Understand Time Measurements After Big Bang

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rico_uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of measuring time in relation to the Big Bang, questioning how we can define a second when time itself may not have been meaningful at that moment. It highlights that modern time measurements are based on consistent phenomena, such as the frequency of light, which provides a stable reference. The conversation explores the concept of time as a spatial dimension, suggesting that time does not progress linearly but exists as a series of defined coordinates. Observers interpret these changes in time, leading to a perception of progression, despite the idea that all moments may exist simultaneously. The implications of this understanding touch on philosophical themes regarding existence and consciousness.
Rico_uk
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone. This probably isn't the right place for people like me to ask stuff like this but I've searched the internet and am finding it hard to get any answers so I thought I'd post here. If the measurement of time is something we do by counting predictable repetitions, and these can vary dependant on relative speed to other objects etc. etc., how can people make statements like, 'we know what happened 1 second after the Big Bang? Surely our measurements of one second has absolutely nothing to do with our universe at that point in 'time'. Thank you and I hope someone can explain this to me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Surely our measurements of one second has absolutely nothing to do with our universe at that point in 'time'."

Why not? Assuming I was there at the big bang and was sitting in some (very) shielded ship and watched my clock, what's wrong?

EDIT: Seconds in the modern world are defined as so many 'shakes' of a certain frequency of light.
 
Ok, if seconds is measured in 'shakes of light' then I guess that makes sense as light is always constant. Thanks for your help!
 
Time is a spatial dimension, just like space. The concept of "progression through time" really is a meaningless statement. Time is a coordinate system. You specify two positions in time. Each time position represents a defined set of coordinates for the space dimensions it represents. Draw a line between the two time positions and you have just drawn a timeline that defines how the defined spatial coordinates in space change from one time position to another time position. That's all time is. There's no direction. There's no "progress". Just an infinite series of change in spatial coordinates defined at infinite time points.

As an observer (that's us), our brains have to somehow interpret the series of change. Hard to do when when all time exists simultaneously just as all space exists simultaneously. Your birth, childhood, adulthood and death...exist at once. Our brains cope by assigning order to these individual time positions of our lives. And hence, this results in our interpretation of time as "progression" in a single direction in a timeline.

Of course, all this comes with significant philosophical ramifications of life, religion, consciousness and existence itself...which I won't get into at the moment.

WP
 
Our time is based how long it takes our planet go around the sun
Months, days, hours, and seconds. We compare this time to other things we see.
It is all a comparison.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Back
Top