The discussion revolves around the concept of "quasar clocks" and the implications of recent data suggesting that time may have run more slowly shortly after the Big Bang. Participants explore the nature of this claim, its basis in quasar luminosity variations, and the interpretation of time dilation effects in the context of special relativity.
Participants generally express disagreement regarding the interpretation of the quasar clock data and the implications of time running slower in the past. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views presented.
Limitations include the lack of clarity on how to compare time intervals across different epochs and the dependence on interpretations of redshift and time dilation effects.
Please always post links to your references when starting a new thread in the technical forums. Thank you.hkyriazi said:Regarding the new "quasar clock" data showing that time ran more slowly (~5-fold) shortly after the Big Bang: is it all based on the periodic variation in luminosity at various wavelengths of some quasars (and presumably explained by the special relativistic time dilation effect from "spatial expansion")?
I assume the researchers noticed that quasars of a certain type (which have luminosity variations of a certain period) have their luminosity vary 5-fold slower than quasars much closer to us.Vanadium 50 said:What does it even mean for a clock to run slower in the past? How do you compare them?
Here's a link to a description of the new findings:berkeman said:Please always post links to your references when starting a new thread in the technical forums. Thank you.
Yes. And this is exactly what is expected for objects at that redshift. It does not mean time was actually "running slower" back then. It is, as you propose in your OP, the same kind of time dilation as we would see in SR for objects with the same redshift.hkyriazi said:I assume the researchers noticed that quasars of a certain type (which have luminosity variations of a certain period) have their luminosity vary 5-fold slower than quasars much closer to us.
Unfortunately this is typical of such articles, even in Science News, where the writers should know better.Vanadium 50 said:I don't know what paper the Science News authors read, but it sure doesn't sound like the one they referenced.
You use standard candles, if available. Kinda hard to do with quasars unambiguously, but the authors make an effort.Vanadium 50 said:Again I ask, "What does it even mean for a clock to run slower in the past? How do you compare them?"
Yes, fair point. And given that that thread and this one both give sufficient responses to the OP's question, this thread is now closed.Bandersnatch said:It hasn't even been two months since the last thread on this.