PDA

View Full Version : What Started Time ?

RAF_Blackace
2012-Jan-11, 07:43 PM
Can someone explain in simple words (I doubt it but I live in hope) the current book answer to the following ?

Which came first, the universe or Time, and what started time ?

Chickens and Eggs springs to mind.

As far as I have read, Time is an emergent property, so when after the big bang did time emerge, and how can we conceive of anything happening before time ?

How can we say that the Quark epoch occurred Between 10–12 seconds and 10–6 seconds after the Big Bang ?

I just don't get it :)

Buttercup
2012-Jan-11, 07:54 PM
The universe came first.

The motion of light (started time)?

That'd be my guess.

Shaula
2012-Jan-11, 08:13 PM
Short answer: No one knows.

Longer answer: The models we have for how the universe work break down above certain energy levels. Much like Newton's gravity was an approximation of a more complex theory (General relativity), we know that our current models are low energy approximations of something more complicated but complete. The Big Bang is actually hypothetical. We know the visible universe is expanding, we have good evidence that it was smaller an hotter a long time ago. If you plot a graph of size of universe against time and extrapolate it back to size=0 you get a point in time we call the Big Bang. However before you reach that point all the models and theories we have based out understanding of the universe break down. We do not know that size=0 ever happened. But it is a convenient point, for now, to define as t=0 for our universe.

People can and will speculate about the start of time/beginning of space. And it is probably true to say that we can rule some ideas out. But what we have no current way to do is actually validate any of these speculations.

Edit: when I say hypothetical... What I mean is that the t=0 singular point may not have happened. We just don't know. The theory commonly termed the big bang theory actually only describes the universe evolving from a hot, dense state. It does not include the 'bang' it is named after.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-11, 08:22 PM
My view. The next guy will disagree with me.

General relativity doesn't know anything about particles. All it
knows about are mass-energy and space-time. So general
relativity can only say how mass-energy and space-time affect
particles. It can't say anything about how particles might affect
mass-energy or space-time. That is, quantum mechanics is
not included in general relativity.

General relativity was used to calculate how the Universe
must have grown to what we see now. Extrapolating backward
in time, general relativity calculations show that everything must
have been together in the same place 13.7 billion years ago.
The backward extrapolation ends at that instant. There is no
spacetime before that instant. There is no time before that
instant. It is wnen time began.

If everything was packed tightly together, then it must have
been very dense and very hot. Quantum mechanics tells us
something about what the conditions must have been like at
different times, due to change in the density as the Universe
expanded. Inflation theory, an offshoot of quantum mechanics,
even tells us how the expansion may have been affected by
changes in the particles due to the changes in density. It even
appears now to be suggesting that a tiny quantum fluctuation,
normally an event so small that it has no observeable effect,
may have been inflated, causing the Big Bang and creating
the Universe.

As far as I can see, a quantum fluctuation occurs in space
and time, so space-time would need to exist in order for a
quantum fluctuation to occur.

But maybe not. I only play a cosmologist on the Internet.

The basic thing about the theories so far is that general
relativity predicts, via backward extrapolation, a singularity
at which everything began, and conditions get more and
more extreme as you get closer and closer to that instant.
Quantum mechanics can say something about what must
have happened under those conditions, but not all the way
back to the singularity. It suggests that there might not have
been a singularity, and/or that for some reason, such as that
suggested by Inflation, conditions were not as extreme as
calculated by the (relatively) simple backward extrapolation
of general relativity.

I say that some unknown physics was taking place at the
beginning, so we can't know what was happening or what
the conditions were early on. From the observed proportions
of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium isotopes in the
Universe, we can calculate (using quantum mechanics) that
certain conditions must have existed for a certain length of
time, and evolved in a certain way and at a certain rate,
between about one second and three minutes after the time
of general relativity's predicted singularity. But before that,
we need to know something about that unknown physics in
order to be sure of anything at all.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-11, 08:29 PM
I agree with everything Shaula said.

I almost used the word "hypothetical" near the end of my post,
too, but changed it to "predicted".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

pzkpfw
2012-Jan-11, 08:31 PM
I'll remind members to be very careful in the Q&A forum. It's the place for normal mainstream answers to questions. Not the place for "my guess" or "my view" (there's a fine line to personal interpretations of the mainstream science). Of course, when the mainstream answer is "we don't really know", or it's something still under development: that makes the "mainstream answer" hard to give... so that's why this is just a reminder, not a warning.

astromark
2012-Jan-11, 08:39 PM
Now, am I the only one that see's that as funny.. :)

We are, answering a question to the best of our ability with what we understand as 'THE MAIN STREAM VIEW.'

What started time ? ... motion.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-11, 08:47 PM
My belief, at this moment, is that observation of time is an
emergent property, but that time itself is a real "thing" which
must "exist" in order for the observable aspects to emerge
and be observeable. I'd say the same of space. You can't
measure a distance without objects to measure between.
You can't measure a time interval without events to
measure between.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

RAF_Blackace
2012-Jan-11, 08:56 PM
So the current theories are good until a point just AFTER the big bang, or after 10 to the minus 12 seconds after which is I believe the point that this happens. There appears to be an extremely small amount of time between point=0 and our understanding of the universe conforming to current theory.

If the Higgs boson created the Higgs field that gives mass to matter. Is it conceivable, or been theorised, that another fundamental particle gave space, time (not spacetime). I understand why time works the way it does now, but I can't for the life of me find any serious text that discusses where it came from and when it started.

If the three dimensions are given to us because of the existence of matter (without which they would not exist), then could matter also have given us the fourth dimension time ? Time could not start until matter existed. Without time how can anything have happened ?

It really is very confusing. My apologies for the various questions. I suppose "No one knows" may be the only answer.

kevin1981
2012-Jan-11, 09:21 PM
We do not know that size=0 ever happened. But it is a convenient point, for now, to define as t=0 for our universe.

Thats interesting. So maybe everything was not crushed to a size of a pin head. It may of came from something which produced a hot
dense state.

transreality
2012-Jan-11, 09:51 PM
The problem is that as the initial universe cooled down particles condensed from energy. That is, after the commencement of the universe there must have been a time when there was no particles. This includes the higgs boson, or any other particle, yet planck time was still ticking over, and there was space for the particles to appear in.

RAF_Blackace
2012-Jan-11, 09:56 PM
If time is relative why do cosmologists define almost precise times after the big bang ?

T= 0 to 10 to the minus 12 seconds could be a billion years relative to us. I must be missing something.

Shaula
2012-Jan-11, 10:12 PM
This is where it may get confusing... Time is relative, in that moving observers will disagree on things like simultaneity, elapsed time etc. However since the t=0 point refers to a point where everything was (hypothetically) co-located we can say that the Big Bang happened right here. It happened everywhere else as well, that follows from the size of universe being zero or at least very small. So if the Big Bang happened right here, in our frame (and in every other frame) then we can say that 10e-12s after the hypothetical zero point in our frame, here, something happened. A fast moving observer might say about our 10e-12 that it was a different time according to him but he would have to agree that in his frame the same thing happened at 10e-12s since the Big Bang, for him, happened where he was too...

And for most of the rest, yes. The answer is that no one knows. Sadly. It would be exciting to know but it is misleading to give you an answer other than "Theories we have don't work under the conditions that prevailed then"

Edit: When I say local frame I mean local frame that sees the CMB as isotropic

RAF_Blackace
2012-Jan-11, 10:26 PM
My brain just exploded and I have now been reduced to a quivering heap of beer stained denims.

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-12, 12:46 AM
Can someone explain in simple words (I doubt it but I live in hope) the current book answer to the following ?

Which came first, the universe or Time, and what started time ?

Chickens and Eggs springs to mind.

As far as I have read, Time is an emergent property, so when after the big bang did time emerge, and how can we conceive of anything happening before time ?

How can we say that the Quark epoch occurred Between 10–12 seconds and 10–6 seconds after the Big Bang ?

I just don't get it :)

I'd say they started at the same time. One thing to note is the big bang isn't the start of the universe. The big bang is a rapid inflation event in an existing universe. A set of conditions so to speak. It is just that we can not explain this condition with modern physics yet. It can be viewed simply as the beginning of the universe but in the strictest sense it isn't the start of the universe as I understand it.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-12, 08:10 AM
The standard model, generated purely from general relativity
and a few very simple assumptions (based on observations),
describes the creation of spacetime as the Universe expands.
Given that it also predicts a singularity at the beginning of the
expansion, there was every reason to assume that the start
of the expansion (the Big Bang) was the start of *everything*,
including time.

With the addition of quantum mechanical considerations to
the standard model, the requirement that the Big Bang was
the start of time may be relaxed, and ideas such as eternal
inflation are suggested.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

astromark
2012-Jan-12, 10:33 AM
The standard model, generated purely from general relativity
and a few very simple assumptions (based on observations),
describes the creation of spacetime as the Universe expands.
Given that it also predicts a singularity at the beginning of the
expansion, there was every reason to assume that the start
of the expansion (the Big Bang) was the start of *everything*,
including time.

With the addition of quantum mechanical considerations to
the standard model, the requirement that the Big Bang was
the start of time may be relaxed, and ideas such as eternal
inflation are suggested.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I would suggest that. That is the mainstream view. Is there any argument ?

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-12, 02:33 PM
Can someone explain in simple words (I doubt it but I live in hope) the current book answer to the following ?

Which came first, the universe or Time, and what started time ?

Chickens and Eggs springs to mind.

As far as I have read, Time is an emergent property, so when after the big bang did time emerge, and how can we conceive of anything happening before time ?

How can we say that the Quark epoch occurred Between 10–12 seconds and 10–6 seconds after the Big Bang ?

I just don't get it :)

It is very difficult to conceptulise how the universe and thus time might have come into existance. You have been presented with some great answers and views. Plenty to think about, certainly! The theory of the big bang suggests that there was no spacetime prior to the intial start of the inflation. We tend to imagine the universe expanding into something but this is not how the theory works. The univserse is spacetime and it is not expanding into anything it just is expanding.
For the universe to exist as it does there needs to be space (room to move in) and time (motion to occur). If the singularity did indeed exist then neither time or space would be required. Only when the universe needed room (gained size) then time and space would be required for it. So in answer to your question the mainstream view is that time began the instant space was created. What we struggle to get are heads around is why would this singularity spontaneously begin to inflate? and what caused it to? Jeff hit on quantum fluctutaions maybe this is the key.

Strange
2012-Jan-12, 02:46 PM
This might be of interest: New Scientist: Why physicists can't avoid a creation event (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event.html)

fcunnane
2012-Jan-13, 04:52 PM
Hi, given the TOE, GUT graph of when gravity dropped out as a fundamental force I would imagine that the Universe came first and time came only after there were two linear points to measure between t=0 and t=tP(~5.39 * 10^-44 seconds). I hope this helps.

dgavin
2012-Jan-13, 05:43 PM
If the Higgs boson created the Higgs field that gives mass to matter. Is it conceivable, or been theorised, that another fundamental particle gave space, time (not spacetime). I understand why time works the way it does now, but I can't for the life of me find any serious text that discusses where it came from and when it started.

As many have said we just don't know.

If you move into the realm of Sci-Fi, there is such a thing as a Chronoton or Time Particle.

However I don't think there is any searious research being done around that possibility yet, as one would have to be able to physically detect Graviton's and Tachyon's in a collider to infer Chronoton's. Sort of in the same veign where if we eventually confirm the detection of Higg's bosson with the LHC, we will be able to infer the graviton particle from it and the other prticles known.

There have been some attempts at looking for Tachyon's in colliders, but those have yeilded negitive results, so it does not really look that promising for a Chronoton.

Trakar
2012-Jan-13, 09:01 PM
Can someone explain in simple words (I doubt it but I live in hope) the current book answer to the following ?

Space.

Before the expansion of dimensionality, all existed in overlapping point potentiality, and since there was no existence beyond that potentiality, time was without meaning.

once the dimensions of space began unfolding, mass and energy could find expression along these dimensions and time came into existence as a qualification of mass and energy expression along the dimensionalities of space.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-13, 10:20 PM
Trakar,

I would think that if "the dimensions of space began unfolding",
they were able to do so because of the passage of time.
No passage of time, no unfolding.

RAF_Blackace,

It just occurred to me that the chicken and egg thing is more
relevant than I had been thinking. What I had been thinking
was that chickens and eggs alternate: Chicken-egg-chicken-
egg-chicken-etc.... But that isn't right. The eggs are chicken
eggs. If there was a first chicken-- and I'm not saying there
was-- then it started life as a chicken egg, not as an adult.
So although eggs indisputably existed many millions of years
before chickens, the first chicken egg was simultaneous with
the first chicken, since it *was* the first chicken.

Similarly, if there was a beginning of time-- and I'm not saying
there was-- then it had to be simultaneous with the beginning
of space and energy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

caveman1917
2012-Jan-13, 10:21 PM
If time is relative why do cosmologists define almost precise times after the big bang ?

T= 0 to 10 to the minus 12 seconds could be a billion years relative to us. I must be missing something.

The times are taken to be as on the clock of an observer that has always been at rest wrt the hubble flow (for all those observers time goes at the "same rate" so to speak). We are pretty close to that standard (though not exactly).

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-14, 11:30 AM
RAF_Blackace,

It just occurred to me that the chicken and egg thing is more
relevant than I had been thinking. What I had been thinking
was that chickens and eggs alternate: Chicken-egg-chicken-
egg-chicken-etc.... But that isn't right. The eggs are chicken
eggs. If there was a first chicken-- and I'm not saying there
was-- then it started life as a chicken egg, not as an adult.
So although eggs indisputably existed many millions of years
before chickens, the first chicken egg was simultaneous with
the first chicken, since it *was* the first chicken.

Similarly, if there was a beginning of time-- and I'm not saying
there was-- then it had to be simultaneous with the beginning
of space and energy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Yes I agree Jeff.

We are so accustomed to the flow of time and the dimension of space experienced as we do, that its difficult for us to imagine any other. We struggle with the concept of "no before" the big bang.

Trakar
2012-Jan-14, 07:03 PM
Trakar,

I would think that if "the dimensions of space began unfolding",
they were able to do so because of the passage of time.
No passage of time, no unfolding...

Time is a dimension. It tracks the translation of mass-energy through the dimensions of space.

An important question might be, did the dimension of time begin unfolding simultaneous to the dimensions of space, or did it merely take on meaning and significance as the spatial dimensions began unfolding?

JCoyote
2012-Jan-14, 11:12 PM
The biggest problem with time beginning is that without time nothing can begin.

If we view the time we experience as having had a causal beginning, than I get stuck on concluding that there exists more than 1 dimension of causality, ie, another form of time on some other level perhaps regarding interactions between universes as opposed to inside of them. Or something like that.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-15, 02:09 AM
I suppose you could ask the same about everything else, what told this dense mass to explode and how ? Why was it even hot, and where did the rule that the denser something is the hotter it becomes come from ? So my answer for the creation of time, would be a creator. If one would say then it was the result of a bubble universe then your simply evading the question or re-directing it. Eventually you will go back to a starting point for everything, and your going to be right back where you where. What triggered this big bang, where this mass (despite how small and dense it is, it still was in existence) come from ? Beside having a creator, I couldn't tell you what started time or the start of everything.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-15, 06:21 AM
Why was it even hot, and where did the rule that the
denser something is the hotter it becomes come from ?
There's no rule that the denser something is, the hotter
it becomes. However, if you take something that has any
heat in it and squeeze it into a smaller volume, it will have
a higher temperature than before, because the same
amount of heat is squeezed into the smaller volume.
In the case of the Universe as a whole, it is becoming
cooler as it expands. So we know it was once much
hotter than it is now.

But of course we don't know why.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Shaula
2012-Jan-15, 07:34 AM
The biggest problem with time beginning is that without time nothing can begin.
Not strictly true if GR can be trusted under extreme conditions. You can end up with space-like dimensions acting like time-like ones. So you can have a situation where something is stationary in dimension t because it is using x as a time-like dimension.

I think the point is, still, we don't know. We don't have the mathematical or conceptual tools to work it out yet. We keep seeing hints (String theory and topological deformations of Calabi Yau manifolds is a fascinating one) but we do not know. People love to speculate but essentially they are just pushing out words. Barring a breakthrough in quantum gravity we are not going to get more than vague hints of what was going on. And we certainly are not going to get those hints by using natural language type arguments about the nature of space and time.

Cougar
2012-Jan-15, 03:35 PM
Not strictly true if GR can be trusted under extreme conditions. You can end up with space-like dimensions acting like time-like ones.

According to Hawking, you have hit on the answer. The big bang was obviously the most extreme condition we can imagine. And according to GR, what happens to our dimension of time as we approach such an extreme condition? It becomes a dimension of space! So Trakar is right, too: Some kind of space was apparently there before time. Or no, wait. That's probably not right. Time was locked up in that space, and it became manifest as the state of that space (somehow) became less extreme.

Hawking said that answers the old "beginning of time" question. He did not say where that space came from.

a1call
2012-Jan-16, 12:01 AM
What Started Time ?

What exactly do you mean by time? (Rhetorical, no need to answer)

*- Time is different thing to different people.

*-
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. Time is used to define other quantities — such as velocity — so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time)[2]
**- Time can not be independently defined and any definition of time is a definition in terms of parameters that are defined-via/depend-upon the definition of time making them vague and indefinite.

iantresman
2012-Jan-24, 03:54 PM
Can someone explain in simple words (I doubt it but I live in hope) the current book answer to the following ?

Which came first, the universe or Time, and what started time ?

Time requires some kind of event(s) against which to measure it. From a philosophical point of view, you also need someone to measure it. Obviously we can retrospectively impose our concept of time across history, and to 14.6 billion years ago, but the idea of how long the universe was in a state before the Big Bang is meaningless.

But perhaps you're trying to distinguish the measurement of time from spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime)? By definition the Universe is defined as spacetime, which preceded the measurement of time.

ZunarJ5
2012-Jan-26, 12:41 AM
Many of these answers make sense to me. Time is the measurement of the movement of the universe. Space and time are so intrinsically connected its hard to say one came before another. Thats why we call it space-time, right?

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-26, 04:58 PM
Many of these answers make sense to me. Time is the measurement of the movement of the universe. Space and time are so intrinsically connected its hard to say one came before another. Thats why we call it space-time, right?

Basically yes, and as Shaula first mentioned and Wayne expanded on according to GR under extreme conditions time and space maybe indistinguishable. We always tend to think of time and space as seperate entities, mainly because we experience and measure them that way. But as you mentioned, according to Relativity space and time are intrinsically connected, entwined in a way that one cannot exist without the other (at least since the BB). I believe space and time were spontaneous and that "prior to" (if that has any real meaning in the true sense of the words) the BB time and space had no meaning. Much like the old saying what's further south than the south pole? But what really intrigues me most is how and why it began!! My brain is programmed from experience that things in this universe operate by cause and effect, yet the universe appears to have began with no cause, yet with extreme effect!

baskerbosse
2012-Jan-26, 10:08 PM
Spacetime is then the 4 dimensional structure of the universe. But isn't it also dependant on mass?
Seems the question then shifts to 'where did mass come from?'.

Massless particles don't experience distance or time, -so did spacetime exist before mass?
If there is not any mass in existence, only massless particles, does spacetime then exist at all?

Does this then imply that massless particles need massive particles to exist? Otherwise there will be nowhere for them to be?

Peter

Shaula
2012-Jan-26, 10:13 PM
Mass has an effect on space time. Doesn't mean spacetime can't exist without it. There are solutions to the basic GR equations for empty universes with nice mathematically simple flat metrics.

The answer hasn't changed, for anyone reading this far. "We do not know that started time"

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-27, 03:55 PM
Spacetime is then the 4 dimensional structure of the universe. But isn't it also dependant on mass?
In a sense yes, matter needs spacetime to exist.

Seems the question then shifts to 'where did mass come from?'.
Massless particles don't experience distance or time, -so did spacetime exist before mass?
If there is not any mass in existence, only massless particles, does spacetime then exist at all?

Does this then imply that massless particles need massive particles to exist? Otherwise there will be nowhere for them to be?

Peter

Since matter is thought to be condensed energy, for that energy to cool and condense it needs space and time to do so.
Whether thats the reason spacetime was required is anybod'ys guess.
But as Shaula rightly stated we just don't know at this point in time.

amensae
2012-Jan-29, 01:59 AM
I am deleting this and starting from scratch.
I hope the new version makes more sense.

amensae
2012-Jan-29, 02:58 AM
Hopefully this doesn’t violate the no-religion rule...
The problem with the notion of a creator is that it doesn’t explain the origin of time while retaining internal consistency.
The creator does not have to be a divine being. If our universe is a computer simulation, the creator is the programmer. For brevity I will call it C.

Time must have come into existence with the Big Bang if the BB was the start of everything. There cannot have been anything before the beginning of everything. Even if the process is cyclical, with an infinite regression of Big Bangs, the question of time’s origin cannot be avoided if we posit that C created the cycle.
If C created everything, then it created time. Otherwise, if time is independent of C’s creation, then we have at least one thing that was not created by C, and there is no logical reason to presume that everything else was created by C.

Therefore C has causal precedence over time, which implies that C transcends time – it is timeless. Yet logically C cannot exist in a timeless state. A purposeful act of creation involves intent, planning and design, in other words acting in advance, a process which is embedded in time. If C is acting in time, then time must exist independent of C.

To have created the universe, including time, C must exist outside our time, in some sort of eternal meta-time. But this would mean C did not create that meta-time. Since something exists which is independent of C, there is (again) no logical reason to presume that everything else was created by C.

To get over this problem, we might presume that this meta-time is an intrinsic aspect of C. However, since C created everything, including that meta-time, it effectively created itself. C would have to be a spontaneously self-generating entity. However, a spontaneous event is exactly that – spontaneous. By definition, C does not take any purposeful action. Applying Occam’s Razor, if the universe is self-generating, then postulating a creator is multiplying entities beyond necessity.

kevin1981
2012-Jan-29, 03:36 PM
Since matter is thought to be condensed energy
Are particles, like a proton for example, Energy in a solid form ?

noncryptic
2012-Jan-29, 04:02 PM
Are particles, like a proton for example, Energy in a solid form ?

You seem to be asking "is matter really condensed energy?" According to mainstream theory (Relativity: e=mcc) it is.

kevin1981
2012-Jan-29, 04:31 PM
I am going to start a new thread as this i way off topic !

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-30, 04:37 PM
Hopefully this doesn’t violate the no-religion rule...
The problem with the notion of a creator is that it doesn’t explain the origin of time while retaining internal consistency.
The creator does not have to be a divine being. If our universe is a computer simulation, the creator is the programmer. For brevity I will call it C.

Time must have come into existence with the Big Bang if the BB was the start of everything. There cannot have been anything before the beginning of everything. Even if the process is cyclical, with an infinite regression of Big Bangs, the question of time’s origin cannot be avoided if we posit that C created the cycle.
If C created everything, then it created time. Otherwise, if time is independent of C’s creation, then we have at least one thing that was not created by C, and there is no logical reason to presume that everything else was created by C.

Therefore C has causal precedence over time, which implies that C transcends time – it is timeless. Yet logically C cannot exist in a timeless state. A purposeful act of creation involves intent, planning and design, in other words acting in advance, a process which is embedded in time. If C is acting in time, then time must exist independent of C.

To have created the universe, including time, C must exist outside our time, in some sort of eternal meta-time. But this would mean C did not create that meta-time. Since something exists which is independent of C, there is (again) no logical reason to presume that everything else was created by C.

To get over this problem, we might presume that this meta-time is an intrinsic aspect of C. However, since C created everything, including that meta-time, it effectively created itself. C would have to be a spontaneously self-generating entity. However, a spontaneous event is exactly that – spontaneous. By definition, C does not take any purposeful action. Applying Occam’s Razor, if the universe is self-generating, then postulating a creator is multiplying entities beyond necessity.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, nice post.
I think maybe this in a way is what Hawking was trying to convey in his latest publication. Time along with space and all it contains could/might have spontaneously appeared without the need of anything to create it. Just a void of infinite possibilities and one just happened to happen.

amensae
2012-Jan-30, 11:14 PM
I think maybe this in a way is what Hawking was trying to convey in his latest publication.
Is that Hawking’s The Grand Design?
Going OT for a moment… I wasn’t going to read it until I checked out the “critical reactions” section of the Wikipedia article. The fact that he can provoke such responses (e.g. the last, from Baroness Greenfield – no hyperbole there!) shows the guy hasn’t lost it.

Xibalba
2012-Jan-31, 03:19 AM
God

jk

Cougar
2012-Jan-31, 03:50 AM
Is that Hawking’s The Grand Design?
Going OT for a moment… I wasn’t going to read it until I checked out the “critical reactions” section of the Wikipedia article. The fact that he can provoke such responses (e.g. the last, from Baroness Greenfield – no hyperbole there!) shows the guy hasn’t lost it.

I rather agree with all of those 'critical reactions'. The book doesn't come through on its promise. And it assumes theories not in evidence. And it negates the supernatural based on the free lunch Guth came up with 30 years ago. Otherwise, it's entertaining if you like Stephen's sense of humor.

cosmocrazy
2012-Jan-31, 04:38 PM
Is that Hawking’s The Grand Design?
Going OT for a moment… I wasn’t going to read it until I checked out the “critical reactions” section of the Wikipedia article. The fact that he can provoke such responses (e.g. the last, from Baroness Greenfield – no hyperbole there!) shows the guy hasn’t lost it.

Yes.

astromark
2012-Jan-31, 07:13 PM
For as long as there are people that can not perceive the true size of the universe.

As long at the concept of actual size is lost in the fog of ever have been created A argument exists.

We ask of 'time' that might be a absolute requirement for motion. There can not be one without the other.

Absolutely excepted as true that any action or motion requires a moment to have happened. Time is born.

Going back to the rather silly question; Which came first ? The chicken or the egg...

and the unpopular answer of the fish.. which lay eggs were fist. So its the egg, and a evolving species.

Transposing that logic to this is easy for some.. and me.

If it was a quantified collapse or birth. Without a moment it could not be.

Whatever it was that did happen as we suspect it might have did require a moment of time. TIME.

So time is linked to motion. Regardless of function time was the trigger mechanism..

You can not separate the two.. Time and motion.

amensae
2012-Feb-01, 06:07 AM
I rather agree with all of those 'critical reactions'.
Hopefully not the one that likens Hawking to the Taliban!
;)

WayneFrancis
2012-Feb-01, 02:06 PM
Spacetime is then the 4 dimensional structure of the universe. But isn't it also dependant on mass?
Seems the question then shifts to 'where did mass come from?'.

Massless particles don't experience distance or time, -so did spacetime exist before mass?
If there is not any mass in existence, only massless particles, does spacetime then exist at all?

Does this then imply that massless particles need massive particles to exist? Otherwise there will be nowhere for them to be?

Peter

Actually GR doesn't require any mass or energy in the universe. IE space/time doesn't need mass and energy to exist. It would be a very boring universe tho. You can still have gravity waves from what I understand but I'm still not clear how those gravity waves get started in a universe with no mass and energy.

dgavin
2012-Feb-01, 02:32 PM
Actually GR doesn't require any mass or energy in the universe. IE space/time doesn't need mass and energy to exist. It would be a very boring universe tho. You can still have gravity waves from what I understand but I'm still not clear how those gravity waves get started in a universe with no mass and energy.

I think I remember reading once (can't remember where, i think i was reading up on brane theory though) that it was felt the original quantum fluctuations at the start of a universe should cause gravity waves that wander that universe for the rest of it's existance. It also mentioned if enough of those gravity waves meet and construtively interefere, you could get enough gravity to spawn a black hole, out of nothing but that gravity itself. So that universe might not stay empty forever. It might host a few black holes and hawking radiation towards the end of it's life cycle.

filrabat
2012-Feb-01, 10:17 PM
I hope this isn't too far ATM, but it seems the problem is how one defines time.

If you take (as I do) that time is a nonspatial continuum that allows for the potential for change, then it can be said that time never had a beginning, nor does it have an end (or at least very unlikely to). In this case, nothingness (in the physical/energy sense) can exist, but just because "nothing" exists doesn't mean "something" could come into existence in the future (think of a volume with absolutely nothing in it). So in this case, time is not so much nonexistent as it is meaningless / irrelevant.

So if you do not take the definition of time I presented, there is going to be room for the notion "time had a beginning and/or end".

Shaula
2012-Feb-02, 06:33 AM
If you take (as I do) that time is a nonspatial continuum that allows for the potential for change, then it can be said that time never had a beginning, nor does it have an end (or at least very unlikely to).
Going to upset the General Relativitists and String Theorists though. Oh - and as a continuum it will upset the Quantum Mechanics too. Nice idea, shame about the maths, basically.