Bizarre theory suggests time may be running out (2007)

My brain dismissed string theory as epicycles long ago. And I just can't get past that bias.<p><i>However</i>, the approach of taking another look at our <i>assumptions</i> to explain the 'expanding' universe makes my brain very happy.<p>So the story has me quite torn ;)

That makes me very, very curious. Does universal expansion imply increasing distances between every atom in the universe, or only between, say, galaxies? I can't see how the second would work, but the first would be ridiculous as well - increased distances between atoms covalently bonded together? Shouldn't the chemical properties of compounds change as bond distances change? Or would the necessary bond distances for a reaction change at the same pace as the universe is expanding?<p>I originally arrived at the line of thinking via the measurement question - is anything in the universe at an unchanging distance from anything else? (According to expansion theories, anwyay.) If that's the case, would it not be possible to measure the wavelength of the light reaching relatively-fixed object A from its counterpart object B? If the red shift still occurs, then we know time is slowing down. If not, then expansion wins.<p>Expected problems for this measurement would include scale (if chemical bonds are the only distances in the universe that don't change, how do you measure the wavelength from one atom to the next?), and more scale (would the change be measurable on a scale smaller than intergalactic?). Oh, and the original assumptions. Those might be a problem, too. (That something (anything) is fixed, and that my mental model is not orders of magnitude oversimplified).

I cannot grasp semantically what it would mean for time to slow down. When we say x slows down, we mean that x takes more time to do y than before. Now if we say time slows down, we say that time takes more time to do y than before.<p>So what does it mean for time to take time?<p>I have a similar problem with the idea that time has somehow started to exist as the whole concept of starting depends on time.

That's not bizarre, that would be a brilliantly simple explanation of a bizarre phenomena. My brain hopes it's true, but has many questions. I guess the key question is a pretty old one: what determines time?<p>Anyway, assuming this is true should be an interesting thought experiment. If time is slowing down universally we shouldn't notice a difference (relativity). The suggestion seems to be that time is going slower in our older part of the universe than it is around the "edges". Making it seem to an observer in an older part like the expansion is going faster and faster, despite the fact that no energy is being added. This also seems to suggest there should be (even older) parts of the universe for which the perceived acceleration is negative. I wonder whether that's the case. A tricky bit is that if they are in fact moving towards us and we're moving away from them at a faster time pace, they would still appear to be moving away from us at an accelerating rate.<p>Another question is what would be the difference between those parts of the universe. One might argue that the older galaxies that have attracted more time-slowing mass, but that's shaky. Another idea might be that the speed of time is driven by the amount of active energy itself. Perhaps a new definition of entropy would help us there.<p>Hoping to hear more.

This explains why the 100m dash speed record keeps getting broken.

Disclaimer: Totally amateur (ignorant?) comment.<p>At an atomic/particle level, movement (speed) is related to temperature. If something reached 0 degrees Kelvin, there's no particle movement at all. You could argue that since time is relative to space (as opposed to an independent variable), time would slow down as temperature goes down. If the whole universe is cooling, maybe time is slowing down.<p>Source info: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature</a>

This reminds me strongly of the xkcd poking fun at string theory by summarizing it thus: "What if everything were comprised of tiny, vibrating strings?" -- "What would that entail?" -- "I dunno." However, the idea itself is so delightfully creative and "sci-fi" that I had to save it.

What that educated stupid scientist doesn't know is that we have plenty of time: because there are actually 4 simultaneous days in one 24-hour day! Hence, 4 times as much time as we thought!

I kind of wondered if there was a way to measure the idea that time goes faster as we get older. I know it's most likely a memory/new experience thing and has been discussed before but let's just assume that time goes faster over time ("time acceleration" or the rate of change of time) and that we could perceive it (again impossible). How would we measure this? I mean could this effect be related to space-time curving etc. from matter and somehow similarly measured? Doubtful but an interesting thought experiment.

&#62;&#62;We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear – that’s just the reverse effect.<p>From what I can understand, it reminds me of the Richard Feynman's QED theory where he says vacuum is not really empty but particles with opposite charges get created and nullify each other in a short time.<p>Forgive me, i may be naive.

I get a kick outta people who think about time like it really exists.<p>Time "exists" as a result of measurements of the Earth's rotation. That's how 'universal' it is. Hmmm. Maybe it's speeding up, like a film. Maybe that's why the 'universe' is accelerating. Or maybe it's moving with a sine-wave motion ... which explains why I'm feeling dizzy.

I hope it doesn't run backwards when it hits the end, like in PKD's Counter-Clock World.

string theory, if you look at it too cynically it's a high dimension optimisation process.<p>edit: also the headline seems a bit over-dramatic it's not running out it's slowing down.