Questions About Time Before the Big Bang

[cosmo_boy]

time

I have read most of the posts in this thread. What has been said is what we find in popular science books i.e., the birth of time coincides with the big bang.

As I know, so far Einstein's theory of relativity is the authentic theory of space and time. This theory clearly rejects the notion of absolute time. Every observer in the universe has its own time. In this situation I think
before talking the "birth of time" we should make sure whose time we are talking about.

In Newtonian framework there exist a universal time which flows by the same rate for all observers in the
universe. However, in Einstein's theory time is used
in some sense for the sake of observers. Let me quote some lines from Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies":

"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its coordinates as a function of time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical meaning of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear what we understand by "time".
We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events."

I think this makes clear that time does not have any independent meaning apart from the fact we use this notion for synchronizing clocks.

Our physical devices or clocks measure "time interval" not time; so it is irrelevant, where we put the "zero" of time. For the convention we put the zero of time at the
instant at which our classical theory of relativity breaks. It does not mean that something special happens at time "t=0". What I say is that the "big bang" exists in theories not in the universe.

Every physicist knows that the fundamental theory of the
universe must be "quantum" not "classical". So in this situation it is far better to wait for a "quantum theory
of gravity" in place of speculating about the origin of time. Moreover, string theories and loop quantum gravity already give us the hint that "big bang" was not a physical events.

Most of the people when think about time, they think about coordinate time. Which is a useless quantity in relativity because it is observer dependent.

 

[s3nn0c]

I don't agree. General relativity is not a quantum theory, you can't say that "nothing happens with time" at Big Bang just because the theory you use at this moment doesn't work in these specific conditions. Here you have an example, that it's quite possible to talk about emergance of time:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9711051

What is more interesting, in that model time doesn't emerge in a kind of rapid phase transition, but we have a continuous process of emerging.

 

[Thor]

...In Newtonian framework there exist a universal time which flows by the same rate for all observers in the universe. However, in Einstein's theory time is used in some sense for the sake of observers. Let me quote some lines from Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies":

"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its coordinates as a function of time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical meaning of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear what we understand by "time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events."

I think this makes clear that time does not have any independent meaning apart from the fact we use this notion for synchronizing clocks.

Our physical devices or clocks measure "time interval" not time; so it is irrelevant, where we put the "zero" of time. For the convention we put the zero of time at the instant at which our classical theory of relativity breaks. It does not mean that something special happens at time "t=0".

APPLAUSE
If existence is the result of a process of cause and effect then there must exist a t=Ø, if not then there is no such point of origin. I fail to see why the default assumption is that existence is the result of a process.

What I say is that the "big bang" exists in theories not in the universe.

That being said, here on Earth, nuclear elements can be manipulated to reach critical mass and create enormous explosions. Stars which become exhausted collapse and spawn denotations of gigantic magnitude. These cosmic systems seem to be fairly common to the Universe as the attractive forces of gravity cycle into repulsive forces of critical mass. Why would it not be possible for galaxies or clusters of galaxies to do the same?

There is a lot of evidence some cosmic eruption took place in the infinitesimal portion of the cosmos we can detect with our technology. These are probably regular occurrences.

Did you mean to say that "big bang" occurred, but was not the origin of the existence of the Universe?

THoR
Theory of Reciprocity

 

[cosmo_boy]

APPLAUSE
If existence is the result of a process of cause and effect then there must exist a t=Ø, if not then there is no such point of origin.

Yes, existence is the result of a process of cause and effect, that is why there is some cause for the events
which take place at "t=0" also. Now you have two choices:
either use "-ve" time for the case of the the events happening at "t=0" ar shift the zero of time. So there is
such as absolute "t=0" moment.

I fail to see why the default assumption is that existence is the result of a process.

I did not get this.

That being said, here on Earth, nuclear elements can be manipulated to reach critical mass and create enormous explosions. Stars which become exhausted collapse and spawn denotations of gigantic magnitude. These cosmic systems seem to be fairly common to the Universe as the attractive forces of gravity cycle into repulsive forces of critical mass. Why would it not be possible for galaxies or clusters of galaxies to do the same?

This is one of commom misconception that people have about the big bang. They think it was an explosion like that of a bomb. Which is not true. One can check this with experts.

Did you mean to say that "big bang" occurred, but was not the origin of the existence of the Universe?

Yes, there was a time when the "universe" was very hot and dense as big bang theory predicts, leaving a short time interval around the singularity. Big bang was neither the orgin of "universe" nor the orgin of time.

Inflatioary theories predict that our universe emerged from a small "patch" of "false vacuum" and there are are
many such patches which can produce other universes.
Bottom line is "neither there is any absulute time, nor the birth of any absolute time".

 

[Garth]

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy with the assertion that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature and could freely breach the rules of reality. Of course, when the laws of nature are discarded anything is possible, even the absurd. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to refute the validity of every canon of rational argument.

I have read this thread carefully; where and who, in this thread, suggested that the 'God hypothesis' discarded the laws of nature? Or have I missed something...

Garth

 

[Danger]

I have read this thread carefully; where and who, in this thread, suggested that the 'God hypothesis' discarded the laws of nature? Or have I missed something...

Garth

It wasn't me, but I completely agree with it. The supposition of an supernatural being makes anything else irrelevant. It's a perfectly valid topic of discussion in its own right, but has nothing to do with hard science. What's the point of trying to figure out the rules if they can be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the referee?

 

[Garth]

It wasn't me, but I completely agree with it. The supposition of an supernatural being makes anything else irrelevant. It's a perfectly valid topic of discussion in its own right, but has nothing to do with hard science. What's the point of trying to figure out the rules if they can be arbitrarily changed at the whim of the referee?

The Creator God I believe in is the author and guarantor of the laws of science, not the gaps or breaks in those laws.

Garth

 

[Danger]

The Creator God I believe in is the author and guarantor of the laws of science, not the gaps or breaks in those laws.

Garth

If by that you mean that the laws once 'created' are inviolable, then the 'god' concept itself becomes irrelevant in trying to decypher them. There's no difference from the situation where they arise from random circumstances. I am not in any way trying to demean your beliefs; it just seems to me that they don't have any bearing upon the state of the universe.

 

[Garth]

I mean that I believe that the laws of science are at the most basic mathematical in nature.

Yet mathematics is a mental construct; so, in whose mind are those equations held?

Furthermore, these laws, once they are held in the mind of the Creator, have 'fire breathed into them' to produce a universe for us to observe, not just at the BB, but at every subsequent event within space and time where the real universe emerges from a mathematically constrained flux of energy and sea of virtual particles.

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

I mean that I believe that the laws of science are at the most basic mathematical in nature.

Mathematics is the study of patterns. S0ome of the patterns they study turn out to be patterns of behavior of physical systems. Note that the brute systems themselves do not know they are behaving with such patterns; only the human scientists know that, as far as we are aware.

Yet mathematics is a mental construct; so, in whose mind are those equations held?

In the minds of individual mathematicians and the minds of the scientists who discover those patterns in nature.

Furthermore, these laws, once they are held in the mind of the Creator, have 'fire breathed into them' to produce a universe for us to observe, not just at the BB, but at every subsequent event within space and time where the real universe emerges from a mathematically constrained flux of energy and sea of virtual particles.

This is just a statement of religious belief, and as such it doesn't belong here.

 

[Garth]

I did not introduce the discussion on "Supernatural versions of creation", on the other hand, as this thread is about the origin, or otherwise, of time, an opinion based on the quote from Stephen Hawking "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" might be considered to belong here.

But enough is enough...

Garth

 

[aricho]

time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

 

[Loren Booda]

The Planck epoch seems to me involved with a Higgs potential - onset of particle production, spacetime, etc.

 

[Thor]

Yes, existence is the result of a process of cause and effect, that is why there is some cause for the events which take place at "t=0".

In order for something to change or be changed it must first exist. This means cause and effect is a product of existence - NOT the opposite.

What compelling reason do you have to assume the principle which explains existence is to be found in the realm of cause and effect - WECIB?

 

[EnumaElish]

Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

 

[Deek]

Time is just a mere concept. It didn't "begin", like the birth of a star.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well according to the standard cosmological model time and space, actually spacetime, began around 14 billion years ago. There is no "before" that. There may be some kind of causalty hierarchy, but not time.

 

[Gold Barz]

Wasnt it "our" time that didnt begin until 14 billion years ago, same with "our" space, I mean there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

 

[Loren Booda]

Sequence of measurement, more appropriately than time, provides a physical basis for assessing change in quantum cosmology. Quantum mechanics retains its space/time separation, and relativity its spacetime unity, with sequencing inherent to the dynamical changes in both. Between two recorded events, physics maintains as a transient, probabilistic dynamic. There are then the two states of change - observation, and statistical continuity between observations. Sequence of measurement is a most objective and fundamental physical standard. Derived from the quantum wavefunction, action eigenvalues represent the possible sequential permutations (Planck steps) that observation's action follows. Successive compatible [complementary] measurements define null (0) [unit (±h)] eigenvalues. These quantum numbers order time- (or space-) independently overall, obeying a random walk statistic. It is indeed possible for retrograde, sequential action. A partial history of Planck steps lost to statistics represents the overdetermination with quantum mechanics. (From my website, below.)

 

[Mr. dude]

Well personally, I think that there was "time" if you will, before the bb. We can never know about it though. There may not have been a universe or anything else in it. It may have been a kind of state of nothingness. I guess we'll just never know for sure.

 

[Gold Barz]

Sequence of measurement, more appropriately than time, provides a physical basis for assessing change in quantum cosmology. Quantum mechanics retains its space/time separation, and relativity its spacetime unity, with sequencing inherent to the dynamical changes in both. Between two recorded events, physics maintains as a transient, probabilistic dynamic. There are then the two states of change - observation, and statistical continuity between observations. Sequence of measurement is a most objective and fundamental physical standard. Derived from the quantum wavefunction, action eigenvalues represent the possible sequential permutations (Planck steps) that observation's action follows. Successive compatible [complementary] measurements define null (0) [unit (±h)] eigenvalues. These quantum numbers order time- (or space-) independently overall, obeying a random walk statistic. It is indeed possible for retrograde, sequential action. A partial history of Planck steps lost to statistics represents the overdetermination with quantum mechanics. (From my website, below.)

Not to be rude but could you simplify this, I want to know about it I just can't understand it that well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wasnt it "our" time that didnt begin until 14 billion years ago, same with "our" space, I mean there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

Could have been, but didn't necessarily have to be. They don't need prior time to get the big bang.

 

[Loren Booda]

Gold Barz,

Simply, that consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Thor]

Well according to the standard cosmological model time and space, actually spacetime, began around 14 billion years ago. There is no "before" that. There may be some kind of causalty hierarchy, but not time.

YEAH. RIGHT.
Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.
Do you realize how silly that is?

 

[Sempiternity]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

 

[turbo]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

Can you explain how this can be? What are the initial conditions necessary for the the original effect to arise? Cannot these conditions in any way be construed as causes?

 

[Chronos]

This qualifies for what I consider an 'Anthropic' argument. The concept of time before clocks is undefined, hence effectively infinite [by clock time]. Similarily, the concept of time after clocks [i.e., all clocks lose the ability to function] is equally undefined, hence also effectively infinite [by clock time]. This raises serious questions. We may not occupy a priveleged location in the universe, but we undeniably occupy a priveleged 'time' in a universe sandwiched between dual infinities. Sounds like philosophy to me. Food for thought:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html

 

[Danger]

Why isn't the answer to "before the big bang" question "some sort of an out-of-equilibrium system " (a disequilibrium state, for short)?

Probably because that makes no sense as written. Sorry, no offense intended, but you have to clarify that statement. The current universe is an 'out of equilibrium system'. When it reaches equilibrium, one way or the other, all life will cease to exist.

there could have been something before...like, dare i say, other universes? but that's not even science that's pure speculation and to us they might as well not even exist because they are in no way connected with our universe? do you agree self Adjoint?

That's absolutely correct. If there were preceding universes, or multiple co-existing ones, they would have no correlation to ours. Time there could pass billions of times faster or slower in relation to physical processes than it does here, but it doesn't matter because our time is entirely dependent upon the conditions in this universe.

consecutive measurements by the observer are more effective in marking physical change than tallying time alone.

Thanks for the translation, Loren. I've had (surprise, surprise) more than a couple of beers, and couldn't make heads nor tails of your first post. Reduced to a common-sense statement like this, it's perfectly agreeable.

YEAH. RIGHT.
Once upon a time there was an after with no 'before'.
Do you realize how silly that is?

Not half as silly as supposing that some supernatural being created it all. As a counter argument, how could there be a 'before' without an 'after'?

 

[Thor]

With a succession of cause-and-effect events, there must necessarily be an original effect which did not have a cause.

It doesn't necessarily follow. If time is eternal, there would be no original cause. Why are you predisposed to believe time is ('scuse the pun) temporary?

 

[Sempiternity]

The key to your statement is 'if'. That is, if time is eternal. When you say eternal, do you mean existing before the beginning and after the ending? Did time exist before the Big Bang? That would be the same as saying time existed before space. But, as discussed in Fabric of the Cosmos, there is no such thing as absolute time and absolute space. There is only absolute spacetime.