What if the value of c was different

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p>I would like to propose a thought experiment and get some opinions (all are welcome)</p><p>What would the universe be like if the speed of light was different or changing from what it is now but our understanding of physics had to remain true. Meaning E still equals mc2, F=ma, Newtonian gravity equations still worked etc. I guess I'm wondering how things would scale. For instance an increase in c would have to result in an increase of wavelength for a photon (redshift), or a decrease in c would have to mean an increase in mass in order to satisfy E=mc2 (suggesting that mass is not necessarily an intrinsic property of matter). However increasing mass would increase gravitational effects and the universe might collapse so the value of G would have to be lower or the distances between objects would have to increase in order to compensate (suggesting a correlation between the value of G and c ). It all gets very confusing but it seems worhtwhile to think about. Try thinking about c being 1m/s and what it would be like to approach a traffic light.</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to propose a thought experiment and get some opinions (all are welcome)What would the universe be like if the speed of light was different or changing from what it is now but our understanding of physics had to remain true. Meaning E still equals mc2, F=ma, Newtonian gravity equations still worked etc. I guess I'm wondering how things would scale. For instance an increase in c would have to result in an increase of wavelength for a photon (redshift), or a decrease in c would have to mean an increase in mass in order to satisfy E=mc2 (suggesting that mass is not necessarily an intrinsic property of matter). However increasing mass would increase gravitational effects and the universe might collapse so the value of G would have to be lower or the distances between objects would have to increase in order to compensate (suggesting a correlation between the value of G and c ). It all gets very confusing but it seems worhtwhile to think about. Try thinking about c being 1m/s and what it would be like to approach a traffic light. <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>If light travels at the same speed in all inertial reference frams, or if any phenomena travels at a constant speed "x"in all inertiala reference frames and if the laws of physics are independent of the inertial reference frame then from those two facts one can deduce the Lorentz transformation of special relativity with"x" in the role of "c".&nbsp; You then find that special relativity holds as a matter of pure logic and deduction.</p><p>So, if there were a different value for c, you would simply have special relativity as we know it with a different value for "c".&nbsp; Since most texts either use the symbol for the speed of light ast "c" without worrying about the numerical value or else use units in which c=1, you would not even have to modify textbooks substantially, except to put the new value in a table somewhere.&nbsp; This is in fact already the case since measurements of c become more precise from time to time and the number if decimals to which c is known increases.</p><p>If c was 1 m/s then it would be impossible to exceed a speed of 1 m/s (it would require infinite energy to go that fast), and you would be traveling very far.&nbsp; It is a good thing that light is pretty fast.</p><p>If you want something more provacative to think about,&nbsp; consider this.&nbsp; Most materials contract when they cool and freeze.&nbsp; Water is rather unusual in that when it freezes the usual solid form, ordinary&nbsp;ice, is less dense than the liquid form.&nbsp; Think what this planet might be like if ice did not floar.&nbsp; Think about how much more ice there might be if a layer of solid did cover the liquid in cold regions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If c was 1 m/s then it would be impossible to exceed a speed of 1 m/s (it would require infinite energy to go that fast), and you would be traveling very far.&nbsp; It is a good thing that light is pretty fast.Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Exactly my point so if nothing else in our universe changed to compensate for this unusual value then we would see relativistic effects in our day to day lives and things would be much different than they are today. What I was trying to get at rather than just continually reaffirming the assumptions of relativity was what might some of the connections be between the speed of light and other constants and properties that we take for granted. Or what would small scale changes in the value of c over time (like 13 billion years or so) do to our perception of the universe.</p><p>As far as the ice thing goes, I live on a boat year round in Canada so&nbsp;if that darn ice would sink I wouldn't have to smash ice in the morning :)&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
K

kg

Guest
<p>If c was 1 m/s then it would be impossible to exceed a speed of 1 m/s (it would require infinite energy to go that fast),</p><p><br />I'm trying to imagine a universe in which c=1 m/s.&nbsp; That's allot slower than earths escape velocity.&nbsp; Would that make the earth a black hole?</p>
 
K

kg

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>consider this.&nbsp; Most materials contract when they cool and freeze.&nbsp; Water is rather unusual in that when it freezes the usual solid form, ordinary&nbsp;ice, is less dense than the liquid form.&nbsp; Think what this planet might be like if ice did not floar.&nbsp; Think about how much more ice there might be if a layer of solid did cover the liquid in cold regions. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Ok,&nbsp;take an altimeter that measures altitude by barometric pressure and calibrate it so that it reads 0 feet at sea level.&nbsp; Climb up a hill until the altimeter&nbsp;reads 20 feet.&nbsp; Melt enough ice&nbsp;(not&nbsp;ice floating in the sea but ice on land...maybe defrosting Greenland would do the trick) until the sea rises 20 feet.&nbsp; What altitude does the altimeter now read?&nbsp;
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try thinking about c being 1m/s and what it would be like to approach a traffic light. <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Then .001 m/s would be really, really fast.&nbsp; Relatively speak, of course <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then .001 m/s would be really, really fast.&nbsp; Relatively speak, of course <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Exactly, So everything would have to change in a relative way. If c = 1m/s then what we call a meter, a second and a kg would have to also be smaller (thus making .001 m/s seem really fast). This implies that the value of c is kind of a relative measure of the size of spacetime and that what we call intrinsic properties of matter are closely linked to the value of c. Does it then follow that if spacetime is expanding then the relative value of c must also be increasing ? Of course we could never tell because what we call a meter and a second would also be changing</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to propose a thought experiment and get some opinions (all are welcome)What would the universe be like if the speed of light was different or changing from what it is now but our understanding of physics had to remain true. Meaning E still equals mc2, F=ma, Newtonian gravity equations still worked etc. Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><font size="2">This is an interesting question no doubt. My instinct says, c and other universal constant are always changing, but the rate of change is so low it'd n't be noticeable in earth's life-time.&nbsp; Let's see what could have happened 13.7 billions years ago. Assuming total energy in the universe is fixed, if we set c=0,</font></p><p><font size="2">m=E/c^2 = infinity.&nbsp; Infinite mass, this is not what big bang says.</font></p><p><font size="2">If mass c = infinity, then mass</font></p><p><font size="2">m = E/c^2 = 0. Is this the singularity of pre-bigbang&nbsp;? All energy was concentrated in zero mass?</font></p><p><font size="2">But this goes against common sense. If big bang is right, c should be increasing not decreasing. Because primitive universe must have been more dense to oppose&nbsp; photon movements. Just my current&nbsp;line of thinking, until someone injects more into my mind to change it.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an interesting question no doubt. My instinct says, c and other universal constant are always changing, but the rate of change is so low it'd n't be noticeable in earth's life-time.&nbsp; Let's see what could have happened 13.7 billions years ago. Assuming total energy in the universe is fixed, if we set c=0,m=E/c^2 = infinity.&nbsp; Infinite mass, this is not what big bang says.If mass c = infinity, then massm = E/c^2 = 0. Is this the singularity of pre-bigbang&nbsp;? All energy was concentrated in zero mass?But this goes against common sense. If big bang is right, c should be increasing not decreasing. Because primitive universe must have been more dense to oppose&nbsp; photon movements. Just my current&nbsp;line of thinking, until someone injects more into my mind to change it. <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p><strong><font size="2"><u>Dead Wrong</u></font></strong></p><p>I don't believe anyone can even use this sort of argument. UncertainH you have asked an incredible question and the implications of which are much mor important than just that things might move slower if c was 1m/s. No on the contrary!</p><p>Perhaps from the perspective of c= 300000km/s things might seem to move slower in a c=1m/s universe, but from the perspective of the universe itself <strong>Nothing would change!</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><strong><u>Everything Changes </u></strong></font>(realtivity's a <em>?#%$!</em> aint it!) </p><p>You see in a universe where the speed of light is really the only constant and everything else, including space and time itself, is relative is that the universe would change according to the speed of light. In other words the electrons in our brains, the movement of heavenly bodies, the decomposition of our bodies. Everything would derease in speed compared to an outside prospective, but of course since everything changed in unison detecting a change in the speed of c is <strong>IMPOSSIBLE</strong> from a perspective inside the univers.</p><p><strong>Ex:</strong> During the prehistoric age there were a lot of big dinosuars, but the dinosuars didnt think they were big because everything else was bigger @ that time too</p><p><font color="#008000">UncertainH This is really one of the best questions I've heard in a long time. And the fact that you thought to ask such a question should be worth much then simply the final implications of it whatever that maybe. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><strong><u>A Terrible Fate</u></strong></font></p><p>Essentially we have a 0 dimensional perspective of time. I believe this perspective could change what we think about many things. Apply it to the expanding universe conundrum for instance and suddenly its not the universe that is accelerating. Its simply us slowing down. So that light itself would be losing speed and is henceforth the wave energy of light would not be somehow unaffected by traveling over the length of the universe. You see light does lose energy over distance however this distance is in term of time. So what seems like an expanding universe is really just the speed of light changing. It just so happens that when c changes the whole universe goes along with it. A_L_P if ur watching here is your symmetry. Since time is limited to compensate for the speed of light slowing down, the universe itself must expand to infinitum. <font color="#0000ff"><em><strong>In this postulate we would be reaching a end of time, however since we can not detect an end of time itself from our 0 dimension perspective of time. Space itself must expand to infinity as c = 0.</strong></em></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Eureka! </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an interesting question no doubt. My instinct says, c and other universal constant are always changing, but the rate of change is so low it'd n't be noticeable in earth's life-time.&nbsp; Let's see what could have happened 13.7 billions years ago. Assuming total energy in the universe is fixed, if we set c=0,m=E/c^2 = infinity.&nbsp; Infinite mass, this is not what big bang says.If mass c = infinity, then massm = E/c^2 = 0. Is this the singularity of pre-bigbang&nbsp;? All energy was concentrated in zero mass?But this goes against common sense. If big bang is right, c should be increasing not decreasing. Because primitive universe must have been more dense to oppose&nbsp; photon movements. Just my current&nbsp;line of thinking, until someone injects more into my mind to change it. <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I think time is what was different.&nbsp; Time must have slowed down incredibly much upon the general appearance of the gravity force.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Exactly, So everything would have to change in a relative way. If c = 1m/s then what we call a meter, a second and a kg would have to also be smaller (thus making .001 m/s seem really fast). This implies that the value of c is kind of a relative measure of the size of spacetime and that what we call intrinsic properties of matter are closely linked to the value of c. Does it then follow that if spacetime is expanding then the relative value of c must also be increasing ? Of course we could never tell because what we call a meter and a second would also be changing&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>I've seen proposals where the speed of light is though to slow down to account for redshift, but I've never seen one for increasing C.&nbsp; That would just fudge up every observation we made concerning the expanding universe.&nbsp; Take structures at redshift z=7.&nbsp; Those objects were less than a billion light years distance when they emitted their light, but it took ~12.8 billion years to reach us.&nbsp; If light was accelerating, that light from that cluster would have reached us long, long ago.&nbsp; The universe would look entirely different.&nbsp; I think it would be intolerably bright.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've seen proposals where the speed of light is though to slow down to account for redshift, but I've never seen one for increasing C.&nbsp; That would just fudge up every observation we made concerning the expanding universe.&nbsp; Take structures at redshift z=7.&nbsp; Those objects were less than a billion light years distance when they emitted their light, but it took ~12.8 billion years to reach us.&nbsp; If light was accelerating, that light from that cluster would have reached us long, long ago.&nbsp; The universe would look entirely different.&nbsp; I think it would be intolerably bright.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>No. For you see if light sped up everything else would speed up in accordance so that everything would look perfectly normal. Not bright at all for we would be seeing the same amount of light per second. What you forgot to think about is that time itself is relative. In other words if light changed speed there would be no way to tell.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...As far as the ice thing goes, I live on a boat year round in Canada so&nbsp;if that darn ice would sink I wouldn't have to smash ice in the morning :)&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Think about it a bit more.&nbsp; If ice were more dense than water, the ice that formed would sink and the water would be continually exposed to the colder air.&nbsp; The exposed water would then freeze and sink until the water had frozen all the way or nearly all the way to the bottom.&nbsp; Your year-round boad moorage would probably not be viable year-round any longer.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think about it a bit more.&nbsp; If ice were more dense than water, the ice that formed would sink and the water would be continually exposed to the colder air.&nbsp; The exposed water would then freeze and sink until the water had frozen all the way or nearly all the way to the bottom.&nbsp; Your year-round boad moorage would probably not be viable year-round any longer.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Thank goodness for floating ice. </p><p>I found this on wiki:</p><p>John Barrow wrote:</p><dl><dd>"[An] important lesson we learn from the way that pure numbers like &alpha; define the world is what it really means for worlds to be different. The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by &alpha; is a combination of the electron charge, <em>e</em>, the speed of light, <em>c</em>, and Planck's constant, <em>h</em>. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If <em>c</em>, <em>h</em>, and <em>e</em> were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of &alpha; remained the same, this new world would be <em>observationally indistinguishable</em> from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass <em>m<sub>P</sub></em>] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged."<sup class="reference">[5]</sup> </dd></dl><p>So an unvarying fine structure constant eems to support the notion that we wouldn't be able to notice any change in the speed of light. An thus should see no red shift if the correlation is true. However I have heard it&nbsp;theorized that&nbsp;spacetime can expand faster than light so conceivably it&nbsp;could take a certain amount of time for the speed of light to "catch up" to the expansion of spacetime.</p>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space itself must expand to infinity as c = 0.&nbsp;Eureka! &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>wouldn't space expand to infinity as c approaches infinity ?<br /></p>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Take structures at redshift z=7.&nbsp; Those objects were less than a billion light years distance when they emitted their light, but it took ~12.8 billion years to reach us.<br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Sorry to nitpick terminology, but z=7 equates to an angular size distance (the proper distance to the object when it emitted its light) of around 3.5 billion light-years.&nbsp; The universe was less than a billion years old at the time, the light did take 12.8 billion years to reach us, and now those structures are estimated to be around 28 billion light-years away (co-moving distance).</p><p>Not that it makes any difference to the validity of your argument, of course.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>wouldn't space expand to infinity as c approaches infinity ? <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>One can only see a change in "c" from an outside reference as I believe that within the universe detecting a change in c would be impossible because everything would change in accordance to c. So through our magic looking glass we see a universe in which light moves at 1m/s. In that universe everything would seem to move really slow. k now hold that thought.</p><p>As far as we know time only moves forward. However time is a relative idea. It is essentially more of a ratio of how fast our thoughts move in correspondance to how everything else moves. Now if one thinks of time like this then really time is just a ratio of the speed of light compared to say the speed of our thoughts. Because of this no matter how slow time may seem to go on in this c = 1m/s universe, compared to the people living inside the universe time passes as normal. hold that thought now.</p><p>Now according to the Big Bang space just all of a sudden expanded from an infinitely small point. Now some scientist think that space it self is expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light. Now heres where it all comes together.</p><p>Say we explain the fact that space is expanding by saying that the speed of light is slowing down. Because time is subjective and will always move on at the same rate for whatever occupant there in as c goes to c = 0 and time can not be stopped, space has to expaned to infinity so that as c assimtopically reaches zero. What we percieve as the universe expanding is essentially our perception of time slowing down. This would imply that whatever "c" is it is not simply the speed of light, but perhaps the speed of time itself. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>IF <strong>c=t</strong> , where "<strong>t</strong>" is time and "<strong>c</strong>" is the speed of light from an outside reference and <strong>s/t</strong> is the ratio of space to time, As <strong>c=0</strong> Then<strong> t=0</strong> also term "<strong>s</strong>" (space) would increase. Because to us<strong> s/t = s</strong> As <strong>t</strong> is constant we would only percieve a change in <strong>s</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.... &nbsp;IF c=t , where "t" is time and "c" is the speed of light from an outside reference and s/t is the ratio of space to time, As c=0 Then t=0 also term "s" (space) would increase. Because to us s/t = s As t is constant we would only percieve a change in s <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Is this supposed to make sense ?&nbsp; You lost me.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
<p><font size="2">I'm lost too, actually I got lost a while back, sorry.&nbsp; I would have thought everything had to change accordingly if c had an incredibly low value.&nbsp; Planck length&nbsp;should be millions of time smaller, etc. Expansion&nbsp;should appear slower, not faster, and distances would be millions of times shorter and everything would be millions of time smaller, I would have thought.&nbsp; All this if no thought process was to be able to&nbsp;sense any change from the way things appear now.&nbsp;&nbsp;And the universe should only be about 40 million yrs old I would have thought.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... It just so happens that when c changes the whole universe goes along with it. A_L_P if ur watching here is your symmetry. Since time is limited to compensate for the speed of light slowing down, the universe itself must expand to infinitum. In this postulate we would be reaching a end of time, however since we can not detect an end of time itself from our 0 dimension perspective of time. Space itself must expand to infinity as c = 0.&nbsp;Eureka! &nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I'm always watching. :)&nbsp; </p><p> <img src="http://i38.tinypic.com/1py139.gif" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Interesting.&nbsp; So, a symmetry for time comes about from this dynamic, creating a sort of "negative" Universal time (reduced time) but, from our perspective it isn't directly detectable and it is only through the observation of physical dimensional changes like "expansion" that we can see it in action at all? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because time is subjective and will always move on at the same rate for whatever occupant there in as c goes to c = 0 and time can not be stopped, space has to expaned to infinity so that as c assimtopically reaches zero. What we percieve as the universe expanding is essentially our perception of time slowing down. This would imply that whatever "c" is it is not simply the speed of light, but perhaps the speed of time itself. &nbsp;IF c=t , where "t" is time and "c" is the speed of light from an outside reference and s/t is the ratio of space to time, As c=0 Then t=0 also term "s" (space) would increase. Because to us s/t = s As t is constant we would only percieve a change in s <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I would mostly agree. But I think we have to be very careful about terminology. The term c=t would have to be the speed of time as perceived from a point in spacetime which you could say&nbsp;operates in&nbsp;a relative decelerated time frame. If time is the first dimension and is folded into space then we give time 'speed' by folding it into physical dimensions and watching it move. And our relation to that time remains the same regardless of the size of the universe and any change in the speed of time as perceived from some outside reference. (ie we say c is constant)</p><p>As far as the ratio of space to time goes I believe that it must be more of an inverse square relationship. If matter is made of spacetime and also affects the spacetime around it then matter can only exist in decelarated time (time here meaning this cosmological time not the ticking of our clocks that we are used to ). This would explain why matter cannot move faster than the speed of light, because we would be catching up to the speed of time. Also if matter is also causing constant deceleration of&nbsp;time this would appear to other observers in the same region of space as an accelerating force, ie gravity and the fact that time keeps on going would lead to - inertia</p><p>I hope I haven't jumped too far there. Here is an article that tries to explain the apparent acceleration of the universe as a deceleration of time:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.4083.pdf</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><strong>To Dr.Rocket </strong></p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this supposed to make sense ?&nbsp; You lost me.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It doesn't make much sense to me either. The equations mean nothing, its just a rough & simplied outline of my thought process more then anything. If theres a better way to describe it I wouldn't know. In fact most of the equations in the link you posted trumped me completely. I can only vaguely explain it in words.</p><p><strong>To <font color="#0000ff">A_L_P</font> & <font color="#ff0000">UncertainH</font></strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Interesting.&nbsp; So, a symmetry for time comes about from this dynamic, creating a sort of "negative" Universal time (reduced time) but, from our perspective it isn't directly detectable and it is only through the observation of physical dimensional changes like "expansion" that we can see it in action at all? Posted by A_L_P</font></DIV></p><p>Yes. Essentially thats what im saying.</p><p>Essentially what I said is time is an illusion. I'm actually getting pretty confused myself to how I made this pretty half-hazard jump. I keep thinking that what Im saying makes no sense. Then I look back and read my post over again until I can kind of see how I got to where I am, but by that time I've forgotten what I was about to say, but we'll see where this goes. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> </p><p><font color="#ff0000">I would mostly agree. But I think we have to be very careful about terminology. The term c=t would have to be the speed of time as perceived from a point in spacetime which you could say&nbsp;operates in&nbsp;a relative decelerated time frame. If time is the first dimension and is folded into space then we give time 'speed' by folding it into physical dimensions and watching it move. And our relation to that time remains the same regardless of the size of the universe and any change in the speed of time as perceived from some outside reference. (ie we say c is constant)</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">As far as the ratio of space to time goes I believe that it must be more of an inverse square relationship. If matter is made of spacetime and also affects the spacetime around it then matter can only exist in decelarated time (time here meaning this cosmological time not the ticking of our clocks that we are used to ). This would explain why matter cannot move faster than the speed of light, because we would be catching up to the speed of time. Also if matter is also causing constant deceleration of&nbsp;time this would appear to other observers in the same region of space as an accelerating force, ie gravity and the fact that time keeps on going would lead to - inertia</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">I hope I haven't jumped too far there. Here is an article that tries to explain the apparent acceleration of the universe as a deceleration of time:</font></DIV></p><p>I think so. Im not sure if we could jump to any conclusion to weather specifically this relation of space to time is an inverse square relation. Right now I think it would be wise to stick with simple ratios. However I supppose if <em>time were decelerating </em>that this might also explain gravity and inertia as you said. This ofcourse depends on what "decelerating time" means.</p>And don't worry you haven't jumped any farther off the boat then I have, but I can see what your saying. if time is slowing down then space much be increasing so that gravity might be the effect of matter decelerating time. It quite hard to grasp. So we think that light doesn't lose energy traveling over distances like most waves. however the speed of time in the entire universe is really decreasing, so we can't tell that light really is losing energy. You can't think of light as a particle in order to think this way. One has to think of it as a universal constant. Like some sort of affect of time itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;I think so. Im not sure if we could jump to any conclusion to weather specifically this relation of space to time is an inverse square relation. Right now I think it would be wise to stick with simple ratios. However I supppose if time were decelerating that this might also explain gravity and inertia as you said....Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I can assure you that you are about to get all fouled up here.&nbsp; Nobody has really good explanation for time.&nbsp; Einstein was fairly sure that time was statistical in nature, but even he could not make that statement very precise.&nbsp; It is somehow tangled up with the second law of thermodynamicsm but there is not clear understanding.</p><p>Secondly while the common perception of time is as a truly independent variable that simply "flows" along, that simple notion died with special relativity and moreso with&nbsp;general relativity.&nbsp; Time is inexorably mixed in with space.&nbsp; In special relativity there is a notion of simultaneity in a single inertial reference frame and it is well defined.&nbsp; In general reltivity, with a curved space-time there is no universal time parameter and no universal notion of space.&nbsp; The two are mixed together through curvature.&nbsp;The notion of time to space ratio has no meaning.&nbsp; Neither time nor space have global independent meaning in a curved space-time.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
<p><font size="2">good point on time, DrRocket.&nbsp; Why06, somewhere above, I could have sworn you said time is a constant, and it is not.&nbsp; This is already confirmed locally when they flew the atomic clock twin of a clock on the ground.&nbsp; Time flows at varying speeds throughout the universe.(edit to add : and for more reasons than one iirc)</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts