What happens to time as space is expanding?

[PeterDonis]

If you mean hypothetically, then if the universe is isotropic, the redshift you're measuring would be different

I don't understand what you mean. Our actual universe is isotropic, to a very good approximation.

 

[PeroK]

The strength of the electromagnetic force would be the same, while temperatures would be lower. Main sequence stars of the same mass would have systemically lower luminosities. It would take more mass to reach the Chandrasekar limit. In our own globular clusters, there's be less x-ray sources because in the past less of the high mass stars would have gone supernova and left neutron star remnants behind...

Are you implying some local test as an absolute measure of the passage of time? E.g. put a certain mass in a given region and if it forms a star of some characteristic and eventually goes supernova, then time is flowing at a "default" rate. And if it doesn't, then time locally is flowing "slow" or "fast"?

If time locally is measured using natural processes (e.g. a caesium clock), then wouldn't everything appear to be "normal" locally? Wouldn't all the physics locally be the same?

Alternatively, what could be a test on Earth to verify that time is flowing at the same rate year after year? I suggest this can't be tested - because, as the passage of time hypothetically slows or quickens, then our mechanism for measuring its passage changes along with it.

 

[alantheastronomer]

I don't understand what you mean. Our actual universe is isotropic, to a very good approximation.

Just affirming that it is...

You can't observe "what time it is" at a distant location from Earth; that is a convention that depends on your choice of coordinates. You can only observe the redshift and Doppler shifted observations like the lengthened supernova light curves. Any effect you claim is "after redshift is taken into account" is a coordinate artifact. This fact is often obscured in discussions of SR because of the naturalness of adopting inertial frames and their associated simultaneity conventions. But however natural they are, they are still conventions, not observations.

You can compare observations of clusters of galaxies at different redshifts and see if there are systematic trends over and above what could be accounted for by the Hubble relation, though admittedly any effect I might attribute to an increase in the time interval with redshift could also be attributed to evolutionary effects...but what would I attribute a lack of these effects to...?

 

[PeterDonis]

any effect I might attribute to an increase in the time interval with redshift could also be attributed to evolutionary effects

What's more, attributing them to evolutionary effects is making use of a well known model, whereas attributing them to "an increase in the time interval with redshift" is just meaningless words since there is no model to correspond to them.

The plain fact which you are refusing to acknowledge is that "the time interval" as you are using the term is not a physical quantity. It's an artifact of coordinates. Proper time along a particular worldline is a physical quantity, but that is not what you are describing. There has been research done looking for variation over cosmological times of dimensionless physical constants like the fine structure constant, but no such variation has ever been found, and even if it were, interpreting such variation as "a change in the time interval" would still be an artifact of a particular choice of coordinates (and other choices of convention such as the gauge used for the EM field); one could always make different choices that would keep "the time interval" the same and put the variation somewhere else.

what would I attribute a lack of these effects to...?

A lack of what effects? There is nothing that requires "evolutionary effects" over and above the Hubble relation to always be present. So if they aren't, that's fine; there's nothing to explain.

 

[alantheastronomer]

Proper time along a particular worldline is a physical quantity, but that is not what you are describing.

I thought I was...I'm attempting to describe a model where proper time varies as a function of redshift.

one could always make different choices that would keep "the time interval" the same and put the variation somewhere else.

I think I see...like attributing it to a variation in distance or curvature?

A lack of what effects?

The hypothetical variation of cluster velocity dispersion with redshift that I posited, which admittedly was based on the tacit assumption that redshift was entirely due to distance...

There is nothing that requires "evolutionary effects" over and above the Hubble relation to always be present. So, if they aren't that's fine; there's nothing to explain.

So I was alluding to the fact that a lack of any of these observational effects means that there is no variation in proper time with distance, which is what the op was asking about...or are you saying that there still could be, with the right change in coordinate system?

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm attempting to describe a model where proper time varies as a function of redshift.

Then you need to give a specific reference to such a model, so we can understand what "proper time varies as a function of redshift" even means. As it stands those words make no sense.

like attributing it to a variation in distance or curvature?

Like attributing it to "variation" in some coordinate other than time. Either way it's an artifact of your coordinate choice.

The hypothetical variation of cluster velocity dispersion with redshift

Which, as I pointed out, is not hypothetical; it is actually observed, and would be expected given what the redshift means physically.

I was alluding to the fact that a lack of any of these observational effects means that there is no variation in proper time with distance

Which, as I said above, makes no sense as it stands. You need to give a reference. Otherwise what you are saying is just personal speculation and is out of bounds here.

which is what the op was asking about

The OP's question was based on the same confusion you keep exhibiting: confusing coordinate artifacts with actual physical effects. That was cleared up for the OP before you joined the thread. You are just obfuscating it again.

are you saying that there still could be, with the right change in coordinate system?

I'm saying that "variation in proper time with distance" is just word salad as it stands. If you want us to make sense of it, you need to give a reference to an actual model that explains what it is supposed to mean.

 

[alantheastronomer]

Then you need to give a specific reference to such a model, so we can understand what "proper time varies as a function of redshift" even means. As it stands those words make no sense.

I'm saying that "variation in proper time with distance" is just word salad as it stands. If you want us to make sense of it, you need to give a reference to an actual model that explains what it is supposed to mean.

I was in the process of trying to develop such a model when I realized that redshift is not time independent and would also be affected by any type of time variation;

I had erroneously thought that the light curves and velocity dispersions would diverge at larger redshifts but I see that's not true and so redshift can always be interpreted as being due to the expansion of space - is this what you mean by being just a coordinate artifact?

What about gravitational time dilation - that's not also coordinate dependent, is it?

Are you implying some local test as an absolute measure of the passage of time? E.g. put a certain mass in a given region and if it forms a star of some characteristic and eventually goes supernova, then time is flowing at a "default" rate. And if it doesn't, then time locally is flowing "slow" or "fast"?

If time locally is measured using natural processes (e.g. a caesium clock), then wouldn't everything appear to be "normal" locally? Wouldn't all the physics locally be the same?

Globular clusters formed between 10 and 12 billion years ago, and so if any physics was different back then, it should have ramifications and have left anomalies with local physics that we can observe today within the Milky Way...

 

[PeterDonis]

I was in the process of trying to develop such a model

When I asked for a reference to an actual model, I meant an actual model that already exists somewhere in the literature, not one you are trying to develop yourself. The latter would be personal research and would be off topic here.

I had erroneously thought that the light curves and velocity dispersions would diverge at larger redshifts

What do you mean by "diverge"?

redshift can always be interpreted as being due to the expansion of space

Redshift can be "interpreted" as a variety of things depending on how you choose your coordinates. But doing that is getting things backwards. Redshift is the direct observable; you don't need to "interpret" it at all. You just need to look at how redshift is related to other direct observables, such as luminosity and angular size. "Interpretation" of the redshift is a calculational convenience and is not necessary at all; you can do cosmology entirely in terms of direct observables and the relationships between them.

What about gravitational time dilation - that's not also coordinate dependent, is it?

Gravitational time dilation is not even a well-defined concept in an expanding universe. It is only well-defined in stationary spacetimes. In stationary spacetimes, it is true that it is not coordinate-dependent; it has an invariant definition.

Globular clusters formed between 10 and 12 billion years ago, and so if any physics was different back then, it should have ramifications and have left anomalies with local physics that we can observe today within the Milky Way...

Certainly; for example, if the fine structure constant were different back then, that should in principle have observable consequences when we look at such objects. So far no such observable consequences have been found. But testing for them does not require any "interpretation" of redshift or any other observables.

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP question has been thoroughly discussed, and speculations are off limits at PF. Thread closed.