|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in it. Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all yours ways of measuring it would change. We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the same thing, apparently). That mean the gravity of the Earth, of the Sun, of the Galaxy and every other object in the Universe! In other words, all objects in the Universe are subjected to a "universal gravity" (same force that is opposing the Universe's expansion) and therefore time for all objects in the Universe must be slowed! (relative to what? Not sure, yet it must be true) Actually this universal gravity must be changing other constants (like the mass of a Proton for one) changing many of the physical laws of the universe. OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically. For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite collapse (it takes forever, but the event horizon is created). So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after. Has anyone ever heard this before? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:41:19 GMT, "John David Schmidt"
wrote: Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all yours ways of measuring it would change. That coincides with thoughts I've had in the past. We seem to take it for granted that time is a fixed constant. I'm not sure I understand why this is the case - but there's an element of doubt probably only because my mind isn't powerful enough to comprehend alternatives. Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
John David Schmidt wrote:
OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically. For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite collapse (it takes forever, but the event horizon is created). A black hole will form in a fraction of a second after a core begins to collapse. We, on the other hand, looking at the event (assuming we could see through the overlying structure of the star itself - but I digress), would see the event taking a long time. That is our perception of the event due to the effect gravity has on the light traveling to us from the event as it unfolds. But, like it or not, the black hole is established in the universe within a fraction of a second after the core begins to collapse. So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after. I think that your misperception of time flow comes into play here as well. You see, we have the advantage in this case of measuring the rate at which galaxies are moving away from each other and can run the movie backwards to establish a time when all matter was closer than it is today. In the big bang models, space and time unfolded at time rates faster than the speed of light (no problem here with relativity as there is no restriction on the expansion rate of time and space, just the motion of physical objects and light through it). So, running the clock backwards from the perceive expansion rate gives a time that is not related to the time it "seems" that a black hole would form. In this latter case, we are perceiving the passage of time within space-time. In the other case we are observing the passage of the expansion of space-time itself. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew McKay wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:41:19 GMT, "John David Schmidt" wrote: Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all yours ways of measuring it would change. That coincides with thoughts I've had in the past. We seem to take it for granted that time is a fixed constant. I'm not sure I understand why this is the case - but there's an element of doubt probably only because my mind isn't powerful enough to comprehend alternatives. It all depends on your frame of reference. Time is not universally consistent when you start considering extreme conditions of speed and gravity. So when scientists say, "the Age of the Universe" there may be a number of assumptions that are associated with the concept. I'm sure I don't know what they all might be, so in fact none of us may have a mind that is powerful enough to comprehend ... the true reality, let alone the alternatives. (;-)) "Observers in any given reference frame may assume that their time is flowing at a constant rate of one second per second." ---- Can we assume that this is a trivial statement? -- Regards Fred Remove FFFf to reply, please |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No, that is the strange thing about time dilation. Many people get confused
since the "explanation" involves talking about gravity slowing photons. Actually it is really true that time really slows down. Of course when your "time" slows down you can't tell. Time is only consistent in a non accelerated frame of reference. It took me a long time to get this, yes the motion of photons make it "look like" time slowed down, yet it is the same thing as time really slowing down. In other words if gravity really didn't slow down time (or rather alter the frame of reference). You wouldn't be able to find a time difference between clocks on Earth and in orbit. "J. Scott Miller" wrote in message ... John David Schmidt wrote: OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically. For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite collapse (it takes forever, but the event horizon is created). A black hole will form in a fraction of a second after a core begins to collapse. We, on the other hand, looking at the event (assuming we could see through the overlying structure of the star itself - but I digress), would see the event taking a long time. That is our perception of the event due to the effect gravity has on the light traveling to us from the event as it unfolds. But, like it or not, the black hole is established in the universe within a fraction of a second after the core begins to collapse. So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after. I think that your misperception of time flow comes into play here as well. You see, we have the advantage in this case of measuring the rate at which galaxies are moving away from each other and can run the movie backwards to establish a time when all matter was closer than it is today. In the big bang models, space and time unfolded at time rates faster than the speed of light (no problem here with relativity as there is no restriction on the expansion rate of time and space, just the motion of physical objects and light through it). So, running the clock backwards from the perceive expansion rate gives a time that is not related to the time it "seems" that a black hole would form. In this latter case, we are perceiving the passage of time within space-time. In the other case we are observing the passage of the expansion of space-time itself. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
GUT-CHARGE AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 1 | October 30th 03 04:33 AM |
GUT-CHARGE AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 19th 03 09:31 PM |
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 14th 03 08:13 AM |
GUT-CHARGE,AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 30th 03 12:29 AM |