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

How was ?time? created?

In various posts by the members the Big Bang is discussed as being the origin of time- in other words they say that both time and the universe originated (were created) as a part of the Big Bang. This potentially refers to time as an object with some material substance that may be susceptible to compressing, stretching, twisting and bending, to mention just a few possibilities. This appears fanciful to me.
A brief response that Einstein?s theories offer this conclusion will be insufficient as a real life explanation for me.
jjw

You misunderstand not just time but all dimensions.

Time is no different from length, or width, or heigh. Would you write "How was height created?" I would hope not. And the same lack of value in the question exists whether referring to height, or length, or time.

If I want to know where something was I say it was 'here'. When I want to know when it was there I way it was 'then'.

In other words ... time was not created. And many might argue that time does not even exist. Except as a derived property.

Thank you DA.

I thought some, possibly you as well, offered that both Time and the Universe were "created" with or by the Big Bang. So Ok, I may have miss seen, it is possible. I may also have not had the proper perspective to know that "created" was not intended as the common word used commonly.
Thank you for the response.
jw

DA:

On second thought, DA Morgan I take issue with your generalized statement that I misunderstand time and ?all dimensions?. You are a little self-serving in your rapid reproach.

I will find the quote if you wish wherein you offered that Time was a part of the Big Bang and that you think neither time nor the Universe existed before that expansive event. So which dimension is being discussed at this point? You call it created and I call it created. You want me to think in terms of a specialized type of ?created? then please be explicit.

Now, your attention to my potential ignorance of which I was unaware sparks some special knowledge in your favored attention to me. You must know things about me of which I am unaware, perhaps a sign of further ignorance on my part. Please let loose and share your insight that needs expression. Some individuals feel so secure in their beliefs that they indulge in a lot of ?one-up-man-ship? when considering the thoughts of others. It is entertaining in a way because some stupid person might think that the orator created the theory or the foundation for the theory or possibly improved on the original theory- instead of a student of it.
Cheers!
jjw

Saying "time was created" at the moment of the Big Bang (more properly TBB w/ inflation) is appropriately for the lay-public but not necessarily as correct as your follow-up question indicated was appropriate.

When one indicates time was created by the Big Bang what one is actually saying is that following the Big Bang was the first instant at which the dimension was measurable: Same goes for length, height, and depth.

But having said that this was when/where a value could first be measured is not the same as saying "it was created."

In the singularity which was the central point for the Big Bang, time did not exist, nor did the laws of physics. Before that, since the fundamental laws of physics would break down, time itself could not be defined. After the big bang, and the separation of the unified forces into the 4 as we know now, time as a dimension can be considered.

Thank you both:

I think the question did prompt answers consistent with what I would guess but now I/we have a defined type of "creation" that I can visualize much better, albiet with reluctance.
jjw

I had a conversation about ?God? the other night at the pub with my girlfriend (the things your do after 1 too many pints)- I proposed that perhaps all time happens ?at once? and we simply experience it in a serial fashion because of the ?space time?. She found this difficult to imagine and asked me to define what time is and how is it created. I was really quite stumped and babbled about the relationship with matter and time.

Now, I?m a total lay person and all I do is take the nibbles of knowledge I know and simply build the pretty pictures in my head. My (massively limited) understanding is that time is directly related to matter and altered by gravitational forces (as kinda hinted at when you imagine the quantum world where everything begins to get really weird because of the minuscule influence matter/gravity has on it).

Just as a two dimensional being could not possibly imagine a three dimensional universe: isn?t it possible that before the ?big bang?, time did not exist? The unfathomable mass of the universe (including that elusive dark matter) could be solely responsible for keeping a linear ?perceived? time track in place?

Any thoughts always appreciated!

Badjelly asks:
"isn?t it possible that before the ?big bang?, time did not exist?"

Not only possible ... probable ... very likely. In fact I would say far more likely than not.

Member Rated:
posted November 11, 2005 08:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badjelly asks:
"isn?t it possible that before the ?big bang?, time did not exist?"

DA Morgan offers:
Not only possible ... probable ... very likely. In fact I would say far more likely than not.

Conclusion:
We are not quite sure; we are working on it; I would like to be more diffinitive but not on my list right now; probable is better than maybe; and all of this is quite iron tight- almost.
jjw

jjw004 wrote:
"Conclusion:"

But didn't have one so he just wasted bandwidth.

This may come as a shock to you since knowledge is not something you value ... but most fundamental questions have answers determined with a high degree of certainty ... but that does not make them absolute fact.

To quote Einstein:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Or to quote H.L. Mencken:
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. .... The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as
in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure."

Or perhaps Voltaire:
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Of course we are never sure, we can't be we're only human on a subject such as this.

But to our understanding, because the laws of physics and space-time itself would break down in a singularity such as the beginning of the Big Bang, there isn't a lot of point in trying to ascertain what happened before it, as we would try to imagine what happened with the laws of physics we have now, which would not exist prior.

"isn?t it possible that before the ?big bang?, time did not exist?"
And for how long would time have not- existed?

Not just possible ... probably and highly likely.

But an absence of time is an absence of time. To ask a question such as "for how long" is as meaningless as asking who you would be if you had different parents.

he hee. That was a trick question.

Rob you have to realise that while time is a real thing, we humans view it from our perspective which is based on the orbit of our planet around a star we call the sun. Time was invented when man started to find a way to measure it. Yet time was and will always be there it is infinite from the past, present and into the future. These three actually occur simultaneouly as mankind will one day discover. So in ancient times the sun and stars were our measurement, recently yhe creation of the clock is our measurement, but in the future when finally identifies time for what it is, well that is another question that our eminent scientist D. A. Morgan could try to fathom for you.

Chris Maxwell,
That's not how I see time, in fact, I see anyone who sees time in the way you described; "based on the orbit of our planet around a star", as a bit silly. I believe in Newton's time where there are no regions where time is different. I also do not think time and space are in any way linked. The fact that light bends or slows down at certain points in the universe has nothing to do with time, it's to do with gravity and photons.

Rob wrote:
"I also do not think time and space are in any way linked."

Well this puts you at odds with essentially every educated person on the planet with even a superficial knowledge of reality.

But heck ... just because Einstein called it space-time doesn't make it so. He could have been wrong.

So when are you receiving your Nobel Prize?

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

furthermore, people seem to have been deluded with visible light. The fact that time travels at a speed and can be slowed down does not in any way give people reason to use terms like "go back in time."

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?

In my opinion, time can only be defined in terms of change; without change we will not be able to experience or measure time. The universe is running down and therefore I believe there will also be an end of time.

I am going for a few days into the African bush to experience a "slow-down in time". Best wishes for the new year to all members.

Johnny Boy

I agree with your opinion to some extent but that doesn't answer my question.

If an oject or even light is traveling at the speed of light then whatever light is traveling through has the same speed or quicker, as light pushes through it ??????

Time was never created .. it was always present in our head since the term Universe started existing in our head.

Apparently you believe that a universe, absent humans, would also be absent time. And no doubt that a tree that falls in the forest doesn't make a sound unless someone is there to hear it.

that depends on which definition of sound you are using, language is so [content deleted] ambiguous!

Apparently you believe that a universe, absent humans, would also be absent time. And no doubt that a tree that falls in the forest doesn't make a sound unless someone is there to hear it.
DKV: A very good question and a very valid question.
And the answer is ... the Universe is in Indeterminate State .. that is it can not be proved to be Existing and it can be proved Otherwise from our Dimensional Point of View.
As simple as that.
Something like Universe,and our text methodology will take a different meaning depeding upon who you are asking the question.
Even in the case of Human Species you will find that there are people who do not believe in your thought Process and your defintion of Universe.
This diversity of defintion can not be collapsed
using conventional means.
But as I always say the Defintion can collapse into one if you choose the right technology to communicate.
====================================
that depends on which definition of sound you are using, language is so [content deleted] ambiguous!
REP: There is no confusion Rob it so straight forward that I wonder whether you ever took the problem seriously at all.

So since time is a measurement used by thinking creatures and can be percieved as far back as we can imagine, then time sprung into existence with the thinking mind. But at the actual moment of the Bang there was no one to percieve time so time did not exist (until much later). Hense, at the moment of the Big Bang, time existed and did not exist simultaneously.
And that goes for everything: Time, Height, Weight, Plants, Animals, Photons, Universe. Everything sprung into existance at the moment of the first "thinking" creature to perceive it. And the combination of the "assumed" moments before perception and moment after perception causes all things to have existed and to not have existed simultaneously. So thought is the only carrrier for existence.

justine wrote:
"So since time is a measurement used by thinking creatures and can be percieved as far back as we can imagine, then time sprung into existence with the thinking mind."

Balderdash: Utter nonsense. Let me paraphrase this imbecility.

"Since color is a measurement used by thinking creates and can be perceived as far back as we can imagine, then color sprung into existence with the thinking mind."

Ooooh I can perceive texture too? No doubt that too SPRUNG into existence with the thinking mind.

Please try staying awake at school. There is so very much you could learn ... perhaps even to think.

Color, Texture, everything that is perceived existed and did not exist simultaneously.
How would any form of measurement exist with no one to perceive it.

But the theory has holes.
It might be off on whether it has to be a thinking being because even plants measure heat and light in some way in order to turn towards the source. And animals measure distance and height and color, etc. So perhaps instead of a thinking creature, it would have to be a perceiving entity. And if electrons perceive one another and if they can somehow make use of or measure time in some capacity that whould blow big holes in the idea. Then again, an electon wouldn't be concerned with time as it relates to the universe the way people are so concerned about it. Time as people percieve it would only have been around as long as people have been around. Just like english has only been around as long as people have been here to make use of it.

There was the possibility of all these measurments and ways to express and explore the universe. But, the possibility of something and it's actual existance are seperate. So Time was not actualized until the first entity existed to perceive it.

Justine asks:
"How would any form of measurement exist with no one to perceive it."

And the answer is:
Measurement is a natural property of the entire universe. If the sun radiates in the infrared ... planets get hot. That heat is recorded by the temperature of the atmosphere and the water and the ability of the chemistry of life-forms to exist. Thus we know the temperature of this planet going back in history before there was any sentient being running around with a thermometer.

The same thing goes for every other property. I don't need to touch a dinosaur to know the texture of its skin. I don't need to have been alive a billion years ago to know the color of a star whose light was emitted then.

Take the sentient measurer out of the equation and there is a measurement non-the-less as the entire universe reacts and interacts with itself.

Very nicely put, DA. You're a very good teacher when you resist the temptation to insult.
And it's obvious the reason you post here so often is to teach people and help them. You're even poetic. "I don't need to touch a dinosaur to know the texture of its skin."
Lovely, really.

Intelligent questions never beget an insult.

I teach at the University of Washington and am always willing to help those who are genuinely
interested in learning.

If you see me referring some to their local psychiatrist ... or questioning their ability to discern reality ... it is because I genuinely have questions about their ability to think rationally and apply Boolean logic to a problem.