What is time? Does time even exist?

[swansont]

No, its motion, as in, the universe in motion. Time is just an indexing system used to predict the future and reference past records.

Just as x, y and z are an indexing system.

 

 

If time is real, an actual physical dimension. Then how does it make sense?

It doesn't. That's because this is a straw-man argument: you make a proposition that doesn't make sense, so it's easy to tear it down. Nobody has claimed it's a physical/spatial dimension.

 

And then add to that ignoring arguments that are inconvenient to your thesis.

[Daniel Foreman]

 

 

Just as x, y and z are an indexing system.

 

Yep the difference is, that X Y and X are an index of something I can easily demonstrate. All you can do is say "well stuff moves in space therefore there must be time as well." which is a statement that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

You claim I'm making a logical fallaciously (straw man argument) , but when I pick your statements apart aka "stuff moves, therefore there is time for it to move in" it makes no sense, it's not moving in time, it's moving in space. And until you can demonstrate otherwise you're just repeating it in the hopes that repetition will do the same as experimentation. Basically you've already made your mind up so I'm not sure why you keep coming back.

 

 

Ok let's pump it up a bit... I am going to assert that not only does time exist but it is the only thing that exists independent of everything else. If you were to cut your brains ties to the world, no sensory input at all you would still be aware of time, if you exist so does time because with out time nothing could exist...

 

Existing in a total deaf blind blackness with no tactile senses at all, you could be state that all that passes is time. I would counter this on two points.

 

1) The brain would perceive blackness and silence. Which means the brain is still processing the data.

2) In order for you to be aware of anything at all, even if it was very little the brain would still need to be healthy and active.

 

Now, if we both accept that the brain is basically a chemical factory firing neurons then there is still a process going on. So it's not time we're aware of, but the fact that we are still an active process. So it is the motion of ourselves, of our mechanism that we are aware of.

 

You could further this thought experiment by asking. "What happens if you slow down, and speed up neurological activity?".

 

I presume, though I have no way of testing this, that the slower the brain operates the faster things will appear to go. I base this on my experience with transcendental meditation.

 

The key purpose of this form of meditation is to sit quietly, slow down your mind and sink into your own consciousness. As you become better at it, time seems to go by faster and faster.

 

Now, to go in the other direction, I'm sure you've had moments when a shock has occurred and the world seems to slow down around you. Having suffered anxiety attacks many times in my life, and given that the body and mind are accelerated due to the addition of adrenalin in the system I can tell you that a minute, an hour, and a day feel like eternal torture. Time not only moves very slowly but the world is so painfully sharp in your senses that even your own heartbeat is painful.

 

So I can argue that I've gone in both directions, I've achieved meditative states where time appears to go very quickly, and in fact when you go to sleep and dream a dreamless sleep then no time seems to pass at all. At the same time anxiety has driven me to points where it's very nearly unbearable to live and it seems to go on for a very long time.

 

So again, I suggest that what you're really aware of is your own processing cycle, this isn't evidence of time, it's just that this is how we've come to understand that process.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[StringJunky]

 

. Basically you've already made your mind up so I'm not sure why you keep coming back.

I would imagine Swansont has time quite sorted in his mind to a degree most of us can learn from and I am keen to understand what he knows, he works with measuring time: he designs atomic clocks for the GPS. If you notice, he never shoves his position down anybody's throat to add weight to his argument ...now you know... please show him some respect and think carefully before you reply. He's a well respected scientist.Quite frankly, I think you are blinding yourself to better understanding with your stubbornness. I'm not saying don't argue with him but don't be so off-hand and dismissive...he doesn't deserve it.

Edited September 2, 2013 by StringJunky

[Daniel Foreman]

He'll have some respect when he doesn't selectively misquote a question as a statement.

[ACG52]

You speak of cycles, motion, changes, all concepts which are derivatives of time, and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

 

You seem to think that by denying the concept exists, and basing your entire argument around your subjective impressions, you've made some kind of point.

 

This is all about what you think you perceive. You say 'I can't see time, so it doesn't exist'.

 

Not only do you confuse the map in your head for the territory, you deny the territory exists, and believe that your mental construct is the reality.

 

Here's an experiment you can do.

 

Find a tall building and jump off of it. Since velocity is a derivative of time, and you claim time doesn't exist, when you hit the pavement, you can't have any velocity, and so will have simply changed position in space with no ill effects.

 

Let us know the results.

[Daniel Foreman]

I've never said time doesn't exist as a measuring tool. I'm refuting that time exists as a physical function of the universe.

 

Velocity is how we measure relative motion in comparison to a timeline. When you actually fall, there's no comparison, and comparison isn't required by the process. This is something you do. Not something the universe does.

 

What does the universe do?

 

Well it just falls. Well not the whole universe lol, just the bit of it that is falling. It falls, then it impacts and it's over. This is the most "in motion" event you could probably come up with. The object is in free space with very little resistance, gravity give it the energy to fall downwards, and is stopped when enough matter gets in it's way.

 

Now you can later describe the motion using vectors, distances, time-scales. But at that point, well. It's over, it's not happening any more. This particular action in the universe is done with.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[ACG52]

 

 

I'm refuting that time exists as a physical function of the universe.

Tell that to a muon. Maybe it won't decay.

[swansont]

Yep the difference is, that X Y and X are an index of something I can easily demonstrate. All you can do is say "well stuff moves in space therefore there must be time as well." which is a statement that makes absolutely no sense to me.

That would be the fallacy of argument from incredulity, in addition to a straw man. My claim is not that things move, therefore time. My claim is that two objects can't have the same spatial coordinates without it. How do you differentiate between them, without time?

 

You claim I'm making a logical fallaciously (straw man argument) , but when I pick your statements apart aka "stuff moves, therefore there is time for it to move in" it makes no sense, it's not moving in time, it's moving in space. And until you can demonstrate otherwise you're just repeating it in the hopes that repetition will do the same as experimentation. Basically you've already made your mind up so I'm not sure why you keep coming back.

Moving in space requires an extra variable to describe the motion. Regardless of the tag you place on it, or how you want to parameterize it, there is a non-spatial variable (aka a dimension) required. But your position seems to be that non-spatial coordinates are not allowed.

He'll have some respect when he doesn't selectively misquote a question as a statement.

You'll have to show me where I did that.

[Delta1212]

Proves that X, Y and Z coordinates have a physical existence to me. You said that you can demonstrate them easily, so it should be no problem.

[Daniel Foreman]

Proves that X, Y and Z coordinates have a physical existence to me. You said that you can demonstrate them easily, so it should be no problem.

 

 

There you go.

 

P.S. I'm assuming you meant to say prove not proves.

 

 

 

That would be the fallacy of argument from incredulity, in addition to a straw man. My claim is not that things move, therefore time. My claim is that two objects can't have the same spatial coordinates without it. How do you differentiate between them, without time?

 

And that would be belittlement. Telling someone what their statements are, such as straw man, and defining incredulity an emotional state will annoy the hell out of people. Stop it, if you don't agree just say so. Throwing the Oxford dictionary at someone is more about your ego then the topic at hand. It is unnecessary belittling behaviour, please stop it.

 

Your argument is that two or more objects can occupy the same space providing they arrive at different times is irrelevant. This absolutely doesn't demonstrate time, what it demonstrates is the fact that you're too hung up on the past, and not what's occurring at the moment. The fact that 1 bus has driven away, and another bus then takes it's position in space afterwards is a bi-product of analysis. Now turn that analysis off, and look at what's in front of you.

 

A bus, nothing else. Just a bus, it doesn't matter what happened before that bus arrived or what happens after that bus arrives, those are past and future events. In the moment there is just a bus. Time only comes into play when you want to look at the past, and then compare that past the future.

 

So you are absolutely 100% correct in the context of analysing past events. But you are applying this as if it was a part of the universe at this moment. Whatever happened before is no longer happening now you are working with old data this doesn't prove that time exists as a physical element of the universe. It just proves that you've got a useful tool to play with.

 

I really can't make myself any clearer at this point.

 

 

 

Moving in space requires an extra variable to describe the motion. Regardless of the tag you place on it, or how you want to parameterize it, there is a non-spatial variable (aka a dimension) required. But your position seems to be that non-spatial coordinates are not allowed.

 

Only in mathematics, which is the point you are so hung up on. The actual object just gets on with it, it doesn't care what you calculate afterwards. I have consistently, and repeatedly stated that time is a tool and just because it's a tool, that doesn't mean time is a real physical part of the universes make-up.

 

 

 

You'll have to show me where I did that.

 

Lets forget it for now, we've clearly been misunderstanding each other.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[ACG52]

I saw the constant display and passage of time.

Besides that, it was simply a stream of electrons, giving the illusion of a three dimensional space.

[Deidre]

To the OP: do you believe that time existed before the Big Bang? The common theories don't answer the question as we know, but I'm just wondering, since you have a seemingly open mind to the 'concept of time', what do you think?

Edited September 3, 2013 by Deidre

[Daniel Foreman]

To be honest I don't even think time exists after the big bang, let alone before. And one benefit of not having to confine yourself to time, is that you don't necessarily need a cause to have an effect. This conveniently does away with the "what came first?" question.

 

But I think, to look at the universe before the big bang you first have to look at the word nothing.

 

What exactly is nothing? Many people might point at a table top and say "there is nothing there" and of course this is absolutely wrong. There is air above the table a mixture of all sorts of gasses, you might also get particles of dust, and other bits of matter.

 

Now, if I place that table into a perfect vacuum, then point above that table, and say "there is nothing there." then is that statement true?

 

Again I say no it is not. For above that table, you have space to point to. While space isn't matter, it is a framework so it is "something" not only that, the space is still influenced by gravity (if for no other reason than the table would be a source of gravity) I would also assume that there is some kind of electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces present. I don't assume that forces disappear simply because matter isn't there to be affected by them. I tend to think of them as persist elements though I have absolutely no evidence for this.

 

So if there is still something there even in a perfect vacuum, then what is nothing? This is the question we need look at before we travel outside our own universes spatial framework.

 

Now, I have absolutely no idea at all what might have spawned the universe, But I do think, that something did. So the idea of the universe exploding from nothing doesn't even come into consideration for me at least. I think that a zero state, a state of true nothing, is absolutely impossible.

 

For the sake of my own fiction writing, I've created an idea called "Singular potentiality". Singular potentiality has no space to operate in, it has no forces and no matter. Words such a size, mass, hold no meaning to it. Having said that, it has it's own framework, and is in fact it's own framework. Inside this framework is some kind of continual ongoing motion (if in fact that is the right word). Because this framework doesn't have size, it can not increase or decrease it remains fixed in balance. Every so often the internal workings of this framework exceed it's own boundaries. This causes small pieces of itself to break off. As these pieces break off, they destabilise, and corrupt. This causes random mutations of itself based on the amount that has broken off, it no longer has the ability to hold itself together and simply goes "pop". That is, it very quickly forms a corrupted perhaps more basic form of it's own prior framework, in our case it was space. In the case of other universes it's something we've never seen before. The framework is the most critical stage, if it is not stable, then it collapses in on itself or spreads itself very thinly before eventually either joining other corrupted frameworks around it, or simply falling back into the original "Singular potentiality".

 

For some universes their life spans are short, in other universes the life span will be far longer than our own universe, but perhaps the conditions are not perfect enough for life to form, and they remain sterile places with very little going on. I also think the one of the key features of life is motion, and a compatible framework to allow motion as we know it to form.

 

Our universe is thus a random mutation, with just enough of the original Singular Potentiality to corrupt. In fact there were multiple corruptions, some of it took on space, some of it took on matter, some of it formed the forces we know. But because they all come from the same source, and are related to each other, each of these mutations interact with each other in compatible ways. But our universe isn't stable, as we know it's flying apart at a fantastic rate, and as has been demonstrated in random number theory, within our own framework matter likes to clump together producing galaxies and solar systems etc etc.

 

Eventually our universe will become so thinly spread out, that the spatial framework will probably simply break at some point, once it does it will fall back into the original source.

 

It is of course also possible that the Singular Potentiality isn't random at all and in fact follows an every cycling loop. There might be 100, 1000,10000, 1000000 identical universes like ours out there, with exactly the same amount of material breaking apart in exactly the same way, and in each of them some idiot is sitting in front of his computer writing this exact same paragraph out rather than getting a good nights sleep. Which is, in a way a kind of immortality

 

Having said that a pink pixie named Harry might have had gas one day, and we're the result of a burp. In terms of pure factual evidence, the pixie might be more convincing to some

Edited September 3, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[michel123456]

Please clarify this statement

 

 

Are you saying that time duplicates what space does exactly? Or are you saying there is no such thing as time, there is only space? Or are you saying something else entirely such as Time has the same dimensional properties as 1 dimension of space in that you can travel up and down it like for example the X axis?

Bolded.

 

The misunderstanding comes from the "that you can travel up and down it like for example the X axis" part.

When you travel up and down the X axis, or right & left, you travel a distance.

This distance is always positive (see below)

Like time.

 

from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement

 

Distance cannot be negative and distance travelled never decreases

 

there is no negative distance, no negative time, no negative velocity.

 

---------------

(edit)

the confusion comes from the concept of direction.

Direction is something extracted from spacetime, it indicates "from here to there". I wonder if the concept of direction can exist in space only, without time.

..........

wondering.

Edited September 3, 2013 by michel123456

[Daniel Foreman]

 

 

Direction is something extracted from spacetime, it indicates "from here to there". I wonder if the concept of direction can exist in space only, without time.

 

No it can't. Distance as a calculation can not exist without time as a reference. When playing with pure mathematics, which is used to describe an objects behaviour in the past or predict it's placement in the future, then both time and their relative positions in space at any given moment is very important.

 

This however is a human conceptual device. It is absolutely not the real thing, simply how we chose to evaluate the real thing.

 

At the moment of motion, all that matters to an object are the forces applied to it, and the forces applied against it. These govern it's motion from moment to moment. Add energy to one side, and it will travelled faster in the direction the energy was applied. It's that simple. The fact that the object can move within X Y and Z within the limits of energy and mass, is all that's needed to demonstrate how space functions. This doesn't demonstrate that you can not go back on yourself in space. Relative to the earth, if I push a pencil forward and back again, then it has travelled forwards and backwards long that axis. Or at least it seems to have.

 

What is very interesting is that, even sitting still and doing nothing you are still continuously moving at absolutely amazing speeds through space. While sitting still you are dragged along with the planets rotation, and you are dragged along by it's orbit relative to the sun, the sun is dragged along in relation to the galaxy, and the galaxy as far as scientists can tell, is flying away from the origin point of the big bang.

 

Now if you want to say that it is the property of dimensional space that it must always fly forward, then this is the evidence you want to be quoting. For this galaxy is not just flying away from the big bang origin point, but as far as scientists can tell our galaxy is accelerating.

 

This idea has always interested me, simply because at first glance I'd have assumed something as accumulatively gravity dense as a galaxy would basically attract other galaxies, which would then either collide, or form an orbit around a particularly large and dense galaxy. However this doesn't appear to happen.

 

In fact galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other, and I say accelerating because it's not at an even rate that you might expect from an initial explosion as the name "big bang" suggests.

 

So relative to the origin point of the universe, which we assume we are flying away from, we are moving at ludicrous speeds. From moment to moment in reference to the whole of the spatial framework, we can never go back on ourselves, all we can do is slow down or speed up as we orbit around are relative points. Sun around the middle of the galaxy, earth around the sun, us around the earth.

 

Now if you wanted to say that any given spatial dimension has a property that causes matter within it's domain to always move forward unceasingly, and that this observation can also be applied to time. I might lend it some credence for the evidence of time. However I would ask questions at this point.

 

1) When the big bang happened, did the explosion fly off in all directions, or did everything fly off in one direction more or less?

2) Did space itself actually originate at the big bang point, that is, is it something that's expanding as well as the matter within it's domain.

3) If space is expanding, then what is it "expanding in"?

4) Is there some kind of "super space" that allows expansion?

5) Is space evenly distributed?

6) Is space a stand-a-lone framework that doesn't require anything to expand in?

7) Is space infinite, will it continue to grow forever, or is there a point where it's spread so thin that space will simply cease to work?

8) Are these even the right questions to be asking?

 

These are the kinds of greater questions that interest me, and if it turns out that the nature of space is radial, that what we take as X Y and Z needs to be expressed differently, and if it turns out that it is space itself that provides an unceasing onwards into eternity, and that the speed of a dimensions expansion can never be reversed. Then if all this come to be proven somehow I would be prepared to reconsider my position on time.

 

But, as far as I can see, with my relative position to earth and my small sphere of influence, stuff just moves, and space is consistent. If space is consistent and doesn't force us along with it, which I assume it is based on my own observations, then there is no need for time outside the mathematical concept.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[swansont]

And that would be belittlement. Telling someone what their statements are, such as straw man, and defining incredulity an emotional state will annoy the hell out of people. Stop it, if you don't agree just say so. Throwing the Oxford dictionary at someone is more about your ego then the topic at hand. It is unnecessary belittling behaviour, please stop it.

I am critiquing what you have written, not you. I am pointing out the logical fallacies in your posts, which are invalid arguments. You aren't rebutting my arguments or buttressing yours when you do that.

 

Your argument is that two or more objects can occupy the same space providing they arrive at different times is irrelevant. This absolutely doesn't demonstrate time, what it demonstrates is the fact that you're too hung up on the past, and not what's occurring at the moment. The fact that 1 bus has driven away, and another bus then takes it's position in space afterwards is a bi-product of analysis. Now turn that analysis off, and look at what's in front of you.

 

A bus, nothing else. Just a bus, it doesn't matter what happened before that bus arrived or what happens after that bus arrives, those are past and future events. In the moment there is just a bus. Time only comes into play when you want to look at the past, and then compare that past the future.

But, s a physicist, I do want to do that. There's a whole lot of physics that depends on it.

 

 

So you are absolutely 100% correct in the context of analysing past events. But you are applying this as if it was a part of the universe at this moment. Whatever happened before is no longer happening now you are working with old data this doesn't prove that time exists as a physical element of the universe. It just proves that you've got a useful tool to play with.

 

I really can't make myself any clearer at this point.

And I will point out once again that your use of "physical element" is a straw man. Nobody is claiming that time is a physical thing.

 

 

Also, you keep using "now" and "before" etc. to describe things, which are descriptions of time. If time doesn't exist, you should be able to make your point without it.

 

Only in mathematics, which is the point you are so hung up on. The actual object just gets on with it, it doesn't care what you calculate afterwards. I have consistently, and repeatedly stated that time is a tool and just because it's a tool, that doesn't mean time is a real physical part of the universes make-up.

Just as the spatial dimensions are not a real physical part of the universe's make-up. And yet they are dimensions, and part of our description of the universe.

[Delta1212]

I'm sorry, but holding up a ruler to an object is no more demonstration of space than taking a series of pictures of it is a demonstration of time. Since motion is the only thing that exists, I am willing to grant that it must travel through a dimension when moving. However, it only moves in one direction at a time, so you have only proven the existence of one dimension.

 

Please prove there is also a Y and Z axis.

[Daniel Foreman]

 

 

But, s a physicist, I do want to do that. There's a whole lot of physics that depends on it.

 

I can understand that. To achieve results naturally you need to draw conclusions and then build upon them to get practical rules. I'm not bound to this however, at the same time, I do not contribute to it either. I simply question, and question.

 

 

 

And I will point out once again that your use of "physical element" is a straw man. Nobody is claiming that time is a physical thing.

 

michel123456 is, as were several others.

 

It sounds like be both agree that time is a tool to be used in the greater tool kit mankind has invented. If this is your position, then I applaud it.

 

 

 

Just as the spatial dimensions are not a real physical part of the universe's make-up. And yet they are dimensions, and part of our description of the universe.

 

I would disagree with that, in so far that we know we can move in X Y and Z, or Width, breadth, and height, or right, left, up, down, forward, backwards. It is clearly visible to us that there are three modes of movement, so our expression of this has naturally evolved, so what we're observing actually fits what we've created. Of course these words, as with everything in the English language and the mathematical language, are mere expressions of how we think about this.

 

The only reason I don't treat time the same is that I can not observe the past or future. But I can at any instant observe multiple objects taking up multiple positions in space across all three expressions.

 

 

I'm sorry, but holding up a ruler to an object is no more demonstration of space than taking a series of pictures of it is a demonstration of time. Since motion is the only thing that exists, I am willing to grant that it must travel through a dimension when moving. However, it only moves in one direction at a time, so you have only proven the existence of one dimension.

 

Please prove there is also a Y and Z axis.

 

Please read the previous quote and reply in this post. Btw, I also observe that the sky is blue at this given moment, would you care to try and explain to me that it is in fact red?

Edited September 3, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[Delta1212]

No, your brain creates the illusion of observing multiple objects in three dimensions based on an interaction with a bunch of photons along a flat surface in the eye. You cannot directly observe anything that is distant from you, just like you cannot observe anything removed in time from you.

 

But the brain can use information from things that are immediately present and that you can interact with because they are not distant to extrapolate information about things that are farther away, just as it can record previous information to be able to extrapolation information about things that are removed from you in the past, and detects and builds models of patterns in order to extrapolate information about things in the future.

 

Your brain treats time differently from space because it is always moving through it in a single direction, but your perception of both time and space is not a reflection of the quality of their physical existence, just how your brain is equipped to deal with them. They're all in your head by equal amounts.

[StringJunky]

 

I would disagree with that, in so far that we know we can move in X Y and Z, or Width, breadth, and height, or right, left, up, down, forward, backwards. It is clearly visible to us that there are three modes of movement, so our expression of this has naturally evolved, so what we're observing actually fits what we've created. Of course these words, as with everything in the English language and the mathematical language, are mere expressions of how we think about this.

 

I would conjecture, on a neurological level, that without memory (ability to remember the past aka time) we could not visually sense movement since it would require a past image's position to be remembered to compare to the current one to observe the illusion of movement, so, the observation of movement is constrained by time whichever way you try to look at it.

Edited September 3, 2013 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

 

I can understand that. To achieve results naturally you need to draw conclusions and then build upon them to get practical rules. I'm not bound to this however, at the same time, I do not contribute to it either. I simply question, and question.

 

 

michel123456 is, as were several others.

 

It sounds like be both agree that time is a tool to be used in the greater tool kit mankind has invented. If this is your position, then I applaud it.

 

 

I would disagree with that, in so far that we know we can move in X Y and Z, or Width, breadth, and height, or right, left, up, down, forward, backwards. It is clearly visible to us that there are three modes of movement, so our expression of this has naturally evolved, so what we're observing actually fits what we've created. Of course these words, as with everything in the English language and the mathematical language, are mere expressions of how we think about this.

 

The only reason I don't treat time the same is that I can not observe the past or future. But I can at any instant observe multiple objects taking up multiple positions in space across all three expressions.

 

Please read the previous quote and reply in this post. Btw, I also observe that the sky is blue at this given moment, would you care to try and explain to me that it is in fact red?

(bolded mine)

Did I? I must have expressed myself badly. I certainly didn't want to mean that time is a kind of aether, no. I mean that time is a part of reality like space is.

No, your brain creates the illusion of observing multiple objects in three dimensions based on an interaction with a bunch of photons along a flat surface in the eye. You cannot directly observe anything that is distant from you, just like you cannot observe anything removed in time from you.

 

But the brain can use information from things that are immediately present and that you can interact with because they are not distant to extrapolate information about things that are farther away, just as it can record previous information to be able to extrapolation information about things that are removed from you in the past, and detects and builds models of patterns in order to extrapolate information about things in the future.

 

Your brain treats time differently from space because it is always moving through it in a single direction, but your perception of both time and space is not a reflection of the quality of their physical existence, just how your brain is equipped to deal with them. They're all in your head by equal amounts.

(bolded mine)

Confusing statements.

What you observe at a distance from you is in the past.

The statement "you cannot observe anything removed in time from you" is a statement that seems wrong to me. Everything you observe is removed in time from you.

[ACG52]

 

No it can't. Distance as a calculation can not exist without time as a reference. When playing with pure mathematics, which is used to describe an objects behaviour in the past or predict it's placement in the future, then both time and their relative positions in space at any given moment is very important.

 

 

 

When dealing with the physics which actually describes the physical universe, then both time and space are very important. Time is not relegated to pure mathematics, it's an integral part of the working of the universe.

 

 

 

and the galaxy as far as scientists can tell, is flying away from the origin point of the big bang.

Here you reveal a common misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. There is no origin point of the BB. Things are not moving away from some central point. All points in space (outside of gravitationally bound entities) are expanding away from every other point.

 

 

 

This idea has always interested me, simply because at first glance I'd have assumed something as accumulatively gravity dense as a galaxy would basically attract other galaxies, which would then either collide, or form an orbit around a particularly large and dense galaxy. However this doesn't appear to happen.

Here you show a basic ignorance of the laws of gravity, both in the limited Newtonian form and in the modern GR formulation. Have you ever heard of the inverse square law?

 

In fact galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other, and I say accelerating because it's not at an even rate that you might expect from an initial explosion as the name "big bang" suggests.

So relative to the origin point of the universe, which we assume we are flying away from, we are moving at ludicrous speeds.

And again, the BB was not an explosion, it is the metric scaling of space, and there is no origin point. There is no center of the universe. Because of the scaling factor, the further away something is (on the cosmological scale) the more space between us expands and the faster the object appears to receed. This apparent recession is not the result of the object moving through space, but the result of more space appearing between us.

 

1) When the big bang happened, did the explosion fly off in all directions, or did everything fly off in one direction more or less?

2) Did space itself actually originate at the big bang point, that is, is it something that's expanding as well as the matter within it's domain.

3) If space is expanding, then what is it "expanding in"?

4) Is there some kind of "super space" that allows expansion?

5) Is space evenly distributed?

6) Is space a stand-a-lone framework that doesn't require anything to expand in?

7) Is space infinite, will it continue to grow forever, or is there a point where it's spread so thin that space will simply cease to work?

1) There was no explosion. Nothing flew off in any directions. Every point in space expands away from every other point, in all directions (outside of gravitationally bound objects). For your reference, the limit of gravitational bounding for our local supergroup of galaxies is about 200 million light years. We see no spatial expansion until we get that far away.

2). No origin point. Or another way to look at it is that EVERY point in space was the origin. And matter is not expanding, the forces holding matter together, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, so overwhelm the force of expansion that matter is totally unaffected by expansion.

3) Space expands. The universe expands. The universe is all there is, and requires no framework to exist in.

4) see 3

5) On the large scale, yes, as far as we can observe.

6) see 3

7) Space doesn't 'thin'. Present observation and calculation indicate that it will continue to expand indefinitely.

 

But, as far as I can see, with my relative position to earth and my small sphere of influence, stuff just moves, and space is consistent. If space is consistent and doesn't force us along with it, which I assume it is based on my own observations, then there is no need for time outside the mathematical concept.

Here is probably your most egregious error. You use your extremely limited range of perception, based in a very small, specialized subset of the universe, (low-energy, relatively slow, macro sized), coupled with misconceptions regarding what known physics tells us and has verified about the universe, and try to extrapolate this into generalizations which contradict what we see in the real world.

[Delta1212]

(bolded mine)

Did I? I must have expressed myself badly. I certainly didn't want to mean that time is a kind of aether, no. I mean that time is a part of reality like space is.

 

(bolded mine)

Confusing statements.

What you observe at a distance from you is in the past.

The statement "you cannot observe anything removed in time from you" is a statement that seems wrong to me. Everything you observe is removed in time from you.

What you're actually observing is photons which are directly interacting with cells in my eye. I am not directly interacting with the screen in front of me, and thus am not directly observing it. My brain, however, can extrapolate information about the screen in front of me from the interaction of my eyes with the photons that the screen emitted/reflected (in the past, as you say) and use that information to form a picture.

 

Anything you aren't in direct contact with is not something you are technically observing directly, though. You're observing something else that provides you with enough information for your brain to make a solid guess about that thing.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Delta1212

[swansont]

Some more physics perspective on the subject

 

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2013/09/its-about-time.html

[Deidre]

To be honest I don't even think time exists after the big bang, let alone before. And one benefit of not having to confine yourself to time, is that you don't necessarily need a cause to have an effect. This conveniently does away with the "what came first?" question.

 

But I think, to look at the universe before the big bang you first have to look at the word nothing.

 

What exactly is nothing? Many people might point at a table top and say "there is nothing there" and of course this is absolutely wrong. There is air above the table a mixture of all sorts of gasses, you might also get particles of dust, and other bits of matter.

 

Now, if I place that table into a perfect vacuum, then point above that table, and say "there is nothing there." then is that statement true?

 

Again I say no it is not. For above that table, you have space to point to. While space isn't matter, it is a framework so it is "something" not only that, the space is still influenced by gravity (if for no other reason than the table would be a source of gravity) I would also assume that there is some kind of electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces present. I don't assume that forces disappear simply because matter isn't there to be affected by them. I tend to think of them as persist elements though I have absolutely no evidence for this.

 

So if there is still something there even in a perfect vacuum, then what is nothing? This is the question we need look at before we travel outside our own universes spatial framework.

 

Now, I have absolutely no idea at all what might have spawned the universe, But I do think, that something did. So the idea of the universe exploding from nothing doesn't even come into consideration for me at least. I think that a zero state, a state of true nothing, is absolutely impossible.

 

For the sake of my own fiction writing, I've created an idea called "Singular potentiality". Singular potentiality has no space to operate in, it has no forces and no matter. Words such a size, mass, hold no meaning to it. Having said that, it has it's own framework, and is in fact it's own framework. Inside this framework is some kind of continual ongoing motion (if in fact that is the right word). Because this framework doesn't have size, it can not increase or decrease it remains fixed in balance. Every so often the internal workings of this framework exceed it's own boundaries. This causes small pieces of itself to break off. As these pieces break off, they destabilise, and corrupt. This causes random mutations of itself based on the amount that has broken off, it no longer has the ability to hold itself together and simply goes "pop". That is, it very quickly forms a corrupted perhaps more basic form of it's own prior framework, in our case it was space. In the case of other universes it's something we've never seen before. The framework is the most critical stage, if it is not stable, then it collapses in on itself or spreads itself very thinly before eventually either joining other corrupted frameworks around it, or simply falling back into the original "Singular potentiality".

 

For some universes their life spans are short, in other universes the life span will be far longer than our own universe, but perhaps the conditions are not perfect enough for life to form, and they remain sterile places with very little going on. I also think the one of the key features of life is motion, and a compatible framework to allow motion as we know it to form.

 

Our universe is thus a random mutation, with just enough of the original Singular Potentiality to corrupt. In fact there were multiple corruptions, some of it took on space, some of it took on matter, some of it formed the forces we know. But because they all come from the same source, and are related to each other, each of these mutations interact with each other in compatible ways. But our universe isn't stable, as we know it's flying apart at a fantastic rate, and as has been demonstrated in random number theory, within our own framework matter likes to clump together producing galaxies and solar systems etc etc.

 

Eventually our universe will become so thinly spread out, that the spatial framework will probably simply break at some point, once it does it will fall back into the original source.

 

It is of course also possible that the Singular Potentiality isn't random at all and in fact follows an every cycling loop. There might be 100, 1000,10000, 1000000 identical universes like ours out there, with exactly the same amount of material breaking apart in exactly the same way, and in each of them some idiot is sitting in front of his computer writing this exact same paragraph out rather than getting a good nights sleep. Which is, in a way a kind of immortality

 

Having said that a pink pixie named Harry might have had gas one day, and we're the result of a burp. In terms of pure factual evidence, the pixie might be more convincing to some

 

 

 

 

You have very interesting ideas Why do you wish to discard time? We are confined to time and space, whether you accept it or not.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Deidre