|
Time
Jun 20, 2011 15:27:12 GMT
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2011 15:27:12 GMT
I've heard it said that there was no time before the big bang, time emerged from it, and so it makes no sense to talk about what existed or happened before the BB because there was no 'before'.
Now let's suppose that for whatever reason time was to cease tomorrow. Maybe a big 'crunch' happens, but whatever the reason, time ends and so, just like 'before' the BB, there is no time-dimension.
But wouldn't it still make sense to talk about things that might happen 'after'? Let's say that six years from now time restarts. By 'six years from now' I of course do not mean that six years of the dimension time passes, as there is no such thing. It is more like if time had continued then the period measured during the gap would have been six years.
So the second time time starts there was a 'before' that it does make sense to talk about. A 'before' when time was running and a 'before' where there was a gap between time running. Would it not make sense, in this scenario, to talk about causes of the second BB?
|
|
|
Time
Jun 20, 2011 19:34:47 GMT
Post by naymissus on Jun 20, 2011 19:34:47 GMT
I've heard it said that there was no time before the big bang, time emerged from it, and so it makes no sense to talk about what existed or happened before the BB because there was no 'before'. Yes that is certainly a commonly hrld hypothesis. It leaves many questions open, and is, I believe, an unscientific hypothesis, because that hypothesis cannot, in principle , be tested Now let's suppose that for whatever reason time was to cease tomorrow. Maybe a big 'crunch' happens, but whatever the reason, time ends and so, just like 'before' the BB, there is no time-dimension. But wouldn't it still make sense to talk about things that might happen 'after'? Let's say that six years from now time restarts. By 'six years from now' I of course do not mean that six years of the dimension time passes, as there is no such thing. It is more like if time had continued then the period measured during the gap would have been six years. So the second time time starts there was a 'before' that it does make sense to talk about. A 'before' when time was running and a 'before' where there was a gap between time running. Would it not make sense, in this scenario, to talk about causes of the second BB? I believe that time did not start with the BB, but as that belief is not testable in principle, then it has no more validity than the belief that time started with the BB
|
|
|
Time
Jun 21, 2011 12:12:20 GMT
Post by rjpageuk on Jun 21, 2011 12:12:20 GMT
Our current spacetime model of the universe is the best fit for the observed data we have. Assuming this model is correct, the idea of time is entangled in our space.
Under these assumptions and definitions, it makes no sense to talk about "before" or "after" these events because those terms only make sense with relation to a specific time line. There is no "outside" to define the terms before and after. It makes no more sense than talking about the space that no longer exists either.
The issue is that as humans we are used to dealing with time changing in a linear fashion (whereas we are happy for space to contract / expand) but this is not how it acts in our model. "Six years" isnt an absolute measurement you cannot detact it from a timeline.
|
|
|
Time
Jun 21, 2011 12:41:27 GMT
Post by naymissus on Jun 21, 2011 12:41:27 GMT
Our current spacetime model of the universe is the best fit for the observed data we have. Assuming this model is correct, the idea of time is entangled in our space. Under these assumptions and definitions, it makes no sense to talk about "before" or "after" these events because those terms only make sense with relation to a specific time line. There is no "outside" to define the terms before and after. It makes no more sense than talking about the space that no longer exists either. The issue is that as humans we are used to dealing with time changing in a linear fashion (whereas we are happy for space to contract / expand) but this is not how it acts in our model. "Six years" isnt an absolute measurement you cannot detact it from a timeline. You say it is the best fot Many prominent physicist would disagree; many of course agree
|
|
|
Time
Jun 28, 2011 14:59:35 GMT
Post by rjpageuk on Jun 28, 2011 14:59:35 GMT
You say it is the best fot Many prominent physicist would disagree; many of course agree Sure every model is open to refinement and or complete change, such is the nature of science.
|
|