Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: neilep on 23/10/2016 20:38:28
-
Hi all,
Sheepy here !...how are ewe ?..Im fine thanks !
great, small talk out the way eh ?
Time, its great innit !!...loads of it and yet never enuff too !!!..whats that all about eh ?
Do you think Time had to be created first so that the Universe could expand ?....because, well, without Time already insitu everything kind of comes to a halt innit ?
whajafink ?
Did Time Happen First ?
Hugs et les shmisheys
mwah mwah mwah
Neil
xxxxxxxxx
Period, Moments, Junctures and Time
Are terms of Instances to complete this Rhyme
-
Appropriate question.
We cannot even question things without time as our bias. I think things begin with absolute nothingness and yet at such a ?place? time itself is not there. Yet in this sense, as soon as time is in play, all the essential laws exist and so it seems we have to default to some 'laws' when considering interpreting reality through time.
The 'singularity' of the Big Bang too is that which represents a point many believe is the beginning of time. Yet if we are to beg we only BE "scientific", are we not supposed to only judge reality based upon our limitation of perceiving time? And if so, while it may 'temporarily' appear that there is an origin of time, since we cannot SPEAK of anything outside of it concerning observation, should we not treat the singularity and the theory such logic is based on with suspicion. Should we not treat the Big Bang itself UNSCIENTIFIC because it is treating the act of an interpretation of our active senses about some origin as a point absent of time, as mistaken, UNLESS we allow metaphysical interpretation and logic to be a PART in equal significance to inspecting reality.
At present, it is more logical to assume the 'origin' at some singularity as an "approach", similar to how Calculus treats a limit. Then we have to prefer those theories based on no finite 'state' as metaphysics, not physics. This is where I believe the Big Bang fits suitably based merely on logic alone.
-
Did Time Happen First ?
The notion of things happening "first" or "second" implies that we have a unidirectional notion of time.
Reactions at the level of two subatomic particles appear to be bidirectional in time, so they don't require a concept of time.
But we mostly recognize time by the direction in which matter increases in entropy. And interactions of three or more particles seem to have a "natural" direction in which entropy increases.
So while time must have come first, it's unclear how we would recognize it unless matter also existed at the same time.
-
Ouch :)
give me more time please, I'm hungry
there are some ideas where you can read a Feynman diagram 'both ways' as I remember. Then again, up here at the macroscopic level I doubt anyone to dispute the direction of 'time'. Although I know of at least one guy waiting, until his death, for this illusion to fall. A really clever guy working at the same university as Einstein.
If you look at it 'relativistically' then SpaceTime is a whole concept, so I'm not sure one can say what came 'first'?