Time and the expanding universe

I have a rather difficult question that gives me a headache for a few hours. I'm looking for someone to prove it right or wrong.

  • If i understand Gravitational time dilation correctly, time goes faster or slower at distances of mass.
  • They say that time at lightspeed is infinite but that coulnt  be right or it would ignore black holes.

The pain part: I have theorised that what if time is product of mass/energy decay on such tiny scale that it is not visible for us yet (Think it a bit like this bad example: solid/liquid/gas = mass/energy/time).

The idea: If mass makes time and heavier objects keeps getting more and more mass is'nt that the logical answer of the expanding universe. And at the end of time when all mass and energy is gone it will all reset itself.

#Mechanics

Note by Mark Pennings
3 years, 1 month ago

No vote yet
1 vote

  Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

  • Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
  • Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
  • Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
  • Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list
  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list
  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 2×3 2 \times 3
2^{34} 234 2^{34}
a_{i-1} ai−1 a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3} 23 \frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2} 2 \sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3 ∑i=13 \sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta sin⁡θ \sin \theta
\boxed{123} 123 \boxed{123}

Comments

Interesting ideas, though you need to clarify them, as what you’re theorising is at places vague.

  • they say that time at lightspeed is infinite

I’m no physicist, but as far as I understand it: time dilation is such that this dilation is 00 at event horizons. Inside a black-hole no-one knows what’s happening as by definition we have no direct communication with this place. But time does not stand still there (otherwise there would be no movement, init?).

  • time is product of mass/energy decay

Is it? I know, there are various theories as to what time is metaphysically. Some say that space-time are fundamental and physically exist as things, and are affected by mass. Other view-points say that space-time do not directly exist but represent merely relations between certain things that do exists (eg. matter, fields, etc.). The time-energy-uncertainty (Heisenberg'sche Energie-Zeit-Unschärferelation) involves defining time formally for an observable as the ratio of the change in an observable to the average rate of change in the observable; ie it seems to attribute both the observable and the rate of change of the observable a more primitive existence, and derive time out of these: then one has ΔtX=ΔX∣⟨[H,X]⟩∣ℏ\Delta t_{X}=\frac{\Delta X}{|\langle[H,X]\rangle|}\hbar for any observable XX. Now, is there an observable for mass? If so, I can see what your saying. In any case, I’d be very interested to know what you mean.

R Mathe - 3 years ago
×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...