## Recommended Posts

Hi folks, I'm new here, and I'm not a physicist and I simply have to trust their math, even though it arrives at some strange conclusions. This is a general curiouisity and discussion I'd like to bring up. My science is poor relative to those here, but maybe my creative thought is at least intriguing and some might like to entertain an idea that I have.

I was watching a documentary where the term "before time" was used (referring to pre big bang), and of course I thought "how is that possible?". If you have to use the word "before" to describe anything, then ultimately it still involves time and to say "before time" is a contradictory statement because it still sets up a "before" and "after". So the word "before",actually can never be accurate when discussing this particular idea. So to truly be accurate, one needs to reference a concept that is neither before or after when speaking of pre big bang. At first, I supposed one must step out of time itself to be able to do this.

Then, I remembered an older idea of time that I always had. I don't look at time like Einstien does (probably from my lack of knowledge) or if I actually do, I wouldn't know it. Rather than it actually being a plane, I think of time stricty as a measurement for movement. There's only movement, and then time as a conceptual way to measure movement. I know that all the math will tell me I'm wrong, but imagine this. Imagine if every single thing in existence, even down to the most minute element were frozen or did not move. If so, how could there be time? Obviously no days, no watching the clock move, not even any thoughts, if you believe that these can't happen without movement in the brain (chemicals....) but even at a quantum level, no movement and therefore no state changes. So if movement is required for state changes, and therefore nothing is changing it's state, I can't see how there could be time.

So while I hear some very abstract explanations for how there could be something as "before time", none of them completely settle well with me and they seem to have logical holes that brings me right back to the chicken and egg conundrum. But, if the idea above is applied to the problem, then we could very easily explain a lack of time in pre big bang as simply a lack of movement, and it seems as though the paradox gets easily solved. The problem is that this must violate all of the math that says time is a plane, but logically, it seems to work really easily.

So I'm trying to figure out why this simple idea does not or might not work and I thought I would ask others who are more knowledgeable of physics than I am..

Thanks

##### Share on other sites

The idea is founded on the concept that A: "spacetime" is a finite, physical fabric created during the big bang. And B: This means there is currently a location "outside of time" and "before space" (everywhere that the big bang has not reached yet).

It's a crackpot idea, but it makes people feel better about themselves and they like this definition because it let's them avoid the concept of limitlessness.

Truth is, regardless of how the matter in the universe is expanding or how big it currently is... Everywhere that matter can be is in "space." Assuming the big bang accurate.... The space we are in has always exited... Even if there was no matter there at the moment. There can be no end to space because whatever boundaries one might set... There is always a location outside of those boundaries. To say otherwise is a purely arbitrary fantasy for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Likewise time is an arbitrary abstract concept to describe the order of events. If you coups stop all matter in the universe except yourself... If you can define one thing as happening before another this... Time exists. People would like to describe it as a finite material they have some control over... Something that can be altered, possibly traveled through some day as if the past still exists "somewhere"... If only we could get there.

... This is a way for people to believe in an immortal soul and predestined future.... While rejecting any of that nasty religion stuff (although latching to one in the process).

Fact is, you're right. Time and space are infinite because neither exist. They're ways to describe where and when something happened. Pure and simple.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Didymus, please refrain from going into personal and derogatory attitude in posting your claims. I'm sure you are very capable in finding alternative ways to phrase your points without resorting to ridicule. Or at least I so hope.

##### Share on other sites

So while I hear some very abstract explanations for how there could be something as "before time", none of them completely settle well with me and they seem to have logical holes that brings me right back to the chicken and egg conundrum.

I think it is a problem with using everyday language and a little bit of classical physics to describe regions of physics that are not well understood. In my opinion, time as we know it cannot be the right notion or language here. The whole notion of time in quantum gravity is a difficult one, and for sure at the big bang quantum gravity is going to be dominant.
##### Share on other sites

At time t=0 everything was a singularity, right?

Could there have been different states of that singularity, and would they have been ordered?

Time is a metric, a measure of distance between events. You could conceivably have a system with different ordered states but no measure of time between the states. If you use the word "before" implying a measure of time, it doesn't make sense and you can't talk about "before the Big Bang". If you use it to mean only relative ordering, then it could make sense -- I don't know if it would apply to the Big Bang though. ??? You would be speaking about the ordering of different states that all happened at time t=0.

An analogy: "A is before B in the alphabet" but it has nothing to do with time. It might make sense to speak of preconditions of the Big Bang??? but not a time between them.

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

Hi folks, I'm new here, and I'm not a physicist and I simply have to trust their math, even though it arrives at some strange conclusions. This is a general curiouisity and discussion I'd like to bring up. My science is poor relative to those here, but maybe my creative thought is at least intriguing and some might like to entertain an idea that I have.

I was watching a documentary where the term "before time" was used (referring to pre big bang), and of course I thought "how is that possible?". If you have to use the word "before" to describe anything, then ultimately it still involves time and to say "before time" is a contradictory statement because it still sets up a "before" and "after". So the word "before",actually can never be accurate when discussing this particular idea. So to truly be accurate, one needs to reference a concept that is neither before or after when speaking of pre big bang. At first, I supposed one must step out of time itself to be able to do this.

Effectively "before time" is a meaningless expression, but physics documentaries have to lack rigour specially those dealing with speculative topics such as cosmology beyond the standard model.

Some cosmological models introduce a concept of time before the Big Bang. As the Nobel laureate Prigogine likes to say "time precedes existence" by "existence" he means Big Bang energy-matter. In these models, the Big Bang is a kind of phase transition from a previous quantum vacuum.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/108305.article

Then, I remembered an older idea of time that I always had. I don't look at time like Einstien does (probably from my lack of knowledge) or if I actually do, I wouldn't know it. Rather than it actually being a plane, I think of time stricty as a measurement for movement. There's only movement, and then time as a conceptual way to measure movement. I know that all the math will tell me I'm wrong, but imagine this. Imagine if every single thing in existence, even down to the most minute element were frozen or did not move. If so, how could there be time? Obviously no days, no watching the clock move, not even any thoughts, if you believe that these can't happen without movement in the brain (chemicals....) but even at a quantum level, no movement and therefore no state changes. So if movement is required for state changes, and therefore nothing is changing it's state, I can't see how there could be time.

So while I hear some very abstract explanations for how there could be something as "before time", none of them completely settle well with me and they seem to have logical holes that brings me right back to the chicken and egg conundrum. But, if the idea above is applied to the problem, then we could very easily explain a lack of time in pre big bang as simply a lack of movement, and it seems as though the paradox gets easily solved. The problem is that this must violate all of the math that says time is a plane, but logically, it seems to work really easily.

So I'm trying to figure out why this simple idea does not or might not work and I thought I would ask others who are more knowledgeable of physics than I am..

Thanks

No, time is not a measurement for movement. In fact, movement is defined with respect to time $x=x(t)$, $v=v(t)$...

##### Share on other sites

We have right to deny length contraction, because it can not be measured.But we have no right to deny time,because it can be measured by clocks.

##### Share on other sites

We have right to deny length contraction, because it can not be measured.But we have no right to deny time,because it can be measured by clocks.

Length contraction can be inferred from time dilation, and it has indirectly been measured in relativistic collision experiments, where the length-contracted shape of the nucleus is required for the theory to match experiment.

##### Share on other sites

We have right to deny length contraction, because it can not be measured.But we have no right to deny time,because it can be measured by clocks.

There is a good deal of evidence for contraction - best known is muon decay in the atmosphere. I also like the fact that in modelling the collision of lead ions in the particle accelerators you can only achieve correct results (ie agrees with observation) if the lead ions are modelled as pancake thin contraction rather than the little spheres that they appear in their own rest frame

##### Share on other sites

We have right to deny length contraction, because it can not be measured.But we have no right to deny time,because it can be measured by clocks.

It's true that everyone has the right to be wrong. It's somewhat less true that length contraction can't be measured.

##### Share on other sites

It's true that everyone has the right to be wrong. It's somewhat less true that length contraction can't be measured.

And you are using the right.At a meeting clocks can show who concretely had a slowed time.At a meeting what can show who concretely had a contracted length?

##### Share on other sites

And you are using the right.At a meeting clocks can show who concretely had a slowed time.At a meeting what can show who concretely had a contracted length?

It's poor science to demand a specific method for confirmation of a phenomenon.

##### Share on other sites

It's poor science to demand a specific method for confirmation of a phenomenon.

Let's discuss about time here.Space fabric of galaxy is tied to gravitational center of the galaxy.Your motion relatively of the center slows your time.Clocks can show it always.When you are talking about Eistein's twins you have scientific right to talk only as about galaxies.Humans can't be Einsten's twins because they haven't own space fabric.

##### Share on other sites

Let's discuss about time here.Space fabric of galaxy is tied to gravitational center of the galaxy.Your motion relatively of the center slows your time.Clocks can show it always.When you are talking about Eistein's twins you have scientific right to talk only as about galaxies.Humans can't be Einsten's twins because they haven't own space fabric.

What is your own space fabric?

##### Share on other sites

Let's discuss about time here.Space fabric of galaxy is tied to gravitational center of the galaxy.Your motion relatively of the center slows your time.Clocks can show it always.When you are talking about Eistein's twins you have scientific right to talk only as about galaxies.Humans can't be Einsten's twins because they haven't own space fabric.

Come again?

Also, what does this have to do with length contraction, and how you incorrectly and inappropriately narrowed the acceptable experiment to comparing lengths side-by-side?

##### Share on other sites

What is your own space fabric?

Space fabric is fabric which provides objects with time.

Come again?

Also, what does this have to do with length contraction, and how you incorrectly and inappropriately narrowed the acceptable experiment to comparing lengths side-by-side?

If you can't simply compare lengths side-by-side then it can be another phenomenon instead of length contraction.

##### Share on other sites

If you can't simply compare lengths side-by-side then it can be another phenomenon instead of length contraction.

If clocks don't agree it can be a phenomenon besides time dilation. It's the job of the scientist to set up an experiment to eliminate that loophole (and others), just as for a length contraction experiment. However, it is not protocol to only permit certain experiments. You can only decide if an experiment was properly formulated after the fact.

##### Share on other sites

If clocks don't agree it can be a phenomenon besides time dilation. It's the job of the scientist to set up an experiment to eliminate that loophole (and others), just as for a length contraction experiment. However, it is not protocol to only permit certain experiments. You can only decide if an experiment was properly formulated after the fact.

Let's consider an experiment without returning.Far people sent fast spacecraft with clock to us.Before the start the clock was synchronized with our clock.At that time when the spacecraft has come very close to us, we have sent our clock onto their spacecraft.Which clock will show delayed time in moving system of the spacecraft?

##### Share on other sites

Let's consider an experiment without returning.Far people sent fast spacecraft with clock to us.Before the start the clock was synchronized with our clock.At that time when the spacecraft has come very close to us, we have sent our clock onto their spacecraft.Which clock will show delayed time in moving system of the spacecraft?

I don't see what this has to do with my objection.

##### Share on other sites

I don't see what this has to do with my objection.

I think a predict of relativity is wrong in this experiment.Relativity has relation to your objection.

##### Share on other sites

I think a predict of relativity is wrong in this experiment.

What, according to you, would relativity predict? And what would be the actual result? Edited by pwagen
##### Share on other sites

I think relativity should predict our clock will show delayed time. Clock of far people really should show delayed time there.

##### Share on other sites

I think a predict of relativity is wrong in this experiment.Relativity has relation to your objection.

Then you should start a new thread and pose your question. My objection was a general one for all of science: you do not get to demand specific evidence and refuse to consider other evidence without consideration of its validity.

##### Share on other sites

Then you should start a new thread and pose your question. My objection was a general one for all of science: you do not get to demand specific evidence and refuse to consider other evidence without consideration of its validity.

Prediction should be proven by experiment or corrected.This is main rule of science.

##### Share on other sites

Prediction should be proven by experiment or corrected.This is main rule of science.

Yes. But you can't narrow this to a specific experiment. You may have an experiment in mind, but if a different experiment confirms the model, then it confirms the model. You have no business arbitrarily excluding it.

## Create an account

Register a new account