OT - Time Theory

Alpha Kodiak · #1 August 30th, 2003, 01:09 AM

A friend of mine proposed to me an interesting theory on the origin of time. I figured that there would be some people here with thoughts on his theory.

Assuming that there was a Big Bang that occurred at the beginning of our universe, the universe is expanding from the point at which it occurred at extremely high velocity. At that point there is no time because, since it is truly stationary, time would move infinitely fast and would already be finished at that point. Since the apparent flow of time slows for things that are moving, time exists everywhere in the universe except that point.

The thing about his theory that I like is that it answers something that has been bugging me: Since the apparent rate of time varies based on your velocity, and velocity is relative to the point it is measured from, we would have an infinite number of time rates since our velocity could be measured from an infinite number of points. Perhaps the true time rate is based upon your velocity in relation to the fixed point of the Big Bang.

At any rate, when he mentioned it to me, it seemed like a topic that could get some discussion out of the people here.

Thermodyne · #2 August 30th, 2003, 03:42 AM

Why would the two be related? Einstein�s theories on time are falling out of favor as current day physics surpasses his understanding. He had a bad habit of using wildcards in his calculations. Why does there have to be a beginning at all? What we call time, is only a measurement from a fixed point of observation. And based largely on our acquired linear understanding of the universe.

Suicide Junkie · #3 August 30th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Try this one:
Imagine spacetime as a sphere. Divide it up like the globe into latitude and longitude lines.

Lines of latitude are various points in time. The North Pole would be the point in time of the big bang... as you go forward in time (south) the universe expands, and then eventually contracts into a big crunch at the south pole.

There is no discontinuity at the earliest point in time... If you follow a line back in time (northernly path) and kept going it would end up going forward in time on the other side of the universe.

For a universe that dosen't recollapse, use a parabolic or hyperbolic surface instead of a sphere or ellipsoid.

Kamog · #4 August 30th, 2003, 06:32 AM

Right after the Big Bang, the universe was expanding very fast, close to the speed of light, but not quite. Therefore, there was still time; it was not moving infinitely fast. I'm not sure if there could such a thing as time being already finished at a point.

I thought that since there are no absolute reference frames in space, there is no specific point at which the big bang originated.

narf poit chez BOOM · #5 August 30th, 2003, 07:46 AM

well, i'm not trying to start a religious debate, but i figured out how god could know everything and we still have free will...see, god knows everything because he sees us do it...all through time, beginning to end. when i'm really awake i can manage to twist my mind around it. i'm not really awake now. but think about this: it's the way we look at time.

yep, that's the best explanation i can give you. now, just turn your whole mind sideways...

oleg · #6 August 30th, 2003, 08:10 AM

When talking about very dense matter, like just after bing Bang, we must use general, NOT special theory of relativity. It states that times moves slower in strong gravitic fields, and there is nothing stronger than space-time wrap around the whole Universe compressed to null point

Thermo, Einstein' theories are not failing out of favor. They are true inside the well defined limits. That is when we can ignore quantum effects.