Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: A Question about Time

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default A Question about Time

    Supposedly, the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe - and therefore, the beginning of time. However, how could "time" have a "beginning"? These two notions seem completely contradictory; in order for something to begin, it has to have a place along a time line - but for time to begin implies it is on that line - the line that it encompasses. So it would both encompass itself and not encompass itself at the same time! Is that then why Hawking invented "imaginary time?"

    Then answer I like comes from Lee Smolin: all the physics we do is really "physics in a box;" Take the motion of a ball thrown in the air - it forms a nice parabola, and has a starting point from the time its thrown and an ending point at the time its motion stops. However, this is just part of a bigger physical picture. That's why some physical models have a "start" and an "end." However, the universe isn't part of a bigger picture - it is the "whole picture" - everything that is. Therefore, we are trying to apply physical models that only work inside the universe to the universe as a whole, and that's why we get things like a "beginning" to time. Smolin thinks the answer is to reinvent quantum gravity. As I said before, I'm not an expert, so I don't know what the answer is. However, I would like to hear your opinion on these issues...
    Last edited by jason_m; 11-19-2015 at 10:24 PM.
    Owl and Jason me like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,082

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Supposedly, the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe - and therefore, the beginning of time. However, how could "time" have a "beginning"? These two notions seem completely contradictory; in order for something to begin, it has to have a place along a time line - but for time to begin implies it is on that line - the line that it encompasses. So it would both encompass itself and not encompass itself at the same time! Is that then why Hawking invented "imaginary time?"

    Then answer I like comes from Lee Smolin: all the physics we do is really "physics in a box;" Take the motion of a ball thrown in the air - it forms a nice parabola, and has a starting point from the time its thrown and an ending point at the time its motion stops. However, this is just part of a bigger physical picture. That's why some physical models have a "start" and an "end." However, the universe isn't part of a bigger picture - it is the "whole picture" - everything that is. Therefore, we are trying to apply physical models that only work inside the universe to the universe as a whole, and that's why we get things like a "beginning" to time. Smolin thinks the answer is to reinvent physics. As I said before, I'm not an expert, so I don't know what the answer is, but any real clarification on any of these issues would be helpful...
    What if you look at is as space/time, i.e no time without space and vice versa. That means there was no time before space and vice versa.
    Larry Caldwell likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,951

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Time is defined as the rate of change. When there is no change there is no definable time.

    There is also time in a reletive sense. If I change and something else doesn't the something else doesn't change reletive to me. Time exists for both me and it. But not when there is nothing else existing that changes.

    To consider the early universe of the big bang we consider the big bang as the beginning of changability. But with a philosophical qualifier. It's the begining of changability in the observable universe.

    That means that we can observe what we can but can't observe what we can't. Sounds like babble. But from ancient Greek time it was considered that we could very well not be what we think we observe. We could be a dream in the mind of God, or in a more modern vernacular, a program in the matrix. No way to tell. Don't know if God, or the matrix exists, and we are a dream/program, or if we exist in the material way we think. No way to tell. However it is recognized that regardless of which material, dream/program, or reality, is the reality our thoughts exist. In terms of M-theory the universe was and is fundamentally different than we observe. The reality of the what we are observing as the universe is an emergent thing. Like a melody which is composed of tone, duration, and tempo but from which can emerge a second melody with its own completely different tones, duration and tempo.

    A way to look at it is that I, before I began thinking, was fundamentaly differant than I am now. The universe wasn't neccesarilly different but I definitely was.

    In the melody analogy if we take the secondary melody that emerged from the primary and wrote it as a primary melody we couldn't know what the first primary melody was. We couldn't know the tempo of the primary. Our secondary, which we observe as the primary, cn be faster or slower than the first primary. The way we look at time is regardless of whether there is a first primary existance from which we emerged, dream, matrix, M-theory, or reality, we can only consider time as we can observe change beginning in our primary.
    Lies have the stench of death and defeat.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    My take is that space-time is a figment of your imagination (the "Wow" of physics), only mass and energy exists ("the "Ow" of physics").. others may differ, YMMV, etc.

    When we (as consciousness) cease to exist, the "Wow" of physics is irrelevant, but the "Ow" of physics continues on....
    (well, ok, maybe in the "Wow" of god, if you actually believe that sort of thing ....

    "There was a young man from Cape Cod
    Who found it exceedingly odd
    That the tree
    should continue to be
    with no one about in the quad"

    "Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd
    I am always about in the quad
    and that's why the tree
    will continue to be
    since observed by,
    Yours Faithfully,
    god"
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,082

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    My take is that space-time is a figment of your imagination (the "Wow" of physics), only mass and energy exists ("the "Ow" of physics").. others may differ, YMMV, etc.

    When we (as consciousness) cease to exist, the "Wow" of physics is irrelevant, but the "Ow" of physics continues on....
    (well, ok, maybe in the "Wow" of god, if you actually believe that sort of thing ....

    "There was a young man from Cape Cod
    Who found it exceedingly odd
    That the tree
    should continue to be
    with no one about in the quad"

    "Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd
    I am always about in the quad
    and that's why the tree
    will continue to be
    since observed by,
    Yours Faithfully,
    god"
    And why not break it down to energy only?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazer View Post
    And why not break it down to energy only?
    Ultimately you have to (the collapse of the wave function, the area of the unit circle...
    (quantum triviality)
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Supposedly, the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe - and therefore, the beginning of time. However, how could "time" have a "beginning"? These two notions seem completely contradictory; in order for something to begin, it has to have a place along a time line - but for time to begin implies it is on that line - the line that it encompasses. So it would both encompass itself and not encompass itself at the same time! Is that then why Hawking invented "imaginary time?"

    Then answer I like comes from Lee Smolin: all the physics we do is really "physics in a box;" Take the motion of a ball thrown in the air - it forms a nice parabola, and has a starting point from the time its thrown and an ending point at the time its motion stops. However, this is just part of a bigger physical picture. That's why some physical models have a "start" and an "end." However, the universe isn't part of a bigger picture - it is the "whole picture" - everything that is. Therefore, we are trying to apply physical models that only work inside the universe to the universe as a whole, and that's why we get things like a "beginning" to time. Smolin thinks the answer is to reinvent quantum gravity. As I said before, I'm not an expert, so I don't know what the answer is. However, I would like to hear your opinion on these issues...
    My theory on time is that it can't be placed on any time line. It always existed. I believe in god I also think God always existed. U do raise some good questions.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by astrotech View Post
    Time is defined as the rate of change. When there is no change there is no definable time.

    There is also time in a reletive sense. If I change and something else doesn't the something else doesn't change reletive to me. Time exists for both me and it. But not when there is nothing else existing that changes.

    To consider the early universe of the big bang we consider the big bang as the beginning of changability. But with a philosophical qualifier. It's the begining of changability in the observable universe.

    That means that we can observe what we can but can't observe what we can't. Sounds like babble. But from ancient Greek time it was considered that we could very well not be what we think we observe. We could be a dream in the mind of God, or in a more modern vernacular, a program in the matrix. No way to tell. Don't know if God, or the matrix exists, and we are a dream/program, or if we exist in the material way we think. No way to tell. However it is recognized that regardless of which material, dream/program, or reality, is the reality our thoughts exist. In terms of M-theory the universe was and is fundamentally different than we observe. The reality of the what we are observing as the universe is an emergent thing. Like a melody which is composed of tone, duration, and tempo but from which can emerge a second melody with its own completely different tones, duration and tempo.

    A way to look at it is that I, before I began thinking, was fundamentaly differant than I am now. The universe wasn't neccesarilly different but I definitely was.

    In the melody analogy if we take the secondary melody that emerged from the primary and wrote it as a primary melody we couldn't know what the first primary melody was. We couldn't know the tempo of the primary. Our secondary, which we observe as the primary, cn be faster or slower than the first primary. The way we look at time is regardless of whether there is a first primary existance from which we emerged, dream, matrix, M-theory, or reality, we can only consider time as we can observe change beginning in our primary.
    I will always quote my boy 'Descartes'. "I think therfore I am". It's that little voice in ur head. Ask people about their voice in their head everyone has one and most or all are different. However I do believe in reincarnation. So unfortunately eventually you will hear my opinions again.)

    I think/believe time and god were never created. Instead they always existed. If you disagree let me know.

  9. #9
    Owl
    Owl is offline
    Junior Member Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    I'd like to think of the universe as a small sphere among many more. Inside our sphere the Big Bang happened on one side of a sphere once it does all galaxies Stars clouds of gas all move all the way around to the other side where they Collide and at one point where become so compacted and dense that they exploded outward going to start the same cycle it once did before which we call the big bang it's a crazy idea but I bet a thousand of other people thought the same thing but I'm free for any other ideas that people have for me so feel free to tell me your thoughts for i always think up crazy things as such. I was typing so fast that there were so many ears that when i read it i almost crapped myself.
    Last edited by Owl; 04-27-2016 at 09:05 PM.

  10. #10
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: A Question about Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    I'd like to think of the universe as a small sphere among many more endearing the Big Bang it happened on one side of a sphere once it does all galaxies Stars clouds of gas move all the way around to the other side but you didn't they Collide and at one point where baby come so compacted and dense the day exploded outward going to start the same cycle it once did before which we call the big bang it's a crazy idea but I bet a thousand of other people thought the same thing but I'm open sister in free for any other ideas that people have for me so feel free to tell me your thoughts for i always think up crazy things as such.
    Ok... Free to tell you my thoughts:
    It looks like you typed out what you were trying to say in a hybrid of Chinese and Gibberish and then used google translate on it.
    Hint: Punctuation = Awesome.

    Owl... Re-write that in understandable clear English or you'll be pushing the ground away from you.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •