Is Time Constant Across the Universe or Does it Change Over Billions of Years?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Slade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Infinite Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of time as described by Einstein's theory of relativity and its potential variability over billions of years. The participant questions whether the speed of matter in the universe has decreased over time, suggesting that a second today may not equate to a second billions of years ago. They propose that this change in the perception of time could render historical events significantly longer when measured by ancient standards. The implications of this theory raise questions about the nature of creation and the relativity of time itself.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concept of time dilation
  • Basic knowledge of atomic clocks and their function
  • Awareness of cosmological theories regarding the Big Bang
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of time dilation in Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Explore the concept of cosmic time versus proper time
  • Investigate the effects of gravity on time as described by general relativity
  • Study the historical context and developments in cosmology since the Big Bang
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, science educators, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of time and relativity.

Ed Slade
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have a question. I’m 74 and have taught science to high school students for much of my life. I only have a lowly Bachelor of Education degree so my knowledge of the subject is pretty limited. I did manage to get through a second year physics class, though. Since retiring I have read Brian Greene’s and Stephen Hawking’s books as well as one by Lee Smolin. I’ve also read at least one biography of Einstein as well as the 2004 book called Big Bang by Simon Singh. Not nearly enough to get all the answers but enough to give me an idea that I haven’t seen in any of these books. Perhaps others have had this question as well. Here is how it goes.
Brian Greene states in his books that Einstein’s theory of relativity states that the speed of our motion through space added to our speed through time always equals the speed of light. The fifteen billion years to the time of the big bang is measured by today’s watches. I’m wondering if it might be that all matter of the universe could have been traveling at a much faster speed through space back then and if a second on our watches of today would be much more than a second back then. In other words is it possible that the matter in the universe has been slowing down imperceptibly over these billions of years. So imperceptibly that it cannot be detected by our most accurate watches of today. Maybe a second today might be an hour 10 million years ago, a day 100 million years ago, a year a billion years ago, 10 million years 10 billion years ago and an infinity 15 billion of our years ago. All the stuff that was supposed to happen in the first few fractions of a second would have taken billions of years or more by the watches of that time and the 300,000 years for matter to start forming would have been trillions or gazillions of years by those same watches. Finding the beginning could be like trying to find the point on the number line corresponding to the root of two or pi.
The reverse would take place in the future. A billion years from now a million years by our watches might be a mere second by the watches of that time. Assuming that matter can never stop it would mean it would go on forever simply getting slower all the time and time stretching out. Someone living then would never be aware of the changes any more than we are. All would seem normal. It would all be “relative”.
What I’m wondering is if we can put an atomic clock on a super-sonic jet and send it around the world to show that it shows a different time than one sitting still on the ground is it possible that one placed on a rock floating in space a billion years ago would have a different reading as well, assuming all else was the same.
Would this mean, however, that there was no such thing as creation? I suppose it can always be argued, though, that something had to get the ball rolling.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You solved it. Check your PO Box, Nobel Prize arriving shortly via Priority Mail.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K