points, there are people who argue that we may be in fact living within a simulation. There's an idea called "digital physics," I think, we deals with that kind of issue. You can find a lot of interesting things by googling that.

Another thing is, you asked about whether time is continuous. I can't claim to fully understand this (maybe nobody can) but the Greek philosopher Xeno created a bunch of paradoxes, and one of them, the paradox of the arrow, shows why it is illogical for time to be non-continuous. If you take a single moment of time, and there are two arrows, one moving and the other not moving, how is the moving one supposed to know that it's moving? This seems to show that time is continuous.

But if time is continuous, you run up into another paradox: in order to get somewhere, first you have to get halfway there, but to get halfway there, first you have to get halfway of halfway, etc., ad infinitum. So it seems illogical that you could get from point A to B if time and space are continous.

__________________
As above, so below

My pleasure.

Try this for the the second link: http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html

I will try to translate this in my own words: if time is not continuous than it must stop at some intervals. How do you know what you must do when the clock starts ticking again? So, for time not to be continuous, I would have to remember what I was doing. Or someone else have to remember that for me and tell me what to do.

When I play a computer game on my computer and I would freeze the progam. I can not see at my monitor what the "arrows" will do. But I can resume the program. In fact that is happening all the time with computer programs at a very fast rate.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Here's a quote from the paper in the last link (which was published in Scientific American) http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html.

The “holographic principle” holds that the universe is like a hologram where our seemingly three-dimensional universe could be completely equivalent to alternative quantum fields and physical laws “painted” on a distant, vast surface. If the physics of our universe is holographic, there would be an alternative set of physical laws, operating on a 3-D boundary of spacetime somewhere, that would be equivalent to our known 4-D physics. We do not yet know of any such 3-D theory that works in that way. Indeed, what surface should we use as the boundary of the universe?

Here's a related paper by John Baez which as published in Nature 421, (Feb. 13 2003), 702-703; http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/q.html.

Here's a discussion you may like: Space, time, and relativity.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Thanks for the help.

When reading this interesting articles, I got this idea.
The holographic principles says that the inside of a the black could be an holographic projection of the image which is painted on its boundery, the event horizon. But in a sense the event horizon is also part of the boundery of the universe we live in. So the question I have right now is: Is the holgraphic principle valid for both sides of this boundery?

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

The holographic entropy bound (e.g., the Bekenstein bound) is applicable to all isolated physical systems, including our universe as a whole (see also www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0404042). Does that answer your question?

Thanks again. This will take some more time to read, I think.

I also like to rephrase my question.
Can the surfaces of the blackholes we observe by the traces they leave behind be the boundaries of our universe?
They need to be black if you think like that, because they would be then the source of the projection and not the projection itself.
Black spot, would be a better name for these things then. In analogy with the nerve in our eyes.

[edit] From the point of view of our brain the nerve is the projector, which projects the (2d) image which is "painted" on our retina, as a 3d image in our brains. When you do your best you can "see" this nerve[/edit]

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Assuming that our universe is closed, then its boundary is the "particle horizon" which is a sphere having a radius on the order of 1x10^26 meters. All of the black holes in the universe are contained within this radius, and they aren't anything special as far as the holographic principle is concerned...except that they are useful in helping to prove that the holographic principle is true.

In my question, I assume the universe is "open". The volume the can be observed on the outside of the sphere(s) would be determined by the amount of information on the surface. i.e. by the area of the surface.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

What's inside the sphere is completely bounded by the surface of the sphere, but what's outside of the sphere is not. For example, a ping-pong ball has a surface area (let's say 13 cm^2), so the maximum amount of information that can be contained within the ping-pong ball (the holographic entropy bound) is S<=1x10^66 bits. This doesn't say anything at all about what's outside of the ping-pong ball (except that whatever it is, it isn't inside the ping-pong ball, of course).

What's important is this: Although we can fit 9.5x10^83 ping-pong balls into the volume of a universe having a radius of 1x10^26 meters, we can not fit (1x10^66 bits x 9.5x10^83 bits/ping-pong ball = 9.4x10^149 bits) into the universe! We can only fit 1x10^122 bits in there. The amount of information that the universe can hold is not proportional to the volume of the universe, it is proportional to the area of its particle/event horizon. This can be easily proven using a black hole as an example, but that's all that black holes have to do with it.

Can I conclude from this, assuming we live inside a blackhole, that the surface of this blackhole contains all the information for what is inside this blackhole, so also for what is inside the inner blackholes?
Another thing I find weird (everything we talk about here is weird stuff ) is that a black-hole also radiates according to Hawking. This makes it hard to belief there is any boundery, because if we would live inside a black-hole then this black hole would radiate too. You could reason like this into eternity.
If it would be the case that the projection took place outside the sphere then you would have the reverse effect and the universe would have a bound then. BTW, I did not find the time yet to study the article.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

(bold mine)

Thomas, I think this conundrum of energy gained/lost can be easily resolved with light photons blue/red shift. The end result is null. What is gained in one direction is lost in the reverse direction. This makes Special Relativity (real ATM here) null and void.

It is far less cumbersome to measure light blue/red shifts in observing relativistic phenomena. However, this leaves the observer in a preferred reference frame, which is not allowed per relativity's first postulate, that there are no preferred reference frames. A postulate is an assumption that cannot be disproven, so we are left with relativistic transposition of the observer's measurements onto the observed's, which is wrong. What goes out is canceled by what comes back. Null and void.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

You can conclude that it is possible (perhaps certain) that there is an alternate set of physical laws waiting to be discovered that are equivalent to known 4-D physics, but that operate on a 3-D boundary of spacetime somewhere. It would be interesting if this alternate set of physical laws led to new discoveries.

Except that the boundary of our universe is expanding outwardly at substantially the speed of light, so even Hawking radiation still remains within the boundary.

Can you explain this further?

Aether,
To answer your questions in a good way, I need to do one step back.
The holographic principle. Does it mean that I physicaly live on a 2d sphere and to me is given the illusion of 3d space or does 3d space really exist?
I use 2d here, but this can be any higher dimension.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Given only our current set of 4-D physical laws, then I suppose that most scientists would assume that we actually live in a 3-D space + 1-D time. However, given an equivalent set of 3-D physical laws, it wouldn't be logical to assume that we actually live in one world or the other. If some strong evidence existed that the 3-D set of physical laws was clearly superior to the 4-D set of laws, then perhaps most scientists would then assume that we actually live on a 2-D space + 1-D time. There isn't a 3-D set of alternate physical laws yet, only a strong suspicion that they should be out there somewhere.

I can not easily resolve this. I think I know in what direction you are thinking. Maybe you like to explain more.
Another riddle is this momentum thing. When A shoots off a photon, it looses momentum and will get a velocity in the opposite direction. So, measurement leads to increase in relative velocity? Acceleration! Luckily there is gravity to hold A and B in place.
Or maybe I don't get it, and someone likes to explain.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

Thomas, I think of Relativity's first postulate as being a non-logical axiom, in the sense that it is assumed to work within the parameters of how relativistic observations are more than what is observed, but actually part of the space-time fabric of how the universe interacts. Limited by the maximum velocity of energy, what is used to make these observations, the requirements of Special Relativity limits our observations to light speed. However, were it possible (which at present it is not) to observe actions at a distance (in different reference frames) instantaneously, then relativity as we know it would not need to exist, since time would not be variable (instantaneous) to accomodate the relatively slow speed of light. So, yes, there are no preferred reference frames (as per SR), but no, this would only be true (and really work) if observations were instantaneous, which at present they are not. Therefore, SR is suspect, and it may not actually work in the real world, other than within the parameters of its mathematical formalism.

I hope this answers something of yours, though I cannot offer much more than this at present, still studying it. Cheers.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Thanks and good luck with your study.
Oh, wikipedia says that an other word for non-logical axiom is postulate.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.