Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: neilep on 21/10/2008 13:37:47
-
Dear H G Wells-ologists,
See my clock ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
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
-
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]
-
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.?
-
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?
-
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 ?
-
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 !
-
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 !!
-
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.
-
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..
-
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 clock says it is 1:31.. not 6:08!
-
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"?
-
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]
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
That's why I put "time" in inverted commas. Without some kind of chronological order, everything would happen at once.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
erm... yeah... what LeeE said [???]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...but having three spatial dimensions is important for a long lived universe
But isn't that just saying that a universe with a different number of spatial dimensions has to have different laws?
Also, don't just think down to < 3 spatial dimensions - you've got to think up to > 3 as well.
-
Yes but changes from the number of extended dimensions of three space and one of time in either direction result in gravitational orbits not being stable because three space dimensions result in an inverse square law in which a two body orbit can be stable against quite large disturbances. If you change the inverse square law by even a tiny bit you can produce an orbit in a two body system but the slightest disturbance will cause that orbit to become unstable and not last for a long time.
You can however have a many extra compacted dimensions you like
-
I think you're still applying 4D space-time laws to non-4D space-time environments and the point is that spacetime environments with other than four dimensions would need different laws. Saying that less than four-dimensional space cannot exist because it doesn't conform to 4D-spacetime rules is like saying apples can't exist because they're not oranges. Saying that greater than 4D spacetime can exist only if the other dimensions are treated differently is like saying apples can only exist if you buy them at a particular store. In either case, there needs to be a reason why different solutions, to what is really a simple hierarchic system, are treated so differently. Claiming that only one level in the hierarchy is possible because only that level works with that level's rules doesn't really seem like a valid arguement to me.
-
Doesn't the definition of spatial and temporal dimensions depend on their geometric properties? In other words, space dimensions behave one way, and time another, and their interaction is defined in a geometric way by general relativity. If you assume these same relations hold and change the number of dimensions, the universe as we know it isn't stable.
I believe that lot of extensions of GR (string theory, for example) include extra dimensions by assuming they don't have the properties of spatial/time dimensions.
-
I think it depends on who you ask [:)]
This comes back to saying that we appear to be able to move freely through the spatial dimensions but not through the temporal dimension. However, it's not as simple as that. While it seems that we cannot move freely back and forth along the temporal dimension this must be qualified - that is to say we cannot move backwards in time while our personal time-frame continues moving forward, which is what most people think of when talking about going back in time. In absolute terms, what you did last week is still happening last week, and if you were to go back to last week you wouldn't be aware of the fact unless your personal time-frame continued going forward while you were going backwards i.e. you'd actually end up being a week older than you were a week ago.
Yes, the time dimension appears to be different, from our point of view, to the spatial dimensions but saying exactly how and why is very difficult to put your finger on, although I personally think that phenomenon like time dilation give an insight to how the spatial and temporal dimensions are essentially equivalent and their appearance and behaviour depends upon your point of view (not only from what you're doing but also from how many dimensions you're observing from). It's a bit like not being able to see the forest because of the trees - we can only see it from inside, whereas we really need to see it from outside to definitively answer this.
Purely personally, I don't like solutions where anything other than three spatial dimensions has to be treated differently without a clear reason for doing so, even when those solutions provide some good answers. Sure, those solutions are worth studying and refining, and we learn and gain new insights from them, but they hardly seem to be unified if they add new abstracts - new clauses that cannot be expressed in related lower order solutions.
-
The simple point is that less than three dimensions and there isn't room for anything to develop. Two dimensions gives a simple inverse law of power fall of with distance. Three dimensions of space gives an inverse square law of power fall off and four dimensions of space an inverse cube law.
-
The simple point is that less than three dimensions and there isn't room for anything to develop. Two dimensions gives a simple inverse law of power fall of with distance. Three dimensions of space gives an inverse square law of power fall off and four dimensions of space an inverse cube law.
Isn't that only true if the dimensions are the same size?
-
Same size? please explain what you mean. dimensions can either be large and extended to infinity (or the size of the universe) or curled up incredibly tiny and cyclic I am not sure that a halfway position makes any sense.
-
There are theories of warped extra dimensions that allow them to be up to 0.1mm in diameter. That is something that is to be tested with the LHC.
If 1 dimension is that size and the others are compactified to, say, the Planck scale, there would not be a consistent dilution of gravity through all dimensions. It would dilute more in the large dimension.
-
SoulSurfer - you still seem to be doggedly applying 4D laws to non-4D situations, and what is more, some of these 4D laws don't always hold to be true in our 4D space-time. For example, the angles of a triangle always add up to 180, yeah? Well this only works in flat space-time - plot a triangle in the curved space-time near a black-hole, equivalent to plotting it on a sphere, and the sum of the angles will always be greater than 180. There is no flat space-time in our universe and any laws that depend on it being so will always be very slightly wrong.
-
INTERLUDE ANNOUNCEMENT
Thanks for the fascinating posts all !
END OF INTERLUDE
-
INTERLUDE ANNOUNCEMENT
Thanks for the fascinating posts all !
END OF INTERLUDE
OI... I didn't have time to get an ice-cream! [:(!]
-
INTERLUDE ANNOUNCEMENT
Thanks for the fascinating posts all !
END OF INTERLUDE
OI... I didn't have time to get an ice-cream! [:(!]
Sorry for the short interlude !
I didn't want to upset the flow of the thread...here..have this on me !
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Have it on you? You think I'm depraved? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fangry2%2F11.gif&hash=ef77c6e2d50d42acd17192a634104bfe)
-
Have it on you? You think I'm depraved? (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fangry2%2F11.gif&hash=ef77c6e2d50d42acd17192a634104bfe)
LOL..I kind of walked into that one....would I be more attractive ....if it ....was hummus ?
-
No.
-
Ice-cream - yummy [;D]
-
LeeE you seem to be accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying. Your original question concerned how the fundamental laws of an understandable universe would vary as a function of the number of extended dimensions that the universe occupied. I have been trying to explain to you the answer to this question.
-
Any misunderstandings on my part are accidental - I'm certainly not trying to wind anyone up. Umm... I haven't asked any questions, except rhetorical ones - I think? Made quite a few statements, but no questions that I recall.
NeilP asked the original question, regarding the need for time to exist before the Big-Bang.
I think our discussion started when you said:
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.
...and that's when I said:
...but having three spatial dimensions is important for a long lived universe
But isn't that just saying that a universe with a different number of spatial dimensions has to have different laws?
Also, don't just think down to < 3 spatial dimensions - you've got to think up to > 3 as well.
The problem I have with some of what you say is that, for example, citing the need for inverse-square laws presupposes that energy has the same structure and form in less than or greater than 4D space-times, which seems impossible to me. If the energy is different to energy as we know it, it will be unlikely to be governed by the same laws that we know.
Let's say that energy in 5D space-time looks like a 3D solid to us (entirely debatable, of course) - how then, does the inverse-square law work with a solid? Is a 4D solid in 5D space-time still convertible to energy according to e=mc^2?
-
LeeE - it is possible that elementary particles exist in more than 3 spatial dimensions (string theory, for instance). Therefore, your question "Is a 4D solid in 5D space-time still convertible to energy according to e=mc^2?" is irrelevant.
-
One of the fundamental requirements of an understandable universe is to have physical laws that are not dependant on (time, see below) your position or your orientation (in an empty universe). This implies that the universe obeys the conservation of energy and the conservation of angular momentum. This in turn implies that as the energy spreads out in three dimensions the surface area depends on the square of the distance form the source. therefore fields follow an inverse square law. In fact in a general understandable universe with n dimensions the energy law is an inverse n-1 law.
These are totally fundamental requirements and independent of most of the detailed physical laws.
-
Just to correct you slightly, Soul Surfer, independence of physical laws on time gets you conservation of energy, while independence on position gets you conservation of momentum.
-
Obviously. I forgot to state that. Thanks for the correction.
-
DoctorBeaver: only possibly irrelevant, I think [:)]
-
SoulSurfer: Key word
understandable
You still seem to be arguing that the only valid laws are the ones that apply to 4D space-time, which naturally apply to 4D space-time, and which don't apply to non-4D space-times.
Otherwise, I surrender.
-
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.
-
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:)
-
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
-
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) ?
-
Dear H G Wells-ologists,
See my clock ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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
-
Neil
Great topic. You, we, are not the first to be confused about time...
From http://www.integralscience.org/abouttime.html
"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)"
-
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!
.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
.
-
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
-
Kind of love this
More of it
Don't have to be 'right'
But make us think