As the Universe quickly expands, times slows down till....

[Rosanella]

... and it could all come to a standstill!

I don't usually read the Telegraph but this article I've stumbled across on-line got my attention

Left-click there--> Time is running out - literally, says scientist - Telegraph

[SirFoo]

Thanks for sharing this really interesting article. So eventually a watched pot really never will boil!

[Rosanella]

....So eventually a watched pot really never will boil!

Yep! Or so it seems....

But.... I'm just wandering, is the Universe going to come to a stand still, contract, then expand again and contract again at infinitum?

Have we worked this one out yet? I don't think so....it's interesting though...keeps one's mind expanding....

[ronin]

If time, and only time, slowed by distance would that not mean that when the universe reached this stationary time distance that all ponts would be running at zero rate, normal rate and every value inbetween?

If we were observed by beings at distances that meant 1/2 and 1/4 how does time swap, what happens if observed by both beings at the same time?

When we could observe the distant galaxy experiencing zero time, they would observe us at zero as well. So we have a zero rate of time also. Where is time supposed to be none zero?

Do not see how our time is a spectrum of rates simply owing to the distance that some object is from us.

Suppose that a rate that is sineusoidal (sp) could be possible but to know of the "rate" that time runs at we need to be outside of the universe (at least) in order to observe it.

If time slows then would that also not mean that stars/galaxies further away must be dimmer in terms of what they emit. If time itself slows then fusion reactions must also slow. If x millions fusion reactions occur per unit of time and this unit of time is extended then less reactions in terms of what we see and so less energy/light.

There is an apparent slowing of time in relativity but I assume this is not that, since it is well known and not therefore "new", and it is apparent to the observer, and not to the moving body itself.

Then comes: What is time?

Start with a simple one here: Is it continuous or quantised?

[SpaceCadet]

I believe this is a question that the Planck Telescope will be able to resolve as one of its mission objectives is to confirm or deny the theory of Inflation. I applaud the guys in Spain who dreamt the time drag theory up.... at least they are not afraid to think outside the box and publish. And as things stand their theory seems about as credible as any of the myriad others that have been floated in recent years.

[SirFoo]

Is time quantized?

This is a partial answer to your question ronin!

[SpaceCadet]

There is an article published online today on New Scientist relevant to this:

Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time - physics-math - 09 August 2010 - New Scientist

[loki]

If the universe is rapidly expanding shouldn`t we expect time to accelerate rather than slow down.

[SpaceCadet]

If you chalk in two arbitrary points, a. and b. and say the space between them is expanding then a photon of light travelling between them would take longer and longer to make the journey. Giving the illusion of time slowing down.

[blinkity-blonk]

I've not read the new scientist article yet (I was reading a bit in it last night and the opening sentence contained the words Quantum Mechanics - i thought I'm too tired for QM I'm going to sleep!) but surely we wouldn't perceive a change at all as we can't be independent from time and thus cannot make an objective observation. You would have to build a 'stasis chamber' or something.