0

Without getting into what happens at the center of a black hole, I think it's correct to describe objects that come close to the singularity as being propelled forward in time faster than those further from that singularity.

So - from the perspective of anything that's falling into a black hole at this moment (as I sit and type these words) - if it was able to observe me, would I be perceived to be moving faster and faster as its relative time slowed? Subsequently - are there points in the universe that are much further into the history of the universe than we are?

I'm obviously not the first to ask this question but wasn't able to find anything specific to this exact idea onine and would love a nudge in the right direction.

Yevgeny Simkin
  • 469
  • 3
    Time is relative: a clock falling together with an observer into a black hole will not agree with a clock sitting next to you while you are typing, and in fact you and the falling observer will disagree on when "this" moment is. The whole idea that the universe has one history/timeline and that somehow events "right now" can be in different places on that timeline is both false and self-contradictory; if they are not at the same point on the universal timeline, they are not both "right now"! – Marius Ladegård Meyer Jan 16 '24 at 20:34
  • 1
    See https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82678/does-someone-falling-into-a-black-hole-see-the-end-of-the-universe – ProfRob Jan 16 '24 at 22:28
  • Also related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/63045/123208 & links therein. – PM 2Ring Jan 17 '24 at 04:48
  • Even in flat spacetime, local observers with different speeds slice up spacetime differently. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity "Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future". https://i.stack.imgur.com/AtqPQ.gif In curved spacetime, it gets messy: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/761360/123208 – PM 2Ring Jan 17 '24 at 05:06
  • 1
    "Are [some things] ahead of us in time" implies (because of "are") that we consider [some things] now. So by the very wording of the question, the answer is no. Are you considering two different time dimensions? – Stéphane Rollandin Jan 17 '24 at 09:47

1 Answers1

1

There is no absolute standard of time by which you can specify age or even what "at this moment" means. So your question as posed is not very well formed. If you rephrase it in terms of some particular reference frame (like one in which the cosmic microwave background is the most uniform) then you can get answers that are valid for that reference frame.

Relative to an observer in deep intergalactic space who is at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave background, clocks on Earth run slow by about 2 years in a million.

Eric Smith
  • 9,064