[guest45734]

So, there were a few things before the BB? 

Space and at least one additional dimension.  If it was an additional dimension, there must have been something to which it was "additional".

So, have we reached a point where you are saying there was something before the BB?

What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.

What do you think time came from, do you believe the BB happened, or do you have another opinion.

If you want to take this further then it might be instructive to browse the following article. Where ER=EPR.

"Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles (even though they were separated) or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.

The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation of an effect propagating instantly across a distance is in conflict with the theory of relativity. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since its formalism does not permit hidden parameters."

One additional dimension connecting all points in space and time would allow for non local information transfer and instantaneous waveform collapse. This would not violate relativity as the information transfer does not travel through space time. Entangled particles themselves travel through space time at max c, the information entangled particles contain can pass between entangled particles by another dimension which is not space time instantly. They are still connected until they are forced to decohere.

The wave functions of wave particle duality exist at all points in space including black holes. Does the wave of wave functions exist in an additional dimension and manifest in space time as particles.

[Colin2B]

One additional dimension connecting all points in space and time would allow for non local information transfer and instantaneous waveform collapse.

If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.
Really fixated on your theory of an extra dimension explaining all?  You seem to want to bring it into all discussions

[guest45734]

Really fixated on your theory of an extra dimension explaining all?  You seem to want to bring it into all discussions

Sorry I just did it again on another thread, what space is intrigues me. Extra dimensions explain a lot of things to flat landers, an extra none spacial dimension, unless I am completely barking mad, which is not impossible, seem to imply another connecting dimension/membrane existing outside of space time. String theory has extra dimensions including a membrane, to explain the universe. I dont see a problem with one extra dimension, let alone 13 from M theory, it may go some way to explaining dark matter, dark energy, spooky entanglement etc. An additional long range gravitational force transmitted via an additional dimension could explain a hell of a lot.

At the beginnings of time I think it boils down to what is space, what caused the expansion, was it inevitable because space is as you stated on another thread unstable.

[guest45734]

If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.

entangled particles decohere easily, if disturbed/measured etc. entangled photons are created together are they not? The BB  was, if it was correct very hot, this would not have lended itself to photons or any particles being created remaining entangled.

[jeffreyH]

If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.

[Bill S (OP)]

What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.

This is where a lot of troubles come in.  Nothing is exactly that: nothing.  Anything else is something, no matter how close to nothing it may seem to be.

One of my favourite quotes is L. Krauss: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”

[Colin2B]

These papers contradict the idea the Inflation has an eternal past, i.e. it takes the position that Eternal Inflation might not be eternal (A. H. Guth Inflationary Theory). Both papers make multiple references to A. H. Guth’s papers on Eternal Inflation.

Yes, this is Alan Guth’s early paper which I thought @Bill S  might like to see, it gives an idea of the types of argument being put forward.
Since then there have been a number of papers some supporting others offering alternatives. Big work in progress, lots of very detailed analysis, not a top level subject.

It is possible ( ) that gravity is caused by the absorption of space/quantum foam also. Following that reasoning inside a BH quantum foam may be absorbed completely creating a void in space time. Before the initial BB event a void in space may have existed that made the BB event/expansion of space inevitable. 

Some of your post is getting off topic in regard to speculations, and might be too close to ideas that are generally better addressed in New Theories.

Yes, I think too many speculations are getting into a number of these topics when they really ought to be discussed in New Theories. We don’t want to limit anyone unless necessary so please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

What I described is about as close as I can be to describing "nothing" without describing an already existing infinite mass/energy.

This is where a lot of troubles come in.  Nothing is exactly that: nothing.  Anything else is something, no matter how close to nothing it may seem to be.

One of my favourite quotes is L. Krauss: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”

If you look at the Alan Guth paper you will see just how unnothing the vacuum is. Is nothing sacred? 

[Bill S (OP)]

What do you think time came from, do you believe the BB happened, or do you have another opinion.

What I may, or may not, believe has nothing to do with my attempts to understand the Universe or any aspect of it.  IMO, beliefs can be a major impediment to rational thought.

As far as the "origin" of time is concerned, I see a lot that suggests it is just a tool we use to measure perceived change, but I continue to look for evidence/opinions that might indicate otherwise.

The BBT, in one of its modified forms, would seem to be the best working theory we have, at present, I would certainly not argue with it.   

[Bill S (OP)]

If you look at the Alan Guth paper you will see just how unnothing the vacuum is

I seem to have lost the link to this paper. Is it in this thread, somewhere, and I'm missing it? 

Got it!  In the "nothingness" thread.

[Bill S (OP)]

A. Guth’s Paper   https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf

My initial reaction on a quick scan is that it is gratifying when someone of the stature of Guth publishes evidence that supports ideas that are coming to the fore in my own thoughts.

No one will be surprised to learn that I run into terminological pitfalls early in the paper.  Hopefully, we can get those out of the way now, so as to avoid the “infinity/eternity debate” that could take us off topic.

Although inflation is generically eternal into the future,….

If this means anything, it must mean that, as far as we can tell; possibly as far as we will ever be able to tell; inflation has no definable end in the future direction.  It cannot mean that something that is finite/bounded in time suddenly becomes eternal/infinite.

…..it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region.

So, if it is not eternal in one direction, how could it become eternal in the other?

I’ll try to stick to “common usage” of the terms “eternal” and “infinite”, but with the above proviso understood.

[PmbPhy]

Is it just me; or does anyone else see a problem with the idea of time emerging from a situation in which it didn’t previously exist?

Sure. I don't see a problem with that. All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it. Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird. Try speculating on what we now call time as being much different. Time is nice and linear and progresses at a steady rate everywhere. Perhaps the universe wasn't like that before the time we can trace the history of the universe back.

By the way. It seems to be a universal assumption that there was a big bang which started the universe. In fact there is no such event in the Big Bang Theory. Take a look at what my favorite person has to say on this point:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_03.mp4

[jeffreyH]

Repulsive gravity and a false vacuum are very interesting. I need time to read Alan Guth's paper more thoroughly.

[jeffreyH]

One other thing. It is interesting that the false vacuum potential has a profile similar to that of the Higgs potential. A false Higgs anyone?

[Colin2B]

If all points in spacetime were connected then surely all particles would behave as entangled. It would only be reasonable to assume that only particles created together as entangled are connected.

entangled particles decohere easily, if disturbed/measured etc. entangled photons are created together are they not? The BB  was, if it was correct very hot, this would not have lended itself to photons or any particles being created remaining entangled.

That’s what is behind the point I was making. That not all points in spacetime will be connected.
Would need to think whether this is relevant to current thread. I need to go through some of the items in the link @jeffreyH  gave, might take some time.

So, if it is not eternal in one direction, how could it become eternal in the other?

If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.

All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it.

That’s an interesting thought.
When talking about ‘before time’ most people mean before this universe began. You seem to be saying, in this universe but, say before inflation, there might have been a period with ‘time’ but not as we know it (Jim).

[Bill S (OP)]

I don't see a problem with that. All you're speculating on is whether there is a finite age to the universe or whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it.

I have no problem with the idea that our Universe, whether it started with a bang or a whimper, had a beginning, and is therefore finite, within the parameters we can assess. However, I do have serious problems accepting that something came from nothing. 

A couple of questions arising from your quote must be:
Do you see time as something more than a measure of change? 
Is it an entity that exists independently of anything else?
Unless each of us can find, and stick to, answers to those questions, within our own reasoning, we are likely to continue floundering about, using different shades of meaning as suites our arguments at different times.

Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird.

The significant point here is that even “a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them” would involve change.  Perhaps the question we should be asking is not “did time exist before the BB?” but “was change a feature of any scenario that might have existed before the BB?  Here, again, we would need to be clear about our own definition of time.

[Bill S (OP)]

If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.

We’ve been here before, in other threads.  Can you have half of eternity?  I think not; but I’m here to learn, so I’m willing to change my position.

[PmbPhy]

If you are looking from our frame then it could be eternal into the future, but looking back the inflation meets a discontinuity, hence is not eternal.

Absolutely you can. Eternal means "does not end". Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there  and it goes to infinity. But its only half of the real number line. But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.

[Bill S (OP)]

Absolutely you can. Eternal means "does not end".

Turn around Pete. What was the beginning, becomes the end. 
If it were eternal in both directions from a specified point, then there would be equal distance in both directions.  Each would be "half".  Like infinity, half of eternity cannot be eternity. It must be a finite amount. If it is finite it is, in principle, measurable.  Measure it and multiply by 2, and you know the dimensions of eternity/infinity.  This makes no sense to me.
 

Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there  and it goes to infinity.

Mathematically, there may be in infinite number of points, but on more than one occasion, on this forum, people have agreed that infinity is not a number.  I think you may have been one of them.

Whatever you might do mathematically; how can you ascribe any meaning to an infinite number of anything.  It's a contradiction in terms. Either infinity is a number, or it is not.  Is it just convenience that seems to make people want it both ways?

  But its only half of the real number line.

Half of infinity?

But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.

Thanks Pete, you make my point for me.  Time can never be infinite.

See what I've done?  I've answered the question in the OP.  Would that it were as simple as that, though. 

[Colin2B]

Eternal means "does not end". Think of the + side of the real number line, i.e. x> 0. There are an infinite number of points there  and it goes to infinity. But its only half of the real number line. But there will never be a point in time where we can say that time is infinite if that's how time was.

So you are saying eternal refers to the timeline and we can’t differentiate on direction. So although we can have ±∞ there is no ±eternal.

whether there was something before time which wasn't time itself but a precursor to it. Sort of a chaotic scramble of events which had no order to them or something weird. Try speculating on what we now call time as being much different. Time is nice and linear and progresses at a steady rate everywhere. Perhaps the universe wasn't like that before the time we can trace the history of the universe back.

I suppose if the universe was so dense and compact you could envisage spacetime so extremely curved/distorted to the point where it might bend back on itself and all sorts of connections made, or even fragmented.

[geordief]

I suppose if the universe was so dense and compact you could envisage spacetime so extremely curved/distorted to the point where it might bend back on itself and all sorts of connections made, or even fragmented.

Would it be the (spacetime) model that  broke down rather than necessarily what it was attempting to model ?

Not to say that what was being attempted to model might not in fact break down somehow , just that the spacetime model could give no information regarding it.

Actually I thought that quantum models had a completely different approach to time than classical ones (don't ask me about it, though)