Is Time Slowing Down?

[Notvacka]

I like this idea of time slowing down and have actually wondered it myself, but instead my thoughts drifted towards a variable speed of light. I wonder, would this aparrent slowing of time explain cosmic expansion? I imagine the speed of time would be proportional to the density of the universe and space, as space expands, the time it takes for say a photon to travel one light year increases, as it has more "space" to travel, or rather the size of the space is spreading out, like smearing butter over a smaller and smaller area.

The speed of light slowing down over time is of course conceivable, though I don't understand how you make the jump to the notion of time slowing down. The idea that the speed of light (assumed to be constant in modern physics) might be slowing down is rather popular among creationists, because it allows the universe to be much younger than what is generally believed. I don't know what evidence they have, but any such slowing should be rather simple to measure, given some time.

[Dimebag]

I like this idea of time slowing down and have actually wondered it myself, but instead my thoughts drifted towards a variable speed of light. I wonder, would this aparrent slowing of time explain cosmic expansion? I imagine the speed of time would be proportional to the density of the universe and space, as space expands, the time it takes for say a photon to travel one light year increases, as it has more "space" to travel, or rather the size of the space is spreading out, like smearing butter over a smaller and smaller area.

The speed of light slowing down over time is of course conceivable, though I don't understand how you make the jump to the notion of time slowing down. The idea that the speed of light (assumed to be constant in modern physics) might be slowing down is rather popular among creationists, because it allows the universe to be much younger than what is generally believed. I don't know what evidence they have, but any such slowing should be rather simple to measure, given some time.

If one Planck time is defined as the time it takes a photon to move 1 Planck length then surely this is the same as regularly perceived time slowing as well.

[Notvacka]

If one Planck time is defined as the time it takes a photon to move 1 Planck length then surely this is the same as regularly perceived time slowing as well.

The speed of light is incorporated into the definition of the Planck length. If you change one, you change the other. If time were "slowing down" the way you suggest, it would not be perceivable by human observers, or any observers within the space-time of our universe. We measure time with clocks. If time slows down, so does the clocks. The same goes for space. If the Plank length would grow longer, so would the ruler you use to measure length, and the difference would not show.

[Dimebag]

If one Planck time is defined as the time it takes a photon to move 1 Planck length then surely this is the same as regularly perceived time slowing as well.

The speed of light is incorporated into the definition of the Planck length. If you change one, you change the other. If time were "slowing down" the way you suggest, it would not be perceivable by human observers, or any observers within the space-time of our universe. We measure time with clocks. If time slows down, so does the clocks. The same goes for space. If the Plank length would grow longer, so would the ruler you use to measure length, and the difference would not show.

How about when we observe light from great distances? Isn't this a universal clock showing time through the aeons? Just a thought. I am just a layman so I say this with no authority other than intuition and basic logic.

[Typist]

The physicist Julian Barbour wrote a book called "The End of Time", in which he claims the universe is a collection of "Nows", and he deals with fundamental physics without the time parameter. http://www.platonia.com/

Thanks Mike, I did take a look. As you report, it's not an easy read for those of us without a physics background. Still, it's interesting to know that physicists are contemplating these issues. If you are able to provide a summary in your own words, I would read with interest.

As a science layman, I am forced to approach the subject from other more accessible (to me) angles.

Two writers on this topic I could suggest to you are...

Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Eckhart_Tolle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle

Both writers make essentially the same points, each in their own language. Krishnamurti is (was) more formal, and probably better suited to members here. Tolle expresses the same insights in more modern, accessible and new age flavored manner. Probably not that appealing for most members here.

However, Tolle has the best book title. His chief work is called The Power Of Now, which gets right to the point.

To make the attempt in my own choice of words...

Philosophy seems based on the pursuit of what we might call "The Power Of Reality". The basic premise seems to be that the more in touch with reality we are, the better off we'll be. Reason is the chosen tool for accessing reality.

Such a perspective would seem to posit that one test for how connected to reality we are is the degree to which we're thriving. Modern civilization is often used as evidence of the benefits that can arise from contact with reality.

We can test this contact with reality principle personally and directly, without need of experts, and be our own scientists, in a real world experiment. Like any other skill this takes a bit of practice, but basically anybody can run the experiment if they are interested enough.

If we focus our intelligence and power of observation on the present moment, and leave it there, an experience that can generally be described as "healthy well being" tends to arise. I'm proposing that this "thriving" is evidence of contact with reality.

Reality happens only now. Thus direct contact with now is direct contact with reality. Direct contact means, experience of, not standing back at a distance and thinking about.

Past and future are seen as a form of fantasy, in the very same way atheists claim gods are a form of fantasy, because there is no hard evidence of existence. Past and future are to reality what the word "apple" is to a real apple. Past and future are concepts ABOUT reality, not reality itself.

If any of this makes sense, then we might arrive at an interesting philosophic perspective. That is, a meeting place of sorts between theism and atheism.

Theism posits there is some kind of huge intelligence which contains everything we need. Everything we need is a compelling issue, so we go chasing this intelligence.

Atheism posits there is no evidence of such an intelligence, and so we should focus on direct observation of reality instead.

What if direct observation of reality contains everything we need? The fundamental goals of theism are met, by the process suggested by atheists.

However, a crucial requirement, the needs are met not by ideas about reality, but only by direct contact with reality. The analogy is that our hunger is never satisfied by the word apple, only by the real apple.

One can think about reality in a romantic personal kind of way, or in a mechanical kind of way, and that's just a matter of personal preference that doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether our perspective leads us to direct contact with reality. However we approach it, do we take a bite out of the apple, or do we stand back at a distance reading about apples?

Is reality God? Is God reality?

If we're getting what we need, who the hell cares?

If we're getting what we really want, there is no need for theism, atheism, or even science, beyond the mundane task of meeting our physical needs.

Do we think about theism, atheism or philosophy while we are in the middle of wild sex? Nope, there is no need.

[Typist]

If you'll forgive a postscript to an already too long post...

Such a perspective would seem to posit that one test for how connected to reality we are is the degree to which we're thriving

If the reader accepts this premise, a question arises.

How well is our science, reason, philosophy based western culture thriving?

On one hand we can claim breathtaking historic accomplishments. On the other hand, we seem to be perpetually poised on the brink of utter calamity.

It seems reasonable to propose that sooner or later one of the pending calamities will slip out of control and destroy the impressive accomplishments.

Thus, a refusal to squarely face the source of all these pending calamities could hardly be labeled a reason based approach.

[Notvacka]

How about when we observe light from great distances? Isn't this a universal clock showing time through the aeons? Just a thought. I am just a layman so I say this with no authority other than intuition and basic logic.

I'm no physicist either, though I have read a lot on the subject. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "universal clock". Einstein's theory of relativity makes any such notion meaningless, since time can only be measured locally. Because light from distant galaxies has travelled for a long time, it shows us how the universe looked a long time ago. That in itself can not be used as a clock. It's more like looking into a history book.

When things like the age of our universe are estimated, it's done with the assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere and all of the time. That's why we call them laws of nature in the first place. This assumption could of course be wrong, but the whole endevaour of physics rests upon the idea that reality behaves in an orderly fashion and that the order of things can be discovered and described.

[Mike Strand]

Here is an essay Julian Barbour wrote recently. I think he's a good writer, and the essay is quite understandable if you studied math and physics as a college undergraduate:

http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf

He comes up with a definition of time as a function of change - the changes in the positions of all objects in a collection of N objects, their masses, etc. The results are interesting as theory, and perhaps as an aid to understanding the deep "meaning" of time, if it has such a deep meaning. It may even help to improve or revolutionize cosmology or quantum theory. But for keeping time - impractical, it appears to me.

As a practical matter, I'm glad we have atomic clocks to measure intervals of time and to keep clocks around the world synchronized. Atomic clocks also tell us things like -- the earth's rotation is getting slower (days are getting longer), although we won't really notice it in our lifetime. In the 1890s astronomers had guessed this from the apparent increase in the acceleration of the moon, but it's obvious from atomic clocks, which even show us how many "leap seconds" to add periodically to Greenwich time, so that noon will still be when the sun is overhead.

[HexHammer]

Many confuse time being a "thing" of existance, when it's merely a concept of messurement just as speed, does speed exist? Not in the form of existance, but as a concept of messurement.