Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time Dilation & big bang Question

  1. Aug 11, 2004 #1

    Neo

    User Avatar

    With respect to time dilation...

    During the Big Bang, when space was expanding explosively (probably at light speed?) -- what was time doing? Was time at a standstill (or very dilated) during the explosive growth of the three spatial dimensions? Or was time expanding explosively since it's in a continuum with space?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2004 #2
    about 3 seconds into the big bang, space expanged a lot faster than the speed of light, it had a growth spur. If you look a the age of the universe, (15 billion years), the size of it is more that 15 billion light years, making its expansion more than light speed at the beginning. And about your time question, Im not sure what you mean?
     
  4. Aug 12, 2004 #3

    Neo

    User Avatar

    Interesting but that is not a proof that space expanded faster than the speed of light. For instance, imagine that one part of space expanded diagnally downward toward the left and another part of space expanded diagnally upward toward the right -- both expansions at the speed of light. If you measure space from the bottom left to the top right, it is going to be more than 15 billion light years, but that is merely because space was travelling in different directions simultaneously. Right?

    My question was about, what seems to me, a contradiction in the predictions of relativity theory. For instance, as a massive object expands at the speed of light, time comes to a stop. But what about the expansion of spatial dimensions? Did the expansion of the spatial dimensions during the Big Bang period slow down time or speed it up? That is, relativity implies that time slows (and eventually stops) for something that approaches the speed of light. It also teaches that space and time are in an inseparable continuum. So does time dilation not apply to the expansion of the spatial dimensions?

    In other words, did time slow down during the Big Bang because space was expanding at light speed? Or does time dilation not apply to space itself?
     
  5. Aug 12, 2004 #4

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are switching back to a more classical reference frame, and imagining that the diameter of a the universe is 30 billion LY. Actually, it is more like 150 billion light years in diameter for a 13.7 billion year old universe. That's a lot of expansion!

    But you have a good point. Certainly there was a lot of time distortion in the early universe. As far as anyone knows, the rate of expansion of space itself is not affected by gravity. But experimental accuracy on this is poor at this time.

    On the other hand, there may be interesting consequences on the development of the universe due to time dilation. DoctorDick has started a couple of threads to discuss this in Theory Development, and you might find the discussions there to be relevant.
     
  6. Aug 13, 2004 #5

    Neo

    User Avatar

    It doesn't have to be only 30 million LY based on my suggestion. I only described two dimensions with the diagnals. If you add depth to this, you might be able to account for the entire diameter. Besides, how was "150 billion years" derived?

    But I think another way to account for it is because time itself was dilated by spatial expansion. That is, nothing ever moved faster than the speed of light, conforming to relativity. Instead, space expanded at the speed of light but because time itself was dilated, what seems to be 15 billion years was far longer in non-dilated time -- perhaps 150 billion years. The question arises if non-dilated time even exists if the expansion of all of space itself dilates time.

    It seems to me that expansion of space is necessarily affected by the curvature of space ("gravity"). That's how the "Big Crunch" is derived.

    Thanks but unfortunately I didn't find DrDick's threads remarkably insightful nor do I think he reached the same conclusions as I. They seem to be strewn with ad hominem and meaningless personality conflicts.
     
  7. Aug 14, 2004 #6

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For the calculation of the 150 billion LY value: Click here

    There are still multiple issues to consider here.

    Much if not most of the universe is receding from us at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. A substantial portion recedes from us faster than 2c. Objects have been observed as much as 3+c and there are certainly some objects moving considerably faster apart than that. The speed of light is a limit in a local reference frame per special relativity. It is not a limit when the expansion of space-time itself is considered as a component of velocity.

    But I still think the point you are making is worth discussing. It would seem logical to me that time was dilated in the very early universe and that dilation would have been a significant component for a period of time. It would need to be considered in the early evolution of space and energy, but I wonder for how long? Seconds? A million years? Or maybe seconds that dilated into a million years? I haven't seen much on that subject.
     
  8. Aug 16, 2004 #7

    Neo

    User Avatar


    Hmm...they don't demonstrate the derivation of "150 billion" though. I doubt its validity. Nonetheless, the idea of applying the Hubble law is interesting and (apparently) falsifies my idea -- that perhaps expansion of space causes time dilation. Or could it be possible that in regions where space itself is moving at greater than C there is a time loop. That is, where space is traveling greater than C, everything in that region travels backward in time?
     
  9. Aug 16, 2004 #8

    Neo

    User Avatar

    Could this explain space's "infinite" nature? To clarify, if you move out enough, you'll be traveling faster than the speed of light. In these regions of space, time forms a loop upon itself. If you go to the edges of space, you will be traveling faster than the speed of light and will travel backward in time.

    This would uphold the "infinite" nature of the universe. There is no limit -- it's just a time cycle.
     
  10. Aug 17, 2004 #9

    Neo

    User Avatar

    Is it possible that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be explained by relativity?

    Electrons travel at close to the speed of light -- there must be a great degree of time dilation for electrons. Could this time dilation be one of the causes for the Uncertainty Principle?
     
  11. Aug 17, 2004 #10

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The 156 billion LY diameter has some imprecision in it, no question. As we discover more and more high redshift (high z) objects it will be refined. But the basic idea is that an object traveling at N times the speed of light from us when it was emitted X billion years ago will be about (N * X) billion years away now. Plus add some for the subsequent expansion of the universe, and you get the answer. The point is there is a multiplier because as redshift (z) increases, so does N.

    Dilation of time occurs even when there is no expansion of space, as has been shown in accelerators in many experiments. As far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical point at which time would move backward for anyone when objects move apart faster than c.
     
  12. Aug 24, 2004 #11

    Neo

    User Avatar

    I don't personally place much stock in the calculations -- they're indirect and not necessarily true, which is the point that I believe we both agree upon.

    Are you implying that expansion of space at light speed cannot cause formation of matter and/or time dilation? If so, why?

    In relativity, acceleration of a particle to luminal speed in vacuo as its limit causes formation of baryonic matter as a result of the energy-matter equivalence. What stops the speed of space expansion itself from causing formation of dark matter?

    What if there are two subtypes of this close to light energy-to-matter conversion?

    The first being what we normally expect:

    1. Accelerate a mass particle to close to the speed of light and it will gain baryonic matter (due to energy-to-mass conversion).

    2. Accelerate the universe to close to the speed of light and it will gain dark matter (due to the same).

    Theoretical physicists don't seem to apply the implications of E=mc^2 to space itself -- why?
     
  13. Aug 24, 2004 #12

    mee

    User Avatar


    If the universe has a width it has a center? Has anyone tried to find the center?
     
  14. Aug 24, 2004 #13
    If we can never actually observe anything that is receding faster than the speed of light, then how can you say ANY portion is receding faster than c?
     
  15. Aug 25, 2004 #14

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    1. Almost any photon observed from a distant object will be red-shifted. Such red shift occurs when the object that emitted it receding from us (ones that are approaching us are blue shifted, but these are much less common in an expanding universe). Such shift was noted originally almost 100 years ago by Hubble and others and was instrumental to our understanding that we live in an expanding universe.

    2. Virtually any star or galaxy consists mostly of hydrogen and helium, and exhibits a known spectrum. The amount of red shift of the observed spectrum of a distant object can then be compared to the "standard" spectrum of similar elements at rest with respect to us. The difference is explained by General Relativity as representing velocity differential.

    3. Interestingly, there is actually no theoretical upper limit to the amount of this differential. In fact, many objects have been spotted that are receding from us at more than twice the speed of light. This provides experimental confirmation of theory. It also means that the classical notion of a universe expanding at a maximum of c in one direction and c in another direction are wrong.

    4. Thus your premise is wrong: we can and do observe light from objects that are receding from us at speeds far in excess of c. Such light has been moving towards us for over 13 billion years. The objects that emitted them are now about 46 billion LY away.

    5. The full description of all of this is beyond the scope of a post. I might recommend this paper by Lineweaver and Davis, which pretty well explains everything:

    Inflation and the CMB, 34 pages, PDF format
     
  16. Aug 26, 2004 #15

    Neo

    User Avatar

    Do you think it's possible for a singularity to exhibit wave-particle duality?

    Is it impossible for a wave to affect the curvature of space?
     
  17. Aug 26, 2004 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Electrons don't travel anywhere near the speed of light except when in a particle accelerator. And when talking about the speed of electrons around an atom, the term doesn't really have any meaning.

    You may have the (common) misconception that when you flip a light switch, the light turns on when the electrons that were at the switch reach the light. In fact, its just like water in a pipe - when you open a valve, the wave-front moves at the speed of sound while the water itself may move relatively slowly. Thus, if a pipe is already full, opening a valve almost immediately results in water flowing out of the pipe - a wire is already full of electrons when you flip the light switch.
     
  18. Aug 27, 2004 #17

    Neo

    User Avatar


    Singularities don't exhibit wave-particle duality because they are not in motion?

    Wave motion from moving massive objects causes ripples in spatial curvature...

    Are gravitational waves the only type of waves that affect spatial curvature?

    Can non-gravitational waves affect curvature of space, such as, perhaps temporal waves? Is it possible to conceive of time as a wave that affects the curvature of space?


    It is possible for a moving massive object's wave motion to temporarily weaken/reverse the supergravity of a singularity through gravitational wave "destructive resonance?"
     
  19. Aug 30, 2004 #18

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    They are in motion.
    Agreed.
    Gravitational waves do not affect spatial curvature, they follow the curvature.
    There is no observational evidence of that.
    Not according to current theory.
     
  20. Aug 31, 2004 #19

    Neo

    User Avatar

    Please clarify. If singularities are in motion and wave motion from moving massive objects causes ripples in spatial curvature, then why do singularities not exhibit wave-particle duality? Or is duality unnecessary for wave motion to result from a moving dense particle?


    "Gravity waves are ripples in the overall geometry of space and time." http://www.physics.gmu.edu/classinf...ext/Lec06/Lec06_pt2_txt_relativityGeneral.htm

    But let us for the moment say that g waves don't affect space curvature. How is it then that you propose the effect of the massive body propagates? Apparently curvature does not instantaneously change -- a wave (that we call a gravity wave) curves space differentially at light speed.

    My idea is that waves can affect curvature, just in different ways than particles. It seems that the influence of particles on curvature is highly localized whereas the influence of waves is (more) universal. It is as if the particle displaces an energy field and causes these gravity waves to propagate across time-space as a result.

    Waves can cause pressure. Can a singularity be thought of as pressure on space? Perhaps it is possible for certain types of waves to affect curvature.
     
  21. Aug 31, 2004 #20
    you must forgive me when i say that i have trouble believing that the universe is, or ever has expanded at speeds faster than that of light. it would be believable if space time itself, by that term i mean tha amount of space possible for there to be objects present expanded at speeds far greater than c. as an analogy, i will use a cup of water. water flows from the faucet at a certain maximum speed and can't flow any faster. lets assume that this speed happens to be able to accupy a space, say, a figure pulled off the top of my head, 20 mL/second. it is flowing into a container that has a capacity of 1 liter. I can stand here watching it and if my sink was big enough, and i was strong enough, i could carry a bathtub and set it down in place of the liter sized container at a speed of a few seconds. in a few seconds, the water will only have filled up less than a cL. in a few seconds, i will have added (lets say 20 gal) of possible space for the water to accupy. that speed is far greater than the spead of the "expanding" water.

    bottom line is that there is much more than meets the eye when it comes to our world, and saying that certain theories/laws are the way it has t be or the way it is quite foolish
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Time Dilation & big bang Question
  1. Time at Big Bang (Replies: 7)

  2. Big Bang Time Dilation (Replies: 1)

Loading...