Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum

Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum (https://tree-of-souls.net/index.php)
-   Science and Technology (https://tree-of-souls.net/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Time May Be Disappearing From The Universe. (https://tree-of-souls.net/showthread.php?t=2019)

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 11:37 AM

Time May Be Disappearing From The Universe.
 
A new possible explantion for dark energy has resulted in a new theory of how the Universe might end.

The article is very vague so I'll explain what's going on underneath it. :)

Quote:


Remember a little thing called the space-time continuum? Well what if the time part of the equation was literally running out? New evidence is suggesting that time is slowly disappearing from our universe, and will one day vanish completely. This radical theory may explain a cosmological mystery that has baffled scientists for years.

Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to call this unidentified force "dark energy".

The idea that time itself could cease to be in billions of years - and everything will grind to a halt - has been proposed by Professor José Senovilla, Marc Mars and Raül Vera of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and University of Salamanca, Spain. The corollary to this radical end to time itself is an alternative explanation for "dark energy" - the mysterious antigravitational force that has been suggested to explain a cosmic phenomenon that has baffled scientists.

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Senovilla, and colleagues have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we’re looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years. The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured

The team's proposal, published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

“We do not say that the expansion of the universe itself is an illusion," he explains. "What we say it may be an illusion is the acceleration of this expansion - that is, the possibility that the expansion is, and has been, increasing its rate."

If time gradually slows "but we naively kept using our equations to derive the changes of the expansion with respect of 'a standard flow of time', then the simple models that we have constructed in our paper show that an "effective accelerated rate of the expansion" takes place."

Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating.

"Our calculations show that we would think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," says Prof Senovilla. The theory bases it’s idea on one particular variant of superstring theory, in which our universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk". In billions of years, time would cease to be time altogether.

"Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, forever," Senovilla told New Scientist magazine. "Our planet will be long gone by then."

Though radical and in many way unprecedented, these ideas are not without support. Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, say the concept has merit. "We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just the reverse effect."
Okay here's what the article says but in a lot clearer way.

Dark energy is the name of what cosmologists think is causing the increasing rate of spacetime expansion in our Universe. An anti-gravity force so to speak. But now, physicists are saying that time could be the cause of this.

Try to imagine a tube; the lenght of the tube being time and the width of it being space. Before dark energy is was thought that the length of the "tube" and the width grew at a standard, equal rate. After dark energy we see that the width (space) of the tube is growing faster than the lenght (time) of it. This means that there is more space created than time.

Since time and space are one thing, that means that, for some reason, time is being lost or is disappearing from the Universe. Time (the "lenght") is in fact getting shorter as space (the "width") is getting wider.

This can only mean that the end of the Universe will be that time gets so short that the Universe will end as an instant, a "photo" of the Universe.

Advent 07-11-2010 11:43 AM

Well, piss!

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 11:49 AM

Theories shmeories. How can time be lost? How are they calculating all this sh*t?

Advent 07-11-2010 11:51 AM

Well, they have to pass the time somehow. :P

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Advent (Post 74073)
Well, they have to pass the time somehow. :P

Maybe they're the ones stealing all the time... :S

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74071)
Theories shmeories. How can time be lost? How are they calculating all this sh*t?

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/444/44427.jpg

See this diagram? See how space and time once grew at an equal rate until "dark energy" took over. Now replace dark energy with what the article is saying. Since space time is widening the tube, time has to cover more space per second but since space is getting larger, time must be getting shorter.

Forget I said that (very confusing): Time is being lost (somehow, nobody knows how, but the theory says so) but space isnt, that means more space is being created than time. So if time is slowing down but space is getting larger at the same rate is always has then it looks like the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Sorry about that.:shy:

Sorry if it's vague.

Na'vi_supporter 07-11-2010 12:18 PM

It sounds logical, when time goes slower and space coordinates are changing at same rate than "speed" looks relative increasing.

There are so many theories, I wonder where is truth :D.

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Na'vi_supporter (Post 74085)
It sounds logical, when time goes slower and space coordinates are changing at same rate than "speed" looks relative increasing.

There are so many theories, I wonder where is truth :D.

Yes exactly. :D

That's why apparently it appears that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

But yeah it's a theory, and only until there's proof shall the scientific community take it more seriously.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 12:39 PM

Doesn't all this just mean that the universe is expanding faster and faster?

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreaming Of Pandora (Post 74086)
That's why apparently it appears that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Pretty sure we've known this for a while now, but in any case, so what? How does this equal the end of the universe?

Na'vi_supporter 07-11-2010 12:40 PM

I have one question on my mind. How is length defined if we take all this facts? What exactly is space expansion? Since there is no additional matter generated, it means expansion is only "virtual" coordinate distance change, something like if you draw regullar mesh on the paper and take magnifying glass. Is it like this? If this is the case is density of matter influenced?

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74089)
Doesn't all this just mean that the universe is expanding faster and faster?

EDIT:



Pretty sure we've known this for a while now, but in any case, so what? How does this equal the end of the universe?

Oh sorry I f***** that up. Go back to the post I've changed that.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 12:53 PM

I don't understand this theory. Time isn't being lost. The universe is expanding faster. What does this have to do with time? You can't just assume that because one is increasing, the other is decreasing.

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74094)
I don't understand this theory. Time isn't being lost. The universe is expanding faster. What does this have to do with time? You can't just assume that because one is increasing, the other is decreasing.

No. it's the other way around; time is decreasing and space is increasing. Time is being lost and this gives the appearance of space getting larger at an increasing rate.

Let's go back to the tube. Think of the lenght (time) and the width (space) getting longer and wider respectively. Now what happens when the rate of which the tube is getting longer slows down, but the rate at which it gets wider stays the same? We should see the tube getting wider, faster and faster but we should see the lenght slowing down.

And if this keeps up time should grind to a halt and then the Universe will be a "snapshot" of an instant forever.

That's as simple as I can make it.

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 01:11 PM

I think that time does not exist actually, what we perceive is movement and changes. See, if you observed that everything around is going quicker than you, you would say that time has sped up; if reality slowed down, you would think time has also slowed down.

Also, notice how even time cannot be measured without movement (the definition of a second is based on oscillations). Though understanding movement as a consequence of time is a practical concept, actually time is a consequence of movement.

No time = No movement. Frozen Universe. We would have lost all energy, perhaps?

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74109)
I think that time does not exist

Sorry, time exists.

Though, I maintain that it is not really a dimension. It just doesn't make much sense for it to be.

Isard 07-11-2010 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74117)
Sorry, time exists.

Though, I maintain that it is not really a dimension. It just doesn't make much sense for it to be.


How is it not a dimension? We move through it just like the other three. :P

Na'vi_supporter 07-11-2010 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreaming Of Pandora (Post 74101)
No. it's the other way around; time is decreasing and space is increasing. Time is being lost and this gives the appearance of space getting larger at an increasing rate.

Let's go back to the tube. Think of the lenght (time) and the width (space) getting longer and wider respectively. Now what happens when the rate of which the tube is getting longer slows down, but the rate at which it gets wider stays the same? We should see the tube getting wider, faster and faster but we should see the lenght slowing down.

And if this keeps up time should grind to a halt and then the Universe will be a "snapshot" of an instant forever.

That's as simple as I can make it.

Yeah, andother "tube" explanation (I hope) is : do measurement of tube dimensions change in some short timeframe (delta1(width) and delta1(length)). Than do the same later ( delta2(width) and delta2(length) ). Than ratio delta1(width)/delta1(length) is lower than delta2(width)/delta2(length). This means that width rises realtively faster. This can be caused both by width expansion increase itself or length expansion decrease or both. And I guess we can't directly measure time rate change from our viewpoint, than observed result is space expansion rate change.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa (Post 74121)
How is it not a dimension? We move through it just like the other three. :P

Can't go backwards in time, yo.

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74117)
Sorry, time exists.

Though, I maintain that it is not really a dimension. It just doesn't make much sense for it to be.

Sorry, time is a dimension.

Though, I mantain I don't believe time exists.

Isard 07-11-2010 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74141)
Can't go backwards in time, yo.



But its still a dimension.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74142)
Sorry, time is a dimension.

Though, I mantain I don't believe time exists.

Clever. But those are very, very conflicting statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa (Post 74146)
But its still a dimension.

I've given my reasoning, where's yours?

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74151)
Clever. But those are very, very conflicting statements.

I've given my reasoning why I think time does not exist, where's yours?

PS: If you want to actually debate or discuss, give some base to your thoughts.

Isard 07-11-2010 01:38 PM

We still move through it. Just because you don't have control over the movement doesn't change that fact.

GLaDOS 07-11-2010 01:39 PM

Einstein once said time is relative. Think on that for a moment.

Na'vi_supporter 07-11-2010 01:40 PM

It is a dimension. Imagine three dimensional cube. Height, width and depth are dimensions.
Now lets assume universe with 2 spatial dimensions (plain). Now u need to allow events in the plain to happen(for example moving points in this plain).. You need to move between "frames". Each frame is one plain. So you need third dimension to move between these plains and u get three dimensional cube , two dimensions are "space" and third is time. Time cuts cube into slices, each slice is one time moment.
It's virtual cube since there can't exist all frames at one time, because it would require infinite amount of energy/matter.

And now you can expand this idea to 4D space and there will be infinite set of 3D "cubes" each representing one time frame, only problem is that we can't draw it easily or imagine it as dimension :)

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa (Post 74156)
We still move through it. Just because you don't have control over the movement doesn't change that fact.

Except that you have control in all the other dimensions.

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aihwa (Post 74121)
I've given my reasoning, where's yours?

I'll do that. GPS systems work because time is a physical dimension that has a physical effect on matter that passes through it. Time is proven to exist because every single astronaut that has been in space are actually experiencing time before us. Clocks move faster in space, proven fact. Astronauts have travelled into the future slightly, fact. Satellites take this into account in their atomic clocks when determining the position of your car from space.

You can't go backwards in time simply because space may have that 3 dimensional freedom where you can go forwards, backwards, up and down. Time isn't multi-dimensional. It's linear, you can only go forward in time.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74155)
I've given my reasoning why I think time does not exist

and then gone on to say that you believe it's a dimension. So time doesn't exist, but it does?

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74165)
and then gone on to say that you believe it's a dimension. So time doesn't exist, but it does?

I can consider several opinions at the same time. I am still stuck to the traditional definition because it's useful, but also question it. Hence why I don't believe time exists.

This could lead to a new theory, but I am not a physicist; so I write it down here to bring something of worth to the thread.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74167)
I can consider several opinions at the same time. I am still stuck to the traditional definition because it's useful, but also question it. Hence why I don't believe time exists.

We're not talking about opinions.
You're saying time exists. But you're saying time doesn't exist.
If that's your point, I guess there's no argument, since half of you is on my side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74167)
This could lead to a new theory, but I am not a physicist; so I write it down here to bring something of worth to the thread.

Man are you ever cocky. :grolleyes:

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74175)
We're not talking about opinions.
You're saying time exists. But you're saying time doesn't exist.
If that's your point, I guess there's no argument, since half of you is on my side.

I might not have explained myself correctly.

I can hold more than just one opinion, more than one theory. I consider time as a dimension. I consider time nonexistent.

Two theories I handle at the same time.

Why I still go for the traditional definition? It's useful, it's more complete, but it's not what I defend. What I defend however is incomplete and thus I post it here to contrast and perfect it.

I hope your intelligence may digest the information I am giving you, I believe, properly this time.

Fkeu 'Awpo 07-11-2010 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74185)
I consider time as a dimension. I consider time nonexistent.

Time. The nonexistent dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes (Post 74185)
I hope your intelligence may digest the information I am giving you, I believe, properly this time.

Ow, my feelings.

ZenitYerkes 07-11-2010 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo (Post 74211)
Time. The nonexistent dimension.

Yeah, that would be a good bestseller title, but as a theory is not worth a cent.

If you read my post, it says: two theories.

Human No More 07-11-2010 03:49 PM

The existence of time is very vague, especially considering that there are multiple definitions, conflicting theories, and far more.

I understand about it being a dimension... which could mean it doesn't exist within this one, that's simple enough... Yet time has been shown to exist within the universe, it can even be affected by external forces, most notably gravity.

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-11-2010 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human No More (Post 74237)
The existence of time is very vague, especially considering that there are multiple definitions, conflicting theories, and far more.

I understand about it being a dimension... which could mean it doesn't exist within this one, that's simple enough... Yet time has been shown to exist within the universe, it can even be affected by external forces, most notably gravity.

Exactly this. If you have any doubts about time existing, don't. If you think time doesn't exist, then the only logical explanation why you can remember what happened yesterday or last year or any thing that happened previous to now must be magic. :P

rasomaso 07-11-2010 11:22 PM

I guess it's time for good ol' rasomaso to break it down for you... :)

Yes, they are right. Time is slowing down and the galaxies are actually spreading at constant speed since Big Bang. They are wrong about one thing though, when the time reaches zero, the universe and time will not freeze. Instead the time will start going backwards and all the matter will eventually group itself back into the point of Big Bang. :)

It's like tennis if you think about it. ;) not sure if we're actually going forward in time now... :S

tm20 07-12-2010 07:13 AM

interesting read, i havn't talked about this type pf stuff since highschool physics (maybe a few times on AF or ToS :P). don't know if this is relevant but i know time slows down as you approach light speed, maybe it's got something to do with that? let's say space is growing exponentially, then time would be slowing down exponentially as well right? so if we use the tube model and apply this then eventually the universe will become flat, like a disc.... this is the end?

*ahh damn, i only read the first page so if this has already been ruled out then my bad -_-

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-12-2010 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tm20 (Post 74520)
interesting read, i havn't talked about this type pf stuff since highschool physics (maybe a few times on AF or ToS :P). don't know if this is relevant but i know time slows down as you approach light speed, maybe it's got something to do with that? let's say space is growing exponentially, then time would be slowing down exponentially as well right? so if we use the tube model and apply this then eventually the universe will become flat, like a disc.... this is the end?

*ahh damn, i only read the first page so if this has already been ruled out then my bad -_-

No that's right. :)
Well the article says time is being lost from the universe which in turn makes space look like it's expanding exponentially. And yes, it will eventually turn into a flat disc and our Universe will end with time freeze altogether.

An explanation for time being lost could be that due to E=mc^2, time slows down near the speed of light to prevent the "speed barrier" from being broken. So if space is supposedly expanding faster than the speed of light, it could be just time slowing down preventing space expanding faster than the speed barrier thus making it look like space is expanding faster than light.

tm20 07-12-2010 11:16 AM

i just reread the first post and thought.... if time is exceeded by the expansion of space then it really doesn't end right? ofcourse, as we travel faster things will slow down so the tube growths slower in length but gets wideer in diameter. think of it as a vuvuzela (BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR) it started at a steady rate but as the universe expanded galaxies moved apart faster and the diameter got bigger so taking time = x and space = y we get this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nction.svg.png

and spin this 360 degress by the x aixs and we get

http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/vuvuzela.jpg
:D

but eventually y/x will get so steep that it will reach a limit right? so at this point time will be significantly slower BUT it wont exactly stop.... hopefully this makes sense. but let's say we do all freese, then i'm sure whatever applies to us also applies to any other physical body in the universe so planets and stars will freeze as well? the internal layers (core, mantle etc.) will stop moving around and we will eventually reach a point were we are preserved but drift further apart for ever or maybe up to a point where the universe collapses on itself (if this is possible)

Dreaming Of Pandora 07-12-2010 11:33 AM

That's true apart from the fact that space expansion will stop as well due to time freezing. And yeah we'll be preserved like sorta snapshot of an instant of the universe.

Your diagrams really help in conveying the info. :)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All images and clips of Avatar are the exclusive property of 20th Century Fox.