How can the universe exist without time?

[Eh]

Originally posted by Zantra
[Yes I suppose from that point of view it all makes sense. Of course I've never been one to just "accept things" either. Basically that's what you're proposing I do. Just "accept" that "poof" the universe is.
All sounds pretty "godlike" to me...

There is no "poof" if there is no prior state when the universe did not exist. However, you can take that to mean the universe is a brute fact, which would still apply to an infinitely old universe.

I'm completely open to logic. So far all I've see are ambiguous hypothetical assumptions that the universe just blinked into existence. I've presented my logic earlier in this post. Read back. Perhaps you could point out the obvious flaws in my logic,

The flaw is that you are attacking a strawman. No one is proposing that one moment there was nothing, and then there was a universe.

Again, regardless of the state of time, I refuse to simply accept that there was nothing, then poof.

And there is the strawman. What part about "no prior state" do you not understand? The claim you are attacking is very different, and in no way is an argument against a beginning to time. No more strawmen, please.

BTW: I propose a duel to see who may keep that neat little nuke avatar. Otherwise, I'll have to search the net for a better mushroom cloud. Take that, avatar thief!

 

[Jagger2003]

Zantra, start from this premise. Time does not exist at the speed of light according to GR.

What exists at the speed of light? Both light and the forces exist at the speed of light. Thus without time, they are eternal. They are neither created nor destroyed.

Thus, energy and forces must have existed prior to the creation of time, space and matter. It seems logical that the big bang originated from timeless energy and forces. The cause would have to be non-physical and independent of time.

 

[Eh]

Light and energy require a background of spacetime to exist.

 

[Chagur]

And here I thought the avatar was of a
venting vulcano! C'est la vie.

 

[Jagger2003]

Eh, I am not convinced that is true. Would you expand on the basis of energy/forces requiring space/time for existence? From what I have read, it appears the reverse may be true. Space is dependent on forces for its existence.

For example, the gravity force warps and shapes space. A black hole would be a good example of how gravity affects space. Note space disappears or is changed beyond our comprehension and yet gravity remains.

PS: I won't be able to respond for several hours.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Eh
There is no "poof" if there is no prior state when the universe did not exist. However, you can take that to mean the universe is a brute fact, which would still apply to an infinitely old universe.

ok now you're starting to make sense. But in order for the Universe to come into existence, there must be a prior state. I would concede the possibility that time as we know it, didn't exist, simply because the laws of that prior existence wouldn't necessarily apply. But there was a prior state that transformed into the current state.

The flaw is that you are attacking a strawman. No one is proposing that one moment there was nothing, and then there was a universe.

So then you're acknowledging that the "void" or "prior state" or whatever term we use, wasn't nothing. I think that was the misunderstanding. I simply want us to acknowledge that there wasn't nothing than "poof" . Chagur seems to not agree on that point.

And there is the strawman. What part about "no prior state" do you not understand? The claim you are attacking is very different, and in no way is an argument against a beginning to time. No more strawmen, please.

So now you're contradicting yourself. Do you believe in a prior state, or no prior state?

BTW: I propose a duel to see who may keep that neat little nuke avatar. Otherwise, I'll have to search the net for a better mushroom cloud. Take that, avatar thief! [/B]

At the moment I have more posts. Back at you avatar imposter!

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.

Swords at dawn! (do I get to cut off your head?)

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Eh, I am not convinced that is true. Would you expand on the basis of energy/forces requiring space/time for existence? From what I have read, it appears the reverse may be true. Space is dependent on forces for its existence.

Yes, space is just the structural quality of a fundamental field. But light and matter require the existence of this fundamental field in the first place. Not to be confused with an absolute space and time of Newton.

For example, the gravity force warps and shapes space. A black hole would be a good example of how gravity affects space. Note space disappears or is changed beyond our comprehension and yet gravity remains.

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. No spacetime, no gravity.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Zantra
ok now you're starting to make sense. But in order for the Universe to come into existence, there must be a prior state.

Thus the term, "the universe came into existence" does not have any meaningful definition. It only does so if you assume the existence of a prior state

So then you're acknowledging that the "void" or "prior state" or whatever term we use, wasn't nothing. I think that was the misunderstanding. I simply want us to acknowledge that there wasn't nothing than "poof" . Chagur seems to not agree on that point.

No, I am saying there was no prior state, or at least it isn't *required*. It's anyones guess as to what the findings of cosmology will be tomorrow, but there is no reason to demand that the big bang must have been preceeded by something else.

So now you're contradicting yourself. Do you believe in a prior state, or no prior state?

Again, I'm only saying that they are both different claims, and do not suffer any logical inconsistencies. You can start with a prior state, be it a previous contracting universe or whatever, but it is not required to be logically consistent.

At the moment I have more posts. Back at you avatar imposter!

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.

Swords at dawn! (do I get to cut off your head?)

Ha, your mere 234 posts is no match for my 390! But it seems sensible that the loser of the duel looses their head (and avatar).

 

[Zantra]

exactly right eh it's anyone's guess. So this would be my guess

 

[Jagger2003]

Yes, space is just the structural quality of a fundamental field. But light and matter require the existence of this fundamental field in the first place. Not to be confused with an absolute space and time of Newton.

Unfortunately, I don't follow the logic. I agree matter requires space to exist. But I don't see any fundamental reason why energy/forces must have space/time for existence. It seems there would be a major logic contradiction if energy/force existed within time. I don't see how energy/forces can experience spacetime at the speed of light. Time ceases at the speed of light. If they exist within space/time, they would have to experience spacetime which is a contradiction. Could you explain further the specific rationale for the requirement of spacetime by light/forces.

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. No spacetime, no gravity.

I am curious whether this is an assumption or a fact. At the moment, I believe we can measure the effects but we haven't been able to locate or determine the exact origin of gravitons. Without locating gravitons, how can we be certain that the curvature of spacetime is the origin of gravitons. Could it be the reverse? Gravity forces as the origin of spacetime? Would we not have the same measureable results?

To me, the major questions are raised by the implications of light and forces existing at the speed of light. Considering time does not exist, how can either light or forces experience the time of spacetime? Assuming spacetime as an integral phenomenum, then neither light nor forces can exist within spacetime because they would then be subject to time. To remain out of time, forces and light must project a field into time and space without entering spacetime to maintain their timeless existence. It seems a logical conclusion that timeless energy/forces must exist outside of spacetime. I think this contradiction would need to be resolved before we would be able to conclude that light/energy exists within spacetime rather than outside.

Here might be an example of force outside of our universes spacetime exerting an effect on our spacetime. Within the event horizon of a black hole, would a force be outside the spacetime of our universe? Within our universe are we affected by the black hole bending spacetime? I believe the answer to both would be yes. The black hole appears to support a force originating outside of our spacetime which impacts our universe's spacetime. Although what exists in the black hole itself, who knows.

Also here is something you may find interesting on space/time, gravity and superstrings.

" Is spacetime fundamental?
Note that string theory does not predict that the Einstein equations are obeyed exactly. Perturbative string theory adds an infinite series of corrections to the Einstein equation

----actual equation at website below----------

So our understanding of spacetime in perturbative string theory is only valid as long as spacetime curvature is small compared to the string scale.
However, when these correction terms become large, there is no spacetime geometry that is guaranteed to describe the result. Only under very strict symmetry conditions, such as unbroken supersymmetry, are there known exact solutions to the spacetime geometry in string theory.
This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications. "

Full article from here:

http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Eh



No, I am saying there was no prior state, or at least it isn't *required*. It's anyones guess as to what the findings of cosmology will be tomorrow, but there is no reason to demand that the big bang must have been preceeded by something else.

Ok simply a matter of wording. I withdraw that we MUST conclude the existence of a prior state, and put for that there MAY have been a prior state. I know I was ambiguous a couple of times. But for clarity, I'm not offering it as the absolute, only as a possibility.

Glad we got that cleared up

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Unfortunately, I don't follow the logic. I agree matter requires space to exist. But I don't see any fundamental reason why energy/forces must have space/time for existence.

If you consider that matter and energy are quantum fields, and that fields themselves require a background of spacetime, you can see that light can't exist without.

It seems there would be a major logic contradiction if energy/force existed within time. I don't see how energy/forces can experience spacetime at the speed of light.

Light doesn't experience time, in that it doesn't change unless something else interacts with it. But it still is moving through spacetime, and can't exist "outside" it.

I am curious whether this is an assumption or a fact. At the moment, I believe we can measure the effects but we haven't been able to locate or determine the exact origin of gravitons. Without locating gravitons, how can we be certain that the curvature of spacetime is the origin of gravitons. Could it be the reverse? Gravity forces as the origin of spacetime? Would we not have the same measureable results?

Gravitons are not part of the only working theory of spacetime we have - GR. In potential quantum theories of gravity, the field is still important, even if it can be reduced to discrete lines or strings. No field, no gravity.

 

[Jagger2003]

Light spacetime

If you consider that matter and energy are quantum fields, and that fields themselves require a background of spacetime, you can see that light can't exist without.

If spacetime disappears, energy would remain as energy cannot be destroyed nor created. Spacetime didn't exist within the singularity prior to the bigbang yet the initial energy had to be present. So energy must be capable of existing outside of spacetime.

Wouldn't this break the link requiring energy to exist within spacetime. It seems logical that the fields we see may be the results of energy/forces existing outside of spacetime projecting fields inside spacetime. This condition would take out the contradiction of light/forces not experiencing time.

Light doesn't experience time, in that it doesn't change unless something else interacts with it. But it still is moving through spacetime, and can't exist "outside" it.

How would light experience any physical change without time? The lack of time would prevent any physical change. Space and matter would be static from the perspective of light/energy without time. I could see light in contact but not moving with spacetime or experiencing physical change without time.

I appreciate your consideration and time on these issues. I am trying to reconcile the definite lack of time for light/energy and the logical consequences with its ability to interact with space/time and matter. We also know that light doesn't experience distance according to GR which suggests to me the continued existence of space but outside of space to avoid the distance aspect.

There are some extreme logical contradictions which makes me look for a solution allowing for lights timeless existence and an interaction with our universe of time, space and matter. Placing energy/forces outside spacetime would solve the contradictions and still allow for fields projecting into spacetime.

It is a tough problem but there must be a consistent answer.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
If spacetime disappears, energy would remain as energy cannot be destroyed nor created. Spacetime didn't exist within the singularity prior to the bigbang yet the initial energy had to be present. So energy must be capable of existing outside of spacetime.

It doesn't have anything to do with conservation, because you can't really make spacetime disappear. It's only used as an analogy to say that if you could somehow shut down spacetime, all other fields would go with it. There is no reason to assume the singularity has any real existence, and it would be wise to wait for a working theory of quantum gravity to say what existed "before" the big bang. GR is just not useful when describing an early universe dominated by quantum effects.

Wouldn't this break the link requiring energy to exist within spacetime. It seems logical that the fields we see may be the results of energy/forces existing outside of spacetime projecting fields inside spacetime. This condition would take out the contradiction of light/forces not experiencing time.

What contradiction? And since fields are defined as being distributed continuously throughout space, it doesn't seem to make sense to have them without it.

How would light experience any physical change without time? The lack of time would prevent any physical change. Space and matter would be static from the perspective of light/energy without time. I could see light in contact but not moving with spacetime or experiencing physical change without time.

Maybe you're putting more into the concept of photons experiencing zero time than is intended. Light experiences no time in that it will not change on it's own, but it's still moving through space-time and can be obsorbed be charged particles.

 

[Jagger2003]

Time

Interesting but we are still left with logical contradictions.

Unfortuately, I will have to get back Monday night or Tuesday. I am headed out of town very shortly.

Enjoy the weekend.