Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Time
20 Answers
How can time exist, if it allm started with the big bang,what came before and when did that come into existance and how?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chaperon2005. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think you're going to like this but.....
Firstly you have to understand that time isn't really the way we see it on our nice cosy little planet with medium gravity and at medium speeds.
At high gravity and speeds it slows down and things behave quite differently.
It's a bit like a blind man feeling the trunk of an elephant and thinking he knows what the animal looks like.
Also I get the feeling that you are picturing the big bang as some sort of giant star that exploded.
It's a common picture and wrong. The big bang marked the creation of space itself, and because time is so linked to that it is the creation of time too.
Unfortunately we are creatures born and raised in time. Notions like this are pretty much impossible to picture. We see everything as having a "before".
Our very language is built around notions of time. Every sentence must have a verb. Verbs themselves have notions of time.
The question what came before doesn't actually make sense.
It's like my asking you what you were doing 100 years ago and then insisting, yes but before you were born there must have been something.
Firstly you have to understand that time isn't really the way we see it on our nice cosy little planet with medium gravity and at medium speeds.
At high gravity and speeds it slows down and things behave quite differently.
It's a bit like a blind man feeling the trunk of an elephant and thinking he knows what the animal looks like.
Also I get the feeling that you are picturing the big bang as some sort of giant star that exploded.
It's a common picture and wrong. The big bang marked the creation of space itself, and because time is so linked to that it is the creation of time too.
Unfortunately we are creatures born and raised in time. Notions like this are pretty much impossible to picture. We see everything as having a "before".
Our very language is built around notions of time. Every sentence must have a verb. Verbs themselves have notions of time.
The question what came before doesn't actually make sense.
It's like my asking you what you were doing 100 years ago and then insisting, yes but before you were born there must have been something.
I think you're getting it from the last question.
Yes change requires time.
At time zero you have no change no time, at time zero plus a little bit you have time, energy - everything
It's very difficult because of the language issue.
Perhaps it's best to think of it in reverse.
A black hole is sometimes seen as a reverse big bang.
As you get closer the gravity goes up and time slows until it eventually stops.
However - let me throw you a bone here - I don't think this is actually how it works but here's an interesting idea.
A famous cosmologist called Alan Guth came up with this about 25 years or so ago.
You may or may not know that you cannot have a pure vacuum. Particles and their anti-particle pairs are continuously created and anihilated. The more massive the pair the less time they live for.
Now it happens that from what we can see the net mass of the universe is very close to it's net gravitational energy. One is the negative of the other, so it may be the net energy in the Universe is Zero.
So the Entire universe could have popped into existance in this way. It's just the improbility of such a massive event is not just breathtaking it's as near to infinite as you could get.
BUT - what does a near infinite improbability imply when there is no time? it becomes a certainty.
Like I said I don't actually think this is necessarilly right - for a start it assumes that such particle creation is valid at t=0.
But it starts to help you begin to get your head around exactly how wierd things really can be in extreme circumstances
Yes change requires time.
At time zero you have no change no time, at time zero plus a little bit you have time, energy - everything
It's very difficult because of the language issue.
Perhaps it's best to think of it in reverse.
A black hole is sometimes seen as a reverse big bang.
As you get closer the gravity goes up and time slows until it eventually stops.
However - let me throw you a bone here - I don't think this is actually how it works but here's an interesting idea.
A famous cosmologist called Alan Guth came up with this about 25 years or so ago.
You may or may not know that you cannot have a pure vacuum. Particles and their anti-particle pairs are continuously created and anihilated. The more massive the pair the less time they live for.
Now it happens that from what we can see the net mass of the universe is very close to it's net gravitational energy. One is the negative of the other, so it may be the net energy in the Universe is Zero.
So the Entire universe could have popped into existance in this way. It's just the improbility of such a massive event is not just breathtaking it's as near to infinite as you could get.
BUT - what does a near infinite improbability imply when there is no time? it becomes a certainty.
Like I said I don't actually think this is necessarilly right - for a start it assumes that such particle creation is valid at t=0.
But it starts to help you begin to get your head around exactly how wierd things really can be in extreme circumstances
Thanks for all of your answers, but what I can not understand is that something must have happened to create the big bag. For example the energy became unstable which suggests that there must have been a pre time? or an outside influence must have had some effect on it. Where did this catalist come from if there was one? In essence what caused the big bang?
-- answer removed --
Would you be happier with continuous creation? It was in favour before we were all convinced that the big bang was correct.
To believe continuous creation you have to explain the two facts which support the big bang theory: the microwave background and the expansion of space.
Jake has already mentioned that the vacuum isn't empty, and it is possible to calculate its energy, which corresponds to a black body at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This explains the microwave background.
Continuous creation creates space in addition to matter and that can explain the expansion of space. Voila!
To believe continuous creation you have to explain the two facts which support the big bang theory: the microwave background and the expansion of space.
Jake has already mentioned that the vacuum isn't empty, and it is possible to calculate its energy, which corresponds to a black body at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This explains the microwave background.
Continuous creation creates space in addition to matter and that can explain the expansion of space. Voila!
Time is not itself an entity which can exist in isolation but a relationship between entities; one aspect amongst many relationships that exist solely and entirely between entities. Time has two corollaries that lend to and rely upon each other for meaning like a natural manifestation of a holy trinity; time, distance and velocity are intimately related by virtue of that which they measure.
When we reverse the chain of causality we find the universe with all of its combined mass and energy collapsing inward to a single point where space is no longer an attribute of the universe. Neither time, distance nor velocity have any meaning or relevance where there is no longer space within which events can take place.
The universe is not simply a product but is just as much the process by which it exists. Likewise, without the universe there would be nothing including existence which implies the existence of something and that something exists.
Once each and every thing is taken into account there simply is nothing else apart from the relationships that exist between them, time being but one aspect of those relationships measured in commensurate units on a scale rationally proportioned to enable and promote human understanding.
When we reverse the chain of causality we find the universe with all of its combined mass and energy collapsing inward to a single point where space is no longer an attribute of the universe. Neither time, distance nor velocity have any meaning or relevance where there is no longer space within which events can take place.
The universe is not simply a product but is just as much the process by which it exists. Likewise, without the universe there would be nothing including existence which implies the existence of something and that something exists.
Once each and every thing is taken into account there simply is nothing else apart from the relationships that exist between them, time being but one aspect of those relationships measured in commensurate units on a scale rationally proportioned to enable and promote human understanding.
For some unkown reason I have become very interested in this subject and have know read about the big bounce theroy which suggests time did exist before the big bang?
However which ever of the two theroys subscribed to. Energy must have been able to travel faster that light. How is this possible? Also neither give an answer to the oridgins of time which must have existed before the Big Bang in order for it to occur. Can anyone help me with these answers or is it all just speculation at this point.
However which ever of the two theroys subscribed to. Energy must have been able to travel faster that light. How is this possible? Also neither give an answer to the oridgins of time which must have existed before the Big Bang in order for it to occur. Can anyone help me with these answers or is it all just speculation at this point.
Just to throw in a wobbly.
If you're into reading about the subject, try an alternative view by reading "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner.
He claims a plasma-based motivating force, as opposed to gravity, for the evolved universe.
Personally, I incline to the old steady state theory of continuous creation, never having started, never ending.
The idea of running the universe backwards to explain its origin has always struck me as a naive concept.
Nature isn't linear like that, usually something happens to change all the rules. For instance, heat up a bar of metal and it gets longer in relation to the heat applied. But keep doing it and what happens? It melts and becomes a liquid. Heat it still further and it evaporates. Now its a gas.
Similarly, I can't believe that you can compress the universe homogeneously all the way to a pinpoint with it changing gear, so to speak.
If you're into reading about the subject, try an alternative view by reading "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner.
He claims a plasma-based motivating force, as opposed to gravity, for the evolved universe.
Personally, I incline to the old steady state theory of continuous creation, never having started, never ending.
The idea of running the universe backwards to explain its origin has always struck me as a naive concept.
Nature isn't linear like that, usually something happens to change all the rules. For instance, heat up a bar of metal and it gets longer in relation to the heat applied. But keep doing it and what happens? It melts and becomes a liquid. Heat it still further and it evaporates. Now its a gas.
Similarly, I can't believe that you can compress the universe homogeneously all the way to a pinpoint with it changing gear, so to speak.
There is a prevailing danger in hastily seeking answers of bypassing the requisite step of acquiring knowledge.
Nevertheless I find it somewhat amusing myself that while sitting here contemplating what might be happening inside a black hole I might in fact be a living revelation of the ultimate answer to that question.
Nevertheless I find it somewhat amusing myself that while sitting here contemplating what might be happening inside a black hole I might in fact be a living revelation of the ultimate answer to that question.
A fantastic answer and very interesting. However it still left me with the feeling of not being quite right. I will read more about quantum physics as I found the subject very interesting. Also about particals popping into existance, could that not be due to them arriving from another dimension as yet unknown?
Using the word "creation" can only suggest there is a Creator, this is the one who has all the answers we constantly ask for, the Creator is the one who created everything and everyone, and the answers to these questions are simply NOT available to us, we don't have the capacity to even imagine what the answers are.... Or do we? and the ability has simply been switched off from us as part of the circumstances that being disobedient from the outset of the human race has left us in?
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Crosswords29 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
ChatterBank63 mins ago
