The expansion of time, probably ad nauseum

[Tanelorn]

Murdstone if you mean that I am clueless for asking this question then you are probably right.

I was however asking about the measurement of time and whether the space time at t=0 edit: and onwards (see previous post), would affect the measurement of time

 

[Drakkith]

Murdstone if you mean that I am clueless for asking this question then you are probably right.

I was however asking about the measurement of time and whether the space time at t=0 would affect the measurement of time

Considering our models don't even work at t=0 I don't think it's meaningful to try to talk about what may or may not happen to time at that point. It would simply be speculation.

 

[Naty1]

Tanelorn:

Naty, would this fixed atomic measurement of time also apply to the space time and matter/energy density present at any point from BB t=0 onwards or is it not possible to compare these frames of reference?

It is not possible to compare distant observations in GR [nor cosmology] unless we agree on a bunch of conventions...those are part of the FLRW cosmological model.

What this implies, and it is correct,

there is NO universal time nor observer independent distance in general relativity nor cosmology.

is that splitting up space and time from space-time is an arbitrary coordinate exercise.

When I posted:

"So your grandchildren will age at the same rate as you. And stars have burned up their nuclear fuel at the same rate as is observed today.

what I meant was, if either of those at existed early in the universe and remained in existence today, their time rates of aging and decay would be the same. That means at the same location, not light years apart where comparisons in GR become difficult.

 

[Tanelorn]

Considering our models don't even work at t=0 I don't think it's meaningful to try to talk about what may or may not happen to time at that point. It would simply be speculation.

Drakkith, I meant from t=0 and onwards. Agreed about t=0 itself, singularities etc

 

[Drakkith]

Also consider that asking if time passes at the same rate requires a comparison with something else. If the whole universe experienced increased/decreased amounts of time dilation early in its history, how would we know? What would that even mean if everything experienced it? There would be nothing to compare against and say "Oh look, their clock is passing way faster than ours!".

 

[Tanelorn]

Also consider that asking if time passes at the same rate requires a comparison with something else. If the whole universe experienced increased/decreased amounts of time dilation early in its history, how would we know? What would that even mean if everything experienced it? There would be nothing to compare against and say "Oh look, their clock is passing way faster than ours!".

True. I think that there are some stars or quasars? that are very regular and can be used as clocks.
The reason I brought this up is because I thought I read that clocks near high mass / density objects appear to run slower. The universe was very dense especially shortly after the BB.
Would such an effect change our measurement of, for example, the CMBR?

 

[Murdstone]

Tanelorn

I was in no way disrespecting your comment. The original poster's moniker was Clue+less.

Clue - None know as much as they would wish.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks murdstone for letting me know. As they say back home I am not so tup as to not know I am tup.

 

[Drakkith]

Both "time" and "space" are imaginary mathematical coordinate systems, nothing more. They are not real and have utterly no empirical referent. You can not experiment with imaginary things and you can not manipulate imaginary things or use them to any real effect.

Our description of them may be constructs of our minds and based in math, but they describe things that are very real.

 

[dm4b]

That's a very reasonable thing to worry about and be puzzled by! In popular accounts they don't tell you the whole story.

In bare general relativity (as distinct from cosmology, where you have matter e.g. a primordial hot gas, and the ancient light from it which we still see) there is no criterion of rest and no distinguished time.

However in cosmology we do have a criterion of rest. We live in a bath of ancient light.
this is redshifted by expansion so it is no longer in the visible range. It used to be the slightly orange-ish color light given off by 3000 kelvin (hot) gas. Like the surface of an orange-ish star. But now the wavelengths are stretched out by a factor of about 1000 and it is in the microwave range. Socalled microwave background. A kind of invisible soup of light that you need a horn antenna to detect.

IF YOU MOVE fast enough in some direction you will see a DOPPLER HOTSPOT in the ancient light in that direction.

If you are at rest the ancient light will be the same low temperature, approximately same mix of wavelengths, in all directions. No Doppler hotspot in the microwave sky, for an observer at rest.

So there is a criterion of rest. It has a definite meaning. And in accordance, then, with general relativity, there is a preferred time.

That is the basic time we use in cosmology and it is the time that the AGE of the expanding phase of the universe is stated in terms of.

Observers anywhere in the universe who are at rest relative to Background---who measure the same temperature we do in all directions---will estimate approximately the same age.

In effect, our clocks are synchronized with those of all those other observers---or would be if they existed (which we don't know for sure).

Hi Marcus,

Is the above equivalent to an obsever co-moving with the Hubble flow? I've heard that phrased used a few times to talk about a standard of rest.

 

[petm1]

To reverse time you would have to reverse all the motion in the universe that we use to tell time.

Any source for this claim??

Isn't this how we get back to big bang, take the universe as it is now and run the clock backward as if a contracting universe instead of a dilating one?

 

[petm1]

A better question here is why the forward direction of time is also the direction where the universe is expanding. There is nothing in principle impossible about observing a collapsing universe instead of an expanding one (either is a perfectly-valid solution to the Friedman equations). So why do we think of the forward direction as the one where things are further apart in the future?

I would think that in the beginning of a collapsing universe you would never get signals between points the signals would be getting smaller and moving away from all other points. I think that it all goes back to the block universe and the simultaneous nature of energy in the present so if you think of time as real and mass as a measure of the past then dark matter could be a measure of the future.

 

[Chalnoth]

I would think that in the beginning of a collapsing universe you would never get signals between points the signals would be getting smaller and moving away from all other points. I think that it all goes back to the block universe and the simultaneous nature of energy in the present so if you think of time as real and mass as a measure of the past then dark matter could be a measure of the future.

It's not really possible for a universe to begin in a collapsing state. A universe may start collapsing later on, but it basically has to start off expanding.

 

[marcus]

Hi Marcus,

Is the above equivalent to an obsever co-moving with the Hubble flow? I've heard that phrased used a few times to talk about a standard of rest.

Yes! Comoving with Hubble flow means the same as the observer being at rest wrt CMB.

I just now saw your post, somehow missed it, earlier this week, when you posted.

If an observer is moving relative to CMB, and sees a hotspot in a certain direction, then it will also be true that the distant galaxies will seem to be receding more slowly in that direction and have less redshift. So the Hubble law needs to be corrected for the observer's motion relative to the expansion process itself---ie relative to the "Hubble flow". He will see the galaxies receding a little more RAPIDLY in the opposite direction, behind him. So the expansion process (or "flow") will have that asymmetry in the raw data caused by the observer's motion RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE BULK OF THE MATTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

So even before people had detected the CMB, and had the idea of being at rest with it, they already had noticed the asymmetry caused by the solar system's own motion and they had gotten this idea of compensating for that, and seeing the universe from the perspective of rest relative to the universe's own expansion process.

In a sense you could say that "at rest w.r.t. the Hubble flow" is the more traditional older way of saying at rest w.r.t. CMB.