Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum How was "time" created?

Rob wrote:
"what i'm saying is; if there was ABSOLUTE nothingness instead of this universe and everything around us, time would still exist."

And what I am saying is that there is no basis for that belief.

Time cannot exist without change. Change cannot exist when the entropy is zero. When the entropy is a maximum time can exist on average but it is irrelevant because on average nothing changes (everything is in equilibrium). So whether we are going towards maximum or zero entropy, there must have been an initiation of "change" or else we would experience either zero entropy or maximum entropy. This would be the case (in fact has to be the case) if time has had an infinite existence. So it cannot have had an infinite existence. It had to appear at the "beginning" of what we now know. Call it creation or whatever you fancy. Time sucks!!!

Plz stop referring to time as though it were an entity. Time is like the numbers on your ruler, they exist as a place holder for a relative measure to allow us easier passage into prediction. without time nothing is different. because there is no mystical border between then, now, and what will be. X molecules exist in the universe they go about their ways as according to physics and only through memory exists time. so, I suppose my reply to the original question would be "Time was created at te moment consious thoughts started to be stored."

According to Einstein time is an entity, just like distance is an entity. That is why cosmolgy has to be modelled against the backdrop of "space-time".

So THAT'S what space-time is. Don't read the universe in a nutshell. DA Morgan, my basis for that "belief" is that you could say; "how long did nothing exist for before something did exist?" Even though it is impossible for nothing to exist. That's not the point. The point is that time remains the same irrespective to anything. On a graph it would be a dimension. Nothing can change a dimension. And you CAN'T go in the Negative part of it.

"how long did nothing exist for before something did exist?"

How far south can you go beyond the South Pole?

So you think infinity joins up with minus infinity do you? Well it doesn't.

Rob wrote:
"So you think infinity joins up with minus infinity do you? Well it doesn't."

And you can support this statement how?

Writing declarative sentences is not a substitute for providing references.

Good answer DA.

Well, one of the golden rules of maths is that if you add a positive value to a positive value you will get a positive value as an answer. Think of infinity as adding one forever. You will not ever get a minus value. Stop asking me to prove obvious things please.

Dear Rob,

You are talking about number theory not time. Time only exists when there is change. Change occurs, as we now know from thermodynamics, because things want to go to equilibrium. If time existed forever, everything would by now have been in equilibrium. It is NOT in equilibrium, or else we would not be here. Thus time must have had a recent (a few billion years ago) starting point. When equilibrium is reached sometime in future, there will be no change anymore; and if there is no change, time cannot be measured and therefore it cannot exist. The only conundrum is to decide whether this equilibrium will be maximum entropy or zero entropy. I vote that it will be zero entropy.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

I'm really uncomfortable with the statement: "Time only exists when there is change."

Any object, a photon for example, travelling at the speed of light does not experience time. Yet it certainly changes position.

I would say that its metric in one dimension is unchanged while the metrics in three others are. I see not reason to believe that the opposite is not true too.

Hi DA

A good argument about the photon; however, we cannot travel with a photon to experience that type of timelessness. If we could, would we not be everywhere at once and not be able to experience change. I believe that in the physical world we can only experience what we can meusure. To measure time something must change (e.g. a pendulum swinging). It is from this perspective that I am of the opinion that time only exists when there is change. In a universe where nothing changes, there would be no method to measure, and thus experience time.

Johnny Boy

Oh another point, even if we were able to travel with the speed of light then according to the clock with us, the rest of the universe's clocks will not run; i.e. from our new perspective there will be no change within the universe.

JB

Where is there proof of this?

Once again people are being fooled by light when it comes to time. Let me point out that it takes eight (or is it four) minutes for the light from the sun to reach earth. How then, can you say that light doesn't experience time?

Hi Rob,

According to special relativity two observers moving relative to each other will, according to their clocks, experience each other's clocks to run slower. Thus within a framework moving at the speed of light relative to you you will experience, according to your clock, that time has stopped. That is why I have pointed out that IF one could have moved with the speed of light, then according to your clock all the other clocks in the universe would have stopped; however, we cannot move with the speed of light through ordinary space-time. The speed of light is the same for all observers, whatever their velocities, and therefore it takes time for light to travel from the sun to the earth. This does not negate the fact (according to relativity) that (according to our clocks) a clock travelling with the light will not tick; i.e from our perspective no time elapses on that clock.

I hope this is of help.

Johnny Boy

how can we know that the clock would not tick if it was travelling at the speed of light?
*Clock would not tick meaning that no time passes as opposed to the clock being broken because of the speed

This is fact Rob. Photons do not experience time just as relativistic muons experience a vastly slowed down sense of time because the clock ticks more slowly.

The slowing down of time might be different for a muon than "time when travelling with a photon". We should never forget the symmetry in special relativity: according to the muon our time is ticking slower while according to us the muon's time is ticking slower. This means that if gravity is not involved, an observer travelling with the muon will find a second to have the same duration as he will find it travelling in another framework moving relative to the moun's framework. This is the "proper" time which is invariant when transformed from one framework to the other. It is only when looking at the behaviour of the muon from our framework that we conclude that the muon's clock ticks slower. The muon (if it could think) would experience our clock on the earth to tick slower.

I believe that this symmetry is broken when the speed of light is considered because there is no inertial framework within which light can be stationary. Therefore one cannot attach a clock to light. The transformation explodes and according to our clock the light should not experience time; however, we will never know because we cannot travel with the speed of light.

Johnny Boy

What is the accepted definition of time in science?