Origin of Time: Theory of Big Bang Universe

[night_sky]

As per current theory's we know that time did begin with the big bang, what before then and does big bang highlight the explosion or the dense ball which was everything (universe.)

 

[phinds]

As per current theory's we know that time did begin with the big bang,

Yes, that is one theory but not the only one so we do NOT "know" that, we take it as a part of one theory of how the universe works (the "Big Bang Theory")

what before then and does big bang highlight the explosion or the dense ball which was everything (universe.)

The big bang was NOT an explosion and there was no "ball".

The "Big Bang Theory" is a description of how the Universe has acted since one Plank time after the singularity, from an incredibly hot and incredibly dense plasma of energy to what it is today.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There is no "before" for time because the concept of "before" requires time.
The "big bang", despite the name, should not be thought of as an explosion of anything.
The name is sort-of a metaphore.

A good start for this sort of question would be one of Hawkins lectures:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
... gives you a better idea what you are asking about.

 

[night_sky]

There is no "before" for time because the concept of "before" requires time.
The "big bang", despite the name, should not be thought of as an explosion of anything.
The name is sort-of a metaphore.

A good start for this sort of question would be one of Hawkins lectures:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
... gives you a better idea what you are asking about.

Thanks. But as bigbang is the start of every thing ,is it right to assume that time is proportional(directly or inversly) to some quantity at that instant and why does cosmological time and thermodynamic time point in the same direction but why not physiological time it has 2 directions past and future.

 

[uzayr]

Our main evidence for the big bang is red shift. E.g if a fire engine is traveling towards us than the frequency is high and the pitch is high.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Our main evidence for the big bang is red shift. E.g if a fire engine is traveling towards us than the frequency is high and the pitch is high.

What you described is the classical Doppler shift which certainly doesn't explain the big bang in any way; it is a result that appears due to Galilean relativity (at near light speeds we have relativistic Doppler effects as well). The only thing remotely close to what you described is the cosmological redshift effect which helps support the idea of an expanding universe.

 

[uzayr]

by looking at the red shift of a large number of stars we can establish that they are moving away from us. However, other stars move away from each other so we can't tell exactly where the universe began. There are the possible ways that the universe could continue. Theory 1 the universe could expand forever. Theory 2 the universe could eventually stop expanding. Theory 3 the universe would expand until a certain point and the collide.

 

[phinds]

by looking at the red shift of a large number of stars we can establish that they are moving away from us. However, other stars move away from each other so we can't tell exactly where the universe began. There are the possible ways that the universe could continue. Theory 1 the universe could expand forever. Theory 2 the universe could eventually stop expanding. Theory 3 the universe would expand until a certain point and the collide.

THERE IS NO "WHERE" to the beginning of the universe.

I'm sure you meant "contract" not "collide"

 

[uzayr]

Some religious views of the origins of the universe contradict science and so for such views their is no real evidence. Notice I said some I am however aware that there is one religion which holds a scientific view of the origins of the universe

 

[uzayr]

sorry I meant contract

 

[Naty1]

why does cosmological time and thermodynamic time point in the same direction but why not physiological time it has 2 directions past and future.

nobody really knows...but increasing entropy seems to set a direction for time flow. However our mathematical models treat future and past equally. Einstein seemed to think our human perceptions of time had to be completely abandoned.

See these two different views from well known physicists:


On the reality of time and the evolution of laws

Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:

There are a number of arguments in the philosophical, physical and cosmological literatures for the thesis that time is not fundamental to the description of nature. According to this view, time should be only an approximate notion which emerges from a more fundamental, timeless description only in certain limiting approximations. ...The view that time is real and not emergent is, I will argue, supported by considerations arising from all these issues It leads finally to a need for a notion of law in cosmology which replaces the freedom to choose initial conditions with a notion of laws evolving in time.

http://pirsa.org/08100049/


http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3832
"Forget time"
Authors: Carlo Rovelli
(Submitted on 23 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 27 Mar 2009 (this version, v3))

Abstract:

Following a line of research that I have developed for several years, I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role. I summarize here this point of view, explaining why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must "forget time", and how this can be done in the classical and in the quantum theory. The idea is to develop a formalism that treats dependent and independent variables on the same footing. In short, I propose to interpret mechanics as a theory of relations between variables, rather than the theory of the evolution of variables in time.

/////////////////////////Einstein discovered that spacetime is not a fixed background, as it was assumed in special relativistic physics, but rather a dynamical field. A changing gravitational curvature as when a planet passes by, changes the passage of time according to a distant observer. This means proper time along a curved inertial world line [a path in spacetime] varies from point to point for a distant observer, since the gravity changes. Proper time along a worldline IS an observable but does not 'tick at a steady pace',because as the worldine is traversed, as you move through spacetime, the spacetime background is, in general changing...the spacetime background is dynamic, so time proceeds 'erratically'...at an uneven pace….. as viewed by others. In SR, different inertial observers see distant time pass at different rates relative to their own time, but the ticks are at a fixed pace.
So the concept of time is weakened somewhat in GR since the pace of ticks varies.

 

[Ogr8bearded1]

We can't even get everyone to agree that time exists. We can observe and measure its effects but have no understanding of its cause. If time is motion or distance, then time most likely started with the Big Bang or very shortly thereafter. If time can be separate from space then it could have existed before the Big Bang but had nothing to measure against. Cosmology deals with space-time as a single entity and uses physics to explain what we see and predict what we have yet to see. If you try to view one without the other (space without time or vice versa) everything breaks down and stops working based on what we currently view as the best answers.

 

[night_sky]

nobody really knows...but increasing entropy seems to set a direction for time flow. However our mathematical models treat future and past equally. Einstein seemed to think our human perceptions of time had to be completely abandoned.

But then ,will entropy decrease result in time flowing backwards. If its true then one can be sure that inside black holes time runs backward's

 

[night_sky]

THERE IS NO "WHERE" to the beginning of the universe.

By the evidences currently available all objects in the universe are moving away from us, doesn't this mean that a point of origin must exist.

 

[phinds]

By the evidences currently available all objects in the universe are moving away from us, doesn't this mean that a point of origin must exist.

Emphatically not. You misunderstand the evidence. ALL things in the universe are moving away from each other exactly as all things are moving away from us. There IS no privileged point of view ("center"). Google "Cosmological Principle"

If you had it right then WE would be at the point of origin of the universe (as of course would every other point in the universe)

Also, you might find it informative to read what is at the URL in my signature.

 

[Mordred]

By the evidences currently available all objects in the universe are moving away from us, doesn't this mean that a point of origin must exist.

No it most certainly does not.

Expansion is the same everywhere except where other forces are stronger such as large scale structures and gravity.

 

[OCR]

If you had it right then WE would be at the point of origin of the universe (as of course would every other point in the universe)

My bold... that's getting pretty close to the definition of everywhere, isn't it?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everywhere




OCR

 

[phinds]

My bold... that's getting pretty close to the definition of everywhere, isn't it?

OCR

It had not been my intent to be "getting pretty close to everywhere" but rather to express that it IS everywhere.

 

[OCR]

It had not been my intent to be "getting pretty close to everywhere" but rather to express that it IS everywhere.

Aah, yes... fixed!

that's [STRIKE]getting pretty close to[/STRIKE] the definition of everywhere[STRIKE], isn't it?[/STRIKE].

OCR

 

[Simon Bridge]

A lot of these questions are covered in the lecture I gave you - post #2 - did you follow the link?

Thanks. But as bigbang is the start of every thing ,is it right to assume that time is proportional(directly or inversly) to some quantity at that instant and why does cosmological time and thermodynamic time point in the same direction but why not physiological time it has 2 directions past and future.

The first question is handled in the link I gave you, as for the second, there is no reason to suppose that physiological time in our bodies is any different from the "time" we measure with any other kind of clock.

Our perception of time, on the other hand, is something that happens in our minds. It's relation to the physical world would, therefore, be a mind-body problem. Nobody has solved that one yet.

But if you mean "why do we remember the past and not the future?"
That can be understood in two stages:
1. remember(!) that we call the stuff we remember "the past" because we remember it - it's the definition of "the past". (Lets not get bogged down in ideas about historical past and True past events and false memories etc please? You know what I mean - thanks.)
2. our memories are not magic - they must be laid down by some physical process. To be persistent, which they must be to be called "memory", the process must be irreversible. Thus "memory" must be one way ... irreversible processes go in the direction of increased entropy - therefore, so does our memory of the order of events.

Hawking actually covered this in "A Brief History of Time" quite a while ago and many others have written on it since (and before).

But then ,will entropy decrease result in time flowing backwards. If its true then one can be sure that inside black holes time runs backward's

We can decrease entropy locally, and that does not result in backwards flowing time.
But you should be careful what you mean by "backwards" and "forwards" in the context of time. These are directions relative to something ... what would time be moving back or forth with respect to?

We see time flowing in the same direction as the increase in total entropy.
When local entropy decreases, it does so against the flow of total entropy change.
If total entropy were to decrease - would we notice?
For us to notice we'd have to see our clocks turn backwards ... which would mean that our local entropy (in the mechanism that lays down our memories) would be running the opposite way to the total entropy. So which is going backwards, time, or us?

Dan Dennet talks about how memory works in his provocative "Consciousness Explained" - his recent TED talks are largely about perception. They will help you here I think.

Inside a black hole there is no reason to suppose time "runs backwards" there either - though that is a whole different kettle of piranhas.
My favorite link for what happens inside a black hole - as near we can make out - is:
http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm
I think this goes beyond the concepts you are wresting with though.

By the evidences currently available all objects in the universe are moving away from us, doesn't this mean that a point of origin must exist.

As the others have said: no. It is a very common misconception that the Big Bang is the Universe exploding into being from some point - see Disney's Fantasia for a typical illustration.

You should read the link in Phinds' sig.

Note: the ideas you are trying to work through are very big - there is no way anyone can provide complete answers in these forums. That is why we give you links and pointers for further reading. Do go read them.

 

[night_sky]

A lot of these questions are covered in the lecture I gave you - post #2 - did you follow the link?

The first question is handled in the link I gave you, as for the second, there is no reason to suppose that physiological time in our bodies is any different from the "time" we measure with any other kind of clock.

Our perception of time, on the other hand, is something that happens in our minds. It's relation to the physical world would, therefore, be a mind-body problem. Nobody has solved that one yet.

But if you mean "why do we remember the past and not the future?"
That can be understood in two stages:
1. remember(!) that we call the stuff we remember "the past" because we remember it - it's the definition of "the past". (Lets not get bogged down in ideas about historical past and True past events and false memories etc please? You know what I mean - thanks.)
2. our memories are not magic - they must be laid down by some physical process. To be persistent, which they must be to be called "memory", the process must be irreversible. Thus "memory" must be one way ... irreversible processes go in the direction of increased entropy - therefore, so does our memory of the order of events.

Hawking actually covered this in "A Brief History of Time" quite a while ago and many others have written on it since (and before).We can decrease entropy locally, and that does not result in backwards flowing time.
But you should be careful what you mean by "backwards" and "forwards" in the context of time. These are directions relative to something ... what would time be moving back or forth with respect to?

We see time flowing in the same direction as the increase in total entropy.
When local entropy decreases, it does so against the flow of total entropy change.
If total entropy were to decrease - would we notice?
For us to notice we'd have to see our clocks turn backwards ... which would mean that our local entropy (in the mechanism that lays down our memories) would be running the opposite way to the total entropy. So which is going backwards, time, or us?

Dan Dennet talks about how memory works in his provocative "Consciousness Explained" - his recent TED talks are largely about perception. They will help you here I think.

Inside a black hole there is no reason to suppose time "runs backwards" there either - though that is a whole different kettle of piranhas.
My favorite link for what happens inside a black hole - as near we can make out - is:
http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm
I think this goes beyond the concepts you are wresting with though.

As the others have said: no. It is a very common misconception that the Big Bang is the Universe exploding into being from some point - see Disney's Fantasia for a typical illustration.

You should read the link in Phinds' sig.

Note: the ideas you are trying to work through are very big - there is no way anyone can provide complete answers in these forums. That is why we give you links and pointers for further reading. Do go read them.

Thanks and As we all know that universe is defined as every thing we know then how can one think of possibility of existence of parallel universe's . This one doesn't cope up with the definition because as per definition parallel universe must also be included in the known universe.

 

[skydivephil]

By the evidences currently available all objects in the universe are moving away from us, doesn't this mean that a point of origin must exist.

All objects are not movig away from each other, gravitationally bound objects are not doing so. The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our galaxy. They are not moving away from each other. Distant galaxies are moving away from each other and this is what the epxnasion of the universe means. If the bgi rip were to hapen then your scenario would be correct. but we do not know that the big rip will happen. Current data doesn't support it, but until we understand dark energy better than we can say its a possibility.

 

[Simon Bridge]

As we all know that universe is defined as every thing we know then how can one think of possibility of existence of parallel universe's . This one doesn't cope up with the definition because as per definition parallel universe must also be included in the known universe.

A parallel Universe may be one which might have been but wasn't without violating the idea that the Universe is everything there is.
Since "Universe" is a label we are free to come up with other uses for it - words are our tools not our masters. Certainly it is not useful to define the Universe as "everything we know" - for surely the Universe also contains many things we have yet to discover?

But that is a different topic... and it does not appear to follow on from what I wrote or from the original topic. You should ask it in a different thread perhaps?

Have you taken in what people are trying to tell you?
Have you read the links provided?

 

[night_sky]

A parallel Universe may be one which might have been but wasn't without violating the idea that the Universe is everything there is.
Since "Universe" is a label we are free to come up with other uses for it - words are our tools not our masters. Certainly it is not useful to define the Universe as "everything we know" - for surely the Universe also contains many things we have yet to discover?

But that is a different topic... and it does not appear to follow on from what I wrote or from the original topic. You should ask it in a different thread perhaps?

Have you taken in what people are trying to tell you?
Have you read the links provided?

Please explain me about big crunch. Big crunch does state a single point where all of the universe will be one.(Please correct me if i am wrong.)

 

[phinds]

Please explain me about big crunch. Big crunch does state a single point where all of the universe will be one.(Please correct me if i am wrong.)

You are wrong. The "big crunch" scenario says the universe, that started off as an incredibly hot dense plasma of possibly infinite extent and which has since expanded enormously, will contract back to the original incredibly hot dense plasma of possibly infinite extent. There is no "point" involved in either the beginning or the end of the big crunch.

 

[night_sky]

You are wrong. The "big crunch" scenario says the universe, that started off as an incredibly hot dense plasma of possibly infinite extent and which has since expanded enormously, will contract back to the original incredibly hot dense plasma of possibly infinite extent. There is no "point" involved in either the beginning or the end of the big crunch.

Then is it wrong to take that incredibly hot dense plasma as origin or end...

 

[phinds]

Then is it wrong to take that incredibly hot dense plasma as origin or end...

Good ... you are finally getting the point. It is NOT the beginning or the end and no one has ever said it was. It is the state of the universe one Plank time AFTER the singularity, which is where our model breaks down and we don't KNOW what the beginning was.

 

[Drakkith]

Then is it wrong to take that incredibly hot dense plasma as origin or end...

Wrong? Not really. It is just more like the end of our ability to predict what happens in either the past or the future beyond those points in time. It is unknown if that is actually the start or end points.

 

[night_sky]

Wrong? Not really. It is just more like the end of our ability to predict what happens in either the past or the future beyond those points in time. It is unknown if that is actually the start or end points.

Thank you very much.

 

[night_sky]

Then does time stop at the event horizon.

 

[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.