Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: If Time itself started with the big bang

  1. #1 If Time itself started with the big bang 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Has the clock been accelerating ever since, or slowing down, or moving at a constant pace? Is it possible that C used to be a different value, and that it may change further in the future as well?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: If Time itself started with the big bang 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Has the clock been accelerating ever since, or slowing down, or moving at a constant pace? Is it possible that C used to be a different value, and that it may change further in the future as well?
    Time is relative to the observer. Your clock and my clock will differ. There is no universal time, so the idea you have here rests on a false premise.

    Don't feel bad, though. Isaac Newton believed in the idea of "absolute time" as well, so you're hardly in bad company... but, it's still a false description of reality.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: If Time itself started with the big bang 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Has the clock been accelerating ever since, or slowing down, or moving at a constant pace? Is it possible that C used to be a different value, and that it may change further in the future as well?
    Time is relative to the observer. Your clock and my clock will differ. There is no universal time, so the idea you have here rests on a false premise.

    Don't feel bad, though. Isaac Newton believed in the idea of "absolute time" as well, so you're hardly in bad company... but, it's still a false description of reality.
    You're right. A better question to ask is whether C has been constant since the big bang.

    I'm thinking that, if C has been changing constantly since the Big Bang, so that time is expanding (not sure whether that means it's speeding up or slowing down) similarly to how the spatial dimensions are expanding, then maybe there's a certain perspective from which we would perceive the Big Bang to have happened infinity years ago.

    This might be consistent with the concept of "Dark Energy", in the sense that it would explain how certain things could appear to be speeding up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Time is a man-made name for the measurement of change. Unless whatever caused the origin of the universe came from "elsewhere", then time as in change must always have existed here, even if only virtual particles appearing and disappearing.

    I have to say that I increasingly look on c as being to do with gravity rather than light so I don't see how it could have changed.

    In an expanding universe, things get further away from each other, so exert less gravity as in braking effect on each other, so things naturally accelerate as the universe grows ever bigger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Cyberia, do you ever pause to think before you post? There does not appear to be a single statement there that is valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cyberia, do you ever pause to think before you post? There does not appear to be a single statement there that is valid.

    I suppose you have checked the wiki and found nothing there so assume I am wrong. Tut. Tut. What point is there of wiki-quoters being on science forums since the only people you are going to help is those who are too lazy to look at the wiki themselves.

    It never occurs to people like you who are on every science forum that I might know what the wiki says and might have my own thoughts on the matter. The trouble is, the wiki doesn't give you any ready made answers to use so you can't answer anything I say and just accuse me of not thinking.

    Pot -> Kettle - Black.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You think he's a Wiki poster?

    Unless whatever caused the origin of the universe came from "elsewhere", then time as in change must always have existed here, even if only virtual particles appearing and disappearing.
    You will never get this part. According to the BBT there was no place at all before the bang for virtual particles or anything else to exist.

    I have to say that I increasingly look on c as being to do with gravity rather than light so I don't see how it could have changed.
    I am confused. The speed of light has more to do with gravity than with light?

    The trouble is, the wiki doesn't give you any ready made answers to use so you can't answer anything I say....
    And do you think that is a fault of wiki, a.k.a. a rough summary of what we know, or with what you are saying?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Time is a man-made name for the measurement of change. Unless whatever caused the origin of the universe came from "elsewhere", then time as in change must always have existed here, even if only virtual particles appearing and disappearing.
    Which is why I had to correct myself, and talk about the speed of light being different instead of "time itself" being different.

    I have to say that I increasingly look on c as being to do with gravity rather than light so I don't see how it could have changed.

    In an expanding universe, things get further away from each other, so exert less gravity as in braking effect on each other, so things naturally accelerate as the universe grows ever bigger.
    From what I can understand, there is a sense that the apparent velocity of light changers in a gravity well. Near the start of the BBT, all matter would be closer together, which would tend to slow light down. So... maybe that would give us the effect?

    At the moment of the singularity, before the "bang", light would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped. (Which effectively means "time" would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I suppose you have checked the wiki and found nothing there so assume I am wrong.
    I didn't check anything except my own understanding of the topics you are having brain farts over. I don't assume you are wrong, I know you are wrong: you have demonstrated that with your own words. Videlicet vos es nefas.

    What point is there of wiki-quoters being on science forums since the only people you are going to help is those who are too lazy to look at the wiki themselves.
    You understand, do you, that there is difference between (a) wiki and Wikipedia? That aside, Wikipedia is often a good first stop for a quick, simplified overview and often a set of useful references to initiate proper study. Don't assume your own 'research' techniques are the same as other people. Some of us use a combination of a solid education, coupled with appropriate textbooks and relevant research papers.

    It never occurs to people like you who are on every science forum that I might know what the wiki says and might have my own thoughts on the matter.
    It is clear that you have your own thoughts on the matter. The regret is that these thoughts are unfounded, unsubstantiated, illogical and wrong. Do you think people should remain silent when faced with unfounded, unsubstantiated, illogical and faulty thoughts?

    Edited to correct a typo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    everyone is entitled an opinion,even if it is wrong, but don't get too riled if it is universially rejected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You think he's a Wiki poster?

    If someone has nothing to say other than what is on the wiki, even if it is what they have learned, then they are not a lot of use on a science site except for those too lazy to check on the wiki for themselves.

    You will never get this part. According to the BBT there was no place at all before the bang for virtual particles or anything else to exist.
    Space is literally nothing. The idea that it is a material that can somehow be warped by gravity and has infinite elasticity, allowing it to inflate/expand from near zero to maybe a hundred billion light years across without changing in any way is not realistic to say the least. Some years back, scientists added up all the pluses (matter, energy, etc) and minuses (gravity, etc) in the universe and came up with zero. Zero is nought but it is also +trillion and -trillion, etc with infinite potential. All that matters is it balances on both sides. So if you have nothing, awaiting a universe, why can virtual particles not appear from that nothing as they are said to do even now?


    I am confused. The speed of light has more to do with gravity than with light?
    I don't mean that large gravitational sources are slowing light down but the fact that gravity is endemic to the universe, and anywhere, photons must travel through it. If space is not the cause of the light speed limit, what is? Why not gravity which also has the same speed? It is similar in a way to light travelling through glass in that it has a set speed and no more.


    And do you think that is a fault of wiki, a.k.a. a rough summary of what we know, or with what you are saying?
    The trouble with using the wiki (or even text books) as a bible is that it saves thinking. According to the wiki, we know A, B, C, etc about science so what is the point of wasting time thinking about alternatives? That is not how science is supposed to work. A lack of thinking things out but just accepting things means that when you are confronted with something radically different, it is just a matter of saying it is wrong rather than thinking why it may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Which is why I had to correct myself, and talk about the speed of light being different instead of "time itself" being different.
    While things normally work at a set rate; heavier gravity, great speeds, etc
    can slow this rate of change down on a molecular, even atomic scale. Time is not slowed down because only in Dr Who is it a real dimension. It is the rate of change compared to what we consider normal.

    From what I can understand, there is a sense that the apparent velocity of light changers in a gravity well. Near the start of the BBT, all matter would be closer together, which would tend to slow light down. So... maybe that would give us the effect?

    At the moment of the singularity, before the "bang", light would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped. (Which effectively means "time" would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped.)

    Denser mediums like inside the sun does slow light down but in a gravity well, light would only slow down if photons have mass, which would explain how gravitational sources bend the paths of photons. If you work on the idea that lighter particles have a greater limiting velocity than heavier particles, then you will never be able to accelerate a proton to the same speed as a photon which could be trillions of times lighter, so a proton "could never reach light speed".

    A singularity as I see it would be completely inert. I cannot see how they could possibly inflate or expand? Even more, I cannot see how one would form in the first place unless from a previous universe collapsing, which means the BB explains nothing about an origin, just being part of an ongoing process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I didn't check anything except my own understanding of the topics you are having brain farts over. I don't assume you are wrong, I know you are wrong: you have demonstrated that with your own words. Videlicet vos es nefas.
    You are irrelevant here since you are merely quoting what anyone can find in the wiki if they are not too lazy to do so. What point is there in trying to debate with a text book? Oh, look. How smart you must be to use Latin. A dead language from a dead brain.


    You understand, do you, that there is difference between (a) wiki and Wikipedia? That aside, Wikipedia is often a good first stop for a quick, simplified overview and often a set of useful references to initiate proper study. Don't assume your own 'research' techniques are the same as other people. Some of us use a combination of a solid education, coupled with appropriate textbooks and relevant research papers.
    Wiki is usually shorthand for wikipedia. Some people who need to get a life might whine about this.

    Your education is such that you can only give wiki answers to any question and should someone post something not on the wiki, you are totally helpless, like a fish out of water. A ten year old can quote from the wiki, so is maybe as smart as you are. Possibly even smarter since said ten year old might have an original idea, which you never will.


    It is clear that you have your own thoughts on the matter. The regret is that these thoughts are unfounded, unsubstantiated, illogical and wrong. Do you think people should remain silent when faced with unfounded, unsubstantiated, illogical and faulty thoughts?

    Edited to correct a typo.

    I post on religious forums too and creationists there instinctively know that I am wrong so feel no need to give any evidence other than quotes from a book they know is infallibly true. Remind you of anyone? Clue : The 32nd letter of the Russian alphabet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    everyone is entitled an opinion,even if it is wrong, but don't get too riled if it is universially rejected.

    There are too many people in science who are willing to even consider any opinion that does not match their own. Very small minds, considering that while there are many parts of science set in stone, some others are little more than ideas based on effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    There are too many people in science who are willing to even consider any opinion that does not match their own. Very small minds
    You really need to watch this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624

    Hey guys. Can we please get back to the discussion on topic and stop attacking each other personally? I was away for a few days, and see what happens. I will not tolerate any more personal attacks. And if someone feels insulted: Be an adult and get over it!

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    A few remarks from me:

    Yes, there may be some indication that the speed of light (in vacuum, the universal constant) might have changed during the evolution of the universe. There are some observations that point to a change of the fine constant. But the results are inconclusive. Since the constant consists of other fundamental constants like the elementary charge and the speed of light, it could be speculated that - if true - at least one of those other constants may have changed as well.

    To Cyberia:

    Thinking for oneself is generally a good thing. But you are not the only one that does it - there are rather thousands of scientists with a sound educational background that do it every day. And of course it would be a waste not to write down everything that is considered secure knowledge or a consistent working theory. Guess what - books do summarise the knowledge just as good articles on Wikipedia do. Or would you think that as soon something is written down it instantly becomes suspicious of being inaccurate? It is a good thing that you don't have to start with inventing the wheel again each time time you want to discover something new.

    This also holds for the strange ideas you have about time and the speed of light. They are just wrong. Photons don't have a rest mass, light travels without a medium (it is altered by it) and space bends caused by mass which looks like gravity (Einstein, general relativity). Otherwise, how would you explain the gravitational forces caused by Black Holes? Gravity travels just as fast as light, as you correctly say, but then how does it escape from a black hole so that we feel its gravitational force? This can only be explained by the curvature of space. There are much more examples like gravitational lensing and the apparent dislocation of stars around the sun during a solar eclipse. The argument that something seems strange to you does not mean anything. Nature is strange. This is why scientists began to rely on evidence instead of intuition a long time ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia

    You will never get this part. According to the BBT there was no place at all before the bang for virtual particles or anything else to exist.
    Space is literally nothing. The idea that it is a material that can somehow be warped by gravity and has infinite elasticity, allowing it to inflate/expand from near zero to maybe a hundred billion light years across without changing in any way is not realistic to say the least. Some years back, scientists added up all the pluses (matter, energy, etc) and minuses (gravity, etc) in the universe and came up with zero. Zero is nought but it is also +trillion and -trillion, etc with infinite potential. All that matters is it balances on both sides. So if you have nothing, awaiting a universe, why can virtual particles not appear from that nothing as they are said to do even now?
    Another interpretation could be that maybe space is the only thing, and matter is just an illusion created by perterbations of the space-time media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Which is why I had to correct myself, and talk about the speed of light being different instead of "time itself" being different.
    While things normally work at a set rate; heavier gravity, great speeds, etc
    can slow this rate of change down on a molecular, even atomic scale. Time is not slowed down because only in Dr Who is it a real dimension. It is the rate of change compared to what we consider normal.
    From what I can tell, these slowing downs are always proportional to the apparent rate of C, in your reference frame. Every type of clock seems to be tied to the same, common, element.


    From what I can understand, there is a sense that the apparent velocity of light changers in a gravity well. Near the start of the BBT, all matter would be closer together, which would tend to slow light down. So... maybe that would give us the effect?

    At the moment of the singularity, before the "bang", light would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped. (Which effectively means "time" would be moving so slow that it would appear to have stopped.)

    Denser mediums like inside the sun does slow light down but in a gravity well, light would only slow down if photons have mass, which would explain how gravitational sources bend the paths of photons. If you work on the idea that lighter particles have a greater limiting velocity than heavier particles, then you will never be able to accelerate a proton to the same speed as a photon which could be trillions of times lighter, so a proton "could never reach light speed".
    Yeah. The current theory is that light has relativistic mass, but no rest mass, so gravity can slow down its rate of motion.

    But, are you considering my basic question? I'm wondering if the fact light was not in motion implies that time (from any measurable perspective) had totally stopped at the moment before the Big Bang, and then gradually began to move once the event started, and has been slowly getting to be faster and faster ever since.



    A singularity as I see it would be completely inert. I cannot see how they could possibly inflate or expand? Even more, I cannot see how one would form in the first place unless from a previous universe collapsing, which means the BB explains nothing about an origin, just being part of an ongoing process.
    It's true it explains nothing about an origin. That doesn't change whether it's correct or not, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •