Questions About Time Before the Big Bang

[Danger]

I have read this thread carefully; where and who, in this thread, suggested that the 'God hypothesis' discarded the laws of nature? Or have I missed something...

Garth

It wasn't me, but I completely agree with it. The supposition of an supernatural being makes anything else irrelevant. It's a perfectly valid topic of discussion in its own right, but has nothing to do with hard science. What's the point of trying to figure out the rules if they can be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the referee?

 

[Garth]

It wasn't me, but I completely agree with it. The supposition of an supernatural being makes anything else irrelevant. It's a perfectly valid topic of discussion in its own right, but has nothing to do with hard science. What's the point of trying to figure out the rules if they can be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the referee?

The Creator God I believe in is the author and guarantor of the laws of science, not the gaps or breaks in those laws.

Garth

 

[Danger]

The Creator God I believe in is the author and guarantor of the laws of science, not the gaps or breaks in those laws.

Garth

If by that you mean that the laws once 'created' are inviolable, then the 'god' concept itself becomes irrelevant in trying to decypher them. There's no difference from the situation where they arise from random circumstances. I am not in any way trying to demean your beliefs; it just seems to me that they don't have any bearing upon the state of the universe.

 

[Garth]

I mean that I believe that the laws of science are at the most basic mathematical in nature.

Yet mathematics is a mental construct; so, in whose mind are those equations held?

Furthermore, these laws, once they are held in the mind of the Creator, have 'fire breathed into them' to produce a universe for us to observe, not just at the BB, but at every subsequent event within space and time where the real universe emerges from a mathematically constrained flux of energy and sea of virtual particles.

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

I mean that I believe that the laws of science are at the most basic mathematical in nature.

Mathematics is the study of patterns. S0ome of the patterns they study turn out to be patterns of behavior of physical systems. Note that the brute systems themselves do not know they are behaving with such patterns; only the human scientists know that, as far as we are aware.

Yet mathematics is a mental construct; so, in whose mind are those equations held?

In the minds of individual mathematicians and the minds of the scientists who discover those patterns in nature.

Furthermore, these laws, once they are held in the mind of the Creator, have 'fire breathed into them' to produce a universe for us to observe, not just at the BB, but at every subsequent event within space and time where the real universe emerges from a mathematically constrained flux of energy and sea of virtual particles.

This is just a statement of religious belief, and as such it doesn't belong here.

 

[Garth]

I did not introduce the discussion on "Supernatural versions of creation", on the other hand, as this thread is about the origin, or otherwise, of time, an opinion based on the quote from Stephen Hawking "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" might be considered to belong here.

But enough is enough...

Garth

 

[aricho]

time

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

 

[Loren Booda]

The Planck epoch seems to me involved with a Higgs potential - onset of particle production, spacetime, etc.

 

[Thor]

Yes, existence is the result of a process of cause and effect, that is why there is some cause for the events which take place at "t=0".

In order for something to change or be changed it must first exist. This means cause and effect is a product of existence - NOT the opposite.

What compelling reason do you have to assume the principle which explains existence is to be found in the realm of cause and effect - WECIB?

 

[EnumaElish]

Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

 

[Deek]

Time is just a mere concept. It didn't "begin", like the birth of a star.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well according to the standard cosmological model time and space, actually spacetime, began around 14 billion years ago. There is no "before" that. There may be some kind of causalty hierarchy, but not time.

 

[Gold Barz]

Wasnt it "our" time that didnt begin until 14 billion years ago, same with "our" space, I mean there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

 

[Loren Booda]

Sequence of measurement, more appropriately than time, provides a physical basis for assessing change in quantum cosmology. Quantum mechanics retains its space/time separation, and relativity its spacetime unity, with sequencing inherent to the dynamical changes in both. Between two recorded events, physics maintains as a transient, probabilistic dynamic. There are then the two states of change - observation, and statistical continuity between observations. Sequence of measurement is a most objective and fundamental physical standard. Derived from the quantum wavefunction, action eigenvalues represent the possible sequential permutations (Planck steps) that observation's action follows. Successive compatible [complementary] measurements define null (0) [unit (±h)] eigenvalues. These quantum numbers order time- (or space-) independently overall, obeying a random walk statistic. It is indeed possible for retrograde, sequential action. A partial history of Planck steps lost to statistics represents the overdetermination with quantum mechanics. (From my website, below.)

 

[Mr. dude]

Well personally, I think that there was "time" if you will, before the bb. We can never know about it though. There may not have been a universe or anything else in it. It may have been a kind of state of nothingness. I guess we'll just never know for sure.

 

[Gold Barz]

Sequence of measurement, more appropriately than time, provides a physical basis for assessing change in quantum cosmology. Quantum mechanics retains its space/time separation, and relativity its spacetime unity, with sequencing inherent to the dynamical changes in both. Between two recorded events, physics maintains as a transient, probabilistic dynamic. There are then the two states of change - observation, and statistical continuity between observations. Sequence of measurement is a most objective and fundamental physical standard. Derived from the quantum wavefunction, action eigenvalues represent the possible sequential permutations (Planck steps) that observation's action follows. Successive compatible [complementary] measurements define null (0) [unit (±h)] eigenvalues. These quantum numbers order time- (or space-) independently overall, obeying a random walk statistic. It is indeed possible for retrograde, sequential action. A partial history of Planck steps lost to statistics represents the overdetermination with quantum mechanics. (From my website, below.)

Not to be rude but could you simplify this, I want to know about it I just can't understand it that well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wasnt it "our" time that didnt begin until 14 billion years ago, same with "our" space, I mean there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

Could have been, but didn't necessarily have to be. They don't need prior time to get the big bang.

 

[Loren Booda]

Gold Barz,

Simply, that consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Thor]

Well according to the standard cosmological model time and space, actually spacetime, began around 14 billion years ago. There is no "before" that. There may be some kind of causalty hierarchy, but not time.

YEAH. RIGHT.
Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.
Do you realize how silly that is?

 

[Sempiternity]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

 

[turbo]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

Can you explain how this can be? What are the initial conditions necessary for the the original effect to arise? Cannot these conditions in any way be construed as causes?

 

[Chronos]

This qualifies for what I consider an 'Anthropic' argument. The concept of time before clocks is undefined, hence effectively infinite [by clock time]. Similarily, the concept of time after clocks [i.e., all clocks lose the ability to function] is equally undefined, hence also effectively infinite [by clock time]. This raises serious questions. We may not occupy a priveleged location in the universe, but we undeniably occupy a priveleged 'time' in a universe sandwiched between dual infinities. Sounds like philosophy to me. Food for thought:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html

 

[Danger]

Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

Probably because that makes no sense as written. Sorry, no offense intended, but you have to clarify that statement. The current universe is an 'out of equilibrium system'. When it reaches equilibrium, one way or the other, all life will cease to exist.

there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

That's absolutely correct. If there were preceding universes, or multiple co-existing ones, they would have no correlation to ours. Time there could pass billions of times faster or slower in relation to physical processes than it does here, but it doesn't matter because our time is entirely dependent upon the conditions in this universe.

consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for the translation, Loren. I've had (surprise, surprise) more than a couple of beers, and couldn't make heads nor tails of your first post. Reduced to a common-sense statement like this, it's perfectly agreeable.

YEAH. RIGHT.
Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.
Do you realize how silly that is?

Not half as silly as supposing that some supernatural being created it all. As a counter argument, how could there be a 'before' without an 'after'?

 

[Thor]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

It doesn't necessarily follow. If time is eternal, there would be no original cause. Why are you predisposed to believe time is ('scuse the pun) temporary?

 

[Sempiternity]

The key to your statement is 'if'. That is, if time is eternal. When you say eternal, do you mean existing before the beginning and after the ending? Did time exist before the Big Bang? That would be the same as saying time existed before space. But, as discussed in Fabric of the Cosmos, there is no such thing as absolute time and absolute space. There is only absolute spacetime.

 

[mars2]

spacetime...
It exist from the Big Bang,I think.

 

[Thor]

The key to your statement is 'if'. That is, if time is eternal. When you say eternal, do you mean existing before the beginning and after the ending?

No. I mean there was no beginning, there will be no ending.

Did time exist before the Big Bang? That would be the same as saying time existed before space. But, as discussed in Fabric of the Cosmos, there is no such thing as absolute time and absolute space. There is only absolute spacetime.

Time is not a tangible. It is neither a field nor a fabric. It is nothing more nor less than the measurement of change. As subject 'X' changes from state #1 to state #2, subject 'Y' changes from state #3 to state #4 or as subject '1' changes from position #A to position #B, subject '2' changes from position #C to position #D. It is simply the application of incremental differentiation. It is no different than measuring distance with a ruler, but instead of comparing an unknown length to a standard unit, you are measuring the change occurring within some procedure against the duration of some standard event - like a rotation of the planet or the vibration of a cesium atom.

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - or "creation".

 

[turbo]

"It may prove useful in physics to consider events in all of time at once and to imagine that we at each instant are only aware of those that lie behind us." Richard Feynman

We are not the only ones who have had trouble with the concept of absolute time.

 

[turbo]

An older paper, but relevant to the thread

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0508/0508001.pdf

 

[Einbeermug]

Time is a function of existence. Not the reverse.
Bigbangers, like creationists, wrongly presume the existence of the cosmos has temporal limits. It does not.

Before something can change of be changed, before it can act or be acted upon, something must exist.

If existence is required for change to occur, then time is a function of EXISTENCE. And any search for a beginning or an end is based upon a fallacy.

 

[qraal]

Time is a function of existence. Not the reverse.
Bigbangers, like creationists, wrongly presume the existence of the cosmos has temporal limits. It does not.

Before something can change of be changed, before it can act or be acted upon, something must exist.

If existence is required for change to occur, then time is a function of EXISTENCE. And any search for a beginning or an end is based upon a fallacy.

*head-scratching* *vigorous head-scratching*

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Don't we just assign t=0 at the big bang because that is when calculations can start?

The reason is that, in the cosmological models based on general relativity, the formulae for the expansion of the universe become particularly simple if you define t=0, cosmic time zero, to coincide with the big bang singularity. This is a great advantage for physics calculations dealing with the early universe, so defining cosmic time in this way makes good sense.

If we could get a theory of quantum gravity, couldn't we possibly assign time further back?

 

[Chronos]

The concept of time evaporates without entitities in motion. Time is what clocks measure, as Einstein said.

 

[Dmitry67]

The concept of time evaporates without entitities in motion. Time is what clocks measure, as Einstein said.

Time, like space is variable.
Time and space exist without any notions. Example: vacuum in QM.

 

[Chronos]

Time, like space is variable.

Agreed.

Time and space exist without any notions.

Disagreed.

Example: vacuum in QM.

How is that relevant?