The concept of Time

[julius2]

I am posting this new topic as I don't see any existing topics in this forum.

The topic I would like to discuss is that of Time (with a big T). My ideas are a bit new, at least I couldn't find much existing on forums. And surprised by this. In essence it deals with what existed before the "Big Bang". Living in the real world much is based on scientific evidence and it would be hard to "see" before the Big Bang as everything would be compressed right?

But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time. This long time I call Time. Extending way back before the Big Bang. An potential question is, is this the first earth world ever to have existed? I am sure people would be amazed and curious to discover previous earth worlds similar to our own.

There are a lot of implications coming out of my idea. But first I am curious why not much is even considered about time before the Big Bang. As if our current universe is the start of time itself.

In dealing with TIme we are dealing with something quite sentimental. Early beings, very different in form to our own. Also, vast periods of time of almost nothing, time seemingly to go on endlessly. Also the concept of defects in Time. Since Time would go on for a very very long time, almost infinite, the concept that Time itself would develop defects. And if our current universe / world a clue as to fixing these Time defects?

Anyone with any thoughts of the above, I would be keen to hear from. Cheers

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, julius2 said:

I am posting this new topic as I don't see any existing topics in this forum.

The topic I would like to discuss is that of Time (with a big T). My ideas are a bit new, at least I couldn't find much existing on forums. And surprised by this. In essence it deals with what existed before the "Big Bang". Living in the real world much is based on scientific evidence and it would be hard to "see" before the Big Bang as everything would be compressed right?

But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time. This long time I call Time. Extending way back before the Big Bang. An potential question is, is this the first earth world ever to have existed? I am sure people would be amazed and curious to discover previous earth worlds similar to our own.

There are a lot of implications coming out of my idea. But first I am curious why not much is even considered about time before the Big Bang. As if our current universe is the start of time itself.

In dealing with TIme we are dealing with something quite sentimental. Early beings, very different in form to our own. Also, vast periods of time of almost nothing, time seemingly to go on endlessly. Also the concept of defects in Time. Since Time would go on for a very very long time, almost infinite, the concept that Time itself would develop defects. And if our current universe / world a clue as to fixing these Time defects?

Anyone with any thoughts of the above, I would be keen to hear from. Cheers

My understanding of the most popular model is that time itself only started at the big bang, i.e. there was no “before”.

[Eise]

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time.

Well, if this experience can be put into an experiment, or a clear observation that can be shared by others, then we we would have something. Until then not so much.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

An potential question is, is this the first earth world ever to have existed?

As long as the question is 'potential', we can wait until it becomes s scientific question. One personal, subjective experience is not enough for that.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

But first I am curious why not much is even considered about time before the Big Bang. As if our current universe is the start of time itself.

It is considered. The option you mention is one, as exchemist already said. Another one is the idea of eternal inflation, i.e. a continuous inflation, that spawns universes again and again, and our universe is just one of these universes. 

Also, I wonder why you put this in the 'philosophy' forum. This mostly seems to be speculation about cosmology. 

[Markus Hanke]

4 hours ago, julius2 said:

But first I am curious why not much is even considered about time before the Big Bang.

For the same reason why no one considers what might be north of the North Pole - it’s a meaningless concept.

4 hours ago, julius2 said:

As if our current universe is the start of time itself.

Yes, that’s the basic idea. 

[julius2]

I agree, north of the North Pole is space.

Concept of a time curtain. Imagine, the beginning of the current universe being a curtain in time.

But if we were able to look behind this curtain, what would we see? My guess is that we would see lots of Time! Past worlds,  past life etc.

We are very used to our own universe with our own fundamental particles (atoms, spherical planets etc). I propose that Time has not always looked like this!

Although 13 billion years is a very long time since the Big Bang, I propose a "longer axis".

My theory (although unsubstantiated) proposes that time got weary and old and needed to be destroyed. Hence the Big Bang where everything got destroyed and started again.

My theory probably more closely includes a type of external inflation, except not spawning universes but Time(s).

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, julius2 said:

I agree, north of the North Pole is space.

Concept of a time curtain. Imagine, the beginning of the current universe being a curtain in time.

But if we were able to look behind this curtain, what would we see? My guess is that we would see lots of Time! Past worlds,  past life etc.

We are very used to our own universe with our own fundamental particles (atoms, spherical planets etc). I propose that Time has not always looked like this!

Although 13 billion years is a very long time since the Big Bang, I propose a "longer axis".

My theory (although unsubstantiated) proposes that time got weary and old and needed to be destroyed. Hence the Big Bang where everything got destroyed and started again.

My theory probably more closely includes a type of external inflation, except not spawning universes but Time(s).

No, north of the North Pole is not space. There is no north of the North Pole. The points of the compass relate to the surface of the Earth.

 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, julius2 said:

I am posting this new topic as I don't see any existing topics in this forum.

The topic I would like to discuss is that of Time (with a big T). My ideas are a bit new, at least I couldn't find much existing on forums. And surprised by this. In essence it deals with what existed before the "Big Bang". Living in the real world much is based on scientific evidence and it would be hard to "see" before the Big Bang as everything would be compressed right?

But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time. This long time I call Time. Extending way back before the Big Bang. An potential question is, is this the first earth world ever to have existed? I am sure people would be amazed and curious to discover previous earth worlds similar to our own.

There are a lot of implications coming out of my idea. But first I am curious why not much is even considered about time before the Big Bang. As if our current universe is the start of time itself.

In dealing with TIme we are dealing with something quite sentimental. Early beings, very different in form to our own. Also, vast periods of time of almost nothing, time seemingly to go on endlessly. Also the concept of defects in Time. Since Time would go on for a very very long time, almost infinite, the concept that Time itself would develop defects. And if our current universe / world a clue as to fixing these Time defects?

Anyone with any thoughts of the above, I would be keen to hear from. Cheers

Good morning Julius and welcome.

I see that the response to  your question so far has been rather cool.

Perhaps you are a youngster just beginning to think about such things, perhaps you are older and still thinking about such things.

Either way thinking is good.

So don't be put off by the adverse replies the members are only trying to help.

 

One way to think about this is to regard time as what mathematicians call a functional parameter.

When we have several independent variables a parameter is a single variable that allows us to tie them all together by means of some formula (or function) between the parameter and each variable.

The Universe is Space which has 3 dimensions. That means that we need three independant variables to refer to any part of that space, usually x,y and z.

Time can then be considered as a parameter that specifies where in Space an event occurs, by means of some formula such that x, y and z are individual functions of the t parameter.

Time is so useful as a parameter that the symbol for a parameter is usually t.

 

Here is a simpler example in 2 dimensions.

The standard equations for a parabola are a = at²   ; y = 2at.

 

Ask if you want more detail or dicussion.

 

Be warned also that as an anti spam measure new members are only allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours. Afer that it is unlimited so long sas you are reasonable in what you post.

 

[Halc]

9 hours ago, julius2 said:

In essence it deals with what existed before the "Big Bang".

This seems to rely on the assumption that the universe is contained by time, rather than it containing time, per relativity theory. If so, then yes, the universe is a thing that didn't exist before, and somehow came to be after a countdown reaches zero from a finite or infinitely distant prior moment.

Relativity theory says time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe, rather than the universe being a temporary object contained by time.

 

9 hours ago, julius2 said:

But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time.

This seems to suggest that time itself was created at some moment, and that at prior times, time didn't exist. That seems pretty self contradictory.

 

9 hours ago, julius2 said:

Extending way back before the Big Bang. An potential question is, is this the first earth world ever to have existed? I am sure people would be amazed and curious to discover previous earth worlds similar to our own.

Depends on how close to Earth-like you want. A rocky planet in the habital zone? Plenty of those. One with an atmosphere we can breathe?  No evidence of anything like that.

As for if Earth was first among the nearby planets, that seems absurd. There are plenty of older star systems.

As for Earth being prior to really distant Earth-like places, per relativity of simultaneity, which one came first is a matter of the convention you choose to compare ages.

 

You talk about defects in time, but give no clue as to what you might mean by that.

 

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

I agree, north of the North Pole is space.

No. Space is up, a direction perpendicular to north. The analogy is apt. There is no north of the pole, nor is there 'down' beyond about 6500 km. These are examples of dimensions that are bounded by the coordinate system, exactly the way time is bounded at the big bang by a cosmic coordinate system.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

But if we were able to look behind this curtain, what would we see? My guess is that we would see lots of Time! Past worlds,  past life etc.

This seems to suggest some sort of cyclic model, but they've had great trouble finding one that matches empirical evidence

[julius2]

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Good morning Julius and welcome.

I see that the response to  your question so far has been rather cool.

Perhaps you are a youngster just beginning to think about such things, perhaps you are older and still thinking about such things.

Either way thinking is good.

So don't be put off by the adverse replies the members are only trying to help.

 

One way to think about this is to regard time as what mathematicians call a functional parameter.

When we have several independent variables a parameter is a single variable that allows us to tie them all together by means of some formula (or function) between the parameter and each variable.

The Universe is Space which has 3 dimensions. That means that we need three independant variables to refer to any part of that space, usually x,y and z.

Time can then be considered as a parameter that specifies where in Space an event occurs, by means of some formula such that x, y and z are individual functions of the t parameter.

Time is so useful as a parameter that the symbol for a parameter is usually t.

 

Here is a simpler example in 2 dimensions.

The standard equations for a parabola are a = at²   ; y = 2at.

 

Ask if you want more detail or dicussion.

 

Be warned also that as an anti spam measure new members are only allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours. Afer that it is unlimited so long sas you are reasonable in what you post.

 

Thanks studiot for your welcome and comments. I understand people on here are trying to help. I just hope not to be too much of a pain!

Thanks for your mathematical analysis. I guess t (time) would be "funny" closer to the BB? 

I take it we need the space coordinates x, y, z to be relatively stable before t starts running??

7 hours ago, Halc said:

This seems to rely on the assumption that the universe is contained by time, rather than it containing time, per relativity theory. If so, then yes, the universe is a thing that didn't exist before, and somehow came to be after a countdown reaches zero from a finite or infinitely distant prior moment.

The problem is we are studying the universe within the current time.

If we could somehow "step outside" our current time (ie that of the universe). Is this potentially mind bending?

7 hours ago, Halc said:

Relativity theory says time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe, rather than the universe being a temporary object contained by time.

Yes, this is more the gist of what I was trying to get to. Note time (small t) in these posts tends to refer to relativistic time. Whereas my 'time' is Time (big T). But this would suggest an axis not defined by relativity (??)

 

7 hours ago, Halc said:

 

Depends on how close to Earth-like you want. A rocky planet in the habital zone? Plenty of those. One with an atmosphere we can breathe?  No evidence of anything like that.

As for if Earth was first among the nearby planets, that seems absurd. There are plenty of older star systems.

As for Earth being prior to really distant Earth-like places, per relativity of simultaneity, which one came first is a matter of the convention you choose to compare ages.

Sorry, in terms of earth worlds. I mean a world (back in time) which developed like ours. Not a rocky desert planet but populated. With people similar to us. ie they had cities just like us, they had cars just like us. I wonder what their stories would have been, if they had ever existed at all...

7 hours ago, Halc said:

 

 

This seems to suggest some sort of cyclic model, but they've had great trouble finding one that matches empirical evidence

I

7 hours ago, Halc said:

 

Relativity theory says time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe, rather than the universe being a temporary object contained by time.

What I meant to say in my response is that I see the universe as a temporary object contained by time. (where time here = Time + u. time)

 

 

7 hours ago, Halc said:

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

Thanks for your mathematical analysis. I guess t (time) would be "funny" closer to the BB? 

Why do you say this ?

There was nothing in my example to suggest it.

 

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

8 hours ago, Halc said:

Relativity theory says time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe, rather than the universe being a temporary object contained by time.

Yes, this is more the gist of what I was trying to get to. Note time (small t) in these posts tends to refer to relativistic time. Whereas my 'time' is Time (big T). But this would suggest an axis not defined by relativity (??)

and

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

I take it we need the space coordinates x, y, z to be relatively stable before t starts running??

 

 

I think  we need to be very careful here.

Time is not a coordinate in spacetime as @Halc  implies.

And my description does not even make it a coordinate.

 

@julius2

 

One of your other respondents asked if this was more properly a question in cosmology and Astronomy since you seem to want to concentrate on bangs, but you haven't expanded on this or helped me choose an appropriate level to pitch a response.

[Halc]

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

I take it we need the space coordinates x, y, z to be relatively stable before t starts running??

In the model where t 'runs' at all, no such wait is needed. That's the model with the universe being contained by time, just like you and I are. We have a start and a finish with time unaffected by our temporary presence.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

The problem is we are studying the universe within the current time.

If we could somehow "step outside" our current time (ie that of the universe). Is this potentially mind bending?

You mean we study things from our current event (a perspective, that in the large scale of things, is a point in space and time). Science regularly describes the universe outside this one perspective, so no, it isn't particularly mind bending to consider it as a whole, without a preferred moment or preferred location.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

Yes, [Relativity theory saying time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe] is more the gist of what I was trying to get to. Note time (small t) in these posts tends to refer to relativistic time. Whereas my 'time' is Time (big T). But this would suggest an axis not defined by relativity (??)

As for time being T or t, there is not really a difference. It is what clocks measure, no matter the interpretation. There is not a 'relativistic time' that is different than that, at least not according to relativity theory.

I suppose there is a difference between the two in some kind of absolutist theory (something in denial of Einstein's theory), but then T is really undetectable, not something that can be measured or demonstrated. So then T would be that which flows (instead of a dimension), and t would be what a local clock would measure, and a second of t would not correspond to any particular duration of T. I'm not sure if the absolutist theories reference T at all in a generalized theory.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

Sorry, in terms of earth worlds. I mean a world (back in time) which developed like ours. Not a rocky desert planet but populated. With people similar to us. ie they had cities just like us, they had cars just like us. I wonder what their stories would have been, if they had ever existed at all.

If they are that like us, then their stories would be similar. As for it being 'back in time', my comment referred to the relativity of simultaneity. The current time of any distant place is frame dependent, and thus whether this planet occurs prior to or after our civilization is a matter of convention.

If the universe appear younger to this distant place, then by that convention, they are prior, and their point of view shows a younger universe and perhaps they are unaware of things like accelerating expansion which didn't really start happening until around when our solar system formed.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

What I meant to say in my response is that I see the universe as a temporary object contained by time. (where time here = Time + u. time)

OK, well that is a widely held view, but it counters relativity theory. The vast majority of people don't care about the implications of relativity theory.

The opinion is not necessarily wrong. There are alternative theories that take this stance, even if it took about a century longer to generalize them into an actual theory of the cosmos instead of just a local theory.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Time is not a coordinate in spacetime as Halc implies.  And my description does not even make it a coordinate.

I never said it was a coordinate. I said it was a dimension in relativity theory, but only has a defined orientation if a coordinate system is specified. Relativity theory (GR, not so much SR) interprets the cosmos geometrically as 4 dimensional spacetime, with 1 temporal and three spatial dimensions. 

[dimreepr]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:25 AM, julius2 said:

I agree, north of the North Pole is space.

Concept of a time curtain. Imagine, the beginning of the current universe being a curtain in time.

The concept of time is like the concept of an east pole, it's just over the horizon. 

[julius2]

It is absurd to think that this is the FIRST time ever to have existed.

But as the discussion shows, even if we discover anything it is in the past. Nothing can be done about it.

However, we live in a time system.

[swansont]

22 hours ago, julius2 said:

It is absurd to think that this is the FIRST time ever to have existed.

Why is that absurd? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

[Inspireme]

I don't feel in my being that time began at the big bang. Time probably doesn't actually exist as a tangible element.  Time in the universe feels to me like it is just the expansion of space. 

 

I wonder if big bangs are created inside black holes and so time began however long ago in the original 'dimension' if you will. 

 

Not set on these ideas, I have lots of thoughts and feelings that probably contradict each other that just pop into my brain.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Inspireme said:

I don't feel in my being that time began at the big bang. Time probably doesn't actually exist as a tangible element.  Time in the universe feels to me like it is just the expansion of space. 

Can you perceive the expansion of space, like you can with time?

[Inspireme]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Can you perceive the expansion of space, like you can with time?

The light wave that we see, is the same as the light seen at the source however long ago. 

 

If you consider the big bang, the initial explosion creating very high frequency em waves, as the universe has expanded those waves have been stretched, meaning that if we existed however long ago, we would have seen space work its way through the visible colours of the spectrum. 

I thing logically it might be easier to perceive expansion of space than the expansion of time but time in terms of the growth of space is moving because space is expanding. But also, slowing down. How we feel that as humans, I don't know. Kind of like an expanding foam. Everything that exists when the foam is first sprayed has come from the can and is expanding in all directions rather than moving. And at first it expands pretty fast and then starts to slow down as it can't expand anymore. 

This then makes me wonder if space is elastic and will it boing back in on itself but I doubt it. 

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, Inspireme said:

If you consider the big bang, the initial explosion creating very high frequency em waves, as the universe has expanded those waves have been stretched, meaning that if we existed however long ago, we would have seen space work its way through the visible colours of the spectrum. 

The radiation we detect dates from the recombination epoch, ~380,000 years after the big bang.