DOES GRAVITY REALLY INFLUENCE THE 'FLOW' OF TIME? (ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVED)

[MrMrdevincamus]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes.

 

[Polymath257]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when our friend passes the event horizon. An observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still if our friend falling into the BH who is protected against spaghettification and other dire effects of any matter falling towards a BH by our thought experiment parameters would feel like he was living a normal life span even in the grip of intense, infinite gravity. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed! Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

In your scenario, there are two observers: the one who goes into the BH and the one that does not. GR tells how to translate between what the two observers measure.

Since there is no singularity at the event horizon, the one going into the BH has no issue going across that 'barrier'. But the one that remains outside can no longer receive any signals from the one inside: so there is no possible translation between the two sets of measurements. Instead, the outside observer simply never sees the other go past the event horizon. How could they? No signal is getting up from inside the EH. Instead, they see the one going into the BH as getting closer and closer to the horizon, but never quite getting there. Since the EH was crossed at some finite time for the one going in, that just means the one that stays out never sees the clock of the one going in go past a certain point: it looks stopped.

In and of itself, this behavior at the EH does not signal an incompleteness. That said, GR certainly *is* incomplete because quantum effects will become dominant at some point. But that is likely to be more crucial where the classical theory says there is a singularity and not so much an issue at the EH.

 

[Nakosis]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

Two things I keep in mind. Now is the same now everywhere in the universe. Second, time is a measure of change.

To the outside observer, they will see change happening slower and slower for the person getting closer to the EH. For the person reaching the EH, change will occur at the "normal" rate. Because everything about that person entering the EH will change slower. Their thoughts, their physical aging, it will all be in sync. Like you are currently in sync with your current environment.

Relative to someone else, you could be approaching your own EH. For you time/change will always pass normally. An outside observer however may see you as changing faster or slower.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

In your scenario, there are two observers: the one who goes into the BH and the one that does not. GR tells how to translate between what the two observers measure.

Since there is no singularity at the event horizon, the one going into the BH has no issue going across that 'barrier'. But the one that remains outside can no longer receive any signals from the one inside: so there is no possible translation between the two sets of measurements. Instead, the outside observer simply never sees the other go past the event horizon. How could they? No signal is getting up from inside the EH. Instead, they see the one going into the BH as getting closer and closer to the horizon, but never quite getting there.

Yes that is what I said ie; "The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever".

What I am interested in is time dilation and how real time is. It's obvious we will never get to cheat nature by time travel (time dilation). Even though If I left earth at a high percent of c and returned, those on earth would say I had lived to be thousands (or millions etc) of years old. The bad thing is I would not get to enjoy such a long life because my mind and body would say I had aged at the normal rate.

Since the EH was crossed at some finite time for the one going in, that just means the one that stays out never sees the clock of the one going in go past a certain point: it looks stopped.

It seems that time may not be 'real' . I wonder if we ever invent a quantum entanglement clock which could ignore that quantum events are local therefore it could transmit over long distances what we would hear because of its instantaneous communication ability? (such as talking to someone accelerating to near light speed). Even the possibility of communication of someone passing the event horizon might be possible because entanglement communicates change instantly. (in an thought experiment anyway!) Did hawking retract his theory that black holes can evaporate due to Hawking radiation?

In and of itself, this behavior at the EH does not signal an incompleteness. That said, GR certainly *is* incomplete because quantum effects will become dominant at some point. But that is likely to be more crucial where the classical theory says there is a singularity and not so much an issue at the EH.

The reason I think GR and SR is wrong/incomplete is if it was correct it would agree with quantum physics, of course it doesn't. It's infinities also say there is something missing I think. Thanks for your reply

 

[Polymath257]

Two things I keep in mind. Now is the same now everywhere in the universe.

This has been known to be false for the last century. Sorry, but special relativity (and actual observations) has proven this wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems that time may not be 'real' . I wonder if we ever invent a quantum entanglement clock which could ignore that quantum events are local therefore it could transmit over long distances what we would hear because of its instantaneous communication ability? (such as talking to someone accelerating to near light speed). Even the possibility of communication of someone passing the event horizon might be possible because entanglement communicates change instantly. (in an thought experiment anyway!) Did hawking retract his theory that black holes can evaporate due to Hawking radiation?

Unfortunately, quantum entanglement doesn't allow communication. There are *correlations* between distant points, but those correlations travel at ordinary speeds (and tend to be formed when the entangled particles are created).

hawking radiation remains a prediction of what we can figure out about quantum gravity. Of course, it has never been observed in BHs.

 

[Nakosis]

This has been known to be false for the last century. Sorry, but special relativity (and actual observations) has proven this wrong.

So, to understand, using the twin paradox. One twin goes off into space and experiences time dilation relative to the twin who stays home. The twin staying home will age quicker. When the traveling twin returns being physically younger, will their "now" also be out of sync? Will one be permanently in a future time zone?

 

[Polymath257]

So, to understand, using the twin paradox. One twin goes off into space and experiences time dilation relative to the twin who stays home. The twin staying home will age quicker. When the traveling twin returns being physically younger, will their "now" also be out of sync? Will one be permanently in a future time zone?

Malformed question.

The twin that went to the stars ages less because the proper time (analogous to length) along his path is smaller. The other twin will age more because the proper time along his path is larger.

When the traveling twin returns, do they stop moving with respect to the at-home twin? if so, their 'now' will be the same. If not, some events one thinks of as being 'now' won't be simultaneous to the other.

it isn't a matter of time zone. It is a matter that simultaneity is relative: some people can see events as simultaneous while others see those same two events as being at different times. The notion of 'now' depends on motion (and gravitational field).

 

[Katja]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

Probably pretty much the same reason when you're in a plane traveling at several hundred miles an hour, it doesn't "feel" like you're going that fast, even though it would be obvious to an outside observer (your questions are equivalent to you standing on the ground going "OMG, why are they not all dizzy??"). You're part of that environment, so what is happening is your "normal."


I leave you with our friends Queen:

 

[Polymath257]

Probably pretty much the same reason when you're in a plane traveling at several hundred miles an hour, it doesn't "feel" like you're going that fast, even though it would be obvious to an outside observer (your questions are equivalent to you standing on the ground going "OMG, why are they not all dizzy??"). You're part of that environment, so what is happening is your "normal."


I leave you with our friends Queen:

Love that song!

 

[Katja]

Love that song!

You'd never guess it was Queen if you didn't know... Brian can put away the rock and metal and write (geeky!!) folk.

 

[Polymath257]

You'd never guess it was Queen if you didn't know... Brian can put away the rock and metal and write (geeky!!) folk.

Given that he has a PhD in astrophysics, he was well aware of what he was writing about here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

Time is a constant.

 

[Polymath257]

Time is a constant.

Not by most interpretations of that statement.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Nakosis said: ↑
Two things I keep in mind. Now is the same now everywhere in the universe.

Polymath replied ;

This has been known to be false for the last century. Sorry, but special relativity (and actual observations) has proven this wrong.

I think Nakosis meant the observer and the observed both feel time runs normally. In that case he is correct. However as I mentioned the fact is gravity or acceleration distorts space time curving it. So while an observer would feel his time is 'running' or passing normally he would say the observed (who was in a gravity well or accelerating) time was slowing, and the greater the acceleration or gravity the slower the observer would see the observed time slow. In the case of a black hole time would appear to stop at the event horizon with the observers body forever hanging in space. That is because as the observed came closer and closer to the event horizon and the singularity which lies past it his velocity would increase to an infinite number as he passed the event horizon.

On a related but posted in a separate reply of yours (#7) regarding my comment about quantum entanglement being used for communication was akin to a thought experiment. Of course I know that QE and other Quantum events/effects supposedly are local, meaning they only effect a very small micro region.. (I have suspicions Q effects are not only micro but macro as well). That is the reason I said this in post #7 ;"I wonder if we ever invent a quantum entanglement clock which could ignore that quantum events are local.....". I just wanted to clarify that I was saying in a thought experiment we can suspend the fact that quantum effects are local etc thus we can proceed with the experiment while suspending natural laws(physics). A thought experiment allowed Einstein to create or at least give him the idea for many of his famous theories.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Time is a constant.

Newton thought that as well, but if I understand your reply it is not correct. Einstein's theories proved time was relative to an observer and were empirically verified. Actually the predictions and other inferences of SR and GR have empirically verified up to this day and passed every test.

 

[wellwisher]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

One thing that is missing is pressure. Pressure will cause phase changes such that observer heading to the core will become squished to unconsciousness.

If you fell into the gravity of Jupiter, you would implode. A black hole is thousands or millions of times worse.

Pressure means that gravity is more than GR. Pressure will impact the phases of the matter that are present. The solid iron core of the earth exists due to pressure, since iron would be a gas at the temperate of the earth's core; 6000C, if it was at surface pressure.

Gravitational pressure also causes a secondary time affect. If we look at the center of the sun, time moves the slowest in terms of references, yet this is also the place with the fastest frequencies of matter and energy; fusion and gamma. Reference time may be slowing down, but matter and energy frequency; is speeding up. There is a divergence of time between reference and materials.

If you fell into a black hole, you would change phase into something like a small lump of metallic water quite early in the process. The water molecules would be vibrating at a very high frequency even though time has slowed in terms of reference perception. These two aspects of time go in the opposite direction.

If you look at force, it is mass times acceleration, while acceleration d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time is one part time and one part distance. Gravity via acceleration offers a secondary time aspect connected to pressure and the induction of phases.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

Yes gravity effects time, no the "grand unification" of physics is not imminent, it's the same 20 years away it's been for the last 80 years.

 

[Nakosis]

Malformed question.

The twin that went to the stars ages less because the proper time (analogous to length) along his path is smaller. The other twin will age more because the proper time along his path is larger.

When the traveling twin returns, do they stop moving with respect to the at-home twin? if so, their 'now' will be the same. If not, some events one thinks of as being 'now' won't be simultaneous to the other.

it isn't a matter of time zone. It is a matter that simultaneity is relative: some people can see events as simultaneous while others see those same two events as being at different times. The notion of 'now' depends on motion (and gravitational field).

Still working on this. Here is a site I found that explains it.

Special Relativity Basics

What strikes me though is that it appears to assume that "now" is the same for both observers. The light wave hits the moving individual observed by both at the same time. It has to, to have any meaning.

There is no absolute fact as to whether two spatially separated events are simultaneous. There is only a fact of simultaneity or its failure relative to an inertial frame of reference.

Ok, fine. This makes sense. However, I don't see this as meaning the "now" moment of time which exists for both observers is any different.