Some of you might know Einstein´s theory of relativity... This theory claims, that time runs slower connected with big masses (For example: Black holes). Think of this at the biggest known compressed mass (Beginning of the BIG BANG)... I call this: "a relative eternity" (And not about 13 billion years)! A student told me, this is wrong, because it depends on the speed,,, But then, "calculating it backwards", with big masses there comes big gravity; And then we arrive at the speed again. And now think about this: High intelligent, high cultivated and high technologic extraterrestrial life!:m:
But the big bang is not a compressed mass in the universe, it is the entire universe that is compressed. Huh?
The point he is making is that as the universe grew smaller, the gravity field would increase. More mass in a smaller area. That would slow time. (Relative to what though?) I don't know if he's right, but that particular idea isn't nonsense.
Time for the Linguistics Moderator to step in and enforce proper terminology in order to minimize confusion. The word "theory" is used haphazardly in vernacular language, and since scientists are famous for being crappy communicators, many of them do the same. Nonetheless, in science, a theory is, properly, a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Heliocentricity, evolution, plate tectonics, the four fundamental forces... these are theories. It's unlikely that they'll ever be overturned, although they may continue to be elaborated in more detail, the way Newton's Laws were made more precise by Einstein. A theory is a building block in the canon of science. Unfortunately, what people refer to as string theory (for example) is nothing more than an interesting hypothesis, consisting of some really cool math and a lot of arm-waving. It is not, in truth, a theory. The same is true about the conjectures concerning multiple universes. These are merely hypotheses, not theories. In order for a hypothesis to be elevated to the level of a theory, it must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt by application of the scientific method. This includes such important components as: Observation of the behavior of the natural universe Gathering of evidence derived from those obserations Logical deduction of a hypothesis from the commonalities and relationships among those observations A clear statement of the hypothesis Testing of the hypothesis Other steps as appropriate And finally, peer review of all the work by other scientists in the same discipline. One of the beauties of this method is that you don't have to be at quite the same level of exaltation as the scientist(s) who developed the hypothesis in order to peer-review it. You do indeed have to be pretty close, but that means that there are lots of people qualified for the review so when it's complete it can be trusted. The conjectures about multiple universes have not undergone any of this. So they are not theories, only hypotheses. And even calling them that is a courtesy! The evidence for them is considerably more scarce than the evidence for "string theory." If you want to look at an actual theory, for comparison, one of the best is evolution. It is supported by abundant evidence gathered independently from two different sciences: paleontology and genetics. People who claim evolution is false are utter morons who should be locked up for the safety of society!
If this is right, then time ran more slowly in the past and is getting progressively faster. That would mean that the red-shifts have been distorted too, and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating, so there is no need to invent dark energy. Would that be a correct conclusion, given the (flaky) assumption?
I don't know if it is a correct conclusion. The idea that time slows down or speeds up relative to gravitational attractions is an observable when atomic clocks are employed to make the measurements. However, it is not conclusive that the different rates of time passing that are measured by those atomic clocks is really caused by time passing at different rates. Maybe it is that the gravitational energy density surrounding the individual clocks being used to make the measurements causes each clock to measure time at different rates. If so, time could be passing at the same rate everywhere, and the different energy density environments makes clocks measure time passing more slowly or more rapidly because energy density might be affecting the rate that the particles of which the clocks are composed are functioning.
There are speculative scenarios about multi-verses and such. Certainly not any mainstream scientific theory. [Myself, I like the BB being the arse end of a WH, and BHs in our Universe, leading via wormholes to out pourings [WHs] and creating other Universes] But they are just my own personal musings about what we don't know.
Time runs slower in larger gravitational potentials, which are caused by larger masses. That is as near a fact as one can hope for in science.
In the beginning the universe was so smooth in structure that gravitational potentials were zero. There was no gravity as we think of it. This is why the origin of the big bang could be a singularity and yet not a black hole. Everything, all mass, was exactly in balance. Because time is differential only in a differential gravity, there was no time differential because there was no gravity differential (potential). With no time differential, it is meaningless to talk about how "fast" time is changing. Because of these facts, it might be correct to say that time had a beginning (relative to our current ideas of time) and that it extends infinitely into the past (in the non-relative state near the big bang). Only later did the balance fail and matter started to clump and create gravity potentials and the universe (time and space) as we know it.
