Why Did Time Have to Exist At The Commencement Of The Big Bang ?

  • 69 Replies
  • 27970 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Dear H G Wells-ologists,

See my clock ?


[attachment=4963]

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


Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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]
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

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
  • ******
  • 4586
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • 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 ?
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • 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 !
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • 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 !!

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

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!
  • *****
  • 31660
  • "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. »

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • 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?
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • 31660
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
That clock says it is 1:31.. not 6:08!

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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"?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • 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]
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • 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 !
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline thelastman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
erm... yeah... what LeeE said  [???]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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 »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Quote
...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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2008 01:56:38 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
INTERLUDE ANNOUNCEMENT

Thanks for the fascinating posts all !

END OF INTERLUDE
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
INTERLUDE ANNOUNCEMENT

Thanks for the fascinating posts all !

END OF INTERLUDE


OI... I didn't have time to get an ice-cream!  [:(!]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
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 !

[attachment=5132]



Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Have it on you? You think I'm depraved?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Have it on you? You think I'm depraved?

LOL..I kind of walked into that one....would I be more attractive ....if it ....was hummus  ?

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
No.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Ice-cream - yummy [;D]
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2008 23:14:53 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
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:

Quote
...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?
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2008 23:09:42 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
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. 

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Obviously. I forgot to state that. Thanks for the correction.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
DoctorBeaver:  only possibly irrelevant, I think  [:)]
« Last Edit: 05/11/2008 05:48:50 by LeeE »
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
SoulSurfer:  Key word
Quote
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.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!