1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What does time mean at t=1/infinity?

  1. Oct 28, 2011 #1
    I have a question, please correct me in detail if I'm wrong with my conclusion. I am no expert in physics. I do however, have a certain understanding of Trigonometry and some integrals and some derivatives Calculus 1.

    If you start at t=0 (the origin of the Universe) and if that is considered to be the present, does that mean that the present (at that time) requires a past and future equally by 1 divided by infinity and/or above? This problem has made me scratch my head for a while. My conclusion was that time had to start at either t=1/infinity or undefined.

    Any form of math besides physics to "fix up" my understanding would be greatly appreciated.


    Kyle Street
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Your question makes very little sense. What equation are you using to arrive at such a division? What is it that this equation is trying to calculate or describe? There are numerous common descriptions that do not "blow up" at t=0.

    Are you familiar with simple kinematics?

  4. Oct 28, 2011 #3
    Okay, to clear things up I meant that for every present time that exists, there is a past and a future. So if you start at t=0, will there also be a past for t=0 if all other times have a past and future? Lets consider t approaching infinity.
  5. Oct 28, 2011 #4
    Oh I forgot to mention that t=0 is before the Planck Time and that the past and future are equally spread out as a v-shape
  6. Oct 28, 2011 #5
    You're speaking nonsense.
  7. Oct 28, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have to agree w/ JeffKoch ... it seems as though you are just stringing out words in a way that doesn't make sense.
  8. Oct 29, 2011 #7
    It reminds me of lorentz transformation of time when time interval is 1 and spacial interval is zero which is the time dilation while travelling at speed of light.
  9. Oct 29, 2011 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    It's probably a good idea to let the OP explain what he means rather than to guess.
  10. Oct 29, 2011 #9

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That would be about correct - the bit starting with "all times have to have a past and a future" sounded promising but the following post muddied things completely.

    There is an old philosophical argument you still see in creationist circles that time could not have had a beginning because every moment has a past ... or: for time to begin would need divine intervention. Similarly for time to end.

    Still muddled thinking because you cannot have a "start" to time, because there would be no time for time to start in. But OP reminded me of this since his own statements suffer the same sorts of problems: how can time itself start at a particular time? This is what happens when you try to generalize common-sense(-ish) ideas to the Universe.

    This is why space-time is so useful: it's all geometry.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook