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

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by I am question

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?

[validity]

Originally Posted by Samm

'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

Originally Posted by pagan

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...

Originally Posted by pagan

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.

Originally Posted by pagan

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".

Originally Posted by pagan

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.

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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.

[Alan McDougall]

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)

[pagan]

hi validity

well my brain is tired BUT...

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.

[validity]

Originally Posted by pagan

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

Originally Posted by pagan

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

[pagan]

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.

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......

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

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 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 ?

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

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?

[validity]

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

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

Originally Posted by Samm

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.

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by 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

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)

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

• 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?