Did Time Begin with the Big Bang?

[Fuzzy Logic]

So you disagree with the physicists, and think that you're right and they're wrong.

Why?

I don't claim to know. I disagree with physicists who state as fact that time and space began at the big bang. Because that is purely speculation. The fact is that nobody currently knows.

Same thing as those who say that space ends, that there is nothing beyond the big bang, not even a void, just nothingness (for lack of a better word). We don't know that and because of the limits of the speed of light, we probably never will know.

Not true. We still don't know a great deal about how physics works at the energy levels and densities near the big bang. So it simply comes down to us not knowing.

As far as I understand, extrapolating back to T=0 would require infinite mass and infinite energy. We can't say anything is impossible but it is highly implausible.

It is much more plausible that the big bang is a cyclic event and that T=0 is never actually reached. Just like we can never have enough energy to propel a mass to exactly c, we can never have enough energy to reach exactly T=0. Isn't that the whole idea of GR?

There are specific physicists that believe this, and specific physicists that don't. Most physicists I know have no particular opinion on the topic of what happened at t=0.

If we take our best models of the universe and extrapolate to t=0, they stop working. That means our models are wrong. How they are wrong is one of those "your guess is as good as mine" things.

Quite right. That is exactly what people should be saying. "I don't know", or "I think ...", not "Time and space began 14 billion years ago." or "The universe began..."

Sorry, I was very general in my original statement. I should have said 'some physicists'. I know that not all physicists believe this, because the only reason I know different is that I didn't buy it and so I dug deeper. You must admit that the majority of the population are under the impression that the big bang was the beginning of everything. Why?

Anyway I'm not trying to contend anything, only that the idea that time and space began and there was nothing before, is misinformation.

 

[alexg]

I don't claim to know.

But you are claiming to know.

You're claiming to know that it is wrong, but you haven't yet stated your basis for the claim.

You say you've 'dug deeper'. What did you find?

 

[Drakkith]

I don't claim to know. I disagree with physicists who state as fact that time and space began at the big bang. Because that is purely speculation. The fact is that nobody currently knows.

While there are many things said, it is a fact that we do NOT know whether spacetime existed before the big bang.

We can't say anything is impossible but it is highly implausible.

Of course. But this is an argument over an understanding of the meaning of words. If you ask me if a perpetual motion machine is possible, I will tell you that it is not possible. There is no way I can absolutely 100% know this for sure. Instead it is a statement of "according to current knowledge, it is not possible". If you take it for granted that everything that science says has that underlying statement along with it, you will probably have a lot fewer issues.

You must admit that the majority of the population are under the impression that the big bang was the beginning of everything. Why?

Anyway I'm not trying to contend anything, only that the idea that time and space began and there was nothing before, is misinformation.

Due to most people not understanding anything at all about how science works, they assume that science is "arrogant" or they believe that everything said is true. Yourself being a case in point.

 

[easyrider]

Well, if time was ' born' at the big bang then there would have to be a Mrs. Time , its mother, and a Mr. Time, its Father. I am tired.:zzz:

Would it not be Father Time? Lol sorry, didnt mean to interrupt.

 

[Chronos]

Time is not an intrinsic property of the universe, it is relative to the motion of things in the universe. We are therefore unable to define time bereft of things to use as 'clocks'. If you know of any way to define time that does not involve motion ... pm me.

 

[Khursed]

Time is not an intrinsic property of the universe, it is relative to the motion of things in the universe. We are therefore unable to define time bereft of things to use as 'clocks'. If you know of any way to define time that does not involve motion ... pm me.

Exactly my thought on the subject.

 

[mjacobsca]

Measuring time requires motion. So why does that mean time can't exist in the absence of motion?

 

[Oldfart]

Measuring time requires motion. So why does that mean time can't exist in the absence of motion?

Interesting question! I suppose that time can't be proven not to exist under this condition, but when something (like ghosts) cannot be detected or measured in any way, we commonly think that it does not exist for all practical purposes.

 

[mjacobsca]

Interesting question! I suppose that time can't be proven not to exist under this condition, but when something (like ghosts) cannot be detected or measured in any way, we commonly think that it does not exist for all practical purposes.

Thanks for not jumping all over me for such a hypothetical question. Until we can say what time "is", then I don't think we can say when it "isn't". I know we can measure it by a clock, which requires motion, and determine how much of it passed, but no one can answer the fundamental question of what time is. Additionally, isn't any definition we assign to it limited by our own frame of reference and understanding?

 

[Oldfart]

Additionally, isn't any definition we assign to it limited by our own frame of reference and understanding?

Of course.

Over on the Cosmology Forum, phinds raises the same unanswerable questions about time, seems to be a popular topic...

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks for not jumping all over me for such a hypothetical question. Until we can say what time "is", then I don't think we can say when it "isn't". I know we can measure it by a clock, which requires motion, and determine how much of it passed, but no one can answer the fundamental question of what time is. Additionally, isn't any definition we assign to it limited by our own frame of reference and understanding?

I don't believe we would absolutely need to know what time "is" before we can say what it isn't. Obviously time isn't a fluffy pink elephant! But seriously, do we even know that there is anything more "fundamental" about time than we already know? Look at how we define distance. It's just the difference between two points in space. Does that mean there's something more "fundamental" about distance that we don't know? I only know that I don't know.

 

[Antientrophy]

Perhaps it was just God.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps it was just God.

Or perhaps it was just handwavium.

Wait. Same thing.

 

[Antientrophy]

Or perhaps it was just handwavium.

Wait. Same thing.

You obviously have a better understanding.