Illuminated Universe

Illuminated Universe J.R. Silva Bittencourt

Illuminated Universe J.R. Silva Bittencourt

Each star that shines in the night sky or every particle that moves on the subatomic level of matter has a cone of light. This cone of light is called “from the future� because it would have the ability to retain light for a variable interval of time. In the case of the Sun its light would be held for 8 minutes until it reached us on Earth. To understand better, let us use the current view of physicists on the concept of light cone of the future. In his book "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking cites the illustrative example of the hypothetical sudden death of the Sun. Despite its disappearance, the Sun would still glow in the sky for 8 minutes. Hawking further considers that, by emitting light into space, stars like our Sun would behave like a point center. From that point the light would spread on the surface of the space in the form of concentric circular waves, all with the same speed of 300,000 km / s. He cites as an example the waves that would be formed when a stone was thrown on the surface of a lake of calm waters. If we take the 150 million kilometers that separate us from the Sun and that would have to be

overcome by the light of the star, we will see that there would be a void of information within the cone of light of the future of the Sun, until the light reaches the observer on Earth. To solve the problem, Hawking introduces the concept of imaginary time by suggesting that by moving in a vacuum the light waves would overlap one another, as they moved away from the center occupied by the Sun. This would result in the formation of a threedimensional cone of light called "from the future", whose apex would be occupied by the star over time.

The theoretical model would still explain the 8minute solar retention time in our future.

Hawking's model seems reasonable, and agrees with some observations of practice. For example, it justifies the reason for the supremacy of circular and uniform motion that apparently manages the motion of the Sun and stars, as well as that of the planets. Likewise, it is understood that the Sun does not vary its volume and mass as it moves over the ecliptic. It is that in uniform circular motion the velocity and the acceleration are constant.

If this movement also governed the orbits of the planets, they would remain, each in its own way, always at the same distance from the Sun. There

would be no perihelion (point of maximum approximation), nor aphelion (point of maximum distance). For these reasons, the model of the light cone of the future of physicists would accept some corrections. The first is that a cone formed by the superposition of concentric circular waves would fit the description of a straight cone. This cone would be formed by the rotation of a rectangle triangle on one of its hicks. In this case, the suspicion arises that space would not be participating directly in this context of cone formation because, even if it were curved in the future, the space would remain virtually flat to our point of view, due to the virtual leveling of the energetic extremes of the spectrum of light, which is reflected in the circular motion. Since all the waves would move away from the source with the same speed, we would not know if, when the light of the Sun contributed in the Earth, the ultraviolet would be arriving at the front of the infrared or vice versa. In this case the Doppler, for example, could have been packaged in the future, or out of our space-time reality. When we say that the Sun would be able to retain light for 8 minutes within its future cone, it means that space could not directly communicate any events that occurred within that cone. The space would have been held hostage by a

messenger, the sunlight, who would deliver the information packet late.

One way to translate this dependence from space to light is to say that the observer can not remember anything that happens in his future. Thus there would be a constant uncertainty in the position or speed of the stars, since when they can be sighted they will certainly be in another position in space.

Although we know the limited speed with which scattered light travels through space, the same that would have escaped the future light cone of the event, if at night we raise our heads to the sky we will instantly see all the stars shining at the same time. This detail reminds us of the information gap, which would be related to the formation of the light cone of the future of events. It can safely be said that the zero mark of time would have fixed itself, forever, on the position of the isolated observer looking at the sky in the evening. If the light had moved for 8 minutes into the cone of the future of the Sun, we would not have been able to prove it directly. What we do usually is to extrapolate this time of 8 minutes, already passed, towards our future. In doing so, we are acting as if the future is a mirror image of our own past. Since, after the

arrival of light, we see the whole universe projected instantly in three dimensions in the celestial vault, we conclude that this should also happen in our future. However, what is in our future does not exist because it can not be remembered.

The model of cone of light of the future of S. Hawking foresees the superposition of the circular waves of light in the time that separates them from each other. That is, even if this time is imaginary, it would precede the depth of space, expressed in the formation of the three-dimensional cone. Thus we should bear in mind that as soon as the arrow of time reverses in our position and points in the direction of our past, time would have to take the position of the depth of space, dislodging it from the condition of being its third absolute dimension.

Without time the waves could not be superposed and the space would remain only with the dimensions of width and length, and we could not count on the existence of a three-dimensional cone of light.

Without being able to confirm the existence of time within the cone of future light of the events, neither could we affirm that the light of the stars would have moved in the absolute vacuum. As we depend on the constant presence of light to know the existence of the stars, we may think that when it comes to our

point of view, the light quoted has always been at our disposal on Earth, and can only be followed in the direction of our past. The lack of time in the future also suggests that the speed of light and the Doppler effect would be part of a packet of information that would instantly unfold within fourdimensional spacetime. Newton would be happy with the one suggested in the text, since he would have his statement justified. Being a secondary and restorative force, gravity could finally act instantaneously and at a distance, as predicted by him. This is due to a principle of exclusion of direct access to time in the future, if that time really existed.

Now, let's get the cone of light from the future of the Sun and remove the variable time, considering that even if time exists in the future, one can not measure it directly. In doing so, we would be flattening the cone, or folding it in two dimensions.

The depth of space would disappear, even if it continued to exist physically. In this bending movement of the cone the light and the space would tend to confuse, forming a continuous whole. Space reality would become inseparable from the information carried by light. For example, if space curves, the light would curl. With the flattening of

the cone the light of the sun, in turn, would have its extremes of maximum and minimum energy approaching each other without, however, never touching. The leveling between ultraviolet and infrared, for example, could not be total, as this would hurt the uncertainty principle. To withdraw time and, consequently, the depth of space, expressed in the image of our cone of future light, would be a way of condensing the light or of packaging it.

This theoretical leveling of starlight within its cones of light of the future would present some difficulties for the observer, who attempted to evaluate the geometry of space around a star through light after its scattering on Earth. This stems from the finding that the depth of space would be in direct dependence on the retention of time in the future. That is, the cone of light would be more or less deep, depending on the mass's ability of the star to retain time. Let us imagine that the same star kept its mass conserved over imaginary time. If this mass took on different densities, the virtual leveling of the extremes of Maxwell's spectrum would prevent this from being noticed on Earth, after the light had left the future and projected into our past. In the case of our Sun, it is evident that in space-time it

retains the same mass and volume over time, which leads us to circular and uniform motion ruling the apparent orbit of the planets. Another decisive detail is that the observer needs that the light of a distant star has already reached its position, so that he can finally know that the star exists. The inexistence of time within the cone of light of the star and, consequently, the absence of measurable movement in that direction of our future, allows to conclude that, when it comes to our point of view, the light of the star could already have occupied previously all the space that separates us, long before it is perceived by us in the present of the universe.

If the light of the star had traveled the space that separates us from within its cone of light of the future, we would not know how to know it. The reason is that this cone would have doubled over two dimensions in view of the lack of measurable time in the future. Thus, although we can not also count on the existence of real moving waves in the absence of measurable time, if they existed they would have had to have moved in the vacuum in the form of concentric circular waves. It should be noted that this problem can and should be related only to the presence of the isolated observer, endowed with a memory. The universe is not too concerned about

what we think of it. For us, however, there is only what can be remembered. So whenever we consult our memory in the search for patterns and stereotypes with which we can confront external events, we are traveling in time and in the direction of our past. It is our memory that prevents us from directly experiencing the present moment of the universe.

In order for the particles to be sighted, they must first be illuminated. What we see directly are not the particles, but the light scattered through them. When you evaluate the actual position of the particle (which would be integrated with the present of the universe) in a time-lagged way, you might conclude that the concept of present time would be confused with our own future, or with the transitory retention of light and of the information inside the cone of light of the particle. The future, therefore, stems from only being able to look at our present late, or from being dependent on our memory to interact with the universe around us. This is a problem involving only the isolated observer. The onus of the observer is that he would receive the light of the star doubled in two dimensions, due to the inexistence of measurable time within the cone of future light of the same. Without time the waves could not be joined

together, resulting in the formation of a threedimensional cone. The virtual fusion of light and space would follow. Even if space were to curve in the future, it would remain virtually flat to our point of view, because space would have placed itself in dependence on light to communicate late events.

Taking these data into account, I attempted to aggregate them with the aim of structuring a new theory that would be backed up by the presence in the universe of an isolated observer endowed with a consciousness, and the consequences of the dependency that he demonstrates to have on his memory. For him, what can not be remembered does not exist.

The virtual leveling of light from distant galaxies, which would be excluding space and preventing it from communicating directly to the changes in its geometry, would be the most decisive detail of the whole set. This is justified by the need for the particles forming the stars to be illuminated in some way, so that these stars could have their proven existence. If the polarization of light, even subsisting only as a trend suspended to infinity, put the ends of the energy of the universe on opposite sides of the spectrum of light, this could not be demonstrated in practice for the reasons stated

above. In any case, this light, to be perceived by our limited senses, would need to be packed or quantized. Every form of measurable energy goes through the same process. One of the peculiarities of the quantization or packaging phase of light is that it would not take time. So if you were talking about the light of the distant stars or the radiation released by a particle on the subatomic level, there would be no difference. The observer would still have to rely on the scattering of the photons in both cases, and without taking into account the distances involved.

The local scattering of light would occur simultaneously with the appearance of the particle images. This would be the case of a microscopist and an astronomer, acting behind their equipment.

If we can not count on the existence of time in the future, or whether time will become measurable only when we are already looking in the direction of our own past, it is evident that the zero mark of time would have fixed itself forever in the position of each of the observers. Thus, although mistaken, it is justified the belief that the light of the stars would be coming from our past and not from our future. It is that monotonous story, that there is only what can be remembered.

As electromagnetic waves can not have their proven existence directly within the cone of future light of events, due to the inexistence of measurable time, the flattening of this cone and the resulting polarization of light would have left us as an inheritance the belief that, after scattering, the light waves would be continuous. From this precipitated evaluation we had some events, which would depend directly on our memory, included, forever, as physical reality. This would be the case for the speed of light and the Doppler effect, since both depend on the continuity of the electromagnetic waves.

As mentioned earlier, the leveling of the energetic extremes of the spectrum could not be total. It would subsist only as a tendency that would have been suspended to infinity, in order to preserve the uncertainty of the position or velocity of the particles. However, since the flattening of the light cone of the future of the stars would be the result of the exclusion of time as one of the spatial dimensions, it is assumed that time has been contracting within the cone of light of the event until the very instant in which it would have lost the characteristics of measurability. When it comes to the observer's point of view, the particles in

spacetime disappear long before time approaches zero.

The partial leveling of the light of the stars until its scattering in the Earth, still, would present some advantages. He attaches great importance to the role of the isolated observer, since the zero time mark has become part of his own memory, by a principle of exclusion of direct access to the future.

Wherever you are in space, whether here on Earth or distant Jupiter, the observer will always remain in what he thinks is the present moment of the universe. The Earth, in this case, will be seen from Jupiter about 40 minutes late.

The aforementioned leveling and our dependence on the constant presence of cosmic radiation, bearing information about distant galaxies, might answer some questions that plague physicists, and which can be found in Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time ". On page 174 is one of them: - Why is the universe so flat?

Or this: - Where does the difference between the past and the future come from? Why do we remember the past and not the future? (page 200).

The scholars of the subject claim that intelligent life would only find the favorable conditions for its emergence in the expansionary phase of the universe due to the problem of entropy or the steady increase in the degree of disorder of the system. They cite the example of a cup, which falls to the ground and shatters. But if, by leaving space aside, we were only observing the expansion through cosmic radiation and the Doppler effect, as actually happens, and both only allow us to access information late, the expansionary phase we observe would be something of our past .

In commenting on the possibility of an astronomer attempting to attain a singularity using a wormhole, Hawking concludes (p. 130 of the same book) that: "The astronaut could not see the singularity until he attained it and his time is exhausted. In other words, singularity will always be in his future and never in his past". Having said that, why would we have come to the conclusion that the radiation released in the big bang would be coming from our past and not from our future? Everything seems to be a question of points of view, and the problem would be linked to the presence of an observer endowed with a memory, according to which there is only what can be remembered. And

what can be remembered, it turns out, will always be in our past.

It should be noted that even if life could only have found the ideal conditions for its development in the expansionary phase, this would not be valid for the kind of intelligence with which we were endowed, and which finds support in the measurability of time. That is, everything that exists for our consciousness is what can be remembered.

Due to the complementarity between space and time, predicted in the theory of relativity, time should contract dangerously in the expansionary phase of the universe. With this, the expansion itself would cease to exist, because it could not be remembered.

It would be necessary that there be an inversion towards the arrow of time, an event that should be accompanied by the dilation of time and the contraction of space. In this way of thinking the expansion would act as if it were an immense eraser of information, even if it were still there. Since we need the constant presence of cosmic radiation, so that the action of our memory is consolidated and the galaxies are sighted, the inversion in the direction of the arrow of time would justify the assertion that this form of light would be a

background radiation, and that it would be coming continually from our past and not from our future.

The partial leveling of the energetic extremes of the cosmic radiation, until its scattering in the present of the universe; as well as the apparent reversal in the direction of the arrow of time with the observer, which would have made it point continuously towards our past, would answer some other questions of the physicists: 1. Why is the universe so uniform on a wide scale? Why does it look the same everywhere in space and in all directions? Particularly, why is the temperature of the micro-wave background radiation so nearly the same when viewed from different directions? (A Brief History of Time, 171).

Another question that involves the participation of the isolated observer, although it is not known whether this would occur outside of his point of view, is the absolute speed of light. In space-time this velocity does not depend on the immobility or relative motion of two observers. It's always the same. If, in order to see a star, we need its light to be already at our disposal on Earth, how can we directly attest that this light would have previously moved in the space that separates us? If time were

virtually contained in the observer isolated by a principle of exclusion of direct access to the future of the universe, represented in the light cone of events, the light could be part of an unfolded information package instantly, without the necessity of its instantaneous displacement in space. Light does not shift in space-time - it has always been there. This stems from the form of intelligence with which we have been endowed, restricted to the condition of the existence of a measurable time.

Without time, there is no memory or movement, as the concept of instantaneous velocity of a particle predicts. This is not to say that this is the ideal solution, but it goes against one more unanswered question that torments the lives of astronomers.

Hawking raises the question to page 171 of his book "A Brief History of Time": - "It would not have given time, from the great explosion, the light to move from one region far distant to another, even if both were near in the primordial universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light can not move from one region to another, no other information can.

Thus, there would be no possible way for different regions of the universe to subsequently arrive at equal temperatures unless, for some unexplained

reason, they happened to have started at the same temperature".

When one approaches this question in the light of the observer's point of view, which depends on the time and memory to know that there is a universe around him, one can not easily accept that his conscience could act in a discontinuous way as suggested by photoelectric effect, simply because nothing exists outside it. This would imply a false idea of continuity for the structuring and the movement of electromagnetic waves after the scattering of light, connecting us in an apparent and direct way with our own past. Looking back in the past, Hawking's question remains unanswered. But the puzzle is apparently solved with the hypothetical zero-time migration from the position of the stars to the position of the observer, due to the principle of exclusion of direct access to the future. This would have a counterpart: the big bang would have to be informative, and should be in force in the present of the universe.

The pseudocontinuity that we attribute to the cosmic background radiation would explain the fixed and limited speed of light (300,000 km / s). It would also support the Doppler effect in space-time,

with the addition of time acting as the fourth dimension of space. If the radiation were continuous, as it actually presents itself to our point of view (although this is false, since light is quantized), space-time would be homogeneous and isotropic and light would not depend on the direction of its propagation. You would be wrongly allowed to conclude whether the light is coming from the past or leaving from here in that direction.

One sees that this would have become part of our observable reality. Hence, our difficulty in putting into practice some concepts of quantum mechanics, which attest to the discontinuity of electromagnetic radiation. Remember that any singularity has a cone of light. Moreover, singularity will always be placed in our future, and never in our past (S. Hawking).

Santa Maria, RS, 05/02/2019.