The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why Did Time Have to Exist At The Commencement Of The Big Bang ?  (Read 27698 times)

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Dear H G Wells-ologists,

See my clock ?




Nice eh ?

No need to ask ewe what time I took that photo ?


Could time have existed " before " the big bang ?..if not why not ?...also..would ' time ' have had to be created just before the big bang so that the big bang would have something to explode into ?...do ewe know what I mean ?..In that ' Time ' is the medium that allowed the big bang to bang !! ?.


Thank ewe for your kind consideration in this matter.

mwah mwah mwah



Neil
Confused About Time
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
It's difficult to see how time in our universe could have existed before the universe was created.  However, because we can imagine no mechanism whereby the universe was created out of nothing, it seems that time probably existed wherever whatever it was that resulted in the Big Bang was before it became the Big Bang.

I hope that's clear ;D
 

lyner

  • Guest
We can only say, for sure, that time (or any other particular dimension) exists in this Universe. Beyond this is speculation. It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to use the word 'outside' rather than 'before'. That covers more options.
But was it a.m. or p.m.?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Could time have existed " before " the big bang ?..if not why not ?...also..would ' time ' have had to be created just before the big bang so that the big bang would have something to explode into ?...do ewe know what I mean ?..In that ' Time ' is the medium that allowed the big bang to bang !! ?.
As LeeE and sophiecentaur wrote, in our universe is not possible to have a time before the Big Bang, meant as "The beginning of our Universe"; if the universe began there, then the existence of a previous instant would mean that was not "The beginning"!

BUT...

What if it were NOT the beginning? The universe could have been contracted to a small but not zero dimension, and then...bounced back!
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=43E0E374-3048-8A5E-10B6B56CC6F83B0F
Did you refer to that article in your question?
« Last Edit: 21/10/2008 17:47:25 by lightarrow »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
It's difficult to see how time in our universe could have existed before the universe was created.  However, because we can imagine no mechanism whereby the universe was created out of nothing, it seems that time probably existed wherever whatever it was that resulted in the Big Bang was before it became the Big Bang.

I hope that's clear ;D

Yes,  Perfectly clear !! ;D Thank Ewe LeeE


I'm just coming from the notion that for something to proceed , then time must be set in place , so that item can then proceed to exist. So, I'm thinking that time must have existed, even for an infinitesimal period of itself to enable the big bang to proceed and go ahead and do it's thang ! (note: the Mississippi interpretation of saying ' thing ' ?) quality eh ?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
We can only say, for sure, that time (or any other particular dimension) exists in this Universe. Beyond this is speculation. It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to use the word 'outside' rather than 'before'. That covers more options.
But was it a.m. or p.m.?

Thank ewe sophiecentaur

Could it not be debated that ' time ' could exist outside the Universe  ? and thus the Universe is inside something ?...Some 'thing ' where time existed to enable the Universe to exist.

 Yes, I hope they got the a.m. /p.m. thing correct else we'd all have to re-set our clocks !
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Could time have existed " before " the big bang ?..if not why not ?...also..would ' time ' have had to be created just before the big bang so that the big bang would have something to explode into ?...do ewe know what I mean ?..In that ' Time ' is the medium that allowed the big bang to bang !! ?.
As LeeE and sophiecentaur wrote, in our universe is not possible to have a time before the Big Bang, meant as "The beginning of our Universe"; if the universe began there, then the existence of a previous instant would mean that was not "The beginning"!

BUT...

What if it were NOT the beginning? The universe could have been contracted to a small but not zero dimension, and then...bounced back!
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=43E0E374-3048-8A5E-10B6B56CC6F83B0F
Did you refer to that article in your question?

Thank ewe lightarrow .

I still don't see why it's necessary for the Universe to be the totality of it all. I do wonder if the Universe was/is a component of something else and exists within that component. That component , constituting of ' time ' and other stuff !

How can one say for sure that ' time ' is soley a component of this universe ? and had to created at that instant ?

Thanks for the article...nice !!

 

lyner

  • Guest
As for the 'totality' thing, I think this is something to do with the definition of  'universe' in the first place. If we define the Universe as everything that we have a chance of experiencing then there could well be much much more.
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
We can only say, for sure, that time (or any other particular dimension) exists in this Universe. Beyond this is speculation. It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to use the word 'outside' rather than 'before'. That covers more options.
But was it a.m. or p.m.?

Thank ewe sophiecentaur

Could it not be debated that ' time ' could exist outside the Universe  ? and thus the Universe is inside something ?...Some 'thing ' where time existed to enable the Universe to exist.

 Yes, I hope they got the a.m. /p.m. thing correct else we'd all have to re-set our clocks !

hey Neily.. this does pertain to your question...
what is beyond a black hole and could it lead to this place outside of what we know.. you now Like you questioned maybe here is just a place within another place.... all the plants space and solar system perhaps being the center of a container or shell which could be beyond a black hole...etc....
has anything  ever gone through one and been able to find out.. Like a probe etc.. something that could measure time etc..
« Last Edit: 22/10/2008 23:12:50 by Karen W. »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I seriously doubt that time is a dimension. I rather think that it exists only in our perception. What need has the universe for measurments of time or chronological placement of events?

Was it 8 mins past six when you took that picy?
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
That clock says it is 1:31.. not 6:08!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What need has the universe for measurments of time or chronological placement of events?


What about entropy? If the amount of entropy in a closed system can never increase, doesn't that imply a chronological placement of events? An "Arrow Of Time"?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
I seriously doubt that time is a dimension. I rather think that it exists only in our perception. What need has the universe for measurments of time or chronological placement of events?

Was it 8 mins past six when you took that picy?


That's right, five past eleven  ;D
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
What need has the universe for measurments of time or chronological placement of events?


What about entropy? If the amount of entropy in a closed system can never increase, doesn't that imply a chronological placement of events? An "Arrow Of Time"?

He takes the words right out of my mouth !
 

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
This is what I think:

I believe our Universe was created by a critical-point transition separating two dynamic states:  our current Universe, and the pre-existence from which it (abruptly) emerged.  Critical point transitions are all around us, like water freezing to ice, a bridge which suddenly collapses, an avalanche, other phenomena we label as "the straw that breaks the camel's back".  These I think hint of our origins.   Often these state-transitions result in qualitatively different changes requiring new definitions and concepts.  Our concepts of time, space, matter, and energy may not apply to the state on the other side of the Big Bang it in the same way (albeit much simpler) that swimming does not apply to water when the critical point of freezing is reached.

Time is a manifestation of the trajectory our universe is following as it reaches it's final equilibrium point, like a vase pushed pass the edge of a table, it's trajectory to the floor, representing the entire history of our Universe.  That trajectory is dynamics on our side of the Big Bang critical point.  The dynamics we now observe in the universe may be far different to the dynamics on the other side of this critical point, and so time as we know it, may not be applicable to that dynamics; something qualitatively different may be required.

Time did not "allow" the Big Bang to happen:  Something pushed the pre-existence dynamics past a critical point, the Big Bang occurred, and it's trajectory to it's final equilibrium point is that which we sense as time.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2008 19:10:53 by thelastman »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
thelastman - there is certainly a lot of merit in what you say. However, ponder this:-

If, as is conjectured, the Big Bang was the result of some type of quantum fluctuation, then does that imply some kind of chronological sequence prior to the Big Bang? Can anything happen without a "time" for it to occur in?
 

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
thelastman - there is certainly a lot of merit in what you say. However, ponder this:-

If, as is conjectured, the Big Bang was the result of some type of quantum fluctuation, then does that imply some kind of chronological sequence prior to the Big Bang? Can anything happen without a "time" for it to occur in?

You're looking at it from the perspective of our Universe:  can anything happen in our universe without time?  The answer I think is no.  However, from the perspective of a larger system which I think, our universe is only a part, then I believe there can be  phenomena qualitatively different from what we now observer, involving qualitatively different physics, which does not require a "local" component of time.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2008 19:19:58 by thelastman »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
That's why I put "time" in inverted commas. Without some kind of chronological order, everything would happen at once.
 

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
That's why I put "time" in inverted commas. Without some kind of chronological order, everything would happen at once.

What's wrong with everything happening at once?  That certainly is qualitatively different from what we now observe.  That's an interesting thought of what could be a component of the pre-existence that I have conjectured above.  I realize the idea of everything happening at once is hard for us to imagine but we are finely-tuned to this universe and have difficulty transcending it's conceptual boundaries. 

And of course I should put in this caveat:  The folks currently working with Loop Quantum Gravity are proposing I think a pre-existence which is NOT separated from ours by a critical point and they seem to be making revolutionary progress in the field of Cosmology these days.  I'm just not familiar with their work and what they might think of my ideas.
 
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
OK, let's look at a different aspect - multiple universes.

It's possible that ours is not the only universe; that others have been created, some of which have collapsed back to nothing in a nanosecond, others that continue to expand forever. If these universes are created in the same "medium" (don't ask me to speculate what that may be) then 1 universe collapsing while another continues to expand eternally implies some kind of "time" component.

I appreciate that I'm thinking in terms of our visible universe and that the situation could be very different elsewhere. But I can't help thinking that there must still be this "time" component everywhere.

As for LQG, the sum of my knowledge is how to spell it!  ;D
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
The problem with everything happening at once is that it's a static state, equivalent to nothing happening at all.

Along with DrBeaver, I think that regardless of how many spatial dimensions you're dealing with, you need a specific 'time' dimension for any change to occur.  Now this time dimension may or may not be the same as a spatial dimension, and only appears to be different depending on your point of view - for example, you could view a cylinder as the entire lifetime of a circle, where the spatial length of the cylinder is the temporal length, or lifetime, of the circle.  The cylinder, to us is static, but from the circle's point of view it is dynamic.  This view can be applied both up and down - the diameter of the circle could be viewed as the temporal length of a line (and in this case, the change in the nature of the line over it's temporal length is obvious - at the start of it's life it has zero length, half way through it's life it's length is the diameter of the circle and by the end of it's life, it's length has become zero again), while at the same time dynamic three-dimensional objects in our four-dimensional universe could be seen as static four-dimensional objects in a hypothetical five-dimensional universe.

Alternatively, we could view 'everything happening at once' as being like a super-position of states but even then, for this super-position of states to be resolved in to a specific single state where time and space have been resolved in to their current states, a before and after is still required.  That is to say, without a time dimension somewhere the super-position couldn't have been resolved.

Heh  :) I really don't want to go in to the possibility that we might actually still be existing in an unresolved super-position of states, and in any case, the states of space and time do seem to have been resolved.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
erm... yeah... what LeeE said  ???
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The two fundamental features of our (and probably any other long lived) universe are the conservation of energy and the conservation of angular momentum these laws are a fundamental part of the universe having consistent laws and being understandable. Assuming that thes laws can be extrapolated back beyond the big bang imply that our universe originated in something that was collapsing.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Matter wasn't created until fairly late on in the Big-Bang and until that point it seems that there was just energy, so I don't think you can even extrapolate angular momentum back to the very start of the BB, let alone beyond it.

I don't think that the physical laws that operate in our four-dimensional space-time would work in universes with a different number of dimensions, although the laws that did operate might be related to our ones.  It might seem reasonable that all four-dimensional space-times have the same laws as ours, but I wouldn't want to put money, of which I am extremely short, on it.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Interesting points and I see they could be very relevant but having three spatial dimensions is important for a long lived universe.  The reason for this that long range energy fields follow an inverse square law and the only law that allows long term stable orbits to form is an inverse square law.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2008 17:37:20 by Soul Surfer »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length