Was time born at the big bang?

[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.