I came across an article that had an interesting theory about the fate of the universe and Time; which bares a similarity to Rodger Penroses latest time theory,

"Scientists have come up with the radical suggestion that the universe's end may come not with a bang but a standstill - that time could be literally running out and could, one day, stop altogether.
The idea that time itself could cease to be in billions of years - and everything will grind to a halt - has been set out by Professor José Senovilla, Marc Mars and Raül Vera of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and Univerisity of Salamanca, Spain."

Read more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox)

That is the trouble when people spend too much time in mathsworld rather than in the real world. They start having delusions that time is real and is an actual dimension and talking of spacetime. However we do not have to use a TARDIS to get to the Moon as a conventional space travelling rocket suffices.

Time has run out for these three idiots I think.

Another link (same info):

"The new theory from Professor Jose Senovilla, at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, offers a radical alternative idea.
He believes there is no such thing as dark energy. Instead, he says we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating because time itself is slowing down."

Read more (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/time+may+be+running+out++scientist/1216552)

If time were slowing down, I think it would slow down for everything so we would not notice it.

I think it would slow down for everything so we would not notice it.

Exactly.
we would not notice anything different here.
however, in the past (or further away) we would see a difference.
And that is why their theory is quite interesting.

But i suspect that their theory will have fundamental problems with, say, atomic reactions in stars etc.

That is a problem with the idea of time dilation in that when you travel fast enough, your propulsion system will slow down (though of course you won't notice it) but as far as the rest of the universe is concerned, it will put out ever less energy as it effectively "slows down".

"Supernovae stars viewed at extreme distances seem to be moving away from us faster than those nearby."

Read more (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/scientists-time.html) (about dark energy)

It is all down to mathsworld fallacies. People like Hawkings have lost track of the real world and now live in a delusional mathsworld where time is a real dimension. It is man-made measurement for the rate of change in the universe around us. Why should things stop changing? What can undo cause producing effect?

@kaneda
i realise that you are just a beginner, but try to understand the bigger picture - that this theory is not just about time being `real` or a `dimension` or time dilations etc.
Try to imagine that it`s about dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy).

It explains certain observations, and is the "best" it can do, for now. It does look a little silly, but Nature certainly isn't obliged to line things up for us either.

How can science want to be taken seriously when they start making things like this up?

Hum,
That is a serious accusation, do you have evidence for this?

While the cause or nature of dark energy is unknown, imho, the evidence for it being a real phenomenon is quite good.
There are numerous observations by independent groups using techniques such as gravitational lensing, supernovae and observation of large scale structures and computer simulations (as well as redshift) which all point to it being something real.

what do they mean when they say that "time" might be slowing down?

as i understand the word time, it is motion and change, so if time would stop, nothing would exist, because everything is motion.

so if time would stop, nothing would exist.

Hum,
indeed,
Which is why i mentioned Rodger Penroses latest time theory.

A quick search on google about his time theory, or Paul Steinhardt / N. Turoks cyclic universes will provide their take on what happens next.

what do they mean when they say that "time" might be slowing down?


Hum,
i have no idea,
However it could mean something similar to describing that the topology of the universe is being slowly squashed in one direction.

you mean when the universe stops expanding? time is space, so the universe's expansion may be finite?

hmm? school me, please

you mean when the universe stops expanding? time is space, so the universe's expansion may be finite?

Sry, this new theory does not go so far - it is just proposing that time is slowing down. I was just pointing out that there are already a few theories out there that it can be compatible/integrated with.

school me, please

Perhaps, in another relevant thread.

This fits my own model of the universe, in which time is graphed on a log scale so there is no time "before the Big Bang" to ask about. It gives time an absolute zero just like temperature.

This model graphs time on a scale that I can't quite give a name to, with a stretch to infinity at both ends. Would that be something like arc-hyperbolic-sine? Hmm... obviously not, but something that sounds like that. :)

In any case, as I've said many times on these boards, I think the boundary between physics and math has been obliterated. The new "theories" of the universe look more like models to me, e.g. mathematical theories more than scientific theories. And as someone else suggested, the boundary between both and philosophy is also getting pretty blurry.

The slowing of time is equivalent to the expansion of space, or not?
After all, if the Aether Wave Theory says, the Universe collapses and gets more dense, it has the very same effect.

In any case, as I've said many times on these boards, I think the boundary between physics and math has been obliterated. The new "theories" of the universe look more like models to me, e.g. mathematical theories more than scientific theories. And as someone else suggested, the boundary between both and philosophy is also getting pretty blurry.

You do realize that if this is the case, then we have lost all ability to quantify nature, right? If there is no longer a logical framework by which to understand our theories, then there is no real point in ``science'' anymore, and it all turns in to religion.

I would caution people about taking this too seriously. Usually in physics, we judge the value of theories by the problems that they solve. This theory doesn't really solve the dark energy problem. It just hides it in another problem...specifically, the rate at which time slows down has to be tuned to match the cosmological constant.

So really, by changing how we view time, we haven't really solved anything.

blobrana. The BB idea requires that everything in the universe be there from the first moment, which means that the same quantity of dark energy has always existed. The reason it suddenly started accelerating expansion of the universe about half way between time zero and now is....?

Dark energy is not accelerating the expansion of the material of the universe but affecting space itself, making it expand faster. Sound likely to you? Explain how space can expand. Explain how this does not affect any of the rules of the universe. Etc.

Gravitational lensing as a useful tool is based on assumptions. Type 1A supernovae are not standard candles so are not reliable. Large scale structures as in we can't see or detect most of what is claimed to be there? Computer simulations, you get out what you put in, so are self fulfilling as in DM. Redshifts are extrapolations of extrapolations of extrapolations.

Evidence for DE is the same as for God. We believe we have an effect and something must be causing it. We have not a shred of evidence it exists but it must do, so we are right. As in bad science.

zephir. If the expansion of space is causing the slowing of time; space has expanded from a point source to over a hundred billion light years in diameter. Time would presumably have slowed down from the first moment and continued doing so at a predictable rate ever since, proportional to expansion.

The BB idea requires that everything in the universe be there from the first moment

This sounds like the primordial egg theory is used by many cultures and religions. The classic bigbang theory does not go so far.


Explain how space can expand. Explain how this does not affect any of the rules of the universe.

Space is perhaps not empty, but could be made from tiny intertwining loops. These loops can occasionally split and join.  .
However this theory says that DE is an illusion.


Gravitational lensing as a useful tool is based on assumptions. Type 1A supernovae are not standard candles so are not reliable. Large scale structures as in we can't see or detect most of what is claimed to be there? Computer simulations, you get out what you put in, so are self fulfilling as in DM. Redshifts are extrapolations of extrapolations of extrapolations.


Yes, these are valid concerns to any scientist, and i realise you don't know about these things; but a quick internet search on the terms will show that these are mainstream techniques. The one forgotten aspect that makes them appealing is that they do not contradict each other -- they can be used together.
Yes, they may be all ultimately wrong, but trust me - beginners will learn more by accepting these basic definitions.

The phrase `go with the flow` springs to mind.

I would caution people about taking this too seriously. Usually in physics, we judge the value of theories by the problems that they solve.

Indeed,
and i have real concerns, as i hinted at before, over what would be a globally variable and absolute time theory, in that the finestructure constant alpha would have been at a different value (say, beginning 6 billion years ago); therefore nuclear reactions in stars and their products would have been affected. And we would see a, say, different ratio of elements in old stars, and distant galaxies.

But that aside, this is a theory to watch simply because it involves/solves DE in a rather novel way...

in that the finestructure constant alpha would have been at a different value (say, beginning 6 billion years ago);

Why? I see no reason for this off the top of my head...

Hum,
i may be wrong , but messing about with the time scale would affect other constants such as the velocity of light; which would then affect the coupling constant or electromagnetic interactions in nuclear reactions.

Hum,
i may be wrong , but messing about with the time scale would affect other constants such as the velocity of light; which would then affect the coupling constant or electromagnetic interactions in nuclear reactions.

Hmmm. I have to think about it some more, but maybe you're right. I'm struggling with the idea that time slows down in a Lorentz invariant manner---I can't really comprehend how one would treat the speed of light in such a theory.

I still don't really buy it.

I still don't really buy it..

Lets think about the connections. At the first glance, the expansion of Universe is equivalent to time dilatation, isn't it? If all distances inside of our universe expands, every energy spreading slows down gradually.

By Aether Wave Theory the same effect can be achieved by the model of gradually collapsing star, forming the vacuum environment. If the Universe gets more dense, the energy is moving more slowly gradually and all distances inside of such Universe will expand. Is that clear? I suppose, such model is much more easier to realize from physical perspective, then some dots on the expanding balloon.

It means, if Universe expands, then every energy spreading slows down, then the speed of light and gravity slows down too. If we compare the speed of Universe expansion with respect of the contemporary speed of light, we will see, the Universe expansion accelerates.

But this is not all. If the vacuum gets dense, we can expect, it collapses by different speed, then the more dense matter inside it. The density of matter and vacuum will level mutually. It means, the matter is surrounded by larger concentration gradient, the gravitation force radius increases. The gravity gets stronger, which effectively means, the gravitational constant in history was substantially weaker in history, then by now.

Can such extrapolations have some observational consequences? Of course they can, because both light, both gravity is spreading inside of our Universe by limited speed. Therefore we can compare the gravitational force of very distant objects. which were separated by Universe expansions. This results into violation of gravitation force at large distances with respect of Newton law. Such violation is the subject of Modified Newtonian dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics), so called the MOND theory, which is trying to explain the shape and rotational curves of stars inside galaxies and some other dark matter effects by nonlinear gravitational force, which gets weaker with the age/distance.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/rotation_galx.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/GalacticRotation2.svg/300px-GalacticRotation2.svg.png http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/galrotation.gif

LAt the first glance, the expansion of Universe is equivalent to time dilatation, isn't it? If all distances inside of our universe expands, every energy spreading slows down gradually...It means, if Universe expands, then every energy spreading slows down, then the speed of light and gravity slows down too. If we compare the speed of Universe expansion with respect of the contemporary speed of light, we will see, the Universe expansion accelerates.

Yes, i think that is what this theory is basically saying.
But, i as i pointed out it it may not just be a case of watching a movie of billiard balls at half speed; by altering the speed, the entire plot may change.

So i will say i don't really buy it either

altering the speed, the entire plot may change

Nobody is requiring to buy this. If whole universe expands, then every interaction between whatever objects is facing the gradual change of conditions. The point is to deduce, how the existing models of reality will change by such way, that's all. The whole problem of contemporary astronomy is, it has observed and measured the expansion of Universe, but locally it considered all interactions between galaxies as it would occurred inside of stationary Universe. But this is the problem, because the light and gravity force is mediated by the speed of light, which is quite limited at the cosmic scale. The rotational curves of stars will not be the very same at longer distances from the galactic centers, because of expansion of Universe. Whole celestial mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_mechanics) at longer distances must be modified to take account into it.

now live in a delusional mathsworld where time is a real dimension

But the time is real dimension, I mean real at least by the same way, like the space dimensions. I explained it here by many ways. For example, the fact the matter is moving through spacetime along geodesics (fastest path in relativity) is the exact analogy of photon motion along fastest path in optics, because the particle of matter is just an energy wave of spacetime and the time is just another compacted space dimension.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/light/fermat.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/refraction1.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/refraction_trans.gif

For example, for 2D model of space-time formed by water surface the time dimension is the spatial coordinate perpendicular to the water surface. Therefore the water surface can serve as an physically relevant model of 3D spacetime. Note that this space-time R-1/R transform can be interpreted as a Lisi Garett's rotation. I'd recommend you to become familiar with such perspective, or you wouldn't be able to imagine any phenomena in higher dimensions as well.

zephir. I see you have some new diagrams. I can do such things in my head so do not need them.

Because so many things change, react at so many different rates, we were forced to create a time scale and assign it to those rates so we could work with them, know what had happened before and predict what was coming.

Spacetime is as relevant as spacetemperature, spacecolour, etc. Since we forever live in NOW, the time element is only necessary for calculations and predictions.

Hum,
i may be wrong , but messing about with the time scale would affect other constants such as the velocity of light; which would then affect the coupling constant or electromagnetic interactions in nuclear reactions.

Of course it would as expanding space would too. It has been said by some that our universe worked (after endless failed universes) because everything was just right. Start messing about with time, space, nuclear forces, etc and the universe will no longer work.

This sounds like the primordial egg theory is used by many cultures and religions. The classic bigbang theory does not go so far.

Space is perhaps not empty, but could be made from tiny intertwining loops. These loops can occasionally split and join.  .
However this theory says that DE is an illusion.

Yes, these are valid concerns to any scientist, and i realise you don't know about these things; but a quick internet search on the terms will show that these are mainstream techniques. The one forgotten aspect that makes them appealing is that they do not contradict each other -- they can be used together.
Yes, they may be all ultimately wrong, but trust me - beginners will learn more by accepting these basic definitions.

The phrase `go with the flow` springs to mind.

Unless the universe works by continuous creation (not impossible but we have no evidence), then everything that is here was here at the first moment.

I think of space as being more of like some kind of fog at our level. It may not have any fine structure but might be one "solid mass" but who knows? Loops may be more accurate?

The problem with DE is that there is so much of it. A theory I read somewhere about a year ago had DE being created in the decay of other particles, but DE outmasses all matter and energy in the universe by about 17-18 times, so unlikely.

I accepted them originally but as ever more questions arose concerning them, I no longer find them acceptable. Maybe they will turn out to be right but there is insufficient evidence at present.

As others will tell you here, I do not go with the flow. You do not learn about something by just accepting it, but by questioning and testing it.

Spacetime is as relevant as spacetemperature, spacecolour.

During space-time R-1/R transform (space-time manifold topological inversion) the time was transformed into spatial dimensions and vice-versa. Therefore the wave undulations at the matter surface corresponds the matter undulations at the wave surface. In Aether Wave Theory it's virtually no difference between space and time coordinates, between undulations of (wave of) matter through space-time gradients and space-time undulations along gradients of matter.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/rotace_trans1.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/transform.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/transform_model.gif

zephir. I looked through your AWT theory on Physorg and found fault with almost all of it.