Did Time Begin with the Big Bang?

[Khursed]

Would it be true to say that if we believe the big bang theory, and we believe the best current theories, then there is no such thing as before the big bang because time was born at the big bang?

Accepting that the universe started from a near infinitely dense and hot object smaller then an atom.

Thank you for your answers.

 

[256bits]

because time was born at the big bang?

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:

 

[Chronos]

Yes, that is the prevailing notion. The universe began in an immensely hot and dense state that expanded exponentially in the blink of an eye. BBT only applies after the first tick of Planck time, it makes no attempt to describe the state of the universe prior to this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, to answer your question, no, BB does not say that there was no such thing as before BB. It is silent on the subject.

There are some highly speculative hypotheses about what might have been around before the BB but its anyone's guess.

 

[Ken G]

I agree, in fact I would argue that we run into trouble as soon as we invoke language like "if we accept the model, then what does it say about...". That kind of language has to be used very carefully, because it has rather the same flavor as a gedankenexperiment. I would argue that sometimes it is suggested that gedankenexperiments are ways to understand what reality is like in some impractical but potentially possible scenario, but that is never really what gedankenexperiments are-- they are always ways of putting a question to a theory. If you want to put a question to reality, there is only one way to do it-- come up with an experiment that poses that question to reality. So, we can say that no one has ever come up with an experiment that can put the question "did time exist before the Big Bang" to reality, so we are stuck with putting the question to our models. But when you do that, all you ever find out about is your models, you see your own models better. In this case, what we see about our models is they are rather silent on the whole issue, not only on time before the BB, but also a Planck time afterward.

 

[sQuasar]

as far as the current BBT model is concerned--No there was no existence of either Time or Space before BB.
it might surely sound weird to even imagine of a primeval atom existence without space n time, but that's where our common sense interferes where we readily imagine of any entity placed in a three dimensional space and at a particular point on the timeline,--- But then consider this, that actually we are dealing with the "origin" of our cosmos(and BB as the moment it came into existence) which simply implies that "each n every" thing homosapiens can perceive regarding their universe came into existence- including Space n Time and other dimensions as well.
So we can say that for us BB was the Eternal beginning of "our" cosmos.

Yeah i do believe in some kind of Hyperspace(n perhaps Hyper-time as well) but i think that existence and observance of a being is confined to the universe it belongs to, as our sole existence might be possible only under the domain of our universe ONLY.

so even we if we think of some Eternal/absolute Time(a timeline on which we can place our BB n others if possible) is completely of very less concern n infact meaningless, HOWEVER it will be of prime importance to a hypothetical being who can access many higher dimensions and whose existence can be defined in hyperspace.

It is similar to the case, where for all beings of a two dimensional universe thinking of another similar 2d universe just close to them is of no use as their existence is not defined in the third dim., but for a being like us(who can access to 3rd D) its quite easy to access both universes.
The same case of Space applies to Time as WELL(atleast i think so).

 

[Khursed]

What I would like to ask, how to properly explain under which specific theory does time begin with the big bang?

Because from what I've read, a lot of astrophysicist, seem to say that's when time began, and there is no way we can even speak about "before" and in many instances there can be no such before.

I have read an extremely good article on quantum mechanic that was saying that time didn't even have a "first moment" it was complicated as usual with QM but they were saying that spooky things happen in QM, and that the "first" moment would be nearly impossible to pin-point, but we'd know time has started tho.

Sorry if I'm not vulgarizing things correctly. that's how I understood it.

 

[DaveC426913]

What I would like to ask, how to properly explain under which specific theory does time begin with the big bang?

The theory that purports this is the Big Bang Theory. It purports that space time - all four dimensions of our current universe - were created in the Big Bang.

 

[Khursed]

The theory that purports this is the Big Bang Theory. It purports that space time - all four dimensions of our current universe - were created in the Big Bang.

Your first answer left me wondering, because I read that if we follow that premise, then there is no such thing as time before the big bang.

Where was I lead wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

Your first answer left me wondering, because I read that if we follow that premise, then there is no such thing as time before the big bang.

Where was I lead wrong?

That is correct. You were not lead wrong.

Isn't that what I wrote? Time was created in the BB.

 

[sQuasar]

BBT simply says that the "very" first event of our cosmos was the Big bang. And that implies that all the set of events were followed by it.
Now our 4th dimension-Time is nothing but a dimension that accounts for just occurrence of events (suppose if any how you can stop "each n every" event of the entire cosmos- the river of time just freezes), and hence if we conclude the BB to be the "very" first event, then its perhaps pointless of thinking of any time 'before' that(atleast until we comeup with some other model)

 

[Ken G]

"Led", not "lead." (Pet peeve-- I hate to see the passing of the word "led".)

Also, BBT does not say anything about the "first" moment. It is not a theory of origin, it is quite demonstrably a theory of evolution. (All the physics that goes into it is a theory of evolution, and all the observational tests that have been applied have been used to test evolution.) It is an evolutionary model where time runs backward from the observations we have, and that backward-running time never gets to a first moment, because all the theories we use to constrain that evolution break down before we get to any "first" moment. Hence, not only does time before the BB have no scientific meaning within our current physics, neither does a "first moment" have any meaning. There is no first moment in the BBT, and indeed this is one of the most important and brilliant aspects of that theory-- it anchors what we don't understand in what we don't expect to have a theory for, saving us from inconsistency.

 

[sQuasar]

Thanks Ken G for making it clearer on the "first" moment.

But still it looks abit fuzzy as far as the first "event" is concerned- as BBT is certainly a theory of cosmic evolution- and with "BB as the origin of our universe" as one of its major aspects(absolutely this model purported by BBT is based on observational test and evolutionary model), although i completely agree that any of the current physics ceases to explain the very "first" moment(even its not certain if any physics exists at that moment).

All this can be easily(thats how can conviniently putup my thoughts) understood by the following example:
Consider the flow of a river and some form of being in the middle of the of its flow, where the flow is gentle-calm-smooth and "Deterministic" as well. so observing the vicinity of the flow, and rendering their motion into natural laws and evolutionary models, they finally comeup with a BST(big Splash Theory) which perports of (a very violent) source/origin of the river(might be a turbulent one like say waterfall/giant geysor etc) which might not hold any of the laws they have fabricated so far, BUT there is certainly an Origin of the river before which it doesn't exists and so being "river-beings"(assuming land to be hyperspace) its pointless talking about anything "before" the origin/source (although talking about the very "first" stream of water molecules at source is of no meaning as well).

{please accept that my percerption on the entire BBT might not be crystal clear, but that's what i can draw from it}

 

[DaveC426913]

"Led", not "lead." (Pet peeve-- I hate to see the passing of the word "led".)

Concurrence. I pained me to write that, but I felt changing the writer's words would have confused the message.

 

[navilon]

iF Time is infinite,the BiG Bang may just be an infinite event in Time..what if we were within a black hole before where Time had be regenerated into a new Being,,,,,(?) + continuously will end up being in Another..

 

[mjacobsca]

There is no concept of T=0 in the BBT. That doesn't mean T=0 doesn't exist. It just means that the theory, and the prevailing cosmological models based on it, can't account for it conceptually or mathematically. I personally believe T=0 exists, and furthermore T<0 as well, but you have to look to cyclical cosmological models and multiverse theories to account for such variables, along with new mathematics and quantum theories, either as replacements for BBT or as complementary partners. Unfortunately, no matter how much we learn, I don't believe we can ever find out what happened at the beginning of "everything", as you can always ask how the initial conditions came into being. Philosophers might have better answers than physicists at that point.

 

[navilon]

In this universe Time erupted when expansion started.,we can't talk about before with standard mathematics,,its like saying how was ur yesterday two days before tomorrow started..however,if ∞Time there is,,BBT may be just another bubble of that +infinity,,,and philosophy might just help indeed.. ;)

 

[mjacobsca]

In this universe Time erupted when expansion started.,we can't talk about before with standard mathematics,,its like saying how was ur yesterday two days before tomorrow started..however,if ∞Time there is,,BBT may be just another bubble of that +infinity,,,and philosophy might just help indeed.. ;)

I think examples like this over-exaggerate the difficulty in expressing T = 0 and T < 0. If time existed before the Big Bang (as I think it does, but not in our incomplete model), then our mathematics will be able to model it as well. Our mathematics are fine; it's our constants, our distance measurements, and our spatial dimensions that could change. But I believe 2 + 2 will always equal 2, before the Big Bang and afterwards. But whether the speed of light is the same, or whether the Higgs particle would exist, or whether we would have 3 dimensions or 11 or 53, or whether the weak force or λ would be the same is another matter. Mathematics works in all times, in all universes, before Big Bangs and afterwards. It's the constants and properties of those universes that might change, not the underlying mathematics. So I think we can talk about before bangs and whatnot with math, we just can't talk about specific intervals where matter was too dense to model. In other words, we can create mathematical models of cyclical universes that expand, contract, crunch, bounce, and return just fine, but we can't talk about specific moments when the crunch and bounce occur because our Quantum Theory isn't quite there yet. There are far too many physicists working on alternative models of the universe too just write off talk of "before" as nonsense, mathematically or otherwise. The physicists working on this have more experience than most of the posters in this forum (myself included!).

 

[navilon]

Mathematics can describe our universe from BB and on..based of on these laws of nature physicist built models to describe it.I think Time being infinite includes Time before the BB.The mathematics, can't describe it yet ,not because they are not fine nor because it doesn't exist but because we are not there yet in the QF..as u said,,different constants and properties,different intervals,different results.

 

[Chronos]

While the universe may have possessed pre-emergent properties, it did not include properties we would recognize as space, time or energy.

 

[joeboy]

iF Time is infinite,the BiG Bang may just be an infinite event in Time..what if we were within a black hole before where Time had be regenerated into a new Being,,,,,(?) + continuously will end up being in Another..

What if time is man’s invention,as you say if all the black holes eventually attracted to each other then all matter, time and energy would reach perfect symmetry in a perfect sphere, one small wobble would be enough to, well the rest is history as they say……..

 

[twofish-quant]

Would it be true to say that if we believe the big bang theory, and we believe the best current theories, then there is no such thing as before the big bang because time was born at the big bang?

No it wouldn't, because the standard model of big bang cosmology says *absolutely nothing* about what happened at t=0. Our models of physics *do not work* at t=0, and so it's "your guess is as good as mine" time.

 

[twofish-quant]

as far as the current BBT model is concerned--No there was no existence of either Time or Space before BB.

This is NOT true. The standard model of big bang cosmology says *NOTHING* about what happened at or before t=0. We can push things back to the inflationary era, but before that the standard cosmology says *NOTHING* although there are about a dozen interesting ideas.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

It bothers me that physicists would say that time and space began at the moment of the big bang. It's misleading and incorrect.

It's one thing to simplify into layman terms, but the impression I get is that a lot of physicists adamantly believe it is so. Is there something that I am missing or are many physicists just regurgitating stuff that they don't even understand? That's a sad and scary thought. I blame media.

From what I understand it's not only mathematically impossible to extrapolate back to the very moment of the big bang, but it defies all kinds of fundamental principles that we already understand quite well.

 

[alexg]

It bothers me that physicists would say that time and space began at the moment of the big bang. It's misleading and incorrect.

It's one thing to simplify into layman terms, but the impression I get is that a lot of physicists adamantly believe it is so. Is there something that I am missing or are many physicists just regurgitating stuff that they don't even understand? That's a sad and scary thought. I blame media.

From what I understand it's not only mathematically impossible to extrapolate back to the very moment of the big bang, but it defies all kinds of fundamental principles that we already understand quite well.

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

Why?

 

[Drakkith]

It bothers me that physicists would say that time and space began at the moment of the big bang. It's misleading and incorrect.

There is no possible way for us to know this currently.

It's one thing to simplify into layman terms, but the impression I get is that a lot of physicists adamantly believe it is so. Is there something that I am missing or are many physicists just regurgitating stuff that they don't even understand? That's a sad and scary thought. I blame media.

Not all physicists study anything close to cosmology. So it is very possible that people who know almost nothing of the actual theory simply believe what they've heard from the media themselves.

From what I understand it's not only mathematically impossible to extrapolate back to the very moment of the big bang, but it defies all kinds of fundamental principles that we already understand quite well.

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.

 

[twofish-quant]

It bothers me that physicists would say that time and space began at the moment of the big bang. It's misleading and incorrect.

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.

It's one thing to simplify into layman terms, but the impression I get is that a lot of physicists adamantly believe it is so. Is there something that I am missing or are many physicists just regurgitating stuff that they don't even understand?

People guess. That's what physicists are paid to do. And yes, there is a media problem. When Steven Hawking talks about black hole radiation, he is talking about something that most people accept as valid, and he knows more about this than I do. When he talks about the t=0 event, he is just guessing and his opinions are no better than yours or mine.

From what I understand it's not only mathematically impossible to extrapolate back to the very moment of the big bang, but it defies all kinds of fundamental principles that we already understand quite well.

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.

 

[Alephu5]

I know that theorists have explored the idea of the universe being cyclic, but found it to be implausible due to the nature of entropy. Each reborn universe would start off more disordered than the previous one, until universes are coming into existence with infinite entropy.

In my opinion, it is a broad assumption that entropy applies in the same way at the multiverse level as it does in ours considering we do not even fully understand the nature of time. If in fact we exist in a multiverse then this may not be the case and it is possible that our universe is repeatedly created and destroyed without an increase in entropy. You could develop this further and say that if the universe is in fact just a series of repeated histories then if you were to subtract the total age of the universe from the current time, it would be identical to the current time. The mathematics of this would use ΔT Mod X, where X is the age of the universe. With this framework you can put T=0 in any meaningful or arbitrary position, including the beginning of our current universe and explore T < 0 without problems.

An immediate objection that someone might have to this is that each universe would have a different series of events, however this is exactly what we see in quantum mechanics. Multiple events occurring simultaneously until observed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Like the Black Hole, the Singularity is an impossible concentration of matter. All matter arrived from hyperspace, as in a volcano. Matter leaves through the reverse volcano of a Black Hole.

No. Please.

There is no hyperspace.

And matter does not leave the universe via a black hole. (It's still there, as evidenced by the mass and gravitational effect of the BH.)

And it is not impossible; it is simply beyond our current models.

 

[H2Bro]

I think examples like this over-exaggerate the difficulty in expressing T = 0 and T < 0. If time existed before the Big Bang (as I think it does, but not in our incomplete model), then our mathematics will be able to model it as well. Our mathematics are fine; it's our constants, our distance measurements, and our spatial dimensions that could change. But I believe 2 + 2 will always equal 2, before the Big Bang and afterwards. But whether the speed of light is the same, or whether the Higgs particle would exist, or whether we would have 3 dimensions or 11 or 53, or whether the weak force or λ would be the same is another matter. Mathematics works in all times, in all universes, before Big Bangs and afterwards. It's the constants and properties of those universes that might change, not the underlying mathematics. So I think we can talk about before bangs and whatnot with math, we just can't talk about specific intervals where matter was too dense to model. In other words, we can create mathematical models of cyclical universes that expand, contract, crunch, bounce, and return just fine, but we can't talk about specific moments when the crunch and bounce occur because our Quantum Theory isn't quite there yet. There are far too many physicists working on alternative models of the universe too just write off talk of "before" as nonsense, mathematically or otherwise. The physicists working on this have more experience than most of the posters in this forum (myself included!).

What evidence do we have that mathematics remains the same in a different universe with different properties? Or is this faith in the unreasonable effectiveness of math?

 

[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.