Time meaningless in early days of universe?

[kimb68]

This will probably prove how little I understand cosmology, but here goes:<br /><br />The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it assumes that the universe came from nothing, or that if you reverse the direction everything is going now, you wind up at a singularity. Current estimates of the age of the universe are about 13.5 billion years, before which time, in theory, there was nothing. <br /><br />But if you rewind the universe and all matter starts to crunch down to a point, then mass and gravity will start to rise exponentially. And with that rise, doesn't time begin to slow down? So is it possible that at the beginning of the universe, time was so slow that it essentially stopped, making the age of the universe a meaningless proposition?<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Kimb68 - Scientists do no fully understand time, or how our universe's space-time was created - there are different models for the origin of the big bang - the big bang theory does not actually answer how this all came about.<br /><br />It does describe the early days of the universe, after the big bang, when space-time existed.<br /><br />What you are referring to as time slowing down has to do with the theory of relativity which indicates that time stops for matter when it reaches the speed of light - I think.<br /><br />However, I do not know of any model indicating the singularity had motion equaling the speed of light before space-time was created.<br /><br />Your model (you actually have created a model) may indeed be involved in the origin.<br /><br />I will therefore specify a similar question:<br /><br />When the big bang occurred and matter accelerated to the speed of light and beyond, did time slow down or stop for said FTL matter?<br /><br />Inflation is indeed thought to have occurred in the early days of the universe, btw.<br /><br />One other point - my own model has primordial time pre-existing our universe's space time such that space-time was created by cause and effect during primordial time.<br /><br />My definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow.

 

[harmonicaman]

Kim; you must have a pretty good grasp of the principles of cosmology if you are pondering Big Bang idiosyncrasies!<br /><br />An important part of BB theory is the concept that this is also the start of time; therefore, it is valid to argue that the universe has existed forever - it has existed for all time!<br /><br />Our observations back in time (and at the greatest distances we can see) indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. From our perspective we are the oldest and most rapidly expanding point in the universe - and every other point in the universe shares this same perspective.<br /><br />Another way to view this accelerating expansion of the universe is to say that time itself started slowly and is speeding up as the universe expands, but this argument opens a huge can of worms...<br /><br />I do agree with you that trying to put an age on the universe is a pointless exercise because it just isn't possible to make observations that far back in time.

 

[eosophobiac]

Maybe it has something to do with how as we get older, time seems to go by faster, as well.<br />Of course, hopefully it isn't that we ourselves are <i>spreading out</i>... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Time was meaningless before the BB. There being nothing by which to note its passage.<br /><br />Therefore, the BB occured instantaneously, without any prior 'waiting period'.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - Then how do you propose our universe was caused?<br /><br />Cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />That is why I propose primordial time.<br /><br />Other cosmologists have introduce other models.<br /><br />Linde proposed cause and effect in scaler fields, and proposed other universes.<br /><br />Others propose collisions of branes - again, time is involved here - though not our universe specific space-time.<br /><br />Stephen Hawking(s?) proposed imaginary time.<br /><br />Those who believe in God may quote God's different concept of time (e.g. 1,000 years as one day, etc.)<br /><br />The latter compares with still others who propose other universes with different properties and laws.<br /><br />Astronomer Loeb even proposes our universe may already be interacting with another universe beyond our visibility horizon - if I remember correctly.

 

[vogon13]

Heisenbergian style uncertainty.<br /><br />Brief excursions from 'status quo' (infinite void) are permitted, the current universe is a rather large one from our perspective.<br /><br />When viewed at the <i>proper</i> scale, (infinite length, infinite duration) the current universe = ~0.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[scull]

"Einstein's singularity equations show that the universe goes back to a single point, before which there is no time and no matter and no energy," I was told.<br /><br />I really have no idea what this means; I guess the person was trying to tell me that matter, energy, space, and time, had to explode from.... well.... something.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

my idea is:<br /><br />time does not stop ( literal stop)<br />time does not slow down ( literally )<br /><br />but,<br /><br />time may slow down in refference to something else...<br />time( and everything ) may seem to stop - from a just refference..<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

Time is a relative measurement depending on the orientation of the observer within our universe. Note that time travels a bit slower here on Earth (from our perspective) than it does on the Moon because we live in a bigger gravity well; and since "m" (mass) curves space (and time), we measure the passage of time as occurring more slowly here on Earth.<br /> <br />And take the case of the poor photon. Since it travels at "c" (the speed of light) velocities, it is created and annihilated at the same instant (from its perspective); but we observe some photons to be billions of years old!<br /> <br />"c" and "m" distort time; it's all relative to the observer.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

agreed..<br /><br />"it's all relative to the observer."<br /> <br />bullseye..<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[kimb68]

Thanks for the replies! So despite the fact that astronomers keep using observed measurements to try and date the universe, if we propose that time is something that is experienced differently depending on the observer, it's possible that "the age of the universe" is a concept that may have meaning only to us? Or that the age we determine for the universe may only be valid here on earth?<br /><br />I fee like if we could get a better handle on time then we would have much more satisfactory models for the "creation" of the universe. (Although there's no guarantee that any of it would make sense without a PhD in mathematics.)

 

[eric2006]

another

 

[eric2006]

What if just as length has two directions, time has two directions. Time is really a frequency that oscillates one quantum moment toward the future and one quantum moment toward the past. For whatever reason, physical matter only moves forward in time. The effect is that physical matter acts like a time diode and presents a version of time similar to rectified AC current. What we see is half-spin onta from the perspective of half-spin onta, and thus the illusion of forward, linear time. In reality, time is pulsed and causes existence to take on the nature of frames, like frames of a movie.

 

[eric2006]

"And take the case of the poor photon. Since it travels at "c" (the speed of light) velocities, it is created and annihilated at the same instant (from its perspective); but we observe some photons to be billions of years old!"<br /><br />That being said, then from the photons point of view- it got to where it was going as soon as it left.??<br /><br />

 

[harmonicaman]

But did the photon really go anywhere, or did space just expand around it?

 

[newtonian]

kimb68 - The age of the universe is not dependent on the reference point of an observer, nor is it dependent on whether an observer exists.<br /><br />There is an actual age, since time does exist.<br /><br />However, we invent specific units of time and math - we do not invent time or math - both existed in this universe since creation.<br /><br />We do have problems determining the age exactly, however.<br /><br />Genesis 1:1 indicates God created the heavens and earth - so this has meaning to God and angels (= extraterrestrial life).<br /><br />Yes, we have much to learn about how time and this universe were created.<br /><br />BTW - I do not believe in reverse time - but rather that time's "arrow" is forward only.<br /><br />Though I do find Eric's model interesting and I try to keep an open mind to varying scientific models until we have more data to prove or disprove models.

 

[scull]

Since we are talking about the concept of Time....<br /><br />So how does it work?.... If at some point the Universe were to stop expanding (or were to collapse), what would happen to Time? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />s--

 

[5stone10]

There's another thread on that issue here >>><br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=378957&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

time would still exist..<br /><br />time is reffered to the whole universe and not to a specific part of it..<br /><br />If say..universe is 13 B years now or so..<br />it means 13 B where ever you are in this universe..<br />so it needs no refference point/observer..<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[scull]

but let's say an observer is part of the collapse (or reverse expansion), wouldn't he feel time running backwards?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />s--

 

[harmonicaman]

Unlearning -<br /><br />Hmmm... I would argue that since time is relative; every point in space would perceive the relative age of the universe differently.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

scull -<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />but let's say an observer is part of the collapse (or reverse expansion)<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />that would be an exception..<br />because time/space is distorted in that place... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I would argue that since time is relative; every point in space would perceive the relative age of the universe differently<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />that is right... <br />time is relative to the observer...<br />but just suppose the universe itself is the observer...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[scull]

You know, these are very hard ideas for me to understand.<br /><br />Ok time is relative. Understood.<br /><br />But would time run faster or slower for observer1 who's part of the disturbance, than for observer2 who's outside the disturbance?<br /><br />If so, why??????<br /><br /><br /><br />???<br /><br />