Origin of Time: Theory of Big Bang Universe

[Chronos]

That is unknown, there are no 'infinities' in the observable universe. That is usually believed to signal the model is broken.

 

[Naty1]

Then does time stop at the event horizon.

highly unlikely...our theories say no...different observers have different event horizons...they may overlap, but they may not...a cosmological event horizon does not signal 'the end surface of the universe'...and a free falling observer passing the event horizon of a large black hole is not even aware of the passage...her local wristwatch time continues without observable change...

PS: Your questions are reasonable ones for getting started...It is difficult to read one description from any source and come away with the overall ideas...usually you will need to read different descriptions to get a sense of what is being forecast. Remember it took scientists some two decades to widely accept Einstein's relativity during which period the mathematical interpretations from different sources made it more clear [like Minkowski's views on space and time, for example] and some experimental verification began to win supporters.

If you haven't noticed, you can SEARCH [top of this page, blue banner] in these forums for prior discussions...I did not notice that when I first started here for several months...so search for "time' for example and you'll likely find many similar discussions and perhaps some varied descriptions.

 

[sgo2387]

From having watched Briane green's documentary- which I highly recommend- Greene states that current physics indicates there may not be a time that we understand. That is, the future and past may not really be temporal but rather fixed and every present. I will present an analogy- that is a poor analogy (the weakness will become apparent- but its the best I can do). Think of it as traveling between the USA and England. When you are in England- you are not in the USA - but it still exists. Much like that when you have 'traveled' from say yesterday to today- it still exists you just aren't there anymore. The difference obviously (and this is why the analogy is poor) is that in time you cannot go back to where you came from but with space you can.

This is my interpretation from listening to Greene.

 

[night_sky]

Is there a possibility of existence of other dimension other than the existing one inside black hole.

 

[Drakkith]

Is there a possibility of existence of other dimension other than the existing one inside black hole.

There is always a possibility that another dimension exists that we are unable to perceive, but it would probably be very very different from our current four if has remained undetected so far. As for dimensions existing inside of black holes, I am not aware of any consensus stating that is a fact. To my understanding it's barely a theorem, or whatever you might call it. Since we cannot see inside a black hole it is likely to remain unknown.

 

[Zeno Marx]

Since QFT works perfectly well with massless particles and massless particles experience no time (a photon having no rest mass has no inertial rest frame and so exists frozen in phase between emission and absorbtion - If you ever could realize young Einstein's daydream of riding on a lightwave from YOUR perspective you would get anywhere instantly) the question of the origin of time is identical to the question of the origin of mass - ie: time started when the higgs field "turned on". So the Higgs mechanism is the origin of time.

 

[phinds]

Since QFT works perfectly well with massless particles and massless particles experience no time (a photon having no rest mass has no inertial rest frame and so exists frozen in phase between emission and absorbtion - If you ever could realize young Einstein's daydream of riding on a lightwave from YOUR perspective you would get anywhere instantly) the question of the origin of time is identical to the question of the origin of mass - ie: time started when the higgs field "turned on". So the Higgs mechanism is the origin of time.

Personal speculation is against the rules on this forum, so you'll need to back that up with a reliable source.

 

[Drakkith]

Since QFT works perfectly well with massless particles and massless particles experience no time (a photon having no rest mass has no inertial rest frame and so exists frozen in phase between emission and absorbtion - If you ever could realize young Einstein's daydream of riding on a lightwave from YOUR perspective you would get anywhere instantly) the question of the origin of time is identical to the question of the origin of mass - ie: time started when the higgs field "turned on". So the Higgs mechanism is the origin of time.

As far as I know this is most likely incorrect. The lorentz transformation does not apply to photons since they travel at c. Since you can't apply it, that means that whatever results it would come up with when you use it are probably invalid. Such as photons not experiencing time.

 

[Zeno Marx]

Personal speculation is against the rules on this forum, so you'll need to back that up with a reliable source.

The reliable source is Sir Roger Penrose since the concept I am quoting is central to both Twistor theory and Cyclic Confomal Comology

 

[Zeno Marx]

As far as I know this is most likely incorrect. The lorentz transformation does not apply to photons since they travel at c. Since you can't apply it, that means that whatever results it would come up with when you use it are probably invalid. Such as photons not experiencing time.

I don't agree - the equation of time dilation is mass independent so there should be no problem with the following thought experiment - take a massive particle and start to accelerate it - when you get near the relativistic limit start to decrease its mass so you can keep accelerating it - evetaully once you have evaporated all its mass the time dilation becomes infinite ie: you have effectively elimiated the time dimension. This is why we know neutrinos have to have mass because massless particles can't change any of their properties between absorbtion and emission so flavour oscillation implies neutrino mass

 

[Zeno Marx]

None of my physics professors have ever had a problem with this concept (the timelessness of massless particles) but i did have an argument with my second year physics tutor about it - it is counter intuitive but a direct consequence of considering the space of inertial frames as a hyperbolic geometry. I know I'm not supposed to engage in personal speculation but I think that this is a fact which is underappreciated apart form a few 'fringe' folk like Penrose

 

[WannabeNewton]

I highly doubt a physics professor would be indulging in this nonsense. The Lorentz transformations take you from the rest frame of one inertial observer to another. A photon has no rest frame so it makes absolutely no sense to Lorentz boost from the rest frame of an observer to a photon's "frame".

The fact that proper time vanishes along null geodesics is nothing more than mathematical-there is nothing physical to be extrapolated from it. If anything, all it says is that you cannot parametrize null geodesics by proper time, which removes the physical interpretation of "timelessness". The proper time between two events, along some worldline, can only be made sense of as the time read on a clock carried by an observer associated with that worldline as he/she passes between the two events.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't agree - the equation of time dilation is mass independent so there should be no problem with the following thought experiment - take a massive particle and start to accelerate it - when you get near the relativistic limit start to decrease its mass so you can keep accelerating it - evetaully once you have evaporated all its mass the time dilation becomes infinite ie: you have effectively elimiated the time dimension. This is why we know neutrinos have to have mass because massless particles can't change any of their properties between absorbtion and emission so flavour oscillation implies neutrino mass

Except that you can't use the equation for a massless particle traveling at c. It has no rest frame so you simply cannot do it. The equation is mass independent only because the mass of the object simply doesn't matter for time dilation via relative velocity.

 

[Naty1]

wannabe:

The fact that proper time vanishes along null geodesics is nothing more than mathematical-there is nothing physical to be extrapolated from it. If anything, all it says is that you cannot parametrize null geodesics by proper time, which removes the physical interpretation of "timelessness".

That seems the mainstream consensus. [Not that I would take great stock in that.]

Penroses view seems to be that via his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology massless bosons make it through his connected cosmological boundaries from one FLRW universe to another while fermions do not. Fermions remain embedded in the eon they were born. So he thinks there could be physical consequences of such 'null geodesics'. I am not clear if and how this might apply the black hole horizons.

There is a 2010 study Penrose did trying to show WMAP signatures for his CCC theory...evidence of past eon radiation...Other groups could not confirm his findings so right now as I understand it, there is no experimental evidence supporting CCC.

I could find no mention of CCC in Penroses THE ROAD TO REALITY. And his discussions on "the future of twister theory' [33.14] suggest he is aware there remains significant skepticism and says

It certainly makes no ambiguous physical predictions

. On the other hand, Ed Witten did do some twister/string theory work in the last few years even though he harbors some reservations about twister theory.

I do not get why Penrose thinks time would necessarily originate with mass via Higgs. Seems like time should precede Higgs, but maybe Penrose sees it differently?

 

[Zeno Marx]

wannabe:

I do not get why Penrose thinks time would necessarily originate with mass via Higgs. Seems like time should precede Higgs, but maybe Penrose sees it differently?

I have to admit that was my own corollary but a pretty straight forward one in that if massless particles don't travel in time then the origin of mass is the origin of time. It's just an obvious natural consequence of what i have absorbed (via penrose) as a law of nature and as such doesn't even qualify as an individual opinion- if I'm wrong i'd sure as hell like to know why - the arguments about the lorentz tranforms not applying to photons seem to be not relevant. Feynman talks about frozen phase arrows for light.