Where does time start?

[GrandMasterK]

Not sure how to describe the question but i'll do my best. If numbers are infinite, how can you ever get to 1 is basically what im asking.

 

So in the form of time, how do you ever get to a second? where in the .00000000000000000000000000000 and beyond does it actually begin and start going up?

[darth tater]

My theory about time is that it always existed, even before the BB.

 

If time did not exist before the BB, then the events that caused the BB

could not have occured, since if anything happens, it takes time, therefore time had to exist before the BB.

[Flareon]

My theory about time is that it always existed' date=' even before the BB.

 

If time did not exist before the BB, then the events that [i']caused[/i] the BB

could not have occured, since if anything happens, it takes time, therefore time had to exist before the BB.

 

Actually almost all physicists believe that the universe is not composed of space existing in a passing time frame, but that we as a matter fact exist in a space-time, a physical environment composed of three spatial dimensions and one dimension of time. The four dimensions are thought to have been created simultaneously with the BB.

 

If what you propose was true, it would be the same time on earth as it is on a planet some lightyears away, but Special Theory of Relativity proposes that is not the case; there is no universal standard of time.

[5614]

That's almost a Zeno paradox (Zeno applied it to distance, almost the same thing), see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

(the paradox and solution are all there)

 

(another SFN thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10345 )

[Christ slave]

Existence has always existed. There is a timeless state of being, namely consciousness (call him God), which knows no beginning or end. It's simply a state of being, and it's much more existent than our lower-states of evaluating events with time, which is a measurement.

 

It's like a person who says "what". The person existed and when they said "what", the "what" had a beginning and then an end, but the person still existed during the what and after the what. Don't think in terms of "well, where did that person come from?" If you do this, you back into a huge line of evolution from which we all descend, and you'll never essentially discover a beginning to the "BEING", because the "BEING" is like saying a single word--the word begins and then ends, but the being never ceased.

 

Imagine now that the being had always existed...likewise, time itself is a creation, like the speaking of the word "what". It has a beginning "vocalizing the W-sound" and then an end "closing with a t". The being itself needs no resources and just simply goes on being. You, at your core, are part of the being--one with God. Say to yourself, "I AM below as I AM above."

[darth tater]

Actually almost all physicists believe that the universe is not composed of space existing in a passing time frame' date=' but that we as a matter fact exist in a space-time, a physical environment composed of three spatial dimensions and one dimension of time. The four dimensions are thought to have been created simultaneously with the BB.

 

If what you propose was true, it would be the same time on earth as it is on a planet some lightyears away, but Special Theory of Relativity proposes that is not the case; there is no universal standard of time.[/quote']

 

It is not my intention to propose that time is inflexable.

 

It is my intention to propose that time has always existed. Without the element of time, the necessary events that led to the BB could not have taken place.

[Flareon]

It is not my intention to propose that time is inflexable. .

 

Noted.

 

It is my intention to propose that time has always existed. Without the element of time, the necessary events that led to the BB could not have taken place.

 

Why not?

[Stumblebum]

Time requires an object with mass, in motion and with space to travel in. So I would have to conclude that time started when the universe was formed.

[darth tater]

Noted.

 

 

 

Why not?

 

Because in order for anything to occure, time must necessarily pass.

 

If the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then there can be no movement without the passage of time.

[darth tater]

Time requires an object with mass, in motion and with space to travel in. So I would have to conclude that time started when the universe was formed.

 

But if nothing happened to trigger the event, then the universe would not have been formed.

 

And if something did happen to trigger the event, time must have passed.

[Stumblebum]

Does light accelerate to c? Acceleration implies time passing. Lightspeed is instantaneous. Why couldn't the universe start the same way?

[GrandMasterK]

lol, not used to the higher level of understanding, had to read each reply 20 times to get it.

[Flareon]

But if nothing happened to trigger the event' date=' then the universe would not have been formed.

 

And if something did happen to trigger the event, time must have passed.[/quote']

 

Okay, I understand that time having a beginning is difficult to grasp for some people, even those intelligent. So let me try explaining it like this:

 

The universe as we know it, exists in four dimensions, three spatial and one of time. There are the coordinates x, y, z, and the scalar component of time.

 

Okay, let's imagine that you are meeting a friend at the Sears Tower. He gives you directions to the meeting site in the form of two cross streets (x and y) and the floor number (z). But that isn't sufficient for the meet to occur. He also needs to tell you of a time to meet. He tells you 3 pm, and now you have all four components to define an event: x, y, z, and time.

 

So you can think of time as having a direction, just like right, left, up, and down. And it certainly does have a direction, as this can be witnessed by observing cause and effect.

 

Back to the Big Bang: right before the "bang" the universe was a singularity, a point of infinite density. Let me reiterate that. A point. Which by definition, has no width, length, depth, and in terms of coordinates, would be the origin (0,0,0) of the x-y-z coordinate system. So if just before the "bang" x=0, y=0, and z=0, then it is not hard to make the conclusion that t=0 as well, since we have already established time as a dimension not unlike the three spatial dimensions in that they all have direction and are required to define an event.

[Stumblebum]

I'm no expert Grandmaster but I try to think of it in simple terms. If time=velocity/distance then neither v or d can be zero for time to exist. Someone out there probably has the correct science for this. I more than likely forgot some important principle. Got to be careful around here.

[darth tater]

Okay' date=' I understand that time having a beginning is difficult to grasp for some people, even those intelligent. So let me try explaining it like this:

 

The universe as we know it, exists in four dimensions, three spatial and one of time. There are the coordinates x, y, z, and the scalar component of time.

 

Okay, let's imagine that you are meeting a friend at the Sears Tower. He gives you directions to the meeting site in the form of two cross streets (x and y) and the floor number (z). But that isn't sufficient for the meet to occur. He also needs to tell you of a [i']time [/i] to meet. He tells you 3 pm, and now you have all four components to define an event: x, y, z, and time.

 

So you can think of time as having a direction, just like right, left, up, and down. And it certainly does have a direction, as this can be witnessed by observing cause and effect.

 

Back to the Big Bang: right before the "bang" the universe was a singularity, a point of infinite density. Let me reiterate that. A point. Which by definition, has no width, length, depth, and in terms of coordinates, would be the origin (0,0,0) of the x-y-z coordinate system. So if just before the "bang" x=0, y=0, and z=0, then it is not hard to make the conclusion that t=0 as well, since we have already established time as a dimension not unlike the three spatial dimensions in that they all have direction and are required to define an event.

 

I guess I have never heard of the BB starting out from a dimensionless point (I have heard of all the material being compressed into a ball of perhaps 15 miles in diameter) but, if that was the case, then how did all the material get to that dimensionless point without some amount of time elapsing to allow for that?

 

And again, if nothing happened to trigger the BB, and nothing could have occured without the time element being in place, then we would still be in that state.

[Christ slave]

Despite all the clever scientific explanations, you cannot explain the beginning which extends into infinity, the existence itself, and the fact that this existence exists now as it existed before.

 

What is time? Time is hardly anything except that it's a constantly changing present. There is no past or future, really, but only a present and this presence changes. So what is the present, then? Or, the presence? If you stop measuring it in time, and simply realize the present just simply exists--there is no beginning or end, then you have to come to the conclusion that there is some constant in all this...something unchanging and an alternate reality, measured by time, which changes and evolves.

 

So, what is this constant which existed in the beginning, which exists in the end (still now) and has always existed? Well, you cannot use science to explain this because the more you attempt to explain something that simply IS and has always been and always will be (that always IS), the more you separate yourself from the reality that that which IS...IS. The moment you reject it to explain it or figure it out, you now have denied its properties and so have accepted a lie.

 

We don't separate ourselves from the properties of Evolution in order to explain it or any other law or reality...so, why do people accept those faithfully but when it comes to the being that IS (God), they attempt to separate their selves from its properties and omniscience to explain it? If you separate yourself from anything that is true to explain it, you deny the truth and accept a lie. Why would it be any different with God? Well, many people accept it as "okay" to reject God because other people do it, whereas they put their faith in other facts as if God is some sort of tumbleweed to be tossed around. No, the truth must always be accepted with faith--as with God, so with all truth.

 

If you deny that gravity exists, until you begin to faithfully accept it, how can you acknowledge it or speak of it? So where does time begin? You cannot deny the fact that there is a point where time itself ceases and you simply have to accept that existence exists and always will and always have. Everyone of us innately know this, which is why the question is proposed and there's conflict with it...people are attempting to separate their selves from common, faithful sense and somehow change the reality that separating their selves from what they already know for certain isn't accepting a lie.

[GrandMasterK]

Wow. The question originally was aimed at something along the lines of incriments of time, and what is the smallest if there is one, the one right before time just...freezes, goes on pause. You guys are slowly pealing my mind to a different understanding of it and it seems now that....a measurement of time is irrelevant? Or is that wrong.

[Stumblebum]

Once you establish a measurement then there are an infinite amount of increments.

[bascule]

a measurement of time is irrelevant? Or is that wrong.

 

In a background independent theory, time should be irrelevant, or perhaps more specifically an effect of a more fundamental underlying structure.

[GrandMasterK]

so we've come to the conclusion that time is constant, for anything to happen time has to pass, and it existed before the big bang, assuming you disbelieve that the big bang isnt the very first event to take place in this multi universe dimension, diverse plains, level of exsistences place, which is probably just a petry dish in some guys lab. I hope he's a nice guy.....maybe the type of guy who interferes with stuff like meteors commin at earth....atleast until we get advanced enough where we can handle problems like that on our own.

 

Anybody have something to add?

[5614]

Anybody have something to add?

Yeah... time is not constant (time dilation) and it didn't exist before the big bang because nothing did.

 

The whole "just a petry dish in some guys lab" idea is not justifyable in physics to be considered anything more than something which happens in movies.

[bascule]

...time [...'] didn't exist before the big bang because nothing did.

 

We don't know what happened before the big bang. About as far as we can attempt to model is one Planck time after the big bang supposedly occured. There are several hypotheses as to what happened, many of which suppose an early universe prior to the big bang, most notably inflation which would assume that a random alignment in inflaton infused space created a massive expansion of 3 spatial dimensions

[GreenDestiny]

Back to the Big Bang: right before the "bang" the universe was a singularity, a point of infinite density. Let me reiterate that. A point. Which by definition, has no width, length, depth, and in terms of coordinates, would be the origin (0,0,0) of the x-y-z coordinate system. So if just before the "bang" x=0, y=0, and z=0, then it is not hard to make the conclusion that t=0 as well, since we have already established time as a dimension not unlike the three spatial dimensions in that they all have direction and are required to define an event.

 

How does this work together with a possible multiverse theory? If our universe should just be one out of many - did all the other universes also originate from the same singularity? And where did that singularity come from?

 

Also, wouldn't it be possible that the big bang occured in some kind of meta-universe with a meta-time? Then only the time of our universe would have been created with the big bang. But I'm not sure how the relation between our time and the time of the meta-universe would be then...

[Christ slave]

Yeah... time is not constant (time dilation) and it didn't exist before the big bang because nothing did.

 

The whole "just a petry dish in some guys lab" idea is not justifyable in physics to be considered anything more than something which happens in movies.

His analogy of a "petry dish" is absolutely accurate. Our petry dish may be much primitive and vastly different from the larger "petry dish", and the "guy" is much more advanced and capable of doing just about anything (just as we are much more powerful than a dog in this world of physics, and a dog much more advanced than a ladybug, and a ladybug more advanced than a leg, and a leg than a cell, a cell than a single protein, and a protein than an atom, and atom than a neutron, and so on).

 

There exists, at some level of Evolution, a point where human capability becomes godlike--the merging or maturity of the spirit. In the spirit, the vast differences, such as of a human to a maggot are seen--whereby you recognize that God to a human is so incredibly unrealistic to attempt to explain, because we too are pathetic "maggots" or "ladybugs" to a much-powerful "human-being".

 

The question is, what, at the top of this hierarchical "game" of Evolution, does a being eminate? Well, God eminates love. And, to go pointing out references to movies or "science-fiction" is hardly to your own credit.

[GrandMasterK]

why is it exactly, that time slows down when you move?