The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why Did Time Have to Exist At The Commencement Of The Big Bang ?  (Read 27710 times)

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
No what I was saying applies to a universe with any number of spatial and temporal dimensions the only requirement is that the physical laws do not change abruptly an arbitrarily dependant on precisely where you are in it in the absence of any causes for this. Such a universe would not be understandable.  Ie we are talking about basically causal universes.  I presume that you are prepared to accept this whatefer your personal theories are because if you dont you can say absolutely nothing about the universe and it blatently does not apply to the universe we are in where physical laws are obeyed very precisely.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I enjoy reading you all :)
Cool thoughts from creative minds.

To me time is a very strange thing.
I really enjoyed thelastman's thoughts though.
critical-point transitions was a nice description.

and even though we can't say what preceeded 'time' there must have been 'something'.
Or else all math we use is fundamentally wrong.
That from zero comes zero.

Some people likes to see time as 'event' based.
Checking out how time seems to move in QM that might be attractive.
Feynman's diagrams allows for time to move both forward and backward if I have it right.
But to be 'event' based there seem to be implied something 'in between'?
Also no experiment done that I know of have proved time anything else but a 'flow'.

So to my eyes time is a flow with an arrow macroscopically.
But I'm open for ideas and experiments:)
 
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The fundamental properties of this universe are the conservation of energy and angular momentum with a four dimensional space-time and hints that suggest some more "dimensions" may also exist this implies that the universe has always existed in one form or another it's just that we havent got the full model right yet.

I have some ideas that are worth thinking about but they are best placed on the new theories board.  Ihave already posted some under the subject heading of "evolutionary cosmology"  but it might be an idea to start a new topic
 

lyner

  • Guest
The word Shiboleth seems to apply to the way people include 'time' in a sentence. They can't seem to discuss time without talking in terms of time itself. You shouldn't have to use words like 'before', which is a temporal description and  carries baggage with it which can cloud the issue. The whole question has to be discussed as if we were looking at it from 'outside' time.
Discontinuities may not be aesthetically pleasing but you can't discount them without very good reason. Gut feelings about time don't count any more than gut feelings about God when you're trying to be scientific.
If time is regarded as partly Scalar, unlike the other familiar dimensions which have magnitude and direction, then you can accept only 'magnitude' without getting upset about the lack of negative values.
Would we be having the same problem with Negative Entropy (I.e. Beyond total orderdness) ?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
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




No, time couldn't have existed before big bang, because then space would have had to have existed, since space and time are a single entity.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
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.

There is no outside to the universe, according to relativity.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

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

There is no outside to the universe, according to relativity.

But we know that relativity isn't the last word.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
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.

There is no outside to the universe, according to relativity.

But we know that relativity isn't the last word.

Well, not just relativity. Also every known theory concerning such a subject.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
It depends how you define universe. If you define it as everything that exists, then your statement is correct. However, it could be taken to mean just our universe in which case there could be a higher dimensional bulk outside of it.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
It depends how you define universe. If you define it as everything that exists, then your statement is correct. However, it could be taken to mean just our universe in which case there could be a higher dimensional bulk outside of it.

You do mean string theory don't you(?), where possibly our universe is floating around in a multidimensional swimming pool...

...i hate string theory. I think its a waste of time.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2008 04:46:01 by Mr. Scientist »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
I partly agree with your opinions about the excesses of string theory and agree that persuing it without keeping a good grip on real universe physics could lead to a lot of time wasting.  However I believe strongly that it does have a lot to offer once we look seriously how the physical conditions in our universe might relate to it.  I have given several suggestions as to how this may be approached elsewhere.  The singularities and point particles of physics without strings clearly do not make sense.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
That's a bit like getting a 1000-peice puzzle, and getting the edges of the puzzle together, and the peices that form from the outside makes loads of pictures in the centre.... problem is, the picture it paints may not even refer to this reality, and without observational corrolation, there is worst yet to come, because then the math could be explaining some other universe in Everetts multiverse theory.

So without observational evidence, (which is zero so-far, concerning the amount of years string theory has taken from the acadamia), we have a jig-saw puzzle partially complete, and theories have just been made more complex. Whatever happened to the day, we physicists just took the simple theories first, instead of all this superfluous adventure into a purely mathematical hypothesis?
« Last Edit: 31/12/2008 11:25:29 by Mr. Scientist »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
It depends how you define universe. If you define it as everything that exists, then your statement is correct. However, it could be taken to mean just our universe in which case there could be a higher dimensional bulk outside of it.

You do mean string theory don't you(?), where possibly our universe is floating around in a multidimensional swimming pool...

...i hate string theory. I think its a waste of time.

Not necessarily string theory. There are particle physics theories that postulate a higher dimensional bulk.
 

Offline akhenaten

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
My understanding is that at the "big bang" time, space and matter came into existence. And that matter affects time/space and creates gravity. The universe is expanding (into what?) and is presumably creating space and time as it expands. There can be countless theories about the relationships between these three things (time,space and matter) but why are there three things, or two things if you count space/time as one and matter as the other rather that just one? A second related problem I have in understanding the "Big Bang" and related concepts is why is it that if mass make depressions in time/space (gravity) presumably they are on the same plane, making the idea of the universe flat? Maybe I just don't understand?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
So "Time" is not just a method to mesure a period from one circumstanne to another but is also the very space that we live in..i.e. the space between my face and the monitor is not just a measure of distance but is an element of ' time ' too ?.......so...maybe ' time' has many facets ?


You see, I had this inital issue that with the physical expansion to occur, then without  'time  ' it would have remained frozen. This is why I had this thought that the notion of 'time' had to exist prior to allow the physicality of the universe to manifest.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
My understanding is that at the "big bang" time, space and matter came into existence. And that matter affects time/space and creates gravity. The universe is expanding (into what?) and is presumably creating space and time as it expands. There can be countless theories about the relationships between these three things (time,space and matter) but why are there three things, or two things if you count space/time as one and matter as the other rather that just one? A second related problem I have in understanding the "Big Bang" and related concepts is why is it that if mass make depressions in time/space (gravity) presumably they are on the same plane, making the idea of the universe flat? Maybe I just don't understand?

We can't speak of any physical properties without including time. All measurements I know of is made 'in time'. The idea I adhere to (nowadays:) is seeing gravity as a expression by the 'symmetry' of 'space' and 'mass'. Maybe it should be called 'density' instead? What I'm pretty sure we have, is those 'states', vacuum, light, particles, dead and living matter. Those to me imply some sort of transition, without noone would be there to appreciate 'spacetime'.

As for how gravity 'warps' space, that also is a strange subject, It seems a 'three dimensional' effect that also contains a 'propagation'. So, to see it 'two dimensionally' you have to imagine the effect as a innumerable amount of two dimensional planes stacked upon each other, but that won't describe the three dimensional effects of gravity.

If we had a two dimensional universe, the propagation should only 'travel' on a 'plane' but it doesn't, does it :) It is free to move any sphere like direction. To me it's nearer to a strange Jello :) consisting of all our 'spacetime' and with all matter in it. The Earth f ex. could then be seen as something stressing that Jello, with all other 'mass' included too. The difference here being that the 'stress' is equally placed all around Earth expressing itself like a 'slope', from any direction you might choose in space. When standing on earth you are constantly falling towards it, and the Earth to a smaller degree is falling towards you.

So to my eyes QM is a perfect example of those transitions, as time loses its arrow there. And 'matter' and vacuum is another, I can't prove it but I think those two are needed both for time to have an arrow, If I'm correct then there should be a 'transition' between 'particles' and matter, that give us this 'arrow of time' that create the possibility for living matter. If that arrow didn't exist :) we might be 'enlightened' but we wouldn't have any 'causality chain' making it possible to manipulate 'forces' as we do, ah, I think :). And that would indeed be a 'magical universe', as seen from where we stand in our 'spacetime'.

----
Although there might exist the possibility of imagining a two dimensional 'reality' created somewhat like a innumerable amount of angled 'planes' bound into 'X:s' in all 'directions', creating our three dimensional 'spherical' 'space time'. But that doesn't seem like an simpler approach, and should be testable if so, ah, hopefully that is :)
« Last Edit: 29/03/2009 20:50:33 by yor_on »
 

Offline GB Randolph

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Time is easily understood. Time is the MEASUREMENT of matter moving from one spot to another spot in space. That's all it is. Thus time can only occur in a universe that has space, energy and matter. The major thing paradoxical is that you have non-spatial, non-dimensional spiritual beings (you me and thee) who are TIME-LESS, but stuck in this material universe. The other irony is that WE created time and continue to do so. Time only has relevency to living things
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Neil
Great topic. You, we, are not the first to be confused about time...
From http://www.integralscience.org/abouttime.html [nofollow]

"St. Augustine has written perhaps the most eloquent prose about the mystery of time. In his humble and brilliant perplexity, he asks,

'For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who can even comprehend it in thought or put the answer into words? Yet is it not true that in conversation we refer to nothing more familiarly or knowingly than time? And surely we understand it when we speak of it; we understand it also when we hear another speak of it. What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know.' (Confessions, 11, XIV, 17)"
 

Offline tommya300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
    • View Profile
We watch time, when, a sequence of events start end.
We watch time, a Duration of pivot mechanics drawn through a cycle.
We watch time, as buds blossom flowers bloom.
We watch time, as material objects decay and fall apart.
We watch time, as an unsettling voyage through life’s journey
Time’s voyage is experienced by everything in the Universe.
But it is only recognized, compared and numerically defined, simultaneously by the self aware Human Species.
No other living thing wears a Timex.
 Everything else seems to depend on their individual particular unique sequence of events that is timing, moment of timing.
All living things that walk this earth, that does not wear a watch may depend on instinct associated with moments of the timing. 
Man made it easier by define time for easier communication sense, “Because time stands still for no man.”
On the first day, Let there be light? 14 billion years later someone sees the light. And discovers that 6th day was a mess, there most of been a time gap measurement related to the first day.

Everything has always had a frequency then everything has had and alway have time. Just the man made count of on and off will not be there to record for communication.

 Look what passing time out, could get you!


.


.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 17:02:38 by tommya300 »
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
From the 4th century with Augustine let's move forward to the 20th. It's about time.
In 1976 three college students, Rik, Barry & Tony discussed 'time'. Because one of them had to submit an essay on the subject of time, for background and research, he tape recorded the dialogue:

Rik: Have you guys ever thought about time?
Barry: Yeah.
Tony: I thought about it.
Rik: Think about time, okay. What is it? What is time?
Tony: I don't know.
Barry: Eh. Time is just a collection of human...listen, this is gonna sound good, boy! See, time is just a  collection of human experiences combined so that they make a long, flowing stream of thought.

Interesting, don't you think? The 'Barry' above, as he was known way back then among his peers, is in fact now better known as the President of the USA, Barrack Obama.

From a biography:
The Bridge. The Life and Rise of Barrack Obama.
by David Remnick.
Picador 2010





 
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums