How Did Time Begin After the Big Bang?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter europium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of time in relation to the Big Bang, particularly focusing on how time could have begun and the implications of the Planck time. Participants explore theoretical models and the conceptual challenges surrounding the origin of time, including the breakdown of predictive models at the moment of the Big Bang.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how time could begin if all matter originated from a singularity during the Big Bang, particularly regarding the concept of Planck time.
  • Another participant mentions several models, including Vilenkin-Linde and Hartle-Hawking, which attempt to explain the origin of time, but notes that these may not provide satisfactory answers and that a theory of quantum gravity is needed.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about events before the Big Bang, suggesting that predictive models fail at that point.
  • There is a discussion on whether time is quantized or continuous, with one participant asserting that the Planck time is the smallest measurable unit, while another argues that actual time could be shorter and remains a mystery.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of quantized time and how it might relate to concepts in physics, such as light behaving as both a wave and a particle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of time or the models explaining its origin. Multiple competing views are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the fundamental nature of time and its relationship to the Big Bang.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on various theoretical models and the unresolved nature of quantum gravity, as well as the ambiguity surrounding the concept of time before the Big Bang.

europium
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the big bang

We theorise that all the matter came from a singularity and that this expanded at the big bang shedding matter and energy in vast expanses.

However, if this is the description of how matter came to be, then how did time ever come to be? The very first tiny fraction of a second (the Planck time?!)... how did this ever trigger.

Another aspect which is intriguing is that the universe at the very start of time was already *the Planck time* old (forgive me i have forgotten the age) before it was anything less. How does this happen? How could its very first instant be an age already. It's like saying that when a baby is born it is already 10 seconds old (not considering that it has been alive inside the womb) before it has been 1 second old :rolleyes: Anyways, answers would be very appreciated... also if answers are not possible to give, i understand that also.

Regards K_
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I am surely not the right person to answer this question because the mathematics used in the models describing the origin of the universe is far behind my knowledge. But, anyway, I think it would be a pity if your interesting question remains without any comment.

In short: there are several models describing the origin of the universe, depending on what amount of new physics is assumed to be valid. The “classical” ones (as far as I know the ones remaining as close as possible to the established theories of general relativity and quantum field theory) are called Vilenkin-Linde and Hartle-Hawking models.

Both of them seam to give an explanation to the origin of time, although this may be unsatisfactory and may open new questions. The ultimate description must be done making use of a theory of quantum gravity, which is currently unknown.

You may read something about this topic here:
http://mercury.dfisica.ubi.pt/~pmoniz/Qc.html
or here:
http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/index.html

Regards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its obvious we don't noe wat happen b4 that point!
 
Thanks very much hellfire for the very useful answer i appreciate the links. Thankyou very much... as for Layzie Bone's somewhat less useful answer, i am not one too complain and all to their own, so thanks also for your err *insight*
These models were very intriguing hellfire and i am thankful you answered my question with consideration. Regards..

K_
 
I would suggest picking up Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point. A good read and has much to say on the different scientific views on time.
 
thanks very much

K_
 
by definition, all predictive models break down at the moment of the big bang. intuitively, that makes sense. all we know is that a predictable form of reality emerged from that moment. god knows, we dont.
 
europium said:
Another aspect which is intriguing is that the universe at the very start of time was already *the Planck time* old (forgive me i have forgotten the age) before it was anything less. How does this happen?

It didn't. That's just the smallest time that modern physics can understand/deal with. Actual time can be shorter than that. It's still a mystery whether time is quantized or continuous.
 
Chronos said:
by definition, all predictive models break down at the moment of the big bang. intuitively, that makes sense. all we know is that a predictable form of reality emerged from that moment. god knows, we dont.
Perhaps it was the inconsistency of nothing at all that lead the singularity to expand.

Also, if it should be proven that causality requires space to produce more space so that the early universe expanded at an exponential rate, then zero space is acheived at negative infinity so the infinite energy density technically never really happened.
 
  • #10
quantized

Phobos said:
It didn't. That's just the smallest time that modern physics can understand/deal with. Actual time can be shorter than that. It's still a mystery whether time is quantized or continuous.

How would you describe quantized and continuous time? i have never truly understood it and thought you may be able to enlighten me. Is quantized that the can be a 'smallest amount' of time so that we can say 1 second, 2 second (obviously not seconds - just an example), and continuous just a running of time without any real fundamentals?

K_ cheers
 
  • #11
europium said:
How would you describe quantized and continuous time? i have never truly understood it and thought you may be able to enlighten me. Is quantized that the can be a 'smallest amount' of time so that we can say 1 second, 2 second (obviously not seconds - just an example), and continuous just a running of time without any real fundamentals?

For consideration...
Light can act as a wave (continuous) or a particle (discrete). Light energy is transmitted in quantized bundles (quanta).

If I may oversimplify...General Relativity models gravity as kind of a continuous 3D sheet/fabric of flexible spacetime. A quantum mechanical view may present the idea of a "graviton" which would be the smallest unit of gravity...another one of the fundamental particles (not made up of anything smaller) that make up the universe.

String theory (M-theory?) has a tiny string-like entity that is the smallest unit that makes up everything else in the universe.

Continuous vs. quantized time would be like the gravity situation I suppose. Either the timeline is unbroken (time flows and you can always measure a smaller unit of time) or it proceeds in small jumps that are undetectable at our scale. The unit of quantized time - the fundamental particle of time - is called a "chronon" (still a hypothesis like the graviton - - neither has been detected).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
13K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K