PDA

View Full Version : Is Time Running Out?



kmelgar
2010-Jul-20, 05:12 AM
Hi new to this forum.

I stumbled upon this question and it got me wondering about the validity of it, if it were true. Can someone please help me get my head around it?

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2KQbpK/www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/07/is-time-disappearing-from-the-universe-radical-theory-says-yes.html

Doesn't really make sense to me, if time is running out then would that mean that time is slowing or stopping all together? According to the article one possible end is a completely static universe but I don't quite understand the relationship between how the slowing of time can affect the measured redshift which could lead us to misinterpret the red shift of galaxies as an expanding universe. What are your thoughts ?

Ronald Brak
2010-Jul-20, 03:19 PM
I don't see how this would account for some of the best evidence for dark matter which is the effects of galaxy collisions. For all I know there is something to this idea, but currently I'm going to put it in the pooh-poohing dark matter but can't provide a convincing explanation of observations pigeon hole. (Hmmm... won't fit. I'll have to put it in the turkey hole instead.)

Jeff Root
2010-Jul-20, 03:48 PM
If time were gradually "slowing", we would be the most slowed.
The more distant a galaxy is, the less slowed it would appear to
us, because its light comes from an era when time was not slow.
Light from distant, fast-time galaxies would appear blueshifted.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ken G
2010-Jul-20, 04:20 PM
It depends on what you mean by "time slowing down." A comparison is being made between our own proper time, and the some kind of universal time coordinate. To get cosmological redshifts, you need 1 second of our own proper time to map into less than 1 second of proper time at the source (be it a quasar or supernova or what have you). That can be interpreted as either a speeding up of proper time, so that our clocks are effectively ticking faster than the ones at the source, or you can interpret that as a slowing down of the processes themselves, with nothing happening to proper time. In other words, if a process that took 1/2 a second to happen in a younger universe now takes 1 second to be observed by us, you are saying that the process of observing is taking longer, i.e., is slowing down. It's a purely semantic difference in interpretation.

So as processes that used to happen quickly take much longer to happen now, one might imagine they could eventually take an infinite amount of time to happen. That is like saying that "time has stopped", even though it also means that the amount of time we register on our clocks is a larger and larger time interval for the process to play out. A "stopped process" is one that takes an infinite time on our clock to play out, so does that mean time has stopped, or does it mean time has sped up dramatically? It's all a question of perspective-- is time the ratio between the clock ticks and the process happening, or is it the ratio between the process happening and the clock ticks? We haven't had to take a stand on that question because we simply assume both ratios are unity.

astromark
2010-Jul-20, 08:00 PM
If you think this way... its because we have a finite view... The further away from your birth... the closer to your...

Yes, time is running out.. :eh: We die.

Taking this idea on board is proving difficult... impossible even. To draw a conclusion that time itself is slowing

and factoring in all the ramifications... I can not see it that way.

The most distant observed objects ARE eccelorating away from us. Is that a mistake ?

I can see ( this ) the idea as a proposal, but where is the proof of this ?

When we talk of these things we soon move into a philosophical view... Just because it..looks wrong, feels wrong, is hard to imagine,..

Does not suggest to me it is wrong... I can comprehend a eccelorating expansion..

time does not change its scale... it does not need to. Perception is not fact.

The part of this that stumps me is this... 'Time is nothing more than the length of interval between moments'

If a perceived change were to be observed... its the rate of events,.

That would be my expectation in a eccelorating expanding universe...

not the scale that is wrong or changing...

But I will be watching this as so will many... its an interesting as yet unsupported idea...

mugaliens
2010-Jul-20, 10:49 PM
If time were gradually "slowing", we would be the most slowed.
The more distant a galaxy is, the less slowed it would appear to
us, because its light comes from an era when time was not slow.
Light from distant, fast-time galaxies would appear blueshifted.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

This would hold true if time-slowing were the only factor. As expansion still exists in their time-slowing theory, it is not the only factor. The question then becomes, which effect is predominant - the slowing of time, or the expansion of space? If the latter, then distant galaxies would still be red-shifted, and if the theory holds true, time-slowing would account only for the apparent acceleration of expansion.

Ken G
2010-Jul-21, 04:09 AM
If the latter, then distant galaxies would still be red-shifted, and if the theory holds true, time-slowing would account only for the apparent acceleration of expansion.But acceleration means that redshift of nearby objects is higher than would be expected without acceleration, given the "baseline" set by the more distant objects. So slowing of time still has to account for even more redshift than just expansion without slowing of time. I think they have to be using the meaning of "slowing of time" to mean that less happens in the same number of ticks of a clock, which someone else could call a speeding up of the clock.

forrest noble
2010-Jul-21, 05:08 AM
kmelgar,


Is Time Running Out?


Doesn't really make sense to me, if time is running out then would that mean that time is slowing or stopping all together? According to the article one possible end is a completely static universe but I don't quite understand the relationship between how the slowing of time can affect the measured redshift which could lead us to misinterpret the red shift of galaxies as an expanding universe. What are your thoughts ?

I think that you should realize that this is conjecture concerning somebody's theoretical physics. Bottom line you could simply consider it one opinion of many. The bottom line I think concerns what is the meaning of time? For instance if the rate of the passage of time were to change in our time frame relative to all others, it would be difficult for us to notice anything different because the changes within us (atoms/ molecules) would probably be changing at the same rate as the time frame surrounding us so it essentially would seemingly make no difference to us or our lives.

If you consider time as synonymous with the rate of atomic changes as in most theories today, then the passage of time could seemingly be equated in our galaxy for instance, with the ticking conjunctive clocks of several distant pulsars that seem to be pulsing almost as regularly as atomic clocks. Such a time system might be called Milky Way mean time if we decide to create such a time system.

As for me, I consider such ideas as the slowing of time as meaningless since it would mean that there is some ultimate time clock which I think is completely contrary to most related theories in physics today and I don't even consider that there is much logic to such an idea either.

Spoons
2010-Jul-21, 06:28 AM
Oh, and welcome to the forum, kmelgar!