The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did time move more slowly just after the Big Bang?  (Read 1308 times)

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Plz Michael asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Scientists say that our universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old. I have been wondering how this duration comes about? As far as I understand, in the beginning our universe was compressed immensely (big bang theory), thus gravity must have been enormously high, slowing down time (according to Einstein). So: how is this taken into consideration? Did - during the beginning of our universe - time not almost stand still, thus prolonging the age of it - respectively render it kind of meaningless to talk about the age of it?

Looking forward to an answer - thanks a lot and please continue with your great show.

Michael (from Basel, Switzerland)

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 05/06/2014 20:30:01 by _system »


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Did time move more slowly just after the Big Bang?
« Reply #1 on: 22/06/2014 07:05:01 »
A time dilation is always relative the observers clock. This means that you need someone using his wristwatch comparing his time relative some other. Your so called 'proper time' relative what time you measure some other place to have, using your clock as a gold standard. If I would to assume that the energy/mass existing today once was constricted to a 'pin *****', (which btw I doubt to be the correct way to think of it, as there is no definable center to this universe) then I would guess that it would be very hard to differentiate one place from another. Actually I think I would expect it to consist of only one 'frame of reference'. Time dilations rests on speeds (relative, as well as accelerations) and mass, and wouldn't that 'pin *****' be rather homogeneous, and isotropic?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Did time move more slowly just after the Big Bang?
« Reply #2 on: 22/06/2014 07:05:55 »
Heh, moderated by the server itself, a rare pleasure.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did time move more slowly just after the Big Bang?
« Reply #3 on: 22/06/2014 07:54:15 »
Quote from: thedoc
As far as I understand, in the beginning our universe was compressed immensely (big bang theory), thus gravity must have been enormously high, slowing down time (according to Einstein). So: how is this taken into consideration? Did - during the beginning of our universe - time not almost stand still, thus prolonging the age of it - respectively render it kind of meaningless to talk about the age of it?
The slowing of time is about the relationship between two different clocks. In SR when clocks move relative to each other the one that is at rest runs faster than an identical clock that is moving relative to it. In special relativity two clocks run at different rates when they're located at points having a different gravitational potential. However when two clocks are located at different places in the universe I think that they're at the same potential. I think the only thing that makes them run differetly is the fact that the universe is expanding so that clocks at different places run at different rates.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Did time move more slowly just after the Big Bang?
« Reply #3 on: 22/06/2014 07:54:15 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums