Space/Time expansion to relative time??

[americanpsycho]

Okay, I'm new to this board, and this may be a stupid question but it's been bothering since it came to me last night. If the 'Big Bang' went from being tiny to being the size of the universe today stretching the fabric of space and time as it expanded (no matter how quickly it happened) wouldn't time seem to pass at the same speed (relatively) to a person if they lived in that tiny spot or in the universe today?? If the big bang took only a millasecond, wouldn't it seem like billions of years to someone living in that mess??

 

[origin]

"If the big bang took only a millasecond, wouldn't it seem like billions of years to someone living in that mess??"<br /><br />Welcome!<br /><br />I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is billions of years old. <br /><br /> Are you saying it might seem like billions of years but it is only a millisecond old? <br /><br />Perhaps you could elaborate because this is not making sense, to me any way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

I figured it would be confusing. Confusing to myself. But would that millisecond of expansion seem like a large number of years to a life form living during the expansion. Since space/time was expanding would it seem like a relatively long period? Seems to me like the space/time frames would expand as the universe grew, so if you were alive in those tiny frames of fabric time would seem to move at a smaller pace. Sort of like dog years. This may not make any sense either, hard to type it the way I imagine it. It's a question of relativity to me. When I can get someone to understand this poorly worded question, I have more to go along with it. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[americanpsycho]

Depends on whether 'Big Bang' was an explosion or expansion.....

 

[origin]

I think an observer outside of the universe (which is not possible) could see changing time frames, relative to that observer. In other words time passage itself could change to someone observing the universe, however to anyone in the universe the rate of time cahnge would appear constant.<br /><br />Is that what you are saying or asking? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

That sounds very much like what I'm saying. So if the universe is still expanding like a balloon, which the smart people say, do the frames of space/time expand with it? Say you draw a chess board pattern on a deflated balloon and then fill it. Then the frames would enlarge at a rate similar to the balloon inflation. As the frames enlarge with the balloon, shouldn't time be altered to the outside observer while staying the same for us. <br />Deep, deep down, what I'm trying to get to is that I don't think the residual expansion of the universe explains why all other galaxies and stars appear to be fleeing us. Because the way I understand, if the universe expands, therefore, expanding the frames of space/time we wouldn't see the expansion. Seems like it could only be observed from an outside perspective and would always appear the same inside. <br />I'm still looking at this from an expansion perspective, rather than an exploding bomb. I know both theories are out there, I'm just trying really hard to pick one for personal belief. This one may not make sense either.....

 

[origin]

'Then the frames would enlarge at a rate similar to the balloon inflation. As the frames enlarge with the balloon, shouldn't time be altered to the outside observer while staying the same for us.'<br /><br />I think I see what you are saying. Since space itself is expanding and space is comprised of 4 dimensions: X, Y, Z, and time. What is the effect of the expanding time dimension.<br /><br />Good question. I think the simple answer is that only the spacial dimensions are expanding. Why? Got me.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

Didn't realize your posts were what I have been reading on 'Unified Theory'. Thanks for you time and insight.

 

[americanpsycho]

I think the simple answer is that only the spacial dimensions are expanding.<br /><br />So, if I get you correctly, you say that spatial frames increase in size with the expansion, while time frames increase in number. <br />I'm going to twist this around in my head for a while. <br /><br />Thanks again, Troy<br />

 

[genius2007]

Time is an interesting thing and not always easy to explain. Frame dragging is when time itself is pulled due to motion through a gravitation field. That is why atomic clocks are ever so slightly out of sync if one is flown around the world and the other stays in the one spot until the other gets back.<br /><br />This article in Newscientist quote:-" Although that makes the graviton sound like a lightweight, it would give superconductors a gravitomagnetic force 17 orders of magnitude greater than that produced by normal matter."<br /><br />Article here http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19225771.800-gravitys-secret.html<br /><br />It is a long article but what it does is say we can not be sure what time and gravity really are at the extremes. For us apples still fall and our planet orbits the sun but much closer in and further out is where it all starts doing something that even the best science can't say it has the answers. Otherwise we would know why galaxies spin as they do and superconductors distort gravity <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">So, if I get you correctly, you say that spatial frames increase in size with the expansion, while time frames increase in number.</font><br /><br />I didn't really say that time frames increase in number. I think my answer is I do not know. What I mean is we can see the spacial dimensions increasing as the universe expands, if the time dimension was 'expanding' too we should be able to see or measure it. Since we do not see time 'expanding' (whatever that means) it probably is not occuring.<br /><br />Like I said it is a good question, maybe a physicist will read this and take pity on us and give a reasonable answer.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Asymptoptic exponential time dilation as one approaches big bang . . . <br /><br /><br />hmmmmmmmmm.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

OK,<br /><br />it's late, I'm tired, and I just finished doing something really complicated with my internet connection, however;<br /><br />cosmic inflation, or your idea with time expansion, are pretty much equivalent. Might be interesting to contemplate any observationally feasible effects we might yet discern to differentiate between the two scenarios . . <br /><br />Space-time inflated, it is already implicit in Guth's work, you've just elucidated it rather cleverly.<br /><br /><br />Excellent post, my young Padawan learner. You have an interesting future at spacedotcom.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

I did the 'Universe is a balloon' theory in my head and this is how I visualized it. Left myself with more questions than answers.......

 

[vogon13]

Just like strong nuclear, weak nucler, electromagnetic and gravity forces might be the same thing at high enough energies, perhaps, space-time disassociates (phase changes) near big bang (conversely) ??<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[siarad]

Hm very interesting & has worried me for a long time.<br />Even more confusing the expanding of space causes no 'motion' so shouldn't affect time whereas the flying apart surely does

 

[SpeedFreek]

An earlier reference to frame dragging mentioned gravitational time-dilation, where atomic clocks were flown around the world and then compared to another clock that stayed put. But there are two forms of time-dilation - gravitational (as described by general relativity) and relativistic (as described by special relativity).<br /><br />In a GPS satellite <i>both</i> types of time dilation are present and have to be adjusted for, by running the internal clock on the satellite at a different speed and by periodical adjustments at the receiver end.<br /><br />But back to the main topic - an interesting question indeed.<br /><br />Imagine a photon that we receive from the most distant galaxy we have observed. That galaxy has an angular size that tells us it was only 2-3 billion light years when it emitted that light, and yet we are receiving that light 13 billion years later.<br /><br />That light has been travelling for over 13 billion years, but when it started its journey, its destination was only 2-3 billion years away. It is the metric expansion of space that has caused that photon to take so long to finish it's journey.<br /><br />If the photon had the capacity to think, and it knew that at the start of its journey its destination was only 2 billion light years away, and yet the expansion caused the journey to take over six times longer than it should have done, would the photon think the journey had taken 2 billion years, or 13 billion years?<br /><br />Actually, due to relativistic time-dilation, the photon experiences exactly <b>no</b> time during <i>any</i> journey, as when your velocity reaches c time stops for you. (Of course, talking of photons experiencing time is very silly!)<br /><br />So instead, let's take a short relativistic journey through space that is expanding at a very fast rate and see what happens.<br /><br />Let's imagine for simplicity that we are travelling at 86.6% of the speed of light. This is the speed where the rate at which you experience time is exa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

I belive I have what your saying. During the initial expansion from what I've read elsewhere, the universe became close to the size it is today in that millisecond. So you would be travelling much faster than light if I understand correctly, and I imagine gravity would be intense during all of this. So, these two factors may explain what I'm thinking... I don't know what got me thinking about all of this, but it's really been on my mind and certainly don't have the knowledge to prove or disprove. Love all of the info and perspectives.

 

[americanpsycho]

Let's say space/time frames are one in the same and expand at the same rate, wouldn't that mean that the red shift seen in galaxies was caused by another force? <br /><br />If that's the fact, wouldn't the ammount of 'time' it takes light to cross 'space' still be relatively the same?<br /><br />If this sounds at all feesible to anyone, I have another point to make. Or another question is more like it. I won't ask it until the next post, just in case this is not even possible to you guys.

 

[SpeedFreek]

I don't think it is feasible, and here is why:<br /><br />When we measure the light from certain types of supernovae, we find that the increase in brightness of a certain type lasts for a certain length of time. A certain type of supernova (type 1a) is known as a "standard candle" as it burns for a <i>certain length of time</i>, and we can deduce a lot from measuring supernova at different distances.<br /><br />If a type 1a supernova has a duration of 20 days, then when we observe that supernova with a redshift of around z=1 it has a duration of 40 days.<br /><br />Now the redshift factor, known as <b>z</b>, indicates by what factor the universe has increased in size since that light was emitted. If an object has a redshift of z=5 then the universe is now 5 times larger than it was when that object emitted that light. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) has a redshift of z=1089 which means the universe is now 1089 times larger than it was when the universe was only 380,000 years old and first became transparent!<br /><br />To get back to the supernovae, the higher their redshift, the more their light has been "stretched" by the expansion of space, and thus our view of their duration is stretched or time-dilated by exactly the amount predicted when using the expansion of space as a model.<br /><br />What this means is that it took a supernova the same length of <b>time</b> to blow up, early in the history of the universe, as it does today, so time passed at the same rate then as it does now. The difference we see in the durations of supernova at different distances is entirely consistent with a universe that is expanding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

I don't mean to keep asking off-the-wall question, but does the foundation of 'time' change with the expansion of the universe? Or is it only the physical 'space' that changes? Most of my question come from the 'balloon model'.<br /><br />I'm going to the used book store to buy some physics books so I can talk in this forum a little more intelligently. Any recommendations would be terrific.

 

[SpeedFreek]

I don't think that time expands in the same way as space in the infamous balloon model.<br /><br />In that particular model, as the balloon expands, the surface represents space and the radius or distance from the centre of the balloon represents time. Space expands as time <i>increases</i>. Well, both increase really, but space increases as time elapses - the more seconds that pass, the larger the universe becomes! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

Do you think 'time' could be represented by the air that fills the balloon? As the air (time) increases, surface area (space) increases. How about that? Maybe?

 

[SpeedFreek]

No, the way I learnt it, time is represented by the radius, not the volume. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[americanpsycho]

That works for brilliantly for my thoughts. Because I imagined time as being interlaid on the surface along with the space (hence space/time). And if that were true, we wouldn't see red shift. So that's why I felt that if surface area was 'space' and volume was 'time' it could explain both expanding at the same time, yet still seeing space expand at a larger rate.<br /><br />What you said still works in the same way. If 'space' is purely surface area of our "balloon" and time is the radius you would see exponential surface expansion compared to relative time, while they both expand correspondingly. Does that make sense?<br /><br />But, does that possibly cause time to appear relativly slower closer to the 'Big Bang' than it would to someone viewing the universe from and outside perspective with time their own relative speed? <br /><br />If that didn't make any sense I can try to elaborate better. Thanks