Speed of time immediately after big bang relative to now?

[Ipm]

Can someone answer this for me please: is it possible to work out how much time has elapsed for a theoretical (and for argument's sake, mass-less) observer at the centre of the big bang whose speed of time then subsequently remained constant (rather than massively speeding up with the rest of the universe)? *Or to put it another way, if there were a (again mass-less!) stopwatch that carried on ticking at the same speed as it's first second during the big bang, how much time would have elapsed on it until our now?

 

[phinds]

Can someone answer this for me please: is it possible to work out how much time has elapsed for a theoretical (and for argument's sake, mass-less) observer at the centre of the big bang whose speed of time then subsequently remained constant (rather than massively speeding up with the rest of the universe)? *Or to put it another way, if there were a (again mass-less!) stopwatch that carried on ticking at the same speed as it's first second during the big bang, how much time would have elapsed on it until our now?

I can't answer your question about time, but you are polluting it with the false premise that there was a center to the big bang. There was not.

 

[Ipm]

Ok, how can I ask the same question without the false premise? A stopwatch somewhere within the newly existing universe?

 

[Ipm]

Or perhaps a more simple question to get the ball rolling - how slow was time in it's first second compared to time on Earth now? A million times slower? A billion?...?

 

[phinds]

Or perhaps a more simple question to get the ball rolling - how slow was time in it's first second compared to time on Earth now? A million times slower? A billion?...?

Why do you think it was any different?

 

[PeterDonis]

a theoretical (and for argument's sake, mass-less) observer at the centre of the big bang whose speed of time then subsequently remained constant (rather than massively speeding up with the rest of the universe)? *Or to put it another way, if there were a (again mass-less!) stopwatch that carried on ticking at the same speed as it's first second during the big bang, how much time would have elapsed on it until our now?

Why do you think that the "speed of time" has "massively speeded up" since the Big Bang? "Speed of time" is not a standard concept in relativity or cosmology, so you'll have to explain what you mean by it, and why you think it has changed.

 

[PeterDonis]

Or perhaps a more simple question to get the ball rolling - how slow was time in it's first second compared to time on Earth now? A million times slower? A billion?...?

A second is a second. It's a unit of time. How can it "change"?

 

[bcrowell]

We have a FAQ about this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506990

 

[Warp]

Time passes at different speeds depending on the geometry of spacetime. Time on the surface of the Earth has a different speed than time on orbit, and a different speed than between stars.

You can measure the difference and say that "1 second here is 0.9 seconds there". So it can be different.

(IIRC the deeper you are in a gravity well, the slower your time passes in relation to the rest of the universe.)

 

[FalseVaccum89]

Time passes at different speeds depending on the geometry of spacetime. Time on the surface of the Earth has a different speed than time on orbit, and a different speed than between stars.

You can measure the difference and say that "1 second here is 0.9 seconds there". So it can be different.

(IIRC the deeper you are in a gravity well, the slower your time passes in relation to the rest of the universe.)

I think I know what the OP's getting at: Per GR, high local spacetime curvature has the same effect on duration as accelerating closer and closer to the speed of light does in SR.

Though, I'm unsure whether this translates to a situation involving high *global* spacetime curvature.

/my two cents

 

[Ipm]

Thanks, Warp - it is precisely that difference that I'd be interested in - so perhaps I can make the question more precise to make this easier(!)
- if A were an observer on the edge of the expansion in the first second after the big bang, presumably going ridiculously fast (faster than the speed of light?), would A's second be much slower than a second that we experience on the Earth's surface now? And if so, do we know precisely how much slower?

 

[phinds]

Thanks, Warp - it is precisely that difference that I'd be interested in - so perhaps I can make the question more precise to make this easier(!)
- if A were an observer on the edge of the expansion in the first second after the big bang, presumably going ridiculously fast (faster than the speed of light?), would A's second be much slower than a second that we experience on the Earth's surface now? And if so, do we know precisely how much slower?

There is no edge. There is no center. Say this to your self over and over. There is no edge. There is no center.

And as for speed, you have to specifiy relative to what? . Speed is not a meaningful concept unless you say what it is that you are measuring the speed relative to.

 

[Ipm]

Ok... How about this:
2 observers in the first second after the Big Bang, both moving away from each other at enormous speed. Each perceives themselves to be stationary, but thinks of the other as moving away very very fast. What is the relative measurement of a second for each of them, but from the point of view of only one of them?
Ie: I'm stationary, my own second naturally equals one second. My pal, increasingly a long way away and going very fast, his second looks to me as though it equals...?

 

[PeterDonis]

Time passes at different speeds depending on the geometry of spacetime. Time on the surface of the Earth has a different speed than time on orbit, and a different speed than between stars.

You can measure the difference and say that "1 second here is 0.9 seconds there". So it can be different.

(IIRC the deeper you are in a gravity well, the slower your time passes in relation to the rest of the universe.)

This statement isn't as general as you appear to think it is. It only applies in special cases, where there is some common reference for comparing "rates of time flow". For example, if you are sitting at rest on the surface of a neutron star, say, and I am floating in space far away from the neutron star and at rest relative to it and you, then we can meaningfully compare our "rates of time flow" and see that yours is slower than mine.

If you have a colleague who is in orbit around the neutron star, it's more complicated, but we can still do the comparison. The key is that, because your colleague is in orbit, i.e., his motion is periodic, we can use some periodic event that happens once per orbit (such as when he passes directly overhead relative to you) as a reference to compare rates of time flow between him and you (and therefore between him and me).

All that breaks down in a more general case, however; you and your colleague and I can't meaningfully compare our rates of time flow to that of an observer that's near a quasar a billion light years away and moving away from us due to the expansion of the universe, because we are not at rest relative to each other, and there is no periodic phenomenon we can use as a common reference.

 

[Warp]

There is no edge. There is no center. Say this to your self over and over. There is no edge. There is no center.

This is actually something that has always evaded my comprehension, possibly because my limited brain is unable to visualize 4-dimensional space. What exactly is the geometry of the universe?

Let's assume that the universe were not expanding so fast, and that you could reach any point in the universe if you so wished. What happens if you just move away from Earth indefinitely?

(Or is the geometry of the universe, perhaps, actually tied to the expansion rate?)

 

[phinds]

This is actually something that has always evaded my comprehension, possibly because my limited brain is unable to visualize 4-dimensional space. What exactly is the geometry of the universe?

Let's assume that the universe were not expanding so fast, and that you could reach any point in the universe if you so wished. What happens if you just move away from Earth indefinitely?

(Or is the geometry of the universe, perhaps, actually tied to the expansion rate?)

The topology of the universe is not known.

Givem that the rate of expansion is now far in excess of c even for just the observable universe, you can't even reach "any" point in the observable universe much less the entire universe, WHATEVER its topology. Assuming otherwise doesn't help solve the problem of figuring out what IS the topology of the actual universe.

EDIT: there ARE proposed topologies that would allow you too see the back of your head IF light were infinite in speed ... this is the class of "finite but unbounded" topologys.

 

[Warp]

The topology of the universe is not known.

Then how can one say "there's no center" if the exact topology is unknown?

Making claims about the topology ("no center") is contradictory with the claim that we don't know said topology.

 

[PeterDonis]

Making claims about the topology ("no center") is contradictory with the claim that we don't know said topology.

We don't know the topology precisely, but we know enough about it to say that there is no center. All of the possible topologies share the property that space, on average, is homogeneous and isotropic; all spatial points are the same. A "center" would violate that property by picking out one particular spatial point as different from the others.

 

[Warp]

Anyways, I would still like to know what exactly would happen if the universe were not expanding so fast, and you were to just traverse away from Earth indefinitely. ("The universe does not expand like that" only sounds like evading the question rather than answering it. If a different expansion rate would affect the topology, then what would that topology be, and what would happen in that situation?)

 

[PeterDonis]

Anyways, I would still like to know what exactly would happen if the universe were not expanding so fast, and you were to just traverse away from Earth indefinitely.

There are basically two possibilities:

(1) If the universe is closed (this is the "finite but unbounded" topology that phinds referred to), then if you flew off in some direction, and kept on flying without ever changing direction, eventually you would return to your starting point. In other words, the spatial topology of the universe in this case is the topology of a 3-sphere, similar to the way the Earth's surface has the topology of a 2-sphere, so if you start off in some direction on the Earth and never change direction (meaning you follow a great circle), you will eventually return to your starting point.

(2) If the universe is open, then it is spatially infinite, so the spatial topology is that of Euclidean 3-space (though the spatial *geometry* may not be Euclidean). In this case, if you flew off in some directly and kept on flying without ever changing direction, you would just go on and on forever.

Our current best-fit model has the universe being open, but there is enough uncertainty in the data that it's still possible for it to be closed.

 

[phinds]

I would add to what Peter said that

1) expansion and topology are not necessarily linked in any way
2) even in the finite but unbounded topology, you MIGHT not be able to ever get back to where you started, not because you are not pointed in that direction, but because you can't travel faster than c but the expansion can so the point where you started could be moving away from you faster than you can travel.

 

[HomogenousCow]

What does the phrase "speed of time" even mean?

 

[Warp]

(1) If the universe is closed (this is the "finite but unbounded" topology that phinds referred to), then if you flew off in some direction, and kept on flying without ever changing direction, eventually you would return to your starting point. In other words, the spatial topology of the universe in this case is the topology of a 3-sphere, similar to the way the Earth's surface has the topology of a 2-sphere, so if you start off in some direction on the Earth and never change direction (meaning you follow a great circle), you will eventually return to your starting point.

Wouldn't that mean that there's a point in the universe that's the farthest away from Earth that's possible (and any direction you could choose from there would make you go towards Earth)? Could this maximum distance be considered the size of the universe?

Our current best-fit model has the universe being open, but there is enough uncertainty in the data that it's still possible for it to be closed.

But I thought the universe is finite. How can it have been a singularity that expanded if it's not finite?

 

[PeterDonis]

Wouldn't that mean that there's a point in the universe that's the farthest away from Earth that's possible (and any direction you could choose from there would make you go towards Earth)? Could this maximum distance be considered the size of the universe?

Yes, in the case of a closed universe there is a "size", just as there is a size of the Earth's surface (its circumference). The size changes with time as the universe expands.

But I thought the universe is finite. How can it have been a singularity that expanded if it's not finite?

You're assuming that the singularity is "finite", or that it is a "point". It's not. By which I mean, the topology of the singularity is not the topology of a point. However, that probably doesn't make things much clearer. I'm not sure I can explain this quickly, and I don't have time to explain it long-windedly right now. Instead, I recommend taking a look at Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

Section 3 is probably the most relevant to this discussion, but I would recommend starting at the beginning and working through all of it. It's a good overview of our current model of the universe and the Big Bang, and it also talks about the actual observations on which the model is based, which a lot of treatments don't really get into.

 

[Warp]

You're assuming that the singularity is "finite", or that it is a "point". It's not. By which I mean, the topology of the singularity is not the topology of a point.

A singularity can be infinite? Would that make it an infinite line or surface? (Hmm, could it be an infinite 4-dimensional surface?)

Do I understand correctly, however, that a singularity has zero volume? (Or can there be a singularity with non-zero volume?)

 

[PeterDonis]

A singularity can be infinite? Would that make it an infinite line or surface? (Hmm, could it be an infinite 4-dimensional surface?)

It's not quite that a singularity can be infinite; it's that the *topology* of the singularity, which you have to define via some kind of limiting process (see further comments below), may be something infinite like a line or a surface instead of a point.

Do I understand correctly, however, that a singularity has zero volume? (Or can there be a singularity with non-zero volume?)

The Big Bang singularity does have zero volume, in the sense that if I take the limit of the volume of the universe at time t, as t -> 0 (where t = 0 is the Big Bang), the volume goes to zero.

However, that in itself isn't enough to tell me the topology of the singularity, because there are other limits I can take as t -> 0 that tell a different story. That gets into the stuff I don't really have the time to go into detail about.

 

[phinds]

A singularity can be infinite? Would that make it an infinite line or surface? (Hmm, could it be an infinite 4-dimensional surface?)

Do I understand correctly, however, that a singularity has zero volume? (Or can there be a singularity with non-zero volume?)

Singlarity in the cosmological sense does not mean "point" it means "the place where our models/math break down and we don't know WHAT is happening". I often see it said here on this forum that the "singularity" of the big bang could well have been infinite in extent.

 

[nanosiborg]

1) expansion and topology are not necessarily linked in any way

Or maybe they are. The assumption that universal topology affects expansion rate seems to me to be a pretty reasonable one. But, as you suggest, no way to know.

 

[nanosiborg]

Singlarity in the cosmological sense does not mean "point" it means "the place where our models/math break down and we don't know WHAT is happening".

This the the way I've always thought about it. Not that anyone should pretend to 'know' what's happening anyway, but "singularity" refers to the point beyond which there is no meaningful (not necessarily scientific, but meaningful in the sense of being based on current accepted mathematical physics) mathematical extrapolation.

 

[Ipm]

Back to the rate of time - and ignoring speed of travel for a bit now...
as we're using the term spacetime - does this imply that the rate of time is also related to (affected by) the 'size' of the space it is in? Ie: does time move slower in a more expansive bit of the universe compared to a more concentrated bit of space? And therefore as the universe is expanding would that mean that the experience of time somewhere in distant space (ie not in eg the solar system) is gradually changing? And conversely, immediTely after the Big Bang when the universe was much much much smaller, would time by definition generally have been much slower? And at the moment of the big bang itself time generically went from non-existent to remarkably slow (in the initial stage of expansion presumably there was a vast amount of concentrated mass) to gradually faster and faster...?