Jump to content
lucien216

Universal Concept of Time (Is the Big Bang wrong?)

Recommended Posts

If the Universe started approximately 13.75 billion years ago as theorized by the 'Big Bang' and TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, then surely this must be 'Universal Time'.

Yet Einstein and special relativity shows us that TIME is relative. There is no such thing as universal TIME. This has been experimentally proven.  

So then how could TIME only have come into existence with the Big Bang, as accepted by many supporters of the Big Bang.

If TIME only came into existence with the Big Bang then that time would be universal. The universe would be 13.75 billion years old for us. And if there are aliens living in another galaxy the universe would have to be 13.75 billion years old for them as well. That Time would not be relative to either of us because the universe would have come into existence at the same moment for everyone in the universe.

We would now have an entity that has been missing from physics - Universal Time. A concept of TIME that is not relative and cannot be relative because the same universe could not come into existence at different points in TIME for beings living in separate galaxies, if TIME itself only came into existence with the Big Bang. If that is the case then the universe is only 13.75 billion years old, relative to us here on earth but could be any age.

Thoughts?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the Universe started approximately 13.75 billion years ago as theorized by the 'Big Bang' and TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, then surely this must be 'Universal Time'."

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you agree that if TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, that time must be the same for everyone inside the universe? You can call that 'TIME' whatever you like. It must be universal.

The universe cannot come into existence relative to us (at different points in TIME), if we are in different galaxies for example, because TIME itself never existed before the Big Bang. So before this we had no different points in TIME. Time did not exist (according to Big Bang). So if TIME only came into existence at the point of the Big Bang, that TIME must be 'THE SAME' to everyone inside the universe. It must be UNIVERSAL and not relative.

You say "NO", please elaborate. Explain how that TIME can be different for beings living in two separate galaxies for example.

How can the universe come into existence at two different points in TIME, if TIME itself never existed before the Big Bang? How can that 'TIME' be relative. It must be universal. Or the Big Bang must be wrong.  

Thanks for taking the time to ponder this.

Edited by lucien216

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lucien216 said:

If the Universe started approximately 13.75 billion years ago as theorized by the 'Big Bang' and TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, then surely this must be 'Universal Time'.

No. That is not what universal time means. Universal (or absolute) time would mean that all observers would agree about the amount of time that has elapsed sine the big bang. Which they know they wouldn't: it would depend on relative motion, amount of gravitational potential they have experienced, etc.

Also, there is no evidence the universe "started" and valid theories that describe that. So the question is moot, really.

1 hour ago, lucien216 said:

Yet Einstein and special relativity shows us that TIME is relative. There is no such thing as universal TIME. This has been experimentally proven.  

So then how could TIME only have come into existence with the Big Bang, as accepted by many supporters of the Big Bang.

You can't use the theory of relativity to discredit the big bang model because it is based on relativity.

1 hour ago, lucien216 said:

If TIME only came into existence with the Big Bang then that time would be universal.

No. Because different observers experience time differently. 

1 hour ago, lucien216 said:

We would now have an entity that has been missing from physics - Universal Time. A concept of TIME that is not relative and cannot be relative

That would be going back to a model of time that was shown to be wrong by the evidence. What is the point of that?

8 minutes ago, lucien216 said:

But do you agree that if TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, that time must be the same for everyone inside the universe?

No. For the reasons given above.

9 minutes ago, lucien216 said:

How can the universe come into existence at two different points in TIME

It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers. "

Hhhhmm. This is what I wanted to hear. So you saying that the universe could be, say 30 billion years old, for some observers? So the age of the universe is only relative to us then?

P.S. I am not really claiming that there is a "UNIVERSAL TIME" or 'ABSOLUTE TIME', I think there is in fact no absolute time and the universe could be eternal, but only 13.75 billion years old relative to us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lucien216 said:

"It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers. "

Hhhhmm. This is what I wanted to hear. So you saying that the universe could be, say 30 billion years old, for some observers? So the age of the universe is only relative to us then?  

Yes, in principle.

In fact, our view of the universe is pretty average so it would be hard for any observer to have seen a significantly greater age for the universe than us. But if someone had been in the closest possible orbit around a black hole ever since the earliest black holes were formed then they would see the universe as being only about 8 billion years old (I think - rough bit of mental calculation based on time dilation at the photon sphere).

In reality, any differences actually observed would be much, much smaller than the errors in our estimate of the age. So it is not a practical problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, lucien216 said:

Hhhhmm. This is what I wanted to hear. So you saying that the universe could be, say 30 billion years old, for some observers? So the age of the universe is only relative to us then?

It is more subtle than this.

The 'Universe' for such an observer would be quite different from the 'Universe' we can see.

In fact any observer would see different parts of the universe form any other observer.
We can only see so far and can only infer what is beyond that.
The point is that what we can see at the edge of our visible range is not so very different from what we can see close up.
So we can only asssume there is more similer 'Universe' beyond the range of our vision because it were very different it would affect the conditions at the edge of what we can see and cause that to appear different.

We do not know of any observer (star etc) going at sufficient relative speed to us to observe 30 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I am trying to wrap by brain around this in practical terms, from the point of view of two separate observers.

So let's say this thing we call 'TIME' only comes into existence at the point of creation.

We both agree that we are viewing the same event. You say that thing we call TIME, that only came into existence at the Big Bang, can be different for the two of us - RELATIVE TO US.

For me the event could have happened 15 billion years ago and for you only 13.75 billion years ago. I'm using smaller differences based on replies. But assume any difference, even slight.

If we are on different galaxies, let's say you are on earth, I'm in a different galaxy on a different planet.

What does 13.75 billion years even mean to me? I would have my own units of time based on my planets rotation, etc……If I never knew about earth I would have no idea of your concept of TIME.

I can only compare TIME relative to you based on your measurement of time. Right?

Maybe what I call 15 billion years on my planet could be exactly 13.75 years on your planet. Or maybe what I call 1 billion years is only a million years to you. I can only compare TIME relative to someone else.   

So now the concept of 'TIME' becomes something based on you. Time is not 'external'. Time is what you experience and can only be different when compared to someone else. That's logical right? 

Let me give you a better example. Say I build a time machine and I travel forward in time by a 100 years, but during the trip I lose my memory. How will I know that I have traveled forward in time? I won't know it unless I have some point to compare it to. I will simply be in the present, not in the future.   

Now let's go back to the Big bang. We are on different planets. We both observe the same event - The Big Bang.

If we never ever meet each other to compare experiences. Time for each of us will be whatever we say it is. I can say the universe is 15 billion years old based on what I call a year. And you on earth can say the universe is 13.75 billion earth years old based on earth time. 

If we do meet, or contact each other somehow, and want to compare our notes on the age of the universe. One of us will have to convert their units of TIME to achieve anything.

If we do this. I can only conclude that my 15 billion years is exactly equal to your 13.75 billion years. Because TIME is only what each one of us says it is.

You could of course use my measurements and agree that the universe is in fact 15 billion Spagoolars old (that’s what we call a year on my planet).

In either case we are using the same measure of TIME. A UNIVERSAL notion of time. If TIME indeed has a creation point at the moment of the Big Bang. 

Lol. I am getting lost in all of this. But thanks for taking the time to engage. I love this topic.

I can't help but feel there is something very important here.  

If you get into a spaceship and travel at twice the speed of time. Or close to a black hole as per your example. How will you know that you are experiencing TIME different to me? You can only know if you compare it to me and convert your units of time to mine.

If you come back to earth from your trip to the event horizon and find that I have aged 60 years and you have only aged by 6 years. Then your 60 years must be equal to my 6 years. Right? If its equal it must be the same. Right?  

This only matters if we have a "start point" or "big bang", lets say you left for the event horizon when we were both 20 years old. That's our reference point. If you have no reference point, you could go to the edge of a black hole and come back and never know that you traveled faster or slower because you have nothing to compare it to. 

    

Edited by lucien216

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also need to be aware that there is already something called 'universal time', that has nothing to do with relativity.

It is based on what are called 'the fixed stars' which are so far away that their positions are 'fixed'  (ie does not change over human life timescales) on the 'celestial sphere' we base our astronomy on.
This is imagined to rotate at a fixed (average) rate around the Earth descibing what is known as universal time.

All human time measurements used to be tied back to this as a standard, but I think swansont may use something different nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

 All human time measurements used to be tied back to this as a standard, but I think swansont may use something different nowadays.

UT1 is a timescale based on earth rotation with respect to the distant stars. Similarly, we have GMT which is mean solar time tied back to the prime meridian at Greenwich. 

What the world uses is Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), which is the time derived from all of the government timing lab contributions to the BIPM. It's still sort of based on the stars, though. Even though it's generated from atomic clocks (the atomic timescale is TAI), it is occasionally corrected before there is a difference with UT1 that exceeds a second. That's why we have leap seconds.

 

3 hours ago, lucien216 said:

"It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers. "

Hhhhmm. This is what I wanted to hear. So you saying that the universe could be, say 30 billion years old, for some observers? So the age of the universe is only relative to us then?

Clocks that are moving or in a potential well will run slow relative to another clock not subject to those conditions, so they will see that less time has passed. Unless we are in some deep well that we don't know about, it's unlikely our time has been dilated by a factor of more than 2 relative to some other reference that could then measure 30 billion years. But a clock near a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy might have been dilated by a noticeable factor, and would think the universe is younger than 14 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

 

1. If Relativity is used to describe the BB, how does it come that the result of the BBT is an  absolute number (~13BY ago) and not a relative number (~13BY before us).

We're doing the measurement, so those two situations are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosmology using the FLRW uses what is called a fundamental observer which is an observer whose time would be based on the mean average mass density of the universe. The universe we refer to is our Observable universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently reading a claim that the kinematic time dilation difference between us and the galactic core is 1200 years (though I did not verify the number) for the age of the earth. The difference between our gravitational dilation and that of the mean mass density would probably be similarly small. So to the precision of the age of the universe measurements, there is no difference.  

 

edit: numbers roughly check out, though maybe it was 12000 years. Same issue of not being significant compared to the precision.

10^-3 c means a dilation of 10^-6, so a thousand years per billion. (I was doing this in my head while at the gym, so it's just a rough estimate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct we are close to the fundamental time afiak in so far as to being a good estimate. Though there is research showing we may be in an underdense region which leads to the discrepancy of the Hubble parameter it isn't conclusive at this point of research.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is relevant:

Quote

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust, New Calculations Reveal

If it sounds impossible to you that the surface of our planet is actually older than its inner core, prepare to have you mind blown, because according to new calculations, the inside of Earth is actually 2.5 years younger than the outside.

https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-core-is-2-5-years-younger-than-its-crust-thanks-to-the-curvature-of-space-time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.