Explaining the Grand Design: Time & Change without Time

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter junglebeast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts presented in "The Grand Design," specifically the idea that during the early inflationary period of the universe, the time dimension behaved like a spatial dimension. Participants explore the implications of this claim, particularly the relationship between time and change, and whether inflation can occur without a conventional understanding of time.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that without time, change cannot occur, which raises questions about the nature of inflation as a process.
  • Others propose that change can be defined in terms of spatial dimensions (d/dx) as well as temporal dimensions (d/dt), suggesting that the original claim may not be entirely accurate.
  • A participant emphasizes that "The Grand Design" is a popular science book and may oversimplify complex scientific concepts.
  • There is a contention regarding the definitions of physical change, with some asserting that mathematical descriptions in physics can involve changes that do not necessarily pertain to time.
  • One participant reflects on the intuitive understanding of spacelike and timelike dimensions, questioning the implications for energy conservation during the early universe.
  • Several participants express frustration with the focus on terminology rather than addressing the core question posed by the original poster.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between time and change, with multiple competing views presented. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing debates about definitions and interpretations of physical concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity in the terminology used to describe changes in physics, indicating that definitions may vary and that the discussion is complicated by differing interpretations of mathematical relationships.

  • #31
It seems like pretty typical pop-sci language. Very flowery and sweeping, but also quite vague. It might be that he is describing the possible breakdown of the manifold structure at small scales, but it is too vague to know for sure. If I were you I wouldn't waste any more time trying to puzzle it out, you would be better off watching the Susskind lectures on GR or reading Sean Carrolls lecture notes or even reading Wikipedia entries.

None of the other references I have read on GR have mentioned how/why time should behave like a spatial dimension when the universe was small. Are you recommending these sources because they specifically deal with this issue, or because they are just good resources for GR in general?

There are some places in his book where he clarifies to say "not everyone agrees with me here.." but on these subjects, he is very matter of fact and states them as if its simply common knowledge among physicists. Is Hawking the only one who has these beliefs?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
junglebeast said:
None of the other references I have read on GR have mentioned how/why time should behave like a spatial dimension when the universe was small. Are you recommending these sources because they specifically deal with this issue, or because they are just good resources for GR in general?
The references I recommended are just good references in general, and much clearer than this one. Nothing I have read mentioned this either, which is primarily the reason I wouldn't waste my time on it.

junglebeast said:
There are some places in his book where he clarifies to say "not everyone agrees with me here.." but on these subjects, he is very matter of fact and states them as if its simply common knowledge among physicists. Is Hawking the only one who has these beliefs?
Unfortunately, the wording is so vague that I can't even tell what the beliefs are, let alone whether other physicists agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K