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

@I am question,

I am question;103728 wrote:

Of course, that is time. All it is is a measurement, nothing more.

A measurement of what, movement, at absolute zero nothing moves within an object, but time continues to flow.?

Do you believe we exist in an ever changing moment?

1 Reply

@pagan,

Samm;103716 wrote:

'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 do not think we have missed the drop point intentionally. While saying that time passed slower in the early universe relative to the current universe has some truth, I see a mistruth in it. Our digression into abstraction is exposing and correcting this mistruth... well I hope it is Smile

pagan;103706 wrote:

validity -
i hadn't thought of that, its a good point .... it might indeed suggest that we do not percieve space directly. (If space exists at all). Similarly for time. (if time exists at all)

We would need a further distinction in the definition of exists. Perhaps this may be too far off topic...

pagan;103706 wrote:

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.

This is a good example of the distinction of "cause and effect", "before and after". Although observer A can, under certain circumstances, view events in order C,D,E while observer B views the same events as D,C,E cause and effect is preserved.

pagan;103706 wrote:

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?

A further step is needed. When the time keeping device from within a high gravity environment is compared to another from a lower gravity environment it is established that in fact, time did pass at a slower rate in the higher gravity environment. This demonstrates that time is not absolute. Time now, while I am typing this and while you read this, is not passing at an absolute rate. The rate is dependant on what you are comparing it too. If we compare the rate of time to surface of the moon, our time is passing slightly slower than on the moons surface, simultaneously, if we compare our rate of time to that on the sun, our time is passing slightly faster. I believe we are reading form the same page titled "it is always measured relationship".

pagan;103706 wrote:

I have to apologise validity but my brain is slowing down, so i am probably way off .... it is late and i have been overloaded by an intense few weeks. I will get back to you.

I do not think you are way off.

Alan McDougall;103747 wrote:

at absolute zero nothing moves within an object,

Even if absolute zero could be obtained the oscillations within the substance would not come to a complete stop.

1 Reply

@validity,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Validity
A further step is needed. When the time keeping device from within a high gravity environment is compared to another from a lower gravity environment it is established that in fact, time did pass at a slower rate in the higher gravity environment. This demonstrates that time is not absolute. Time now, while I am typing this and while you read this, is not passing at an absolute rate. The rate is dependant on what you are comparing it too. If we compare the rate of time to surface of the moon, our time is passing slightly slower than on the moons surface, simultaneously, if we compare our rate of time to that on the sun, our time is passing slightly faster. I believe we are reading form the same page titled "it is always measured relationship

".

With respect Validity this has been done using extremely precise atomic clocks, one a an airplane the other on the ground.

What is Time?

Proof of 'Time Dilation' according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity:

Flying an atomic clock around the world in an aircraft has proved 'Time Dilation', (Slowing of Time) as predicted by Einstein. This was achieved by comparing the Time of the moving (accelerated) atomic clock, to a similar stationary clock on the ground.

Time Dilation only occurs under acceleration, not under 'constant' motion.
An aircraft flying around the Earth will be generally travelling at a constant speed of around 300 to 400mph. What causes the Time Dilation is the continual acceleration due to the change in 'Angular Motion', more commonly known as 'Angular Acceleration'

Oh I see that only proves that time alterers on an accelerating object compared to a stationary one

I must investigate further!! (my comments Alan)

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

hi validity

well my brain is tired Smile

BUT...

Quote:

This is a good example of the distinction of "cause and effect", "before and after". Although observer A can, under certain circumstances, view events in order C,D,E while observer B views the same events as D,C,E cause and effect is preserved.

its good to get back to GR. I have studied it mathematically and i have to disagree with you here.

the mathematical transformations at the centre of GR are such that IF you can connect events across spacetime by a velocity less than or equal to c (not necessarily the speed c, because of effects like gravity on geodesics), then the order of events say C then D then E is preserved between different time frames. However, if the theoretical connection velocity between events is necessarily greater than c, then the order of events is not generally preserved.

This is at the heart of the removal of the concept of simultaneity from GR spacetime as compared to say the newtonian model. In the newtonian model things that appear (directly observed) to be not simultaneous can be found to be simultaneous after corrections in time frame transformations under the newtonian mathematical model. Moreover, it follows in the newtonian model that after doing such transformation calculations, that if two seperate observers then find that two events are simultaneous then it also follows that all other observers would agree.

This is not true in GR. Only the order (and not time measurements of seperation) of events is conserved, and only if the connection velocities between the events is necessarily less than or equal to c.

What this then provides is a definition of materialistic cause and effect. In GR cause and effect can only be provided by interactions less than or equal to c ..... which leads to the interpretation if desired that materialism only functions for such interactions. eg a material object cannot be accelerated relative to another time frame to a velocity greater than c.

However, that does not imply that 'things' cannot have velocities greater than c, or that connections between events cannot be faster than c. It just means that those connections are not 'cause and effect' in the sense that all observers can agree on the order of events which is what is usually meant by causuality. ie we all agree that A caused B, not least because we agree that A occurs in spacetime before B, and then of course subsequent agreement on the material mechanism that joins them. The word cause in this context neccesarily means before the effect.

Of course we can widen the definition of cause and effect such that the order of events is not preserved but we will end up saying things like. In time frame x, A caused B in the classical time sense, and in time frame y B caused A in the classical time sense.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;103846 wrote:

hi validity

well my brain is tired BUT...
its good to get back to GR. I have studied it mathematically and i have to disagree with you here.

and I have to apologise here for my great carelessness. I read

pagan;103706 wrote:

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.

as "In special relativity theory of course". Perhaps it was my brain that would of benefited most from a rest. Smile

Thank you for a clear and justified correction of my sloppiness.

1 Reply

@validity,

Quote:

validity - as "In special relativity theory of course".

well yes it certainly is apparent in special relativity, the problem being that there isn't just one GR theory. eg debates around the cosmological constant and not least the way GR doesn't fit with QM yet and both are open to modification not least on that basis.

Quote:

When the time keeping device from within a high gravity environment is compared to another from a lower gravity environment it is established that in fact, time did pass at a slower rate in the higher gravity environment

hmmm ... well yes we can certainly have that interpretation. But this is where the philosophical consideration of direct time experience can modify our outlook......

Quote:

Alan McDougall - 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

The point here is how we compare different time frames. Firstly although it is projected that at say the edge of a black hole, or within a great gravitational field time measured from another perspective upon those regions can become zero, it mathematically doesn't imply that such a time frame projected into measuring the (near vacuous) future (!!) would race to infinity.

Secondly, when projecting the laws of physics to the GR predicted singularities and super high density regions we shouldn't be confident that we have the complete picture. GR is not complete, not least because it doesn't marry up with QM yet.

But there is another aspect to this. When we put an atomic clock into a different gravitational region, leave it for a 'while', and then bring it back and compare to a synchronised clock which we kept in our own frame, then the two will generally read different times. But the direct experience of time is not predicted to change. Two twins on different journeys may be shocked to find one has aged more than the other, but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock. More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on Smile

So it depends in what sense we compare different time frames. At a distance the comparisons could be interpreted as 'not physical'. The comparisons only become physical when the time frames are coincident.

For example, in special relativity, two twins racing away from each other with constant high velocity BOTH see the other twin ageing slower compared to themselves. This is an apparent physical contradiction, but it disappears when the two twin frames are made coincident again and an actual physical comparison can be made. When that is done at least one twin has to accelerate to make the twin frames coincident. During that phase of watching each other suddenly both twins agree which one of them is ageing more slowly. But the comparisons only become physical when the final coincident comparison is made.

Now is it true that time slowed down for one atomic clock and twin compared to the others? Well yes and no. From objective comparison yes. Even yes from objective comparisons of the number of subjective experiences. eg how many games of footy did you play Smile

But did time feel faster or slower, no it didn't.

There is a sense that only when the twins and clocks are back together that they can make an actual physical comparison, between those times it is a sort of appearance. (a highly mathematically modifyable appearance). So even GR comparisons are appearance, BUT of course the GR comparisons will finally match up in sync with the final actual physical comparisons if they are made. But in between they are sort of virtual comparisons........ and those virtual comparisons are able under some circumstances to apparently physically contradict each other. Virtual comparisons in GR are allowed to do that, because they can always be cancelled out (by subsequent virtual comparisons) when the time frames are brought back together for an actual comparison.

Thus projecting back using GR from now to the beginnings of the high density universe is a virtual comparison ..... and 'they' are allowed to give bizarre perspectives and 'apparent physical' contradictions.

..... so what then is the nature of measured relationship? It seems to me to depend upon the nature of the relationship. Some relationships can make things (like physical consistency) disappear. So does it mean that if something can disappear that it was never real in the first place ? Smile

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;103747 wrote:

A measurement of what, movement, at absolute zero nothing moves within an object, but time continues to flow.?

Do you believe we exist in an ever changing moment?

Time is a measure of change from moment to moment, and if there is absolutely no change from one moment to the next, time will measure zero (t=0) because there has been no change, because the two moments are one and the same moment. We do exist in an ever-changing moment (the present). Change is the reality we call time.

I wonder if this effect can be localized, so that time would stop here but not there. Maybe so, but I would tend to think that time (change) applies to the whole universe. Worthy of thought though.

And change includes internal and invisible effects. I will not suggest that a being frozen in absolute zero temperature with no atomic motion might still be capable of thought or dreams, but if it could, then certainly those would represent "hidden" changes which time might measure if our instrument of measure is subtle enough. (But duh! How can any measurement occur in absolute zero anyway! Sorry, I haven't woke up well yet this morning.)

Actually, even in the absence of space (and its three or more dimensions), change is possible as exemplified by our own "internal" mental activities--thought, memory, dream, imagination, emotions, desires, consciousness itself--all of which occur independent of space, except as the materialist attributes them to brain and other organ activities. It is internally that the experiences of a conscious being are converted to changes initiated by the actions of that being.

Samm

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 10:11 AM ----------

It may be that at absolute zero, "the oscillations within the substance would not come to a complete stop," as validity says, that the spin of quantum particles might continue at that temperature. But I think Alan McDougall is referring to absolute zero because it is said that it represents the base temperature that exists when absolutely no motion is present; thus, he is using it as a shorthand expression for "a condition in which absolutely no motion is present, even at the quantum level." Obviously, and as I have said above, even if some frozen little thing is still capable of thinking or dreaming then change is still occurring somewhere within. Absolute zero, in its ideal expression, is a state or condition in which absolutely no change is occurring anywhere, anyhow.

Samm

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 10:44 AM ----------

A question about relativity.

As we accelerate toward light speed, space is progressively more compressed in the direction of our travel. If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then it must be assumed that gravity also compresses space, which is often illustrated as a three dimensional indentation on a two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional space. Most such illustrations show the "plane" of space as flat except in the vicinity of the gravitational mass, because the effect of warped space diminishes quickly with distance. But in fact, the reach of gravity is extensive, is it not, and so the warping (or compression) of space is also extensive, but is effectively insignificant once the effect of the gravity source is overcome by what we might call the "gravity noise" of deep space.

If gravity effectively compresses space, then space would be less-compressed in vicinities where the effects of gravity are diminished. Interstellar space would be less compressed, hence more attenuated, than interplanetary space. Intergalactic space would be more attenuated than interstellar space. And away from the galactic clusters and super-clusters, away from the material strands of the universe, space would become ever more attenuated, if we assume that it has been somewhat compressed, even if only a little, while in the vicinity of gravitational masses.

Question. Does this attenuation of space occur as it is farther from gravitational masses? Can this effect contribute to what we call the expansion of space?

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;104048 wrote:

But the direct experience of time is not predicted to change. Two twins on different journeys may be shocked to find one has aged more than the other, but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock. More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on

Interesting. I need further clarification.

but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time (how is this so as all processes are considered to alter). when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock (whose clock?). More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on

Samm;104062 wrote:

But I think Alan McDougall is referring to absolute zero because it is said that it represents the base temperature that exists when absolutely no motion is present;

That is not what absolute zero represents.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity;104237 wrote:

Interesting. I need further clarification.

but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time (how is this so as all processes are considered to alter). when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock (whose clock?). More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on

That is not what absolute zero represents.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Velocity and gravitational time dilation combined-effect tests

Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[16] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London-Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers - uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre (23 ft) oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours

Time is not a constant (Alans comment)

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;104251 wrote:

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Velocity and gravitational time dilation combined-effect tests

Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[16] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London-Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers - uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre (23 ft) oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours

Time is not a constant (Alans comment)

I think the time dilation of satellites could be investigated more. I can present two specific possibilities to account for time deferential.

A. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for alternating gravitational pull of the earth. Perhaps the gravitational effects are not constant thus causing the path to osculate just enough to throw off where the satellite should be and where it actually is.

B. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for alternating gravitational pull of the moon. Perhaps the gravitational effects cause areas of "harder" pull on the satellite, a sort of turbulence drag on the craft in various spots which would temporarily slow the craft until it was out of range.

C. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for unknown atmospheric or even magnetic interference. Like eddies in water which cause the object to osculate while traveling along it's trajectory.

If velocity does impact time then the calculations of the velocity of our planet through the universe would also be under the influence of time dilation. Meaning the observed time would not be true universal time for that very reason. It would be impossible to know the accurate time of outside observational time. (if there even is such a thing)

I compared two pictures of the Andromeda galaxy. One that was taken during it's first discovery which is a black and white plate capture and the second was taken just a few years ago. I studied the two images using a trick of overlapping exact scales of both to discover none of the stars have shifted or moved between 108 years. What was I expecting to see?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

validity - Interesting. I need further clarification.

but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time (how is this so as all processes are considered to alter). when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock (whose clock?). More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on

yeh i am sorry i may be guilty of bad english here ......

Originally Posted by pagan
But the direct experience of time is not predicted to change. Two twins on different journeys may be shocked to find one has aged more than the other, but the one that has aged more has also experienced more time when compared to say living by the readings of an atomic clock. More 24 hour periods, more sleep, more love making and so on

what i am getting at is that of course the twins could assume when they meet up and compare each other that they have been alive for the same amount of time. After all if two people met at stonehenge on winter solstice eve 2008 and met again at stonehenge on winter solstice eve 2009 then they would naturally assume that they have both been alive for a year between meetings. On that assumption the younger of the illustrious einstein twins would naturally assume that his brother has aged more in the same time. (eg a degenerative desease or that he entered a time zone that was faster than his). But of course relativity theory states that it isn't like that, the older brother has been alive longer between the two stonehenge meetings.

The rocket clocks ticked for longer and therefore made more ticks than the earth clock did between the stonehenge meetings. The rocket clock was being a clock for longer. There was no speeding up or slowing down of time at all, its just that the two twins have been on completely different journeys (spacetimes) with different physical experiences (velocity/accelerations).

When the overall time differences are compared between one coincident spacetime frame to another coincident spacetime frame, it becomes apparent that one twin had a 'longer' journey in time than the other.

The seperate point i am making is the with regard to the real paradox of the twins. The paradox is not that the twins do not have the same age at the end of the return journey. The paradox is that when they are apart, they make contradictory physical measurements with respect to each other. We should distinguish between two observers making different physical measurements which is indeed contradictory in a sense, and when the physical measurements contradict each other in the relative sense of greater than and less than. For parts of the classic einstein twin journey, earth twin measures his clocks as ticking faster than his rocket brother as he speeds away at constant velocity. BUT during that same phase his rocket brother does exactly the same in reverse. ie physical measurement A is greater than B, and physical measurement B is greater than A. Which one it is for you depends upon your time frame.

It is only at the reunion that all the virtual comparisons come back into sync and both make a final agreement. After and before coincident time frame comparisons and thus while making 'virtual' comparisons, physical measurements (energy, momentum, mass, rate of change) are not only different they can be mathematically contradictory in the sense that Mx > My and My > Mx.

Thus when we ask questions like "was time slower or even zero for the early universe?" or "why does internal time for an object at the event horizon look like it completely stops?" we should not forget that we are making virtual comparisons with our present spacetime condition. Thus those comparisons in physical measurements are not constrained by classical logic.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;104257 wrote:

I think the time dilation of satellites could be investigated more. I can present two specific possibilities to account for time deferential.

A. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for alternating gravitational pull of the earth. Perhaps the gravitational effects are not constant thus causing the path to osculate just enough to throw off where the satellite should be and where it actually is.

B. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for alternating gravitational pull of the moon. Perhaps the gravitational effects cause areas of "harder" pull on the satellite, a sort of turbulence drag on the craft in various spots which would temporarily slow the craft until it was out of range.

C. The orbital path of the satellite fluctuates for unknown atmospheric or even magnetic interference. Like eddies in water which cause the object to osculate while traveling along it's trajectory.

If velocity does impact time then the calculations of the velocity of our planet through the universe would also be under the influence of time dilation. Meaning the observed time would not be true universal time for that very reason. It would be impossible to know the accurate time of outside observational time. (if there even is such a thing)

I compared two pictures of the Andromeda galaxy. One that was taken during it's first discovery which is a black and white plate capture and the second was taken just a few years ago. I studied the two images using a trick of overlapping exact scales of both to discover none of the stars have shifted or moved between 108 years. What was I expecting to see?

Point A I can not see how oscillations in the orbits of satellites would effect time dialation, unless they cause speed differences

It is true that there is no absolute universal time, indeed even on earth time is not a constant, you would age minutely slower on the peak of mount Everest than at sea level, but almost infinitesimally. The nearer one comes to the speed of light the greater the effect on time dialation, if you could accelerate to just within a infinitesimal fraction of light speed, the effect would become huge, an hour to the light speed travelling clock, might be a billion years to a earth bound clock

What is Time?2

Physical Atomic Time:
In accordance with the principles of 'New Relativity' and Electron Orbital Variations (EOV): Electrons orbit around a Nucleus at a 'specific' orbital frequency or 'Time', related to the atomic element. In plain English this is the number of times per second that the electrons orbit around the nucleus, usually rated in Billions of times per sec. usually around 10,000MHz (10,000,000,000 orbits per sec.)

In all Bio-organic or inorganic bodies this is the frequency or the 'Physical Time', at which atomic- molecular-chemical reactions take place.

How Strange?
The Quantic & Modern Science Understanding of Time?
It seems 'Stranger than Fiction' or even 'Stranger than quantum mechanics'.
Although modern science provide us with the knowledge & technology to make & understand very accurate 'Atomic Clocks', when it comes to discussions about 'Time & Relativity', all that we understand about 'Atomic Time' especially EOF, 'flies out the window' and is totally ignored.
This is very typical of the Quantic habit of 'Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater', which Quantics have done, especially with Gravity and Light, ever since their acceptance of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as the basis for quantum mechanics.

Given the explanation of an Atomic Clock, it should be pretty obvious that Time & Time Dilation are definitely related (Relative) to EOV & EOF, even without the explanations of 'New Relativity'.
The 'Atomic Clock' is a good example of Physical Time & Electron Orbital Frequency (EOF).
Time Dilation due to Acceleration:
According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Time is a physical phenomenon that is equivalent & related (Relative) to other forces and energies comprising the (local) Space Time Continuum.

In other words, Time is also a form of Energy that can fluctuate due to interactions with other forms of energy, such as Heat, Light, Gravity, EME (Electromagnetic Energy) and Acceleration. (Ref: Principal of Equivalence)
As demonstrated in the previous chapter, 'About Time', the Physical Time of any matter can be increased or decreased by variations of the Electron Orbital Frequency (EOF).

According to modern science, based on the modern interpretation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, Time can only be dilated (slowed down) only by the influences of Gravity and Acceleration. However the EOF, bio-resonance, or 'Physical Atomic Time', can also be influenced by variation in all other forms of energy, such as Thermal and Electromagnetic Energy.

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

hi Alan McDougall

it all depends upon how we interpret GR. Gr is open to more than one interpretation.

Suppose we consider the case of an accelerating particle in the LHC. We could say that the particle enters a different time zone relative to ourselves, and one in which that time zone is much slower than ours. We might witness for example that the particle does not decay as we 'observe' it, when we know that by probability that it almost certainly should have. Thus demonstrating that the interpretation that time has slowed down for the particle is consistent with what we observe. Time slowed down relative to our frame of reference at least, and so therefore time did indeed slow down.

But there is another interpretation. The particle in the accelerator has taken a spacetime short cut in terms of time. Time has not slowed down for the particle at all, what has happened is that the particle has taken a spacetime journey which is shorter in terms of time than our spacetime journey. Therefore it hasn't violated the probability of its half life decay at all. Time could be the same as us for the accelerated particle, but it has taken a shortcut and therefore hasn't experienced enough time to expect its decay.

This is counter intuitive for us, because spatially the particle is racing around a loop, so in what possible sense could it be a shortcut? Its a longer journey spatially. But thats because we subjectively see a linear relationship between time and space using velocity on the one hand, and also we are used to euclidean geometry generally. In different purely spatial geometries for example, a straight line between two points as viewed from outside the alternative geometry using a euclidean geometry is not actually the shortest route spatially within the alternative geometry.

In GR theory the geodesic is very important. It replaces the straight line constant velocity as a geodesic in newtonian mechanics. Consider an orbit around a large mass. The orbit being a geodesic. Now consider a complete circuit returning to point A. Suppose two observers within that orbit, (geodesic), were to seperate. X follows the orbit and Y takes a different spatial path, but they meet up again at the seperation point A. In GR they have taken two completely different spacetime journeys, journeys in non euclidean spacetime. There is no reason generally in GR why they should agree that either spatially or in time that their spatial and time measurements of the journeys should be the same for each other. BUT if they return to the same point A and also to the same geodesic time frame, then they will both agree that the predictions for each other (if they have the information for each others journeys) will match. X will not have experienced any acceleration at all, because the spacetime path was a geodesic.

The thing about GR geodesics is that generally/locally they are the spacetime paths of longest time. That is counter intuitive to us because 4d spacetime is counter intuitive and so is non euclidean geometry. Deviate from a geodesic (using acceleration) and generally you take a short cut in time. The particle in the accelerator is doing that but the situation is more complex to study because on the surface of the earth we are not following a geodesic either. Nevertheless the particle can be interpreted to have taken a 'time element' spacetime shortcut relative to ourselves, and time did not need to slow down for it to explain its non decay as viewed in our time.

Suppose two people meet up at mount olympus and take different journeys to alice springs and back again. One arrives before the other and waits a week. They could interpret it as

a you travelled at exactly the same speed but you took the longer journey spatially.

b you travelled at a different speed to me, but took an equally long journey spatially.

c combinations of a and b.

With GR we have an extra posiibility that can be interpreted in at least two different ways.

d1 lets compare watches. Your clock reads less time than mine, so whether you took a longer spatial journey or not, we know that you took a shorter journey through time.

d2 lets compare watches. Your clock reads less time than mine, so whether you took a longer spatial journey or not, we know that time slowed down for you.

To understand the reason for the difference of a week, we have to combine a,b, and d1. Or a,b, and d2.

Now the mathematics for d1 and d2 are identical, ie GR ...... but the interpretation is different. Both make sense.

We can say that time slows down for an accelerated object or that an accelerated object takes a shortcut through time. (just as we can use the term shortcut to describe the shorter spatial journey compared to the longer spatial journey)

We could equally say in the the classical case without GR, that the person who arrived back first entered a space zone where space got shorter. But that would be a non euclidean counter intuitive possibilty for human understanding. It would also be a mathematical nightmare Smile

.... in GR however we can interpret it as the traveller entered a space zone that was shorter(or longer), just as we can for time, but we have to combine the two using GR mathematics.

This effect is most notably concieved of with respect to interstellar travel. On the face of it, travel close to the speed of light and it will still take 4 years or so to reach the next star. But using the time zone interpretation, it won't take four years for the traveller it will take much less time. This is a time zone biased interpretation. But we could also say that the traveller enters a shorter space zone, so the distance is less and that also explains why the traveller can get there in under four years of their time. Of course to accurately get the right answer we must combine the two.

But alternatively we don't have to interpret space or time changing for the traveller, we can say that the acceleration and velocity enables the traveller to move through spacetime. Its just the nature of travelling through non euclidean spacetime, and their space and time experience does not change with respect to themselves. A second is still a second, a metre is still a metre, a measured/predicted half life remains the same. Who is to say that they aren't?

I hasten to add that i am not advocating one interpretation over the other. I am open minded and exploring possible consequences. I have to rush off for the weekend .... but the differences in interpretation could relate to whether we consider time to be physical or not. It also potentially gives the possibility that physical measurements can be of different categories. Virtual and classical comparisons, where the logic of virtually compared measurements is not classical but that they will become classical in summation if the comparisons are made between identical spacetime frames.

1 Reply

@pagan,

This may be a silly question but the more dense the matter is, the more gravitational pull, so time must have been slower when the universe first appeared, surely? We had almost infinite amount of potential matter or energy so surely with Einsteins theory, time would hardly occur.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;104450 wrote:

Point A I can not see how oscillations in the orbits of satellites would effect time dialation, unless they cause speed differences

velocity could remain constant but if the orbital path were to increase in length that would ultimately take longer to traverse it. Imagine a straight line, and measure the time it takes to travel that straight line. Now if you were to bend that straight line into several curves the distance would actually increase. So imagine the satellite swerving due to either gravitational forces, or some kind of atmospheric interference. That by itself would give inaccurate time readings because it would take longer.

Alan McDougall;104450 wrote:

It is true that there is no absolute universal time, indeed even on earth time is not a constant, you would age minutely slower on the peak of mount Everest than at sea level, but almost infinitesimally.

This is NOT true. It is a farce. I have disproven it myself. The main factor that you are ignoring is that the difference would stack. No matter what time ratio it was it would eventually fall further and further behind. One becomes two becomes three and four and eventually the top of mt everest would be millions of years behind sea level. That simply is not the case. People who make this claim ignore that ADDING that would happen if there was a time differential.

If you are interested in just how I have disproven time differential due to varying altitudes I will explain it briefly here.

All you need is a laser and optical refractive surface and a time measuring device. Place the refractive surface on the ground and place the laser in the air above the refractor and fire a single beam at the refractor measuring the amount of time required for the beam to trigger the stop mechinism of the timer. Yes I understand it would be so fast a standard timer just wouldn't suffice. The measuring device I am referring to would have to measure into many decimel places.

As you increase in the altitude you should see an anolomly of time differential IF altitude effected time dililation. What I mean by this is, when you plot a graph of altitude and time for each altitude then there would be a slight unaccountable variance in the data. Instead of a linear data field you would see a roll or arc to the graph. So far there is none.

The only other possibility is that using a laser somehow ignores time dilation which would mean that light is uneffected by time dilitation. But are you sure you want to make that argument?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Guys I will address each of your post a little later, please allow me to add a bit more about ageing faster on a high mountain relative to sea level

Not being in a gravity field makes your internal clock run slower.THIS POINT IS WRONG. Being in the middle of a strong field makes your internal clock run slower

The theory says time passes slowly for someone near a massive object, as measured relative to someone farther away. On Earth, this effect is so small as to be undetectable "to all but the most precise equipment", putting demonstrations beyond the reach of, say, a typical high school science fair. Consequently, "kids grow up thinking relativity is only for really fast speeds or really heavy gravity," says Van Baak.

Travelling near the speed of light makes your internal clock run slower.

The faster you go the more you weigh, the more you weigh the more mass you have, making you, yourself have a gravitational field. But then how are you both able to have your internal clock run slow due to traveling fast, but at the same time, have it run fast by being the creating factor of a gravity field?

Climbing with Atomic Clocks

[1] speed
[2] gravity
[3] weakens
[4] tiny: This key sentence contains five unknowns: how accurate, how high, how long, how precise, and how much. How much depends on how high and how long. The quality of your experiment depends on how accurate the clock is and how precise you can measure.
[5] works: Relativistic time dilation has been demonstrated with clever physics experiments to varying degrees of accuracy from the 1960's to the present.
[6] mountain: Mt Rainier is just 100 miles away; the summit is 14410 ft (4392 m).
[7] airplane: The two classic examples of this are the 1971 Hafele-Keating round-the-world experiment and the 1975 flying clock experiments by C.O. Alley.
[8] rocket: The best example is Gravity Probe A, the 1976 Scout D rocket experiment by R.F.C. Vessot.
[9] satellite: An early example is the 1977 NTS-2 pre-GPS satellite experiment.
[10] plan: Project GREAT: General Relativity Einstein/Essen Anniversary Test.
[11] power: A 5071A uses about 50 W at 24 VDC (~2 A). The internal 2.5 Ah battery is guaranteed for 45 minutes. A pair of external 90 Ah batteries as shown should keep the clock running for ~40 hours. Three sleds are for 3 clocks; or one clock for five days. On belay!

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;104609 wrote:

and eventually the top of mt everest would be millions of years behind sea level. That simply is not the case. People who make this claim ignore that ADDING that would happen if there was a time differential.

how do you know its not the case? Mountain material gets blown all over the place, eroded and so on. But what is mountain material? It is made of atoms. You cannot tell by looking at an atom how old it is.

Krumple;104609 wrote:

All you need is a laser and optical refractive surface and a time measuring device. Place the refractive surface on the ground and place the laser in the air above the refractor and fire a single beam at the refractor measuring the amount of time required for the beam to trigger the stop mechinism of the timer. Yes I understand it would be so fast a standard timer just wouldn't suffice. The measuring device I am referring to would have to measure into many decimel places.

your experiment is a little vague. You say you measure the time between laser and the off switch. But the pulse mechanism is at altitude and the off trigger in the refractor is on the ground? You are making the stop and start times in different spacetime coordinates, but worse you are doing this while trying to test for one coordinate being in a different time zone to the other! Further the speed of light is a constant in GR (well for a vacuum) and thats what sets up the time dilation effect. This effect is apparent when using clocks to measure through a cycle in each frame and then compared. Looking for changes in velocity of light over a distance would be a completely different theory to relativity. If c is the velocity of light for any time frame then it is defined as a linear relation between distance and time. Thats what a constant velocity is....... but isn't what time is in relativity.

Krumple;104609 wrote:

The only other possibility is that using a laser somehow ignores time dilation which would mean that light is uneffected by time dilitation. But are you sure you want to make that argument?

Well that the velocity of light is not affected is at the very centre of relativity. Its the starting point for defining time dilation through the simple two mirror light clock, where photons reflect back to close the cycle.

If you redesigned the experiment such that a ground laser fired up to an altitude, bounsed off a 45 degree mirror, hit a second one a little to one side perpendicular to the beam, back to the first and then returned to a detector next to the original laser you would have an interesting experiment, because there are two cycles in two different time zones to compare. Cycle one is between the two mirrors. Cycle two would be emmision and redetection. (though cycle two contains cycle one so you need a bit of math)

---------- Post added 11-23-2009 at 08:33 PM ----------

xris;104510 wrote:

This may be a silly question but the more dense the matter is, the more gravitational pull, so time must have been slower when the universe first appeared, surely? We had almost infinite amount of potential matter or energy so surely with Einsteins theory, time would hardly occur.

hi xris. well again thats why i point out that we are making virtual comparisons even as a thought experiment. Within a time frame that is either calculated or relatively measured to another to be faster or slower, it does not follow that time within the frame has slowed down for the material in it. These are virtual, non similar time frame comparisons. Move to a time frame that appeared slower or faster, and life will feel just as long or short ..... your digital watch will not appear to have changed in its clock rate because you have carried it with you.

Similarly.......... someone going into a massive black hole, past the distance of no return, could feel nothing special has happened at all. From the outside looking on however, it looks like their clocks and processes slowed down to zero time ........ and then they disappeared!

1 Reply

@pagan,

We all need to start separating physical reality with mental reality, then we can truly define the understandings of the cosmos. Because in space our society does not live, our manifestations do not exist there. No one listens to the point where you need to take it out of the equation then put it back in and understand its full meaning. They're theories, not our solution and answers, open our minds think outside the box.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;104293 wrote:

The seperate point i am making is the with regard to the real paradox of the twins. The paradox is not that the twins do not have the same age at the end of the return journey. The paradox is that when they are apart, they make contradictory physical measurements with respect to each other. We should distinguish between two observers making different physical measurements which is indeed contradictory in a sense, and when the physical measurements contradict each other in the relative sense of greater than and less than. For parts of the classic einstein twin journey, earth twin measures his clocks as ticking faster than his rocket brother as he speeds away at constant velocity. BUT during that same phase his rocket brother does exactly the same in reverse. ie physical measurement A is greater than B, and physical measurement B is greater than A. Which one it is for you depends upon your time frame.

It is only at the reunion that all the virtual comparisons come back into sync and both make a final agreement. After and before coincident time frame comparisons and thus while making 'virtual' comparisons, physical measurements (energy, momentum, mass, rate of change) are not only different they can be mathematically contradictory in the sense that Mx > My and My > Mx.

I haven't followed the whole of this thread, but I wonder if someone could explain the following:

During both the outward and return legs of his journey, the travelling twin observes the earth twin's clock apparently running more slowly than his own; yet when they meet again he will observe that it has run more quickly than his own. Assuming that the turnaround at the halfway point of the journey is not instantaneous, does this mean that during the turnaround the travelling twin will see the reading on the earth twin's clock advance very rapidly to make up the required time difference? There must be a self-consistent narrative as to what the travelling twin observes throughout his journey.

1 Reply

@ACB,

Quote:

ACB
During both the outward and return legs of his journey, the travelling twin observes the earth twin's clock apparently running more slowly than his own; yet when they meet again he will observe that it has run more quickly than his own. Assuming that the turnaround at the halfway point of the journey is not instantaneous, does this mean that during the turnaround the travelling twin will see the reading on the earth twin's clock advance very rapidly to make up the required time difference? There must be a self-consistent narrative as to what the travelling twin observes throughout his journey.

In short, yes to some extent.

But note that there are 3 periods of acceleration. The leaving, the turnaround and the return. All three must occur for the two twins to finally yield results consistent with each other. All three alter the observations between the twins.

The problem in this special relativity example is of course that the three periods of acceleration fall outside the mathematics of special relativity theory. We need GR to fully calculate and predict with accuracy.

However some approximations can reveal the general answer. One key point is that when the travelling twin presses the button to accelerate his rocket and head back, then that is instantaneously observed by him. He feels the acceleration immediately, therefore the GR effects take immediate effect upon his observations of the signals emmitted from the twin at home. Whereas the home twin does not feel any change of reference, he has to wait for the acceleration signals to travel from his brother before he can even know that the acceleration has taken place. Thus there are a whole string of signals in space from his travelling twin still to arrive before they change to indicate that they come from an accelerating object. This is in stark comparison to the twin that actually accelerates, because the effect is immediate upon the signals in space that he recieves from home. This mathematically makes a difference.

Incidentally if the turnaround acceleration was infinitely large over zero time and thus the change in the velocity was instantaneous, then the home twin would see nothing very odd in his travelling brothers life. By contrast, the travelling twin would apparently see his home brother instantaneously jump forward in time.

However, be careful here. There are two levels of apparently written into this. On the outward journeys the time gap between signals is elongated by two seperate components of the model. One is time dilation, the other is spatial elongation of signals. (the doppler effect, a drop in frequency). On the return journey there is a time dilation effect just as before, but now a signal compression spatially (doppler effect, increase in frequency). The time dilation effect is only seperable by taking out the doppler effects. Thus the period of changing acceleration for the travelling twin changes from one doppler shift to the other immediately (spatial elongation to compression), and that alters the number of signals recieved and is not equivalent for both twins. Its a bit like the travelling twin gets to see a lag of signals in the shift of frame reference very quickly and the home twin doesn't because his frame does not change. For him there is no lag in signals at all. So one sees apparent 'extra' time and the other doesn't. To further complicate the mental construct of these things, there isn't just a time dilation effect throughout, but also a spatial measurement difference too, and this plays upon the signals latent between the two observers ....... especially if one observer radically changes his frame of reference. So don't think that the difference is just down to the accelerating time dilation periods themselves, as seperate from the space between them. This is where the short cut in time occurs, but it is dependent upon the distance between them too. (Alternatively you could say this is where the longer time route occurs, depending on your point of view)

Quote:

ACB
There must be a self-consistent narrative as to what the travelling twin observes throughout his journey.

Well your wording here is ambiguous. In fact it isn't self consistency, it is mutual consistency. This is why i believe that conceptually there is a big difference between actual physically coincident measurements which must be consistent, and virtual non coincident measurements which are generally not consistent and therefore non classical.

The role of 'objectivity' in this model (whereby we mentally try to take a gods eye non participatory view) thus yields a sort of mathematical consistency but at the same time that mathematical third person objectivity cannot be defined unless you specify the imagined frame of reference that the 'objective' observer is taking. Previous to Relativity, it was classically thought that there was a concievable absolute frame of reference whereby all other frames could be objectively observed from. That ends in relativity. GR is in its own way non classical in its logic, and observer dependent. Something which is normally attributed just to Quantum Mechanics.

The sense in which time can be likened to a physical quantity is in the actual physically coincident measurements sense. The reason i say that is because relativity also has effects upon things like mass. Thus there is virtual mass measurement (which is relativistically apparent) and actual mass compared measurements which require coincidence of frames of reference. Both twins think that the other has gained mass too while they are apart. (But the latter strictly speaking requires GR theory since mass means spacetime curvature and that means gravity). Note however, that virtual time dilation effects mutually agree in summation at the point of final comparison in coincident frames of reference. Mass on the other hand does not require the summation if neither twin has shed mass on the journey. At the moment of coincident frame comparisons the masses become equivalent. The history of the (non classically) differing virtual mass measurements does not apply in this simple case where gravity between the twins is considered very close to zero and therefore miniscule compared to time dilation effects. But in principle in GR, the history of virtual mass measurements does have to be included because it affects spacetime and therefore apparent motion through spacetime curvature induced by mass. Thus actual frame coincident mutually compared mass measurements are necessarily consistent between observers, but not non frame coincident virtual ones.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know