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

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.

In the huge gravity of the early universe time must have flowed slower RELATIVE to the almost infinitely less compacted universe of present time

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

Hi ,

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?

Time is and never was physical. I don't see any examples to give it a physical entity. It only came into existence once our species needed to measure movements and cycles, it has never had a cause and effect on anything. Time can either move slow or fast because we can alter it, its manifested in our conscience. Thats why time fly's by when your having fun because your not paying attention to a number. The law of physics has never explained why time always points to the future, why it is linear. See the funny thing is time never reverses, its a one-way process, but no laws restrict it though. The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales-a bit like the concept of 'surface of the water,' which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms. Some say that time is a 'spatial dimension', but if it is a dimension, then how do we have the knowledge to question its existence if we can't even comprehend a fourth dimension? :brickwall:

You are wrong my friend it is a proved fact that time flows slower in a high gravity field as compared to a lesser one.

If you could hypothetically land on a neutron star and spend what you think is a day there you will find in that enormous gravity field a million years will have passed on earth with its lower gravity fields where time moved faster.

This has been proved by placing extremely accurate atomic clocks on both space craft and airplanes, syconising them with a clock on the ground and comparing the earth and atomic clocks later.

There is always a difference, time moves infinitesimally faster on the air-planes where the gravity is lighter than the higher gravity on earth
(Einstein Special Relativity) Check it out he was clever than yoou and I or definitely smarter than me

Say Alan lands on Jupiter!! interestingly, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity - his theory of space, time and gravity (No longer theory) says that, due to the higher gravitational potential on Jupiter than on Earth, time as experienced by Alan is moving more slowly "relative" to time experienced by say James back on the Earth.

What does this mean? First, the word "relative" is crucial here: it means that as far as Alan is concerned, nothing in his own experience indicates to his that time is moving more slowly.

The point is, more slowly relative to what? Alan himself feels nothing out of the ordinary, for instance his heart still beats at 60 beats per minute according to his wristwatch. It is only when Alan and James "compare" their experiences of the passage of time that they notice something very strange. Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.

Of course the greater the difference between the two gravity field the greater the affect on time. At the event horizon of a black hole the relative difference between their wristwatches would be billions of years, possibly

Is time simply change? or there's time independent of change?

nothing in his own experience indicates to his that time is moving more slowly.

Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.

Time is and never was physical. I don't see any examples to give it a physical entity. It only came into existence once our species needed to measure movements and cycles, it has never had a cause and effect on anything. Time can either move slow or fast because we can alter it, its manifested in our conscience. Thats why time fly's by when your having fun because your not paying attention to a number. The law of physics has never explained why time always points to the future, why it is linear. See the funny thing is time never reverses, its a one-way process, but no laws restrict it though. The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales-a bit like the concept of 'surface of the water,' which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms. Some say that time is a 'spatial dimension', but if it is a dimension, then how do we have the knowledge to question its existence if we can't even comprehend a fourth dimension? :brickwall:

This seems a bit naive. The general relativity theory has never been proven true, because if it was then it wouldn't be called a theory and we wouldn't have quantum mechanics and theoretical physics today.

I have approached this issue from a philosophical angle, since I am not trained in the complexities of quantum or relativistic mathematics. My conclusions have been that time, if it is a dimension at all, must be a collapsed dimension. All that exists of time, as we imagine it, is the here and now of it, the present. The reality of things is change, as amrhima and validity (and you?) have suggested. Change happens only in the present. There is no change in the past, but only memory, and the other traces of conditions prior to change, that exist in the present. (The location of each grain of sand on the ocean shore is the sum of all past changes that have occurred to that grain of sand added to the location and condition of its point of origin.) There is no future, but only the innate potentials intrinsic to conditions in the present that collapse the probability functions that bring about change. (Real properties intrinsic to any particle and its environment of detection, including inertia and momentum and quantum effects, determine the changes that particle will undergo.) Thus the past and future both exist in and contribute to the ever-changing present.

If we accept that change is the reality for which time is only a measure, then we may speak of the passage of time (the speed of time's passing from future to past) as a rate of change based upon real physical properties that underlie such changes. Instead of saying that time slows down for objects in an accelerated or increased gravitational frame of reference, then we may say instead that the rate of change within that frame of reference has slowed. This would mean that something within that framework had a universal effect upon everything within it resulting in the slowing of the process of change within it--at least relative to a stationary observer.

There is no doubt that our experience of time is an effect of short term immediate memories that allow us to compare what seems to be the present to moments immediately preceding it. This suggests that much of what we describe as time is an internal phenomenon of consciousness and the mind. Here I speak of consciousness, not as it is elsewhere defined, but simply as "that-which-experiences" in its broadest sense. Given this special understanding of consciousness as nothing more than the specific agent of our being by which we experience everything (our selves and our world), it is possible to conceive of everything in the universe as having such consciousness; for it is precisely "that-which-experiences" by which every subatomic particle, every atom, every molecule, every cell, every organism, everything in the universe is able to interact with every other thing within the range of its detection. The consciousness of an atom is not sentient, rather it is an automatic responsiveness to the stimulations of its environment upon the properties intrinsic to it. Human consciousness is far more complex and does involve sentience, if somewhat less than we might fancy.

Although I come to define consciousness from an internal analysis of my own human experience, it may also be seen as a physical characteristic or property and examined by scientific analysis. It identifies, for example, any change in the motion of an electron due to the force exerted by electrical charges in its vicinity, not as effects of the force pushing or pulling the passive electron, but rather as active changes in its motion enacted by the electron in response to its experience of those forces. This is not an overriding revelation, but only a different way of looking at physical events consistent with Feynman diagrams and the current view that forces are conveyed by particles (bosons).

Every event or process, every change that constitutes what we conceive as time, is the result of actions initiated by particles in response to their experience of their environment (e.g., other particles with which they interact). Something about gravity and acceleration affects the interaction of these particles and the aggregate objects and beings they comprise, resulting in the process of stimulus and response (the basis of all experience) slowing with increases of gravity and acceleration relative to similar processes in a stationary or unincreased gravity frame of reference.

Could this potentially be consistent with your views? :perplexed:

Samm

Thats a lot. What Im trying to state here in the most simplest and shortest way is: Time DOES NOT exist in the physical universe, but in a general consensus of society through definition, it DOES exist, only if you don't separate it semantically.

How can entropy flow without time??:perplexed:

Are we saying that time is nothing more than clocks and calendars used to mark the occurrence of this or that event? Is it like the ruler we lay down on paper to measure the dimensions of a drawing? Time is a temporal ruler? and the drawing is reality?

Samm

When given a system whose exact description is unknown, its entropy is defined as the amount of information needed to exactly specify the state of the system (to the full extent that it can be described in the universe itself). Entropy is just energy in a specific location, so you can identify that location. Listen, think outside the box man. Take time out of the equation, it seems that your saying without time there is no energy, where can you prove this? And don't say its general relativity, because the only thing Einstein said about time was it was timeless, that we are in this space-time continuum, he said it was an illusion. Don't get stuck on his theories, thats what a lot of people do, keep your mind wandering and open to everything.

Heck I wish I was as sure of my facts as you are. Are you saying time is only a local measure of how we move through space??

If you want to say that point A in space is where you start, and you are trying to get to Point B, you measure the distance in length of course, then you measure it in time. But if you dont measure the distance between each point then how do you know if your at Point B? Right thats easy common sense. If you dont measure the time of the distance traveled from each point, you will still be able to travel, but you don't have numbers telling you the duration of an event through movement, but you still reach point B. Of course it is a measurement of cycles we perceive in everyday life. It simply has no cause and effect. The manifestation of time show us how powerful our mind really is.

If you want to say that point A in space is where you start, and you are trying to get to Point B, you measure the distance in length of course, then you measure it in time. But if you dont measure the distance between each point then how do you know if your at Point B? Right thats easy common sense. If you dont measure the time of the distance traveled from each point, you will still be able to travel, but you don't have numbers telling you the duration of an event through movement, but you still reach point B. Of course it is a measurement of cycles we perceive in everyday life. It simply has no cause and effect. The manifestation of time show us how powerful our mind really is.