Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum "Bouncing" universes.

This raises the question: "What is time". I think I'm sort of with St Augustine here: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not".

Two questions about your scenario:
1. Is the "current" universe the only one that experiences time?
2. Would I be right in thinking that in your scenario time is more than just a measure of change? Does it have some independent existence of its own?

Sounds OK to me. What about "cosmos" as a blanket term to cover both?

Agreed

Two questions about your scenario:
1. Is the "current" universe the only one that experiences time?

Yes.

2. Would I be right in thinking that in your scenario time is more than just a measure of change? Does it have some independent existence of its own?

More similar to the first one… except that time is a mechanism of change not a measurement. Time is just the dynamic interaction of all of the constituents of change. Without change there will be no phenomenon of time. Likewise without time no change will take place…but their relationship to each other isn’t causal. Both change and time come about simultaneously. They're initiated by energy...kenetic energy to be specific.

Actually there’s nothing new here. This is how we actually perceive and detect time and change (science aside). The question is can you believe your eyes. I think that we can. All science needs to do is represent it with a mechanism that follows all physical laws.

If they can do this, then; they will have the correct framework, dynamics and language for the quantum model…oh, and I harp on this a lot; relativity will be unveiled.

I like that, it's a good, concise, quotable quote; but what does it mean to say that time is a "mechanism" of change.



My understanding is that an "interaction" has no existence of its own, apart from the entities involved in the interaction.



This seems to provide a response to my second point, but it would also mean that if there was nothing between successive universes, there would be nothing for time to interact with.

“…but what does it mean to say that time is a "mechanism" of change.”

Time is a feature that emerges simultaneously along with change.

“My understanding is that an "interaction" has no existence of its own, apart from the entities involved in the interaction.”

That’s exactly it. Time is not a lone physical entity. However, the phenomenon of time has enough detail and characteristics that it can be discussed, “described” and measured. It’s certainly not a word that I would want to live without. (It’s just too damn handy.) One could discuss the rhythm of time or time dilation. We can assign a measurement unit to it. After a while, it takes on a life of its own.

At some point, I would like to initiate a thread on time and relativity which should be controversial and blasphemous; but it could serve as a predecessor to this particular idea of time.

”…if there was nothing between successive universes, there would be nothing for time to interact with.”

I agree… that’s why I’m not a proponent of virtually nothing at the “singularity”…nor am I a proponent of nothing before or after the singularity.

In addition; I can’t reconcile new space being created during the universe’s expansion. For starters, space is the lousiest “carrier” of matter that one could conceive of.

I like the sound of a thread on time and relativity. Go for it!



Does this mean that you do not subscribe to the belief that the galaxy groups are not travelling through space?

What are we actually measuring when we measure time? We might talk of "one second", but what is it? It looks like an arbitrarily chosen unit that seems to make sense of change.

This kind of discussion is perhaps best saved for your future thread.

All motion involves something traveling through space. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that our expanding universe is caused by “new” space magically appearing in between objects (adding more distance).

From what I can observe, all matter “sees” space as zero resistance to its motion. If we throw a ball out in space; it continues to travel at the same speed, unimpeded by space and will continue unabated until it collides with something. Likewise, I believe that newly created space would ”happily” expand past a stationary object and that there would be no change in the object’s relative position to other objects. Hence, space is the worst possible carrier of matter that I can imagine. Add in the fact that all of the supposed new space is not diluting existing gravitational fields.

I propose that, prior to the Big Bang, all of the space was already there. All that we can actually observe and track are particle motions. I think that space expansion is just a “convenient” way of accounting for the relative motions of the particles…just like dark energy is a “convenient” way of accounting for the acceleration. Personally, I have to be extremely careful before I can adopt either of these as reality. However, there is no doubt that the particles are behaving as if there was an expanding carrier and they are also behaving as if there was a repulsive force. I think that science needs to exhaust all possibilities for the particle behavior before it resorts to non-detectable, unverifiable causes.

The idea that galaxy groups are separating because they are being carried along by expanding space allows for a horizon beyond which we would never be able to see, because light from beyond it will never reach us. Would the same thing happen if the galaxy groups were moving through space, or would no such permanent horizon be able to arise, because relative speeds through space can never reach "c"?

BTW, Kirby, I like your idea that space is a very poor carrier of matter. I shall have to mull that over.

I don’t really know. This isn’t something that I am even close to reconciling.
For instance, when we adjust our telescope magnification to see near the horizon regardless of the direction that we choose, we see a lot of quasars. The problem isn’t that we “see” a horizon; it’s what we see near the horizon. If you apply a lot of common sense, it’s easy to think of quasars as the birth of galaxies. However, to me, quasars also look a lot like what I would envision the “death” of galaxies to be like and I don’t think that this possibility can be ruled out 100%. Like everyone else, I have no choice but to lean towards birth mainly because of the homogeneity (consistency) that existed billions of years ago.

I would like to run a mind experiment: Let’s take the current viewpoint (consensus) of the universe’s evolution except; let’s keep track of one elemental particle… an electron. And out of all the electrons in the universe, I choose the one that is orbiting within a carbon atom at the tip of your nose.

~13.7 billion years ago the Big Bang is initiated and our electron doesn’t exist. Sometime between 1 millionth of a second later and 1 second later our electron comes into being, congealed out of pure energy.

Sometime between 3 seconds and 300,000 years later, our electron is captured by a proton/neutron combination’s strong force and is now part of a stable hydrogen atom. This atom is a part of hydrogen plasma soup.

Sometime between 300,000 years and 300,000,000 years this atom finds itself as a constituent of a star. The star resides in a proto-galaxy which will congeal into a quasar and then into a distinct galaxy that will later be known as the Milky Way. Sometime within this time frame the universe begins to glow with visible light. Later on, I will be referring to this time frame and the visible light.

Sometime between 300M years and 5B years the star is ready to go supernova and our electron finds itself fusing into a heavier carbon atom. The star goes supernova and spews mostly light elements and a tiny portion of heavier elements (including our electron).

~9B years after the Big Bang our solar system begins to congeal; the sun reaches critical mass and flashes on. Our electron is a part of a carbon atom that will later congeal into the Earth.

~13.7B after the Big Bang our electron finds itself orbiting within a carbon atom that resides on the tip of Bill S.’ nose.

Now, Bill S., the nose and the electron find themselves behind a rather large telescope and he focuses the telescope so that it can see 13.4B light years distant. He is also looking back 13.4B years ago. This is the point where the universe first became visible. 13.4B years ago a photon began its journey through the universe at the speed of light. 13.4B years later it reflects off of the telescope’s objective and lands on your retina.

I have one simple question: How did the electron beat the photon to this vantage point? How could the electron win the race against an entity that is traveling at 1c? Supposedly, 13.4B years ago the photon and electron were both in the same general locale. Now the electron is behind a telescope receiving photons from the universe’s flash on point. This seems paradoxical to me.

I think that the point I am trying to make is that there is much for me understand before I can hazard a guess about the universe’s horizon.

BTW; I just recieved Stannard's book in the mail.

“What are we actually measuring when we measure time?”

I believe that we are measuring the rate of change. There is a consistency for most changes that can be described as time. Repeatability really solidifies this concept until it becomes “second” nature. Time also has a linear “feel” that is helpful.

“We might talk of "one second", but what is it? It looks like an arbitrarily chosen unit that seems to make sense of change.”

Yes. The premise for a second of time was mostly arbitrary. Fortunately, that’s no longer the case. For instance; 1 coulomb is the accumulation of electrons at a 1amp rate over 1 second.

I think that the true nature of time is the “hinge pin” to understanding the cosmos…or at least it’s one of the big three. Newton thought that it was dynamics and Einstein thought that it was a constant (c).

I have struggled with similar problems arising out of the apparent fact that astronomers can look back in time such vast distances. I have not thought of this specific one, though. at first glance, the weak link here seems to be the assumption that the photon and the electron were "in the same general locale". Surely, they could have been on opposite sides of the Universe, they would then be separating at a considerable speed. They would be going in opposite directions which (I assume) would double the speed of expansion.

My attempts to find solutions to other problems of this kind lead me to suspect that the answer could not be that simple. Where are the experts when you need them?

I agree with this, as far as our understanding of the Universe is concerned.
Our understanding of the Universe necessarily includes an understanding of what we perceive as change. We are aware of change in our Universe, but this brings us back to the spider walking through Flatland. How can we be sure that what we see equates in any real way to what is happening in the wider context of the whole cosmos?