[neilep (OP)]

Dear Time-ologists,


When the big bang happened last Tuesday 'Time' would have had to exist first yes for the events to occur agreed ? even for a zillionth of a zillionth of a second yes ? So. what was the mechanism that enabled time to exist if time did not exist in the first place. I imagine there had to be something that caused Time to happen, but, whatever caused it to happen must have used some time to make it so !!


Help a confused wooly ruminant will ewe ?




I asked my neighbour and he just remained static in the freezer where I left him last year, so, no luck there and certainly no cooperation !!..how rude , sitting there ignoring me like that!!




Thank ewe




Neil xx

[Halc]

This is a philosophical topic and probably belongs in Just-Chat rather than physics.

When the big bang happened last Tuesday 'Time' would have had to exist first yes for the events to occur agreed ?

If the big bang did not occur at the beginning of time, then sure. As far as I know, it isn't wrong to discuss time on the other side of the big bang event, although since it is not necessarily ordered there, the word 'before' or the tense 'would have had to' may not be applicable.

So. what was the mechanism that enabled time to exist if time did not exist in the first place.

If there is time on the other side of the big bang event, then it exists there, and the big bang is just an event in time.  The big bang then would not in any way be the beginning or creation of time, just the creation of our particular bubble of stuff.

I imagine there had to be something that caused Time to happen

That wording, and the title of this topic, make no sense.  For time to have been created, to come into existence, there would have to be a time when there wasn't time, which is self-contradictory. By the same argument, not even God can create time since by definition there could not be a time before he did that.

If the universe is contained within time, then the universe can be a created thing (an object among others). No viable model of physics models the universe as an object contained within time. That idea fell apart with Newton's vision over a century ago. Religions posit such a thing.

But if time is part of that universe, then the universe cannot be a created thing since there is no part of the universe before the universe. All the consensus theories have time having equal ontological footing with space, which is why it's called spacetime and not space and time.

[CPT ArkAngel]

The Universe is supposed to have started at the lowest entropy level. What that means is the symmetry was maximal just before the big bang. As a good analogy, you may represent this lowest form of entropy of the Universe as a sphere. If it was a perfect sphere, why would it bang? You must conclude that the ball had a bump in it, a basic and fundamental bump in the universe which is the source of time. In the end, we owe our existence to fundamental asymmetries. If the universe was totally symmetrical, it would annihilate and nothing would be left.

The Universe has always existed, unless there is an external agent which has created the ball and the bump... I think the Universe is much simpler that what we imagine.

[neilep (OP)]

This is a philosophical topic and probably belongs in Just-Chat rather than physics.

Thank you for your very thought provoking answer. Please feel free to move this topic.

[Bill S]

This is a philosophical topic and probably belongs in Just-Chat rather than physics.

Can’t agree with that.  Philosophy might attempt to explain why we are here.  (good luck with that). 
This addresses the question as to how we can be here. Wouldn’t that be fundamental to scientific thought?

As far as I know, it isn't wrong to discuss time on the other side of the big bang event,

In fact, if time cannot be created, it becomes a necessity, if one wants to question our origin.

… since it is not necessarily ordered there, the word 'before' or the tense 'would have had to' may not be applicable.

For time to have been created, to come into existence, there would have to be a time when there wasn't time, which is self-contradictory

So, something, including time (?) must always have “existed”, and is, therefore, eternal.  In which case, 'before' and 'would have had to' cannot be applicable, unless eternity is a length of time.  That’s where it gets interesting.

[Bill S]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72126.msg530896#msg530896

"Mefinks" we've been here before.

[alancalverd]

When the big bang happened last Tuesday 'Time' would have had to exist first yes for the events to occur agreed ?

No.
Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless. If there were no events before the BB, time did not pre-exist the events that occurred thereafter.

[Halc]

This is a philosophical topic

Can’t agree with that.  Philosophy might attempt to explain why we are here.  (good luck with that). 

Philosophy covers much more than just that one topic.

In fact, if time cannot be created, it becomes a necessity, if one wants to question our origin.

Our origin isn't the problem.  Cloud cools. Planet condenses out of that. Life forms. Poof: our origin explained. OK, those are processes, so I agree that time is necessary for that, but I wasn't discussing the necessity of time to explain the our origin. We're temporal things, so time is necessarily in the recipe.
I was discussing the application of the verb 'create' as it relates to time. Time cannot be created per my stance. It isn't an object or other contained thing like anything that can said to be created.

So, something, including time (?) must always have “existed”, and is, therefore, eternal.

'Always existed' means essentially existing 'at all times', so yes, I agree that time exists at all times. That's kind of a tautology. It doesn't imply that time is unbounded at either end. There are known cases for instance where time stops, such as at the center of a black hole. It is bounded at the other end at the big bang iff you consider that event to be the beginning of 'time as we know it'. There may be something on the other side, but it isn't necessarily ordered, measured in seconds, meters, light speed, or any of the properties unique to our spacetime.

Technically, even that time didn't start until after the inflation epoch. I always wondered about what it meant for space to expand 2x each tiny fraction of a second. How is a second meaningful at that stage? There's no light, matter, or any regular process by which time can be meaningful. But maybe that's just me being ignorant.

[Bill S]

Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless.

Agreed.  Would you consider it correct to interpret this as implying that time has no independent existence?

If there were no events before the BB, time did not pre-exist the events that occurred thereafter.

This leaves a major question unanswered.  If there were no events and on time before the BB, how could the BB have happened?

[Colin2B]

Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless.

Agreed.  Would you consider it correct to interpret this as implying that time has no independent existence?

Cows occupy fields. If cows did not exist the concept of real cows would be meaningless, but fields would not cease to exist.
We measure and experience time through change ie sequential events. If there were no sequential events then there would be no experience or measurement of time, but there is no evidence in physics that time would cease to exist.
This is the very sort of discussion that @Halc is suggesting is philosophical, because the speculation is not based on physics. We can say a great deal about the behaviour of time based on physics, but almost nothing on its origin, or even if it had one.

[Bill S]

Philosophy covers much more than just that one topic.

Perhaps you are assuming I said something I didn't.  In any event, this would take us way off topic..

Our origin isn't the problem.  Cloud cools. Planet condenses out of that. Life forms. Poof: our origin explained.

All these things require time.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the OP asked how time came into existence.

Possibly my use of the words “our origin” caused confusion.  In the context of the OP, I rashly assumed that this would be interpreted as the origin of the Universe, or the cosmos, or whatever title one might wish to attach to a point to which the OP’s question might be relevant.

I always wondered about what it meant for space to expand 2x each tiny fraction of a second. How is a second meaningful at that stage? There's no light, matter, or any regular process by which time can be meaningful. But maybe that's just me being ignorant.

I would hesitate to impute ignorance to someone of your manifest capabilities. 

If space is expanding, then either space = nothing; which makes no sense; or something is changing, which requires time.  Seconds are what we choose to call specific divisions of time, so a second must be meaningful.

[Bill S]

Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless.

Cows occupy fields. If cows did not exist the concept of real cows would be meaningless, but fields would not cease to exist.

Your analogy would work well if cows were defined as being causally related to the existence of fields.

Lets go back to the OP.  “How did time come into existence?” 

If I answered that by saying: “It couldn’t have come into existence, because that would necessitate change, and therefore, time by which the sequential (before and after) events could be separated”; would that be non-scientific?

[alancalverd]

Cows and fields exist independently. The space between cows, whether they are in a field, on the road or in a barn, has no meaning if there are no cows, and the distance between cows is not a function of the surface they are standing on, but of the social predilections of cows.  The sequential events of "cow walking past observer" are separated by time.

As to how the Big Bang occurred, my own theory is that it was a spontaneous separation of "real" particles with positive mass   and "unreal" particles with negative mass. The beauty of this theory is that as the sum of mass is zero, you don't need anything to preexist the BB, and as real and unreal particles can't interact, the observable universe can expand, coalesce into planets, and do any damn thing it likes, possibly without having to invoke dark matter and multidimensional strings.

[Bill S]

Alan, there are points to which I hope to return, but in the meantime, could you say something enlightening about "unreal" particles with negative mass, please?

[alancalverd]

I just hypothesise a set of elementary particles that mirror the real ones, but have negative mass. This means, inter alia, that they will gravitationally repel real particles and cannot even approach real particles under electrostatic attraction since a "positive" force will make them move in the opposite direction.

The only way we could infer the presence of an unreal particle is if two real particles spontaneously move apart due to the presence of an unreal particle between them. Which is just what we observe in the expanding universe.

[Halc]

This leaves a major question unanswered.  If there were no events and on time before the BB, how could the BB have happened?

'Happened' is a verb tense that simply suggests that it occurred prior to some reference event, typically the moment the statement is made.  So how could the BB have preceded this post?  I know of no theory that suggests that the BB occurs after this post. Nobody orders events that way.

OK, so you probably didn't mean that, in which case the tense is misleading. Let's try again.

How can the big bang happen?  Things 'happen' in the course of the flow of time, so it implies such a flow, and thus is a problem I suppose for those that suggest such a flow. If time flows, but is finite, what got it going?  That's a real conundrum, but not my problem, since I don't suggest time flows. It's a problem for those who do suggest such a thing (and for whom that choice of verb tense makes sense).

All these things require time.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the OP asked how time came into existence.

Yes, it did. Coming of anything into existence requires time, so it is contradictory for time to come into existence. It exists or it doesn't, but 'coming into existence' is 'becoming', which is a process, and process requires time. It would be like God creating himself, or somebody being her own mother.
*resists urge to link to I'm my own grandpa song*

Possibly my use of the words “our origin” caused confusion.  In the context of the OP, I rashly assumed that this would be interpreted as the origin of the Universe, or the cosmos, or whatever title one might wish to attach to a point to which the OP’s question might be relevant.

You mean the origin of the event (be it BB or not) that bounds finite time in that direction. In such a case, there would be an initial condition. If it was originated/caused in any way, then it isn't the initial event, and there's a bigger cosmos responsible for it, and the universe is reduced to a simple temporal object in that larger cosmos, leaving the question unanswered. My answer is simple: there may be an initial event. It did not 'happen', and was not created. It just is, if you so assert. Creation and happening is for objects, and it is a category error to apply such language to a non-object like the Universe.

BTW, I'm a relativist, so 'it just is' means it has a relationship with something. A realist would hold the more traditional interpretation of those words as 'the universe has the property of existence', and one can argue if other things like unicorns and the number 13 also have that property or not.

If space is expanding, then either space = nothing; which makes no sense; or something is changing, which requires time.

Right. Something is definitely changing during inflation. I just don't know how they map the duration of that change to anything meaningful like 'seconds' or any of the other things I mentioned.

Seconds are what we choose to call specific divisions of time, so a second must be meaningful.

It's meaningful now when it is born of a specific fraction of a day, but there was no spinning objects (Earth, cesium atom, or any other regular process) to which a second can be mapped. But I'm just some guy in a chair, not a cosmologist who might be able to explain the meaning there.

[Malamute Lover]

, or somebody being her own mother.
*resists urge to link to I'm my own grandpa song*

Being already embroiled in several other threads and trying to find the time to create another, I will restrict my comments at this time to noting that the song I'm my own grandpa plays on the jukebox in Heinlein’s short story All You Zombies. This story concerns a gender changing time traveler who is her/his own parents.

[Bill S]

'Happened' is a verb tense that simply suggests that it occurred prior to some reference event,

That doesn’t remove the “action” from the verb.  “it occurred” suggests that there was an element of change involved, rather than stating that it was an eternally “existing”, unchanging entity. 

So how could the BB have preceded this post? 

I don’t understand the question.  I would certainly not suggest that this was posted prior to the BB. 

How can the big bang happen?  Things 'happen' in the course of the flow of time, so it implies such a flow, and thus is a problem I suppose for those that suggest such a flow.

We’ve visited “tensed” and “tensless” time before.  There’s a fairly recent one at:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73398.msg545390#msg545390

Neither removes the problems that are relevant to the OP

Coming of anything into existence requires time, so it is contradictory for time to come into existence. It exists or it doesn't, but 'coming into existence' is 'becoming', which is a process, and process requires time

Perhaps there are some things we should accept that we agree on, so we can clear them out of the way before, possibly, addressing the “basics”?

Lots more things to consider in this thread, but duty calls.

[Halc]

Being already embroiled in several other threads and trying to find the time to create another, I will restrict my comments at this time to noting that the song I'm my own grandpa plays on the jukebox in Heinlein’s short story All You Zombies. This story concerns a gender changing time traveler who is her/his own parents.

Yes, I saw the 2014 film Predestination which is an adaptation of that story, and yes, they play that song on a jukebox in the movie.

I'd advise to become less embroiled in troll threads that are perpetuated by those that only wish to push your buttons and have no desire to learn anything. It's a waste of time, and you only encourage them by posting.

That doesn’t remove the “action” from the verb.

Nope. I said it was a comment on the tense. I comment on the action a bit further down.

“it occurred” suggests that there was an element of change involved

Yes, it does suggest that, which is why I balk at it. Temporal change takes time, so if there is no time, it cannot change to there being time.

How time came into existence is only a problem for those who assert that time is something that came into existence. I'm not one of those people, so it's not a problem for me. If your philosophy asserts that it did, then you need to solve that problem, or else your philosophy is not self consistent.

I spent a lot of effort trying to find a philosophy that seems self consistent. I think I did it, but there are other self-consistent views, so I'm in no position to assert my views as being the correct ones. But there seem to be two questions that efficiently cull the field, and this topic is related to one of them. This is the easy question, and I feel it highlights a flaw in any form of realism.

[Malamute Lover]

Being already embroiled in several other threads and trying to find the time to create another, I will restrict my comments at this time to noting that the song I'm my own grandpa plays on the jukebox in Heinlein’s short story All You Zombies. This story concerns a gender changing time traveler who is her/his own parents.

Yes, I saw the 2014 film Predestination which is an adaptation of that story, and yes, they play that song on a jukebox in the movie.

I'd advise to become less embroiled in troll threads that are perpetuated by those that only wish to push your buttons and have no desire to learn anything. It's a waste of time, and you only encourage them by posting.

Some of the threads are my own.   But I do not see any of the participants as trolls, who post to cause emotional issues. They believe what they are saying. In any case, I find that I am fine tuning my take on several issues by framimg responses.

But this thread is about time, not me.

So. what was the mechanism that enabled time to exist if time did not exist in the first place. I imagine there had to be something that caused Time to happen, but whatever caused it to happen must have used some time to make it so.

As we know from relativity theory, time and space are not independent. Spacetime is shaped by mass-energy. The presence of mass-energy changes how time works, as in clocks running slower in higher gravitational fields. The starting point of time could simply be the starting point of mass-energy. The two are tied together.

In the Hartle-Hawking state, aka no boundary condition, if you look further and further back in time, you will see (in the mind’s eye) that time becomes more and more curved until it is actually at right angles to what it was. It is essentially ‘imaginary time’ oriented vertically instead of horizontally, to use a metaphor. There is no direction of time. Note that in relativity theory time is represented as imaginary, that is as a coefficient of i, the square root of minus 1. Reorienting time in this way makes it effectively a dimension of space.

How Hartle and Hawking got to this conclusion is extremely heavy going and I will not try to present it, partly because I get lost in trying to follow the finer details. Plus it has been challenged a number of times recently.

But if we imagine this to be the case, that the universe was originally a four-dimensional space with no time direction, how did it get itself moving? Why should time be different from space? Recall that as we said there is only spacetime, nonetheless we see things happen, demonstrating that time is not just space.

We started off talking about how mass-energy shapes spacetime. Since there is mass-energy in the universe, we may presume it was there to begin with. (Why it was there is another question.) The presence of this mass-energy could bend spacetime so that there is a time dimension worthy of being called time as we know it, that is, needing to be represented using i.

But to go any further in that direction would be Crazy Theories I mean New Theories territory so I will cease and desist.