[neilep (OP)]

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

[LeeE]

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 []

[lyner]

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.?

[lightarrow]

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?

[neilep (OP)]

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 []

Yes,  Perfectly clear !! [] 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 ?

[neilep (OP)]

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 !

[neilep (OP)]

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

As LeeE and sophiecentaur wrote, in our universe is not possible to have a time before the Big Bang, meant as "The beginning of our Universe"; if the universe began there, then the existence of a previous instant would mean that was not "The beginning"!

BUT...

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

Thank ewe lightarrow .

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

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

Thanks for the article...nice !!

[lyner]

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.

[Karen W.]

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..

[Don_1]

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?

[Karen W.]

That clock says it is 1:31.. not 6:08!

[DoctorBeaver]

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"?

[neilep (OP)]

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  []

[neilep (OP)]

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 !

[thelastman]

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.

[DoctorBeaver]

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]

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.

[DoctorBeaver]

That's why I put "time" in inverted commas. Without some kind of chronological order, everything would happen at once.

[thelastman]

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.
 

[DoctorBeaver]

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!  []