0
   

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

 
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 01:07 am
@Alan McDougall,
Krumple I think I am question is thinking about the idea where we always exist in a moment and this moment flows down a river we call time

In a way this concept is interesting, do we ever reach a point in time xris often poses this question. When say the clock is supposed to read exactly 1200hrs it is already 1200.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hrs Planks constant

This logic, and I do not say it is correct supposes we are hypothetically sitting on a seat call "moment and the clocks moved passed us

Getting back to the original question of this thread, the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time as in the case of a black hole?? But it did not something drove the universe outward and allowed entropy to flow so stars galaxies could form. Again I cant see how entropy could flow in the absence of time, they are so interlinked. As an Engineer in the Power utility field I am well schooled in the vital concept of entropy
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 01:30 am
@Alan McDougall,
All that is is the present. The past is nothing but memory and the future is nothing but the potentials immanent in each present moment. Only the present exists. How can any two times even be conceived as existing together? Of course they cannot exist together, not though they were an age apart nor though they were adjacent instants. Only one moment may ever exist, the moment of the present in which all experience occurs, in which all choices are made and all actions initiated, in which all events bring about all the change that ever occurs.

Do not think that time brings about motion. Inertia and momentum are built into the properties of all objects. Their change in location from one present moment to the next is determined by intrinsic properties of the objects and every particle of their being. Time is only a toy that we play with in our observation of reality. It is not a part of reality. Only change is real. What are our equations except a device for measuring the amount of change in objects relative to the movement of our clocks and the cycles of light and darkness. It was not said that we should set time to zero (t=0); rather it was said that we should remove time from the equations altogether.

Samm
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 01:36 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;102960 wrote:
All that is is the present. The past is nothing but memory and the future is nothing but the potentials immanent in each present moment. Only the present exists. How can any two times even be conceived as existing together? Of course they cannot exist together, not though they were an age apart nor though they were adjacent instants. Only one moment may ever exist, the moment of the present in which all experience occurs, in which all choices are made and all actions initiated, in which all events bring about all the change that ever occurs.

Do not think that time brings about motion. Inertia and momentum are built into the properties of all objects. Their change in location from one present moment to the next is determined by intrinsic properties of the objects and every particle of their being. Time is only a toy that we play with in our observation of reality. It is not a part of reality. Only change is real. What are our equations except a device for measuring the amount of change in objects relative to the movement of our clocks and the cycles of light and darkness. It was not said that we should set time to zero (t=0); rather it was said that we should remove time from the equations altogether.

Samm


Nice post Samm, do you think the ever moment idea that I stated in my post, just before this one is correct? Did you read it??
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 08:20 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;102953 wrote:
Getting back to the original question of this thread, the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time as in the case of a black hole?? But it did not something drove the universe outward and allowed entropy to flow so stars galaxies could form. Again I cant see how entropy could flow in the absence of time, they are so interlinked. As an Engineer in the Power utility field I am well schooled in the vital concept of entropy


I think people are looking at it backwards. Have you ever seen what happens to a marshmallow inside a vacuum? You can also "inflate" a balloon by lowering the pressure of the outside instead of increasing the pressure of the inside. I am wondering if the universe is doing something similar.

Instead of the universe expanding with a force pushing from inside outward, it is an outside force pulling the "edges" of universe outward. I think the reason we cant find all the dark matter that is suppose to be in our universe is because it is actually the "outside force" I am referring to causing the stretch effect similar to a balloon in a vacuum. This would also account for dark energy as well.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 10:30 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;102961 wrote:
Nice post Samm, do you think the ever moment idea that I stated in my post, just before this one is correct? Did you read it??

I had read about a page of posts following my last post, but I must say upon checking that I do not remember the post to which you refer. But, as my uncle always said of himself, "My memory ain't what it used to be, and it never was!" :perplexed:

When you talk about a moment (the present) flowing down a river we call time, well, you're still talking about time. That river, that temporal continuum or one-way dimension, is an extention that doesn't exist. It's illusion is perpetrated upon us by our own memories, and by a much more primitive form of memory that is intrinsic to the most fundamental particles of nature. But all that exists of time is the moment. The entire universe exists in moments of the present--these moments are not necessarily the same moment perhaps for all things, nor is the rate at which changes occur within that moment the same for all things. But there is no river.

Reality manifests only in the here and now. Before it manifests, a thing that will be real already exists in the present reality, as a potential embedded within the fabric of reality. One form of this potential is the quantum potentials that collapse, not when observed but when observable (e.g., manifest in present reality). But the future is not hidden in some continuum beyond our perception, it is hidden in the very present moment within the properties of the objects and particles that (now) exist. There is no river of time.

Reality manifests only in the here and now. After it manifests, a thing that was real remains real only changed. Its previous condition does not disappear down a river of time (a temporal continuum beyond our perception), but rather ceases to exist except in memory, not only in human memory but in the more primitive memory of matter itself. The present condition of any particle of matter (etc.) is the sum of all its previous conditions, hence its memory as I say. Ask yourself where these words came from that you read on your computer screen, as I suppose. Well they didn't exist until they appeared on the screen just now. But before that, we know that they existed in potentia. They were electronic
information sent to your computer from a server where they were stored as what, magnetic information? laser information? (I don't know that much about server storage systems). Before that, it was electronic information sent to the server from my computer as I now sit and type it, seeing the words on my computer screen. Prior to my typing them, they are ideas and concepts stored within my brain, some created only as I type them out perhaps. And before that they existed only in various things that I have experienced in my life...books I have read, documentaries I have watched, reflections I have had while pondering my existence in this universe--we all have our own unique collection of such experiences in our lives.

But the thing is, the words you read have always existed in the present, in one form or another although they have not existed on your computer screen until virtually this very moment. And where will they go when you leave this post and go to another, or make your own post, or go to another site, or involve yourself in another activity? Your computer will "remember"them for a time. The server will "remember" them for a greater time. You yourself will remember them for some time, albeit less perfectly, than computers do. They will become a part of your experience and maybe play some part in the further development of your own ideas. Others who read them may recall portions of them or achieve some change as an effect of them. (At least that's what we hope when we write our posts. :bigsmile:)

But the thing is, the words continue to exist and have consequence even when they fade from the screen, and this is the form of memory (human and primitive) in which all things of the past continue their existence, consequentially. Everything is now. The experiences and activities and changes of the present are now. The potentials that give birth to further changes are now. The consequences and memories of what has been before are now. The moment of time is real. The river of time is not.

Samm
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 05:19 pm
@SammDickens,
The arrow of time example is quite interesting. But velocity shouldn't interlink time and distance, only distance. I dont know how time would have any effect or cause on the velocity of an arrow when it is shot. Professor Roger Penrose once said that when you pause that arrow in mid air, you will not know where it came from or where it is going only where it is at, you will never know the beginning point and end point at the same time, only one. Time, people is not in our physical reality, im not saying it doesn't exist fully, only on the outside of our minds. Do you understand its linear like our conscience, its created the way we wanted it to be, because we are the creators. Call me crazy but im sticking with this belief, same with a million other physicist out there, I need proof to show me time is a physical entity. At any velocity why would you need time? At zero velocity what is time not effecting?
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 07:10 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;102953 wrote:
Getting back to the original question of this thread,
The progress we made has been forgotten and it is leading to further confusion.

Alan McDougall;102953 wrote:
the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time
You have forgotten the important bit i.e.
Alan McDougall;100423 wrote:
In the huge gravity of the early universe time must have flowed slower RELATIVE to the almost infinitely less compacted universe of present time


Alan McDougall;102953 wrote:
as in the case of a black hole??
It is not the same case as a blackhole has an outside perspective independant of the blackhole itself ie the event horizon is the "line in the sand". Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 07:33 pm
@validity,
validity;103065 wrote:
The progress we made has been forgotten and it is leading to further confusion.

It is not the same case as a blackhole has an outside perspective independant of the blackhole itself ie the event horizon is the "line in the sand". Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?


But the early universe has no outside perspective. The universe is an inside with no outside, is it not? Is it not a space-time bubble bent in upon itself by the gravitational power of its own mass??? I got no earthly idea, I'm just asking. And if it is a space-time bubble, must it not be enclosed within an "ocean" of spaceless timelessness????? And would that not mean, effectively that the far-flung universe is enclosed within a singularity??????? I would ask more, but I'm out of question marks. :surrender:

Samm
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 08:19 pm
@SammDickens,
[QUOTE=Samm;103066]But the early universe has no outside perspective. The universe is an inside with no outside, is it not? Is it not a space-time bubble bent in upon itself by the gravitational power of its own mass??? I got no earthly idea, I'm just asking. And if it is a space-time bubble, must it not be enclosed within an "ocean" of spaceless timelessness????? And would that not mean, effectively that the far-flung universe is enclosed within a singularity??????? I would ask more, but I'm out of question marks. [/QUOTE]
Samm;103066 wrote:


Samm
I always carry a few spare to share ?????

Yes the question of "Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?" is designed to encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be.

You are correct in that it is conceivable that the entire universe is a black hole see http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath339.htm

An ocean of
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 09:50 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I thought time was always relative and observer dependent. So time is moving slower where relative to whom?
validity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 10:00 pm
@prothero,
prothero;103079 wrote:
I thought time was always relative and observer dependent. So time is moving slower where relative to whom?


Time is measured to be passing at a different rates for A and B whenever there is relative motion between A and B and/or A and B are in different gravitational potentials.

In the case that the observers are in relative uniform motion, and far away from any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the more is the rate of time dilation.

There is another case of time dilation, where both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass, such as (for terrestrial observers) the Earth or the Sun

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Just remember there is no preferred reference i.e. the experiences of A and B are both equally valid, even though these experiences may be different from one another.

sorry bit rushed for time at the mo, will provide other examples later is needed Smile

Okay back now...

My favorite example of relative velocity time dilation is muons. Muon Experiment in Relativity I like this worked example as it was the first one that I understood the application of time dilation. From the earth frame the muons passage of time is running slower than the earths, which allows it to reach the ground i.e. its half life is spread over a larger distance. The trick to understanding this is that from the muons frame the distance is shorter than the distance viewed from the earths frame.

An everday example of different gravitational potentials is in GPS. Effects of relativity on GPS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From the GPS satellite point of view time passes slower down on the ground and this effect needs to be accounted for in the design of GPS for GPS to work.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 01:59 am
@Alan McDougall,
Samm read my post 41

I will respond to your post later!
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 02:27 am
@prothero,
prothero;103079 wrote:
I thought time was always relative and observer dependent. So time is moving slower where relative to whom?

Hi, prothero! If time were observer-dependent it could only exist in the present since no-one ever observed anything in the future or the past. No? And if time is relative to anything, it must be relative to the changes it measures. And since change can also only occur in the present...

Einstein said that time moves slower in a frame of greater acceleration or gravity and therefore, says Alan McDougall, time should appear to be moving slower as we look back (in time and across space) nearer to the big bang when the universe was denser and gravitational effects were stronger. That would be time "appearing" to move slower to us here today as we look back into the time immediately after the big bang. So "where" is very long ago and "to whom" is us. I think. Smile

Samm
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 05:22 am
@SammDickens,
hmmm....

i think i am questions point that time is not physical is interesting as a blatant contradiction to the visualised (by 3d proxy) four dimensional space time in the minds eye when we consider relativity. But it seems to me that such a point is in danger of philosophically undermining materialism per se (which is generally the basis for scientific inquiry) because the argument that we don't measure time but we imply/create it from measuring change in physicality can be applied to physicality itself. ie We objectively imply/create physicality from change in scientific information. We subjectively imply/create physicality from change in sensory experience.

Moreover the example with regard to comparing the position of watch hands to measure mind created non physical time is very visually centered. ie We see watch hands never time. Such an argument is in danger of saying that space does exist because we can see it directly and time doesn't because we cant. However, suppose we consider an auditory being. You could only imply the existence of space from change in sound tone and volume. You cannot hear space directly. (And that last point is made upon the shakey assumption that we do indeed perceive space directly in a visual sense.)

(Now i am not criticising such a point of view in disagreement, i think it is interesting and worth exploring philosophically.......... its just that i get the intuition that the implications go a lot further than the 'realisation' that time is not physical. I am open minded on this.)

But really shouldn't we be asking "do we see space directly? Do we see physicality directly? Do we percieve time directly?" Has not the general relativity scientific model (its always a model and not the thing in itself) told us that there are connections between matter, energy, space, time, force, velocity, etc that we could not concieve of without science? That we didn't suspect. That we cannot mentally feel, hear, picture subjectively. That can only be read in detail objectively using special language (mathematics)? Becomes practical through the same medium?

I have started another thread of which only i am question has replied, called the experimental evidence for 'now'. As it happens a different angle on the same general theme i am question raises here. The point being there that i cannot find any concievable way that we can prove scientifically that the 'now' exists. This is similar to i am question deducing that time does not have a physical existence .... but not the same methinks. I also make points about science with regards to universality and thus time, and how in a sense that does indeed throw time out of the equation. Or perhaps more accurately, out of concievable direct study and into the equation..... which is related to i am questions point.

When we imply that something exists (or is real) from whatever source subjective/objective ....... are we not necessarily being creative? How can we know any truth about reality without the creative leap of implication? This includes undermining what we thought we knew 'directly' without implication!
validity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 03:39 pm
@pagan,
pagan;103105 wrote:
i think i am questions point that time is not physical is interesting as a blatant contradiction to the visualised (by 3d proxy) four dimensional space time in the minds eye when we consider relativity. But it seems to me that such a point is in danger of philosophically undermining materialism per se (which is generally the basis for scientific inquiry) because the argument that we don't measure time but we imply/create it from measuring change in physicality can be applied to physicality itself. ie We objectively imply/create physicality from change in scientific information. We subjectively imply/create physicality from change in sensory experience.

Moreover the example with regard to comparing the position of watch hands to measure mind created non physical time is very visually centered. ie We see watch hands never time.
Without knowing which specific definition of materialism you are referring to, I will generalise and say that materialism believes that mental objects and events can be reduced to physical objects and events. I do not see the contradiction, as mental constructs are allowed in the framework of materialism, are they not?

The precise periodic change of watch hands provide a standardised interval. From this standard a sense of time is generated. I see this as consistent with materialism.

pagan;103105 wrote:
Such an argument is in danger of saying that space does exist because we can see it directly and time doesn't because we cant. However, suppose we consider an auditory being. You could only imply the existence of space from change in sound tone and volume. You cannot hear space directly. (And that last point is made upon the shakey assumption that we do indeed perceive space directly in a visual sense.)

(Now i am not criticising such a point of view in disagreement, i think it is interesting and worth exploring philosophically.......... its just that i get the intuition that the implications go a lot further than the 'realisation' that time is not physical. I am open minded on this.)

But really shouldn't we be asking "do we see space directly? Do we see physicality directly? Do we percieve time directly?" Has not the general relativity scientific model (its always a model and not the thing in itself) told us that there are connections between matter, energy, space, time, force, velocity, etc that we could not concieve of without science? That we didn't suspect. That we cannot mentally feel, hear, picture subjectively. That can only be read in detail objectively using special language (mathematics)? Becomes practical through the same medium?
For me describing space without using objects is like attempting to describe time without change. Regardless of not being able to hear space directly, you can not see space directly either. You can measure relative distance between objects and from this construct the concept of space.
I am not aware of the general relativity scientific model stating that concievability of the relations between matter, energy, space, time, force, velocity, etc is not possible without science. Where specifically have you drawn your comment?
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:46 pm
@validity,
hi validity

Quote:
Without knowing which specific definition of materialism you are referring to, I will generalise and say that materialism believes that mental objects and events can be reduced to physical objects and events. I do not see the contradiction, as mental constructs are allowed in the framework of materialism, are they not?

The precise periodic change of watch hands provide a standardised interval. From this standard a sense of time is generated. I see this as consistent with materialism.
oh yeh i agree it can be. Like you say it depends upon which specific materialism we are considering. I was exploring i am questions opinion that time is not physical and that by leaving it out of QM/relativity synthesis equations then the maths is simpler. And maybe time is an illusion in the objective sense. The trouble with such an argument is that materialism itself could be subject to the same logic.
Quote:

For me describing space without using objects is like attempting to describe time without change. Regardless of not being able to hear space directly, you can not see space directly either. You can measure relative distance between objects and from this construct the concept of space.
Well yes maybe, but how do we construct the concept of space without being highly influenced by an internal abstraction directly influenced by vision? After all what is geometry? Is it pure mathematics in the sense that a non visual being could concieve of it?
Quote:

I am not aware of the general relativity scientific model stating that concievability of the relations between matter, energy, space, time, force, velocity, etc is not possible without science. Where specifically have you drawn your comment?
Smile unfortunately i have the tendency to explore openly and often get confused with putiing a point of view forward. I certainly believe that such relations are possible outside science..... although we shouldn't be unaware of the influence of science upon our conceptions generally, even upon those who do not study it but pick up the scientific concepts through popular culture. Which relates to the point i was making ....
Quote:

Has not the general relativity scientific model (its always a model and not the thing in itself) told us that there are connections between matter, energy, space, time, force, velocity, etc that we could not concieve of without science?
i am not saying that we cannot have relationships between these concepts without science, but i am saying that science can have a radical effect. eg spacetime 4 d geometry.

You seem to believe for example that we don't see space directly ..... but there are many that would disagree. For most such people it is extremely unlikely that they would concieve of 4d spacetime without science. In fact it is often a delight and wonder to them! Smile
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 05:56 pm
@pagan,
pagan;103665 wrote:
hi validity

oh yeh i agree it can be. Like you say it depends upon which specific materialism we are considering. I was exploring i am questions opinion that time is not physical and that by leaving it out of QM/relativity synthesis equations then the maths is simpler. And maybe time is an illusion in the objective sense. The trouble with such an argument is that materialism itself could be subject to the same logic.
I will look again for the post by "i am", but meanwhile I will post here and not directly to you, that the phrase "time is not physical" needs some further development. For example, to say that the flow of time is an illusion does not necessarily negate the distinction of "cause and effect", "before and after" etc.

[QUOTE=pagan;103665]Well yes maybe, but how do we construct the concept of space without being highly influenced by an internal abstraction directly influenced by vision? After all what is geometry? Is it pure mathematics in the sense that a non visual being could concieve of it? [/QUOTE] They are good questions. Firstly the definition of vision needs clarification to understand what a non-visual being is i.e. the difference in "a vivid mental image" and "visual perception". I use the distinction in this way. Echolocation, for example, can be used to construct a concept of space without visual perception i.e. it is a vivid mental image. Geometry uses visual perception to build a concept of space i.e. geometry is not a vivid mental image. The concept of space is not dependant on any one method of construction, a bat can equally navigate a forest as a ranger with a map (and a torch). So what do you mean by a non-visual being?

pagan;103665 wrote:
i am not saying that we cannot have relationships between these concepts without science, but i am saying that science can have a radical effect. eg spacetime 4 d geometry.
You seem to believe for example that we don't see space directly ..... but there are many that would disagree. For most such people it is extremely unlikely that they would concieve of 4d spacetime without science. In fact it is often a delight and wonder to them!
To better clarify what I mean when I say we don't see space directly i.e. without anything intervening, I will use an analogy. Say you are taller than me. Your "tallness" is a property of us, not you specifically. I cannot see your tallness without my height intervening.
pagan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 07:28 pm
@validity,
validity -
Quote:
Echolocation, for example, can be used to construct a concept of space without visual perception i.e. it is a vivid mental image. Geometry uses visual perception to build a concept of space i.e. geometry is not a vivid mental image. The concept of space is not dependant on any one method of construction, a bat can equally navigate a forest as a ranger with a map (and a torch). So what do you mean by a non-visual being?
i hadn't thought of that, its a good point Smile .... it might indeed suggest that we do not percieve space directly. (If space exists at all). Similarly for time. (if time exists at all)
Quote:

"tallness" is a property of us, not you specifically. I cannot see your tallness without my height intervening.
which might imply relativity, or relationship generally, as say in before and after. In general relativity theory of course, there are events that cannot be determined to be in the same order for all observers. In particular for space time connection between two events that is always greater than c, which are deemed outside cause and effect in the 'material' sense.

.... but i guess that returns me to my point that when we imply that something exists (or is real) from whatever source (subjective/objective) we are being creative. Are space and time mental constructs (from sensory/rational mind) or are they more than that because they are real? More like a mental construction as a revelation.

With regard to time being slower for some observers, or high gravity environments from the past say, as far as i understand these are time frame comparisons and not differences in direct experience. Time only appears to slow down from outside the different time frame, within it it is the same, even for atomic clocks. But i guess that by instead of direct experience you would interpret it as something else? An instinctive measure between experiences?

So when time appears to slow down for a different frame of reference, that appearance is no more or less direct than before, since directness is not the question. It is always measured relationship?

I have to apologise validity but my brain is slowing down, so i am probably way off Smile .... it is late and i have been overloaded by an intense few weeks. I will get back to you.
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 08:47 pm
@Alan McDougall,
'Scuse me guys, but this conversation seems to have gone a few miles past the drop point. There are abstractions here that seem utterly to confuse the realities of which we are speaking. Oh, my aching head! :-0

Samm
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 10:09 pm
@SammDickens,
Of course, that is time. All it is is a measurement, nothing more.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 05:40:43