How can time "begin"?

[ACG52]

What do you mean no i do not understand

 

This was the question:

 

Can you support that assertion with any physical evidence?

 

 

In response, you cite mythology.

 

So the answer to the above question is 'no'.

[Astrology]

This was the question:

 

 

 

In response, you cite mythology.

 

So the answer to the above question is 'no'.

 

I understand

 

You answered no to your question

I supposed you answered my question

[pantheory]

What do you mean no i do not understand

Astrology, the question was "Can you support (your) assertion with any physical evidence?"

 

Interpretation of the scriptures of the bible is not evidence. This is a science part of the forum. There is a religious forum here where such ideas will be welcome or acceptable. A six thousand year old cosmos has no scientific basis at all so in this forum all will perceive such statements and ideas as being ignorant.

//

Edited October 10, 2012 by pantheory

[Astrology]

Astrology, the question was "Can you support (your) assertion with any physical evidence?"

 

Interpretation of the scriptures of the bible is not evidence. This is a science part of the forum. There is a religious forum here where such ideas will be welcome or acceptable. A six thousand year old cosmos has no scientific basis at all so in this forum all will perceive such statements and ideas as being ignorant.

//

 

Well i do not know what to say

 

Thanks

Later

[swansont]

Well it be recorded in the HebrewScriptures that god did this and god did that and though i do not like the hebrews there recordances be that approximate SixThousandYear span in time

If checking that fact and factualy inquiring about that while of time meaning reading the scriptures and exectra be very carefull because you shall be a part of that specificaly HorrificAspect of theirs

 

Later

!

Moderator Note

This is not the religion forum, so religious answers are not appropriate. Responses should be related to science

[IM Egdall]

There are several points that could be made here. Time in modern physics is generally considered a complicated concept yet what would be the meaning of time without matter or energy? Essentially time is an interval of change in matter or energy. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, all mass and energy in the universe began with the Big Bang. If this is so then what would be the meaning of time, concerning the idea "before the Big Bang."

 

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."

(Albert Einstein)

 

The meaning of this sentence, in the context of this discussion, is that there is no possibility of the existence of time or space before the existence of matter. It would follow that if matter began its existence at the time of the Big Bang, then neither time or space could have had existence before then.

 

The existence of Time and Space, therefore, is a function of matter/energy.

//

 

On an earlier forum thread, I made arguments similar to those above. However, I was told by those smarter than me (most everybody) that what Einstein said was that time and space have no separate existence from a gravitational field. So since matter/energy produces a gravitational field, I assumed this meant there is no time and space without matter/energy.

 

I was corrected. If I remember it right, per general relativity, even a universe with no matter/energy has a gravitational field. So saying you need matter/energy to have space and time is not right.

 

Also, the big bang theory tells us nothing about time zero when the universe began. The equations blow up at time zero, giving infinity for answers. This is the so-called singularity -- a name for "we don't know". So no one knows what if anything happened before the big bang.

[pantheory]

On an earlier forum thread, I made arguments similar to those above. However, I was told by those smarter than me (most everybody) that what Einstein said was that time and space have no separate existence from a gravitational field. So since matter/energy produces a gravitational field, I assumed this meant there is no time and space without matter/energy.

 

I was corrected. If I remember it right, per general relativity, even a universe with no matter/energy has a gravitational field. So saying you need matter/energy to have space and time is not right.

 

Also, the big bang theory tells us nothing about time zero when the universe began. The equations blow up at time zero, giving infinity for answers. This is the so-called singularity -- a name for "we don't know". So no one knows what if anything happened before the big bang.

Of course GR is all about gravity, but in it Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime which was a new idea at the time, the equations of which were promoted by Minkowski. Maybe all can realize that there would be no gravity without matter, but maybe not everyone can understand and realize that there would be no meaning to time or space either if there was no matter. In these days when most think that space can expand and warp it may not be so obvious. In those times I think this was what Einstein meant by this quote above.

 

.........I was told by those smarter than me (most everybody) that what Einstein said ........

//

Too humble They may not have understood Einstein's quote as well as you did

//

Edited October 10, 2012 by pantheory

[EquisDeXD]

I am aware that that is the idea. What I am not clear on is that if time does "begin" how can we have all of these various fields forming? It gives the impression that there is a universal time under which these events are unfolding. Expect relativity tells us that can't be the case. To put it loosely, each thing has its own time.

I'm not sure exactly what your having a problem with. The rate at which events pass is relative, but the fabric of space-time as a thing is a constant that occupies all of the known universe,

[Moontanman]

I've given this some thought.... ok there... I can't see how anyone can say time had a beginning... space-time yes but time is just a measurement and the ideas behind the Ekpyrotic Universe theory suggest that what we call space time is just a small portion of a greater whole... has to be a joke in there someplace...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

Ekpyrotic universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire".[1] The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.[2][3] The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.[4][5]

 

 

[pantheory]

Moontanman,

 

....I've given this some thought.... ok there... I can't see how anyone can say time had a beginning.......

 

OK I'm saying it. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, time had a beginning. And I very strongly agree that it's by far the simplest explanation of reality, in my opinion.

 

More importantly is that if the universe is finite concerning its existence in time, it had to have a beginning by definition. An infinite universe in time can be joined in agreement by great scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking and many others. By far the simplest universe is the simplest idea possible, according to Occum's Razor. Accordingly there is only one simple answer and universe One universe with only one very simple beginning -- even though we may not understand many of the details.

Edited October 11, 2012 by pantheory

[JohnStu]

General relativity tells us that there is no universal time. It all depends on your frame of reference and velocity relative to other things.

 

So how can it be that time "began" at the Big Bang? - which is the conventional viewpoint.

 

 

We cannot know how it began. We do know when it began. It began the moment matters were born.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

 

OK I'm saying it. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, time had a beginning. And I very strongly agree that it's by far the simplest explanation of reality, in my opinion.

 

More importantly is that if the universe is finite concerning its existence in time, it had to have a beginning by definition. An infinite universe in time can be joined in agreement by great scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking and many others. By far the simplest universe is the simplest idea possible, according to Occum's Razor. Accordingly there is only one simple answer and universe One universe with only one very simple beginning -- even though we may not understand many of the details.

 

Don't you think it's more proper to say space/time had a beginning rather than just time?

[pantheory]

Don't you think it's more proper to say space/time had a beginning rather than just time?

Yeah, you're right. You could say that space and time had the same beginning, or that spacetime had a singular beginning. It is not impossible that the universe has always existed but this would be contrary to the Big Bang model. Multiverses also are not impossible but there is no accepted evidence that supports them. And the universe, I think, would be unnecessarily complicated by their existence. If one wanted to be precise one might say that if there was a beginning of everything (cosmos), in the beginning there was matter/ energy/ substance that occupied and defines space, an instant thereafter there was the first change that defines time. So substance and space must have accordingly come first, then time and energy an instant thereafter According to the Inflation hypothesis some matter could have existed from the beginning or it could have condensed out from energy thereafter.

//

Edited October 11, 2012 by pantheory

[_heretic]

So we think we know that time began at the Big Bang. Why isn't there are universal time as a consequence of that?

[Ronald Hyde]

So we think we know that time began at the Big Bang. Why isn't there are universal time as a consequence of that?

 

Because all our clocks measure relative time. But we can look outside with a telescope and see when a universal absolute time begins.

So both kinds of time exist, but our clocks and self contained experiments only indicate one kind.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Ronald Hyde

[pantheory]

So we think we know that time began at the Big Bang. Why isn't there are universal time as a consequence of that?

Time is a man-invented concept that explains the rate of changes in matter and energy. Whether via the Big Bang model or another model, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. If it had a beginning then that beginning instant was the first change which defines time. We know that relative motion and gravity causes time to run a little slower which we call dilation.

 

Here on Earth there is very little time dilation so that our time is close to a "universal time" whereby time would pass as fast as possible. Such concepts are not too complicated

//

Edited October 11, 2012 by pantheory

[_heretic]

Because all our clocks measure relative time. But we can look outside with a telescope and see when a universal absolute time begins.

So both kinds of time exist, but our clocks and self contained experiments only indicate one kind.

 

Can you confirm that with something peer reviewed? It sounds like something I should be highly dubious about.

[Ronald Hyde]

Can you confirm that with something peer reviewed? It sounds like something I should be highly dubious about.

 

I can't point to anything peer reviewed but the normal kinds of clocks we use, their indication depends on the paths they take in space-time,

this is pretty well established and is a consequence of Special Relativity. But if we use a telescope we can see that the Universe started about

13.7 billion years ago, and that seems to have an absolute significance.

[_heretic]

I can't point to anything peer reviewed but the normal kinds of clocks we use, their indication depends on the paths they take in space-time,

this is pretty well established and is a consequence of Special Relativity. But if we use a telescope we can see that the Universe started about

13.7 billion years ago, and that seems to have an absolute significance.

 

So, in cosmology, is consideration normally given to how we go from this absolute time, at the big bang, to multiple relative times?

[Nobrainer]

Time exists/ time does not exist... Funny that it takes time but never gives time to write an answer to the question of time. And they read taking time and that does not exist...

 

It takes time to bake a cake, to breathe, to live and die. A lifetime to conclude there is no time in lifetime, ironic isn't it.

 

The question is, In our universe, how do we measure the actions of the universe? The answer is time. We create and use time to measure actions but is there a beginning middle and end to our measurements, a hidden process?

Could a hidden process create fhe stage of time? And if it does, what is the mechanism and did it start at the big bang or later and how does it work?

[granpa]

So, in cosmology, is consideration normally given to how we go from this absolute time, at the big bang, to multiple relative times?

 

As I said before, reality doesnt change when you change reference frames.

Only the labels you put on event changes.

 

the universe began the same in all reference frames.

I have no idea why you think it wouldnt.

[_heretic]

As I said before, reality doesnt change when you change reference frames.

Only the labels you put on event changes.

 

the universe began the same in all reference frames.

I have no idea why you think it wouldnt.

 

So are you saying that all references frames, backwards in time, all converge into one reference frame?

[Cancer 03]

General relativity tells us that there is no universal time. It all depends on your frame of reference and velocity relative to other things.

 

So how can it be that time "began" at the Big Bang? - which is the conventional viewpoint.

 

 

If you look at time and space as one, then you may make the equation quite simply: Space = Time/Time = Space, Space Begins (Big Bang) = Time Begins (Big Bang).

 

Cancer