Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False?

[Gibsense]

It is widely realised nowadays that the Age of the Universe as a radius translates to our space (as the circumference of a circle) to match the Hubble Constant. That is each second increase in radius (light second) increases space by a close approximation to the measured Hubble Constant. I have always thought of increases in time as causing space expansion but what if it is the other way around; space expansion causes time.
If this were the case, we no longer look for a cause of time (which seems difficult) but for a cause of space expansion (which seems easier). For example, Black Holes may cause white Holes, etc.

What do you think/suggest?

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Which came first , the chicken or the egg ? Distance and time are two seemingly separate, intangible, phenomena. They are aso both separations and the two components of motion. However, because time seems to be progression, and that progression is of distance, I have to back time as the driver of the expansion, rather than vice-versa. How these seemingly separate phenomena combined, to form the single phenomenon we call space-time, is currently, and probably always will be beyond comprehension, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

I believe distance and time are fundamental components of reality and as they are intangibles, are exempt from the rules of cause and effect which apply to all things physical.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just asking.

If there were to be a reversal to contraction, would time reverse (whatever that means)?
What would cause what, in this case?

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Just asking.

If there were to be a reversal to contraction, would time reverse (whatever that means)?
What would cause what, in this case?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Just asking.

If there were to be a reversal to contraction, would time reverse (whatever that means)?
What would cause what, in this case?

Time is a positive concept and continues to progress normally. The process is ongoing, but in the opposite direction. This raises an interesting question: What mechanism would allow the universe to emulate a black hole without actually becoming one?

It's worth noting that time operating under contraction occurs in a black hole, so I'm surprised you asked this question.

 

[Gibsense]

Which came first , the chicken or the egg ? Distance and time are two seemingly separate, intangible, phenomena. They are aso both separations and the two components of motion. However, because time seems to be progression, and that progression is of distance, I have to back time as the driver of the expansion, rather than vice-versa. How these seemingly separate phenomena combined, to form the single phenomenon we call space-time, is currently, and probably always will be beyond comprehension, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

I believe distance and time are fundamental components of reality and as they are intangibles, are exempt from the rules of cause and effect which apply to all things physical.

It makes sense to consider time and distance as being the same thing, but interpreted differently (say by a 3d person compared to a 4d person).
Consider: In 4 spatial dimensions, the expansion of 3 dimensions of distance across a distance of the fourth dimension. Then the fourth dimension is considered to be time. Reality can perm any 3 from 4, and the fourth to be time.

The really interesting question is "Can each possible combination exist in the same hypersphere?" But this is rather exotic even for me, especially as it has implications for certain phenomena that we might hope didn't exist.

I haven't debated this with an AI as I thought it might reduce credibility as being too far out. You could maybe (?)

Anyway to answer your question, they came together.

 

[Catastrophe]

Time is a positive concept and continues to progress normally. The process is ongoing, but in the opposite direction. This raises an interesting question: What mechanism would allow the universe to emulate a black hole without actually becoming one?

It's worth noting that time operating under contraction occurs in a black hole, so I'm surprised you asked this question.

Really, Gibsense:

It's worth noting that time operating under contraction occurs in a black hole, so I'm surprised you asked this question.

Since the expansion in question was Expansion of the Universe, then contract referred to contraction of same, and not only to some theoretical final stage. My question #3 clearly referred to a theoretical contraction of the "Universe", all highly theoretical, and whether this, in accordance with the theoretical context of the thread, might be related to time.

Thus, I am surprised at your post #5:

It's worth noting that time operating under contraction occurs in a black hole, so I'm surprised you asked this question.

and

Time is a positive concept and continues to progress normally. The process is ongoing, but in the opposite direction.

Since you are knowledgeable on the question of time, perhaps you might please inform us as to whether or not time travels backwards (as in the opposite direction), and what this means, long before there is any likelihood of a final black hole. I hope this question does not cause you further surprise.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Since you are knowledgeable on the question of time, perhaps you might please inform us as to whether or not time travels backwards (as in the opposite direction), and what this means, long before there is any likelihood of a final black hole. I hope this question does not cause you further surprise.

Oh, but it does! As you may recall from your schooldays, the idea of time running in reverse arises in certain interpretations of physics. For instance, in quantum field theory, a positron is sometimes mathematically described as an electron moving backward in time—though this is possibly more of a convenient mathematical trick than a literal physical reality.

Having explored discussions on hyperspheres, you might have come across claims that time on the opposite side runs in reverse. To an observer looking across, if such a phenomenon were visible, events there might appear to unfold backwards, even though—locally—everything would seem completely normal. It all depends on perspective.



I should, of course, remind any new reader that this is just a theoretical position I have dug up from my long-gone past and not to take Cat's complementary comment about my time knowledge too literally!

 

[Gibsense]

If there were to be a reversal to contraction, would time reverse (whatever that means)?
What would cause what, in this case?

I have just realised why you have asked this maybe. Are you interested in what might contribute to a recycling universe? It would seem that there are two problems. How does the universe reverse from expansion and contraction. Would we notice in either case?

During the periods of expansion and contraction I think time would continue to be felt in a normal way. Whateverthe method for reversal we probably would not notice: A second is a second no matter how fast it may pass. Only your 4D super flatlander would spot the changes. Imagine time slowing with 'long seconds' - you notice nothing. Then time flips and proceeds again with the same result. At the switchover the instant of no-time is just that - again you have no recognition.
So what causes these reversals if the universe bounces? Are there critical sizes? Is the universe itself a waveform?

Brane Cosmology supposes that we exist on an extradimensional structure that keeps colliding with others. Maybe this could be interesting especially as it seems to acknowledge that extra dimensions can exist without being 'curled up'.

 

[Catastrophe]

I think it very confusing to assume that contraction of the "Universe" (which term I am not happy with) must be inseparable from time reversal.

At the very essence of time is entropy, often referred to as "the Arrow of Time".
There is a suggestion of a broken egg becoming "uncooked" and reforming as its shell mends, it returns from the refrigerator to the shop, and to the poultry farm, evenuually returning into the chicken.

Entropy can be reversed, but only if it is within a total system of increasing entropy. My deduction is that contraction in a universe (an observable universe) is local, just as we experience it today. Formation of a human is the opposite of death and decay. Entropy always wins in the end.

Therefore, we can only speak of expansion and contradiction of an "observable universe", which, I maintain, is the only "type" of "universe" that there is. This conclusion is reached after mature consideration, and may well differ from postings of years ago.

There is another question deserving of consideration: that of a cyclic universe.
From the above, it must be apparent any cycles must be of "observable universe"s, unless we are only exposed to a limited meaning of entropy. It should be recalled that we are only able to consider "observable universe"s, and that entropy is only relevant to a total system. "Local" decreases may apply, at least only on a hypothetical basis, to individual "observable universe"s.

Note that I have written "observable universe"s to accentuate the fact that there are no other "universes" than those of the "observable universe" type.

Cat