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

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by validity

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

[validity]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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

With this in mind the paradox posed in the opening post

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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

is resolved. If you are still not convinced, I ask you is time passing slowly now? The density of the universe now is much larger than it will be in 1 trillion years. If the opening post is valid, then we should be experiencing a slower rate of time. But we are not. Time passes normally for us from our point of view just as time passed normally for the early universe from the early universes point of view.

[Alan McDougall]

Time in my opinion is speeding up a year with a now clock might be a billion years of the primordial clock

TIME----------------------------------------------------------------Time

O--------year-------------O---year---O-year-O.year.O/TIME STOPS Big bang?

Thus "one billion present years" could equal "one year" on the primordial clocks and calenders. Or clocks are thus revolving a billion time faster that the BIG BANG clocks

Time is stretching like an elastic string the further from the big bang the greater it stretches and accelerates

All speculation on my part however.

[amrhima]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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?

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

[I am question]

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?

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by I am question

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?

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

[I am question]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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

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. That example you are giving about the clocks is completely wrong. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time. You need to understand my earlier post and read it a little bit better.

[validity]

Originally Posted by amrhima

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

A good question. How could this difference in nature be teased out? I am currently, and have been for quite a while, in the camp of there is no time independant of change.

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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

Then I have no reason to conclude that his time is moving at any differenet rate. It is only through comparing the experiences that a difference is noted. If Alans time was moving more slowly then why can not it be detected outside the comparison to another perspective?

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.

I do not place any absolute truth in that statement. For it can be equally said that Alan has not aged at any different rate and it is James who has aged quicker than Alan.

[Alan McDougall]

Einstein Theory Proved


Einstein Theory Proved

April 18, 2007 04:43 PM
by findingDulcinea Staff
NASA's Gravity Probe B confirms one of the central predictions of the general relativity theory: gravity bends space and time.
30 Second Summary

Gravity Probe B has provided the first experimental evidence of the geodetic effect, one of two key propositions of Einstein’s general relativity theory.

In the most commonly used analogy for general relativity, space is compared to a rubber mat stretched flat. The surface of the mat bends if a heavy object is placed on it. In a similar way, the Earth bends what Einstein called “space-time.”

The NASA probe contains four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure that curvature. The orbit of the satellite is actually a very slow fall to Earth. Because that fall is over curved space-time, the axes of the gyroscopes move differently to how they would were the surface of space-time flat. Like a ship going prow-first into a whirlpool, the axes are tipped on the approach to earth.

Over the next eight months, the probe will return data to test the second key prediction of general relativity: frame-dragging. Does the Earth’s spinning drag space-time, making it spin like the whirlpool in the above analogy?
Headline

The final results of the experiment will appear in December 2007, when scientists expect to confirm frame-dragging––a phenomenon much harder to detect than the geodetic effect.
Source: Scientific American

go to site »
Key Players

“Gravity Prove B is the relativity gyroscope experiment developed by NASA and Stanford University to test two unverified predictions of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” NASA provides elegant animations illustrating the curvature of space-time.
Source: NASA

go to site »
Albert Einstein was born in Germany on March 14, 1879. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. “At the start of his scientific work, Einstein realized the inadequacies of Newtonian mechanics and his special theory of relativity stemmed from an attempt to reconcile the laws of mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field.”
Source: Albert Einstein

go to site »
Related Links

The earth is not round, says Scientific American. Our planet is in fact a “bumpy spheroid.”
Source: Scientific American

go to site »
Reference Material

The John F. Kennedy Space Center in California launched the satellite on April 20, 2007. The launch and mission is can be followed at the John F. Kennedy Space Center site.
Source: The John F. Kennedy Space Center

go to site »
The “special theory of relativity” shows that time and length are not absolute, but their values vary; it also produced the world’s most famous equation, E=MC2, describing the equivalence of mass and energy. The “general theory of relativity” demonstrated mathematically the curvature of space and time.
Source: Einstein Online

go to site »
The short answer to the question of what is the General Theory of Relativity is that “according to Einstein the presence of a gravitational field alters the rules of geometry in space-time. The effect is to make it seem as if space-time is ‘curved’.”
Source: Stanford University

go to site »
As with much of science, general relativity is counter-intuitive. Time can travel at different speeds for different people; two people can measure the same object with perfect accuracy and produce different results; mass and energy are different expressions of the same force. This section of the NASA Web site tries to shed some light on these difficulties.
Source: NASA

[Samm]

Originally Posted by I am question

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?

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?

Samm