Time is grinding into a halt?

[Saint]

I read that some scientists said time will come to a stop,
the universe will not keep on expanding.

[James R]

Where did you read that? Link please.

[Buddha12]

The Paradox of Time: Why It Can't Stop, But Must

In our experience, nothing ever really ends. When we die, our bodies decay and the material in them returns to the earth and the air, allowing for the creation of new life. We live on in what comes after. But will that always be the case? Might there come a point sometime in the future when there is no “after”? Depressingly, modern physics suggests the answer is yes. Time itself could end. All activity would cease, and there would be no renewal or recovery. The end of time would be the end of endings.



This grisly prospect was an unanticipated prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which provides our modern understanding of gravity. Before that theory, most physicists and philosophers thought time was a universal drumbeat, a steady rhythm that the cosmos marches to, never varying, wavering or stopping. Einstein showed that the universe is more like a big polyrhythmic jam session.

Time can slow down, or stretch out, or let it rip. When we feel the force of gravity, we are feeling time’s rhythmic improvisation; falling objects are drawn to places where time passes more slowly. Time not only affects what matter does but also responds to what matter is doing, like drummers and dancers firing one another up into a rhythmic frenzy. When things get out of hand, though, time can go up in smoke like an overexcited drummer who spontaneously combusts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...lBObt2bgJkx0HQ

[wellwisher]

The closet tangible variable, which parallels the concept of time, is entropy. Both the time and entropy of the universe move in only one direction. Time moves to the future while the entropy of the universe much constantly increase. Energy is conserved and can neither increase or decrease; stays the same. But entropy and time keep moving forward.

Entropy can only increase if there is energy. In Chemical engineering, which deals with open systems where there is mass flow, energy flow, changes of state, as well as work cycles, you need the concept of entropy to close an energy balance. Entropy is real and tangible and accounts for the lost energy one will experience in real world situations. If you ignore entropy you will spec your equipment to small and get fired for being stupid. There is lost energy that will disappear into an increase in entropy. You need bigger equipment to compensate or figure out how to reduce the heat going into entropy.

If we look at frozen foods, this slows the aging process of the food. Something, like fish that spoils in one day can last months in a deep freeze. What the freezing does is decrease the energy that is available for an entropy increase, thereby slowing time for the frozen fish; rot entropy slows. You could place a fish in a relativistic reference and a frozen fish in a stationary reference freezer and both will taste just as good, since both have less entropy or added time.

Since an entropy increase needs energy and since entropy increases with time, the amount of useable energy of the universe decreases with time. Once entropy gets maximized so there is no useable energy, entropy and time stop. There is no energy for changes of state and time will stop.

[KilljoyKlown]

The Paradox of Time: Why It Can't Stop, But Must

In our experience, nothing ever really ends. When we die, our bodies decay and the material in them returns to the earth and the air, allowing for the creation of new life. We live on in what comes after. But will that always be the case? Might there come a point sometime in the future when there is no “after”? Depressingly, modern physics suggests the answer is yes. Time itself could end. All activity would cease, and there would be no renewal or recovery. The end of time would be the end of endings.



This grisly prospect was an unanticipated prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which provides our modern understanding of gravity. Before that theory, most physicists and philosophers thought time was a universal drumbeat, a steady rhythm that the cosmos marches to, never varying, wavering or stopping. Einstein showed that the universe is more like a big polyrhythmic jam session.

Time can slow down, or stretch out, or let it rip. When we feel the force of gravity, we are feeling time’s rhythmic improvisation; falling objects are drawn to places where time passes more slowly. Time not only affects what matter does but also responds to what matter is doing, like drummers and dancers firing one another up into a rhythmic frenzy. When things get out of hand, though, time can go up in smoke like an overexcited drummer who spontaneously combusts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...lBObt2bgJkx0HQ

This whole argument is predicated on our universe being all that there is. I hold the view that our universe is part of a natural process of a much larger system. If that is the case then some form of time must exist outside of our local universe.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I hold the view that our universe is part of a natural process of a much larger system.

Do you have evidence to support this view, or is it pure speculation? It appears to invoke Occam's Razor.

[KilljoyKlown]

Do you have evidence to support this view, or is it pure speculation? It appears to invoke Occam's Razor.

Just that everything we know in the universe works within the laws of nature, and I don't see any reason to think our universe in and of itself is any different. It is just ludicrous to think it came into existence outside the laws of nature and is just a one of a kind event.

[brucep]

Just that everything we know in the universe works within the laws of nature, and I don't see any reason to think our universe in and of itself is any different. It is just ludicrous to think it came into existence outside the laws of nature and is just a one of a kind event.

You should read Guths Eternal Inflation Theory. The testable predictions were verified during the WMAP experiment. I'll link the paper from 2001 and 2007 and the power point talk Guth presented to a room full of string theorists at UCSB. The last link is mind bending.

Eternal Inflation [Guth 2001]
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101507

Eternal Inflation and it's implications [Guth 2007]
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

Eternal Inflation power point
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/

First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

[KilljoyKlown]

You should read Guths Eternal Inflation Theory. The testable predictions were verified during the WMAP experiment. I'll link the paper from 2001 and 2007 and the power point talk Guth presented to a room full of string theorists at UCSB. The last link is mind bending.

Eternal Inflation [Guth 2001]
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101507

Eternal Inflation and it's implications [Guth 2007]
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

Eternal Inflation power point
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/

First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

Good stuff, thanks for posting the links.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Just that everything we know in the universe works within the laws of nature, and I don't see any reason to think our universe in and of itself is any different. It is just ludicrous to think it came into existence outside the laws of nature and is just a one of a kind event.

• This seems to flirt with the Fallacy of Recursion. If the universe is merely one component of "a much larger system," then how did that much larger system come into existence? It's like saying "God made it" without telling us where God came from. Besides, the word "universe" means "everything that exists." I'm not terribly concerned about the boundaries between the portion of the universe that we perceive and these zillions of other portions that you postulate, whether or not they each have their own sets of natural laws that conform to some superset that applies to the whole schebang. To me, it's all one big universe, and I want to know how it came into existence.
• I have often pointed out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy, and places no limit on their size or duration. Since the total matter and energy in the universe (accepting momentarily for the sake of argument that there is only this one) is zero, then the only difference between it and a completely void space-time continuum is organization, i.e., decreased entropy. It seems quite plausible (and no one has ever told me I'm wrong) that this entire realm of ours popped into existence by sheer coincidence and we're watching entropy catch up with it. The Big Bang apparently created one point-mass of zero mass.
• I've also suggested that our studious search for an origin of our universe and/or other ways of explaining it, such as your multiple-universe model, is merely a manifestation of our discomfort with the idea that before us there was, literally, nothing. So why not graph time on a log scale instead of linear? This puts the Big Bang at minus infinity, so the question, "What happened before the Big Bang?" becomes as grammatically incorrect as "How does matter behave at a temperature below absolute zero?" In addition to dismissing the idea that there was anything "before us," it has the added bonus of stretching out those first moments which are so difficult to work with. If a yoctosecond right after the Big Bang looks as wide on a graph as a billion years in current time, it would be easier to analyze.
• Today's macrocosmologists insist that all the laws of nature came into existence at the same moment as the universe. This even applies to the space-time continuum itself, because obviously its structure is dependent on the natural laws that constrain it. This raises more questions than it answers. It sounds to me like a child in the Stone Age asking his grandfather what keeps the ground from falling like everything else does, and grandpa says, "The earth rests on the back of a gigantic elephant, so there's nothing to worry about." The next day the kid comes back and asks, "But what keeps the elephant from falling?" and the old man says, "The elephant is standing securely on the shell of an even larger turtle."
• My notion, that the Big Bang occurred at minus infinity and the only reason we don't see it that way is that time passes much faster now than it did then, is as good an answer as any, and does not invoke any oversize reptiles.

[KilljoyKlown]

[list]This seems to flirt with the Fallacy of Recursion. If the universe is merely one component of "a much larger system," then how did that much larger system come into existence? It's like saying "God made it" without telling us where God came from. Besides, the word "universe" means "everything that exists." I'm not terribly concerned about the boundaries between the portion of the universe that we perceive and these zillions of other portions that you postulate, whether or not they each have their own sets of natural laws that conform to some superset that applies to the whole schebang. To me, it's all one big universe, and I want to know how it came into existence.

Every time we thought we knew what the universe was. We were wrong and we were thinking to small. I really don't have any real proof that, that has changed. In any event I'm not claiming my speculation is true. I just can't see any other speculation as being more true. Either way we will have to wait on more informationn however long that might take.

[*]I have often pointed out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy, and places no limit on their size or duration. Since the total matter and energy in the universe (accepting momentarily for the sake of argument that there is only this one) is zero, then the only difference between it and a completely void space-time continuum is organization, i.e., decreased entropy. It seems quite plausible (and no one has ever told me I'm wrong) that this entire realm of ours popped into existence by sheer coincidence and we're watching entropy catch up with it. The Big Bang apparently created one point-mass of zero mass.

If our local universe is a natural function of a much larger structure, then wouldn't it appear to us as the only universe from our current level of technological development and understanding? The very large is just as invisible to us as the very small. I like to define our local universe as all the visible galaxies that we call our expanding universe and everything else is what it is (still to be discovered).

[*]I've also suggested that our studious search for an origin of our universe and/or other ways of explaining it, such as your multiple-universe model, is merely a manifestation of our discomfort with the idea that before us there was, literally, nothing. So why not graph time on a log scale instead of linear? This puts the Big Bang at minus infinity, so the question, "What happened before the Big Bang?" becomes as grammatically incorrect as "How does matter behave at a temperature below absolute zero?" In addition to dismissing the idea that there was anything "before us," it has the added bonus of stretching out those first moments which are so difficult to work with. If a yoctosecond right after the Big Bang looks as wide on a graph as a billion years in current time, it would be easier to analyze.

Still why should we assume there was nothing before the big bang? I just don't see any good reason to make that assumption.

[*]Today's macrocosmologists insist that all the laws of nature came into existence at the same moment as the universe. This even applies to the space-time continuum itself, because obviously its structure is dependent on the natural laws that constrain it. This raises more questions than it answers. It sounds to me like a child in the Stone Age asking his grandfather what keeps the ground from falling like everything else does, and grandpa says, "The earth rests on the back of a gigantic elephant, so there's nothing to worry about." The next day the kid comes back and asks, "But what keeps the elephant from falling?" and the old man says, "The elephant is standing securely on the shell of an even larger turtle."

I don't believe in happy accidents of creation and I don't believe in God. The only thing left is our universe is a natural part of a much larger structure, whether we can imagine what it might be or not.

[*]My notion, that the Big Bang occurred at minus infinity and the only reason we don't see it that way is that time passes much faster now than it did then, is as good an answer as any, and does not invoke any oversize reptiles.

Can't say I disagree with that.

[Boris2]

"minus infinity" what?

[fermions]

Time is a constant it has its own dimension it won't ever stop unless acted on by outside forces.

[kaduseus]

It depends on which model of the universe you wish to believe.
'It isn't scientific fact until consensus of opinion is reached'
I take it your referring to the big crunch?

Big bang theory is becoming increasingly unpopular, it is constantly being patched up with absurd 'science' in order to explain observations that contradict it.

Localism in the understanding of the universe isn't a bad idea, but you don't need multiverses in the model, the current expansion model puts the earth at the center of the universe, now assuming this is incorrect and we come up with alternative theories, you cannot get over the fact that there is a limit to mans resolving power of observations.
We can build bigger telescopes, we can put them at distance on earth and combine the signals, we can put them into the same orbit as earth around the sun and combine the signals, we can put them in neptunes orbit and combine the signals.
Eventually there will be a limit to what man will be able to resolve, at this point we can only speculate what is beyond that limit, at this point the universe becomes localized, with the earth at the center.

our modern understanding of gravity

There isn't a modern understanding of gravity, there's a model which fits better than other models, but there is no understanding of what gravity is, or why it exists', if you've been taught differently then you really ought to get your money back.

[AlexG]

Big bang theory is becoming increasingly unpopular, it is constantly being patched up with absurd 'science' in order to explain observations that contradict it.

Only among those who don't know anything about it.

[Saint]

Big bang theory is becoming increasingly unpopular

What flaws in Big Bang theory?

[prometheus]

Big bang theory is becoming increasingly unpopular, it is constantly being patched up with absurd 'science' in order to explain observations that contradict it.

This point would be a good one to provide a reference to this effect.

[kaduseus]

If I could provide references i'd be an organized person, I aint.
Anyway I was referencing the large scale stuctures that have been observed that would need the universe to be older than 20bn years, the observation that the universe isn't isotropic yet the cmb is perfectly smooth in every direction, the galactrocentric nature of the redshift, quasars sat in front of galaxies, galactic angular velocities that defy the basic laws of gravity leading to 90% of the matter of a galaxy being external and requiring some invisible new matter that apparently can't be detected yet must exist (bit too much like the aether models).

I'm sure there's a 'rational' explaination for the observations that contradict the conjecture of the big bang model, but the grave has already been dug, by the model itself.

"What happened before the Big Bang?" becomes as grammatically incorrect as....

'How did the universe begin?' becomes as grammactically incorrect as 'what happened before the big bang?'
What colour is it? how big is it? what's it's favourite smell?
t=0 is just as absurd as t=infinity, anyway I always thought the whole point about spacetime was that you couldn't seperate the space and time dimensions, if you do it becomes space and time, not spacetime.
Some people just can't accept that some things can't be explained, they will cling onto the idea that the universe began with a big bang no matter how much growing evidence there is against it.

The question I would like answering is 'will the pope want his medal back?'

[Fraggle Rocker]

Still why should we assume there was nothing before the big bang? I just don't see any good reason to make that assumption.

That's my whole point. In my model time goes to minus infinity just as in the more popular model. So I'm not saying that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. I'm saying that it's as illogical to ask "What came before the Big Bang" as it is to ask, "How does matter behave when its temperature drops below absolute zero?" There's no such thing as "before the Big Bang."

The only thing left is our universe is a natural part of a much larger structure, whether we can imagine what it might be or not.

That doesn't answer the question. You still haven't helped us find out where that "much larger structure" came from. Inquiring minds want to know.

"minus infinity" what?

Minus infinity on the time scale.

Time is a constant; it has its own dimension; it won't ever stop unless acted on by outside forces.

You'll get a lot of argument on that from the cosmologists. They say that time is merely a property of the universe. So time exists only as the universe exists.

BTW, the unit of measurement of force incorporates time.

f=ma
force=mass*distance/(time^2)

So any force such as your "outside force" already has time built into it. Therefore it cannot act upon time as an outside force.

[KilljoyKlown]

That's my whole point. In my model time goes to minus infinity just as in the more popular model. So I'm not saying that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. I'm saying that it's as illogical to ask "What came before the Big Bang" as it is to ask, "How does matter behave when its temperature drops below absolute zero?" There's no such thing as "before the Big Bang."That doesn't answer the question. You still haven't helped us find out where that "much larger structure" came from. Inquiring minds want to know.Minus infinity on the time scale.You'll get a lot of argument on that from the cosmologists. They say that time is merely a property of the universe. So time exists only as the universe exists.

BTW, the unit of measurement of force incorporates time.

f=ma
force=mass*distance/(time^2)

So any force such as your "outside force" already has time built into it. Therefore it cannot act upon time as an outside force.

I define our universe as the local universe, which makes the time and space also local. That doesn't rule out a general overall space and time separate from our local universe, but also incorporating our local universe as a natural part of the general universe. If our universe is not a natural part of a lager structure how can it be natural? Whether I can prove that is beside the point. The BB'ers can't prove their point any more than I can mine.