0
   

Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?

 
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 12:40 pm
When the universe was very young gravity was unimaginably greater than it is now; thus according to Einstein time must have moved much much slower than it does now; in the very much less dense universe of the present or now.

If the above is true how did we arrive at our present moment and if we are in an ever accelerating time zone, due to the thinning out of our universe, due to expansion, at almost zero gravity would time not speed up toward infinity?

My point is; time moves slower in colossal gravity fields, how did our universe overcome this apparent paradox in its creation?, because physics tells us in an infinite gravity field like, the singularity, time must have stood still; but it did not luckily for us
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 11,432 • Replies: 243
No top replies

 
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:09 pm
@Alan McDougall,
According to the Einstein-Schrodinger equation they describe how the wave function evolves over time. This wave functions values maps out the possible states of the system complex numbers. This is saying that if you apply the property of wave-particle duality which is denoted as position and time and if multiplied to the second power it is equal to the chance of finding the subject at a certain time and position. Im trying to explain this as simple as possible, because the only other way is if you major in theoretical physics and understand there is a huge problem with quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity. See if you look at it in the time aspect, Relativity says time is very flexible and quantum mechanics say time is very linear(like newtons theory) it goes straight ahead, tick tick tick, as we know it in our reality. But the Wheeler-Dewitt equation is the only equation which combines these two theories together to make everything possible and understanding in the cosmos. What they did is something me and my uncle having been trying to do for twenty years now with quantum physics, they simple take time out of the equation. Which makes complete and perfect sense. We've been trying to solve this answer with time in the equation after there remarkable discovery, but the only way to do so IS to take out time. Time does not exist in the physical universe it never has, we have made the mistake of doing so saying it is infinite. But infinity doesn't exist it is impossible to come into existence if it never started. I hope you understand.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:04 pm
@I am question,
I am question;90690 wrote:
According to the Einstein-Schrodinger equation they describe how the wave function evolves over time. This wave functions values maps out the possible states of the system complex numbers. This is saying that if you apply the property of wave-particle duality which is denoted as position and time and if multiplied to the second power it is equal to the chance of finding the subject at a certain time and position. Im trying to explain this as simple as possible, because the only other way is if you major in theoretical physics and understand there is a huge problem with quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity. See if you look at it in the time aspect, Relativity says time is very flexible and quantum mechanics say time is very linear(like newtons theory) it goes straight ahead, tick tick tick, as we know it in our reality. But the Wheeler-Dewitt equation is the only equation which combines these two theories together to make everything possible and understanding in the cosmos. What they did is something me and my uncle having been trying to do for twenty years now with quantum physics, they simple take time out of the equation. Which makes complete and perfect sense. We've been trying to solve this answer with time in the equation after there remarkable discovery, but the only way to do so IS to take out time. Time does not exist in the physical universe it never has, we have made the mistake of doing so saying it is infinite. But infinity doesn't exist it is impossible to come into existence if it never started. I hope you understand.


Hi Smile,

I think that time only exists where there is a flow of entropy in the system , cause and effect if you like

At absolute zero would time flow?

Movement and time are interlinked, without movement we would have no concept of time e.g. revolution of the earth around the sun.

If we accept Einstein then time simply could not have moved at the moment of creation within the infinite gravity field of the singularity, if you get my drift;but it did. What was the mysterious force that drove and caused the early universe to emerge? Antigravity maybe?
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:45 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;90703 wrote:
Hi Smile,

I think that time only exists where there is a flow of entropy in the system , cause and effect if you like

At absolute zero would time flow?

Movement and time are interlinked, without movement we would have no concept of time e.g. revolution of the earth around the sun.

If we accept Einstein then time simply could not have moved at the moment of creation within the infinite gravity field of the singularity, if you get my drift;but it did. What was the mysterious force that drove and caused the early universe to emerge? Antigravity maybe?



I love your intelligence.

So what your trying to say is through the second and third law of thermodynamics. Its amazing that you understand or anyone could understand the absolute form of entropy or thermodynamics. But the thing is you have to look at something both ways, put it in the equation and take it out of the equation. Time has nothing to do with entropy, entropy is just simply the expected amount of information needed to specify the state of system. Its just an informational theory concept to help us complete logarithms. Example: Condensation from ice melting, its looking for work through molecules, entropy exist everywhere in the universe.

At absolute zero time wouldn't exist nor has it ever.

We make time interlinked with everything. Look at it this way. Without time the earth will still revolve around the sun, and if it has no movement time still has no effect on it physically. Do you understand, take time out of everything you think it effects physically. Time as a physical entity does not exist but we have utilized this concept to make relative comparisons of event durations to that of repetitive and reproducible naturally occurring cycles or subdivisions thereof. It works in the same way that gravity does. Neither gravity (or its "gravitons") nor time (or its "chronons") exist as discrete entities. Gravity is nothing but the reactive force from Space to its displacement by matter. But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event.

Hey it could be anti-gravity who knows. Some say that its dark energy we haven't discovered yet.
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 07:48 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;90703 wrote:
Hi Smile,

I think that time only exists where there is a flow of entropy in the system , cause and effect if you like

At absolute zero would time flow?

Movement and time are interlinked, without movement we would have no concept of time e.g. revolution of the earth around the sun.

If we accept Einstein then time simply could not have moved at the moment of creation within the infinite gravity field of the singularity, if you get my drift;but it did. What was the mysterious force that drove and caused the early universe to emerge? Antigravity maybe?


You can always tell that time is flowing because every particle has a wavelength and that translates to some sort of time for observers outside the particle. Inside a photon, no time is passing since it is traveling at the speed of light. Outside the photon we can see its wavelength stretched out in time.
In the most current most popular version of the standard model, the mysterious force that drove the inflation of the early universe (different from the Hubble/Gravitational field expansion) is the spontaneous symmetry breaking that produces the Higgs Field. Here's some random internet stuff on the topic.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Moriond 08: Day 1 Symmetry factor

http://www.sc4.lpi.ru/proceedings/shaposhnikov.pdf
Strodgers
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 08:55 pm
@Alan McDougall,
What I would like to know is, if gravity, or rather warping of space, causes time to slow, or even lack of heat, or even both. What is time like between galaxies? It's as near to absolute as one can in both lack of temperature and warped space. Time may have been as fast or slow at the beginning as it is now.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:22 am
@Sorryel,
Sorryel;97382 wrote:
You can always tell that time is flowing because every particle has a wavelength and that translates to some sort of time for observers outside the particle. Inside a photon, no time is passing since it is traveling at the speed of light. Outside the photon we can see its wavelength stretched out in time.
In the most current most popular version of the standard model, the mysterious force that drove the inflation of the early universe (different from the Hubble/Gravitational field expansion) is the spontaneous symmetry breaking that produces the Higgs Field. Here's some random internet stuff on the topic.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Moriond 08: Day 1 Symmetry factor

http://www.sc4.lpi.ru/proceedings/shaposhnikov.pdf


Hi the mysterious force, maybe anti-gravity is driving and acceleration the universe outward and the latest opinion is that the universe is going to expand forever.

But there is a greater enigma when talking about the universe, our universe is asymmetrical, luckily for us, and made of matter, instead of a symmetrical universe consisting of only gamma rays due to matter and antimatter elimination each other in a flash of unimaginable cataclysm in the early universe
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:58 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;97580 wrote:
Hi the mysterious force, maybe anti-gravity is driving and acceleration the universe outward and the latest opinion is that the universe is going to expand forever.



Dark Energy is the usual term for the aspect of the fields that drive expansion in the current regime. Since gravity is what drives most of the expansion, antigravity would reduce the expansion. So dark energy may be yet another aspect of the Higgs field.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 01:08 am
@Sorryel,
Sorryel;98467 wrote:
Dark Energy is the usual term for the aspect of the fields that drive expansion in the current regime. Since gravity is what drives most of the expansion, antigravity would reduce the expansion. So dark energy may be yet another aspect of the Higgs field.


The Higgs anti-gravity (God Particle) particle is a hypothetical theoretical particle, but theory is very often correct
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 06:38 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;98704 wrote:
The Higgs anti-gravity (God Particle) particle is a hypothetical theoretical particle, but theory is very often correct


There's no need for any anti-gravity to drive the expansion faster. All you need is more energy in the fields, hence the term dark energy, which might well be an aspect of the Higgs field.
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 05:18 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;90682 wrote:
My point is; time moves slower in colossal gravity fields, how did our universe overcome this apparent paradox in its creation?, because physics tells us in an infinite gravity field like, the singularity, time must have stood still; but it did not luckily for us
'Time moves slower in colossal gravity fields' only when compared to and from a lower gravity field. There is no lower gravity field in which to observe the singularity, resolving the paradox.

Also, we are in a colossal gravity field now (when compared to an miniscule gravity field somewhere else in the universe) and from our experience we are not experiencing slower time.
0 Replies
 
Strodgers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 01:10 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:
Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?


Yes and no. In other words, in relation to what? Today? Can we even say yes or no? Relativity it would be, I think, the same for this reason; nothing to compare it to on a side by side basis. Unless one wishes to state that time is physical. Time may not be faster here or there, just different. Or if you wish; Time's the same, We are the one's seeing it differently.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:15 am
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;100161 wrote:
Yes and no. In other words, in relation to what? Today? Can we even say yes or no? Relativity it would be, I think, the same for this reason; nothing to compare it to on a side by side basis. Unless one wishes to state that time is physical. Time may not be faster here or there, just different. Or if you wish; Time's the same, We are the one's seeing it differently.


Time must have moved slower in the immense gravity of the early universe and this statement is in accord with general relativity (Einstein)
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:22 am
@Alan McDougall,
It goes a lot faster when im on holiday and so much slower in the dentists. Its our relationship to this juggernaut that hurtles through our lives that we should be concerned with. Cause and effect, it happens and we are only ever left with now.
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:33 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;100265 wrote:
Time must have moved slower in the immense gravity of the early universe and this statement is in accord with general relativity (Einstein)


Actually we can tell how much slower time was at that time (or close to it, ie within 300,000 years of the bang or at decoupling) since photons from that time that were emitted at very high temperatures are now "cosmic backgroung microwave radiation" ...ie their wavelengths have been shifted in the overall GR metric that runs from the point of emission until now. So figure the wavelength at radiation and the proportion of that to the wavelength now gives you the amount that time was slower then (plus expansion? Maybe that is just an aspect of the "time change"...a parallel/related example for entropy in a comoving volume -- which is constant -- suggests the expansion isn't a significant term)...so time was slower by a factor of at least tens of thousands.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:41 am
@Sorryel,
New Theory Nixes "Dark Energy": Says Time is Disappearing from the Universe

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html

Remember a little thing called the space-time continuum? Well what if the time part of the equation was literally running out? New evidence is suggesting that time is slowly disappearing from our universe, and will one day vanish completely. This radical new theory may explain a cosmological mystery that has baffled scientists for years.

Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to call this unidentified force "dark energy".

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we're looking at things backwards.

Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years.

The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured
The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction.

Instead, Prof Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.
"We do not say that the expansion of the universe itself is an illusion," he explains. "What we say it may be an illusion is the acceleration of this expansion - that is, the possibility that the expansion is, and has been, increasing its rate."

If time gradually slows "but we naively kept using our equations to derive the changes of the expansion with respect of 'a standard flow of time', then the simple models that we have constructed in our paper show that an "effective accelerated rate of the expansion" takes place."
Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique.

This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe.

If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating.
"Our calculations show that we would think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," says Prof Senovilla.

The theory bases it's idea on one particular variant of superstring theory, in which our universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk". In billions of years, time would cease to be time altogether.
"Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, forever," Senovilla told New Scientist magazine. "Our planet will be long gone by then."

Though radical and in many way unprecedented, these ideas are not without support. Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, say the concept has merit. "We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just the reverse effect."

Posted by Rebecca Sato.
Related Galaxy posts:
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:41 am
@Sorryel,
Sorryel;100270 wrote:
Actually we can tell how much slower time was at that time (or close to it, ie within 300,000 years of the bang or at decoupling) since photons from that time that were emitted at very high temperatures are now "cosmic backgroung microwave radiation" ...ie their wavelengths have been shifted in the overall GR metric that runs from the point of emission until now. So figure the wavelength at radiation and the proportion of that to the wavelength now gives you the amount that time was slower then (plus expansion? Maybe that is just an aspect of the "time change"...a parallel/related example for entropy in a comoving volume -- which is constant -- suggests the expansion isn't a significant term)...so time was slower by a factor of at least tens of thousands.


Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cosmic Microwave Background

Cosmic Microwave Background

---------- Post added 10-28-2009 at 08:46 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;100276 wrote:
New Theory Nixes "Dark Energy": Says Time is Disappearing from the Universe

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html

Remember a little thing called the space-time continuum? Well what if the time part of the equation was literally running out? New evidence is suggesting that time is slowly disappearing from our universe, and will one day vanish completely. This radical new theory may explain a cosmological mystery that has baffled scientists for years.

Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to call this unidentified force "dark energy".

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we're looking at things backwards.

Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years.

The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured
The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction.

Instead, Prof Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.
"We do not say that the expansion of the universe itself is an illusion," he explains. "What we say it may be an illusion is the acceleration of this expansion - that is, the possibility that the expansion is, and has been, increasing its rate."

If time gradually slows "but we naively kept using our equations to derive the changes of the expansion with respect of 'a standard flow of time', then the simple models that we have constructed in our paper show that an "effective accelerated rate of the expansion" takes place."
Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique.

This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe.

If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating.
"Our calculations show that we would think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," says Prof Senovilla.

The theory bases it's idea on one particular variant of superstring theory, in which our universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk". In billions of years, time would cease to be time altogether.
"Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, forever," Senovilla told New Scientist magazine. "Our planet will be long gone by then."

Though radical and in many way unprecedented, these ideas are not without support. Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, say the concept has merit. "We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just the reverse effect."

Posted by Rebecca Sato.
Related Galaxy posts:


Interesting. So if you read the metric backward, time looks slower. One problem with that is that cosmic nucleosynthesis shows that the early universe was very hot and dense which is consistant with time and expansion running toward a now where time is running faster than it was in terms of the metric the results of which we can observe now in the cosmic microwave radiation.
0 Replies
 
Strodgers
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 01:59 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;100265 wrote:
Time must have moved slower in the immense gravity of the early universe and this statement is in accord with general relativity (Einstein)






Then Time is physical?
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 02:44 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;100376 wrote:
Then Time is physical?


It's as physical as tripping over a log and falling down because you are in a gravitational field. It's as physical as all the particular wavelengths of light and other photons around you. It's as physical as why the light hitting your eyes is light and not mircrowaves or x-rays.
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 03:52 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;100265 wrote:
Time must have moved slower in the immense gravity of the early universe and this statement is in accord with general relativity (Einstein)
That statement is not in accord with GR. Time moves slower only when compared between varying gravitational potentials. Yes the universe was more dense in the past, but the entire universe was more dense. There was no varying regions of gravitational potential.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/09/2022 at 05:54:13