Is time a side effect of universal expansion?

-
I'm admittedly an armchair scientist... I believe I was quoted at one point as saying "well special relativity is just a THEORY, so it could be wrong" which was met at the time with a snarl from someone who kinda knew that stuff better than me.

Here's my layman's question: What if our perception and measurement of time is simply is flawed and time is really a function of how much the universe has expanded? Put another way; assuming that universe is expanding at a (mostly) constant rate, might time not be an independent dimension, but simply derivable from the difference in size of the universe?

If this is actually true, then isn't time travel really a lot less complicated? Don't we immediately remove paradoxes like "if I go back in time and kill my father will I ever be born?".

What it might mean is that time is not really some thing that exists independent of the spacial dimensions, but is simply a function of an underlying effect we don't yet fully understand.

Any physicists out there who could explain how to prove/disprove this idea?

Comments

Captain Kelly said…
Actually, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. This was a surprising discovery that led to the speculation of dark energy. As far as time goes, the current model tells us that space is time and vice versa. In that sense time is a "side effect" since it technically didn't exist before the big bang and would cease to exist after the universe ultimately rends itself apart from hyper acceleration.
January 22, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said…
Most refreshing blog post I have read in a while. Please keep us informed if there is further development onthis issue.
January 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Doesn't this belong in the jounal of Nature? I agree please notify of further developerments.
January 22, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Time is just a way for our brains to track down the proceses in the universe, expansion is just another process.
January 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Anonymous said…
"Captain Kelly" if time is a function of universal expansion, than it is possible that as universal expansion slows down, our perception of time will also be altered. This could create the illusion of an accelerating universe.
October 28, 2011 at 3:39 AM
KH said…
I just indepentently came up with this same idea and a Google search of my question led me here.

I'm really curious if anyone is studying this or it has already been discarded as not being supported by observation.

Very keen in hearing follow up comments... but this thread looks pretty stale.
October 29, 2015 at 2:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u
Read more