Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sweetpea said:
Something like ...A definable spacetime geomerty became possible at the end of the Planck era.
Paddo, just asking ,did you make sense of my last post? For me it was hard trying to think how to make the point about space existing.??? And that how using the word existing implies time/duration. That's time without moving particles???
Just checking I got that point across,you don't have to agree with it of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, I totally agree with you.
Even in a static non expanding that Einstein originally concocted, time would exist. Simply, time and space, [as we know them] came into existence at t+10-43 seconds.
 
paddoboy said:
In effect I would say the correct thing to say is that the BB was the evolution of space and time, "as we know them"
Click to expand...
Yes I think many think BB deals with the point of creation but it does not.
Thanks for the link I had not thought about it that way before reading your link.
Alex
 
sweetpea said:
Michael...Dave's point about you cannot have a devoid empty space is not the point I'm making, I agree with Dave.

What I'm trying to say is... To have any kind of space at all, be it devoid or full, means you are assuming that a space is existing in the first place, and that word existing means you have time/duration. Which makes no sense if your view/assertion is that you need movement for there to be time.
I think, in the metric expansion of space, you assume an existing space which expands.
It all started together space,time, energy, mass, rock and roll. (I think).
Clint said..A man's got to know his limitations. Well, a particle, moving or not, has got to be in a space.
Click to expand...

Don't think I have posted this but do have a version saved on the electronic version of a Post it Note. I'm going to retype as the typing helps to keep the logic in line (I hope).

It really is just my musings trying to understand science and the Universe.

Hope it does not come across as nit picking over definitions.

The Universe would be so much simpler if nothing existed. Absolutely nothing. No matter. No energy. No... I'm sure you get the picture.

I would consider such a state to be the default.

So the premium question is 'where did all this stuff (let alone life) come from?'

Of course the default state means no one to muse. However in reality matter and energy both exist, have produced life and spawned those who muse.

Lets muse my default condition is reality. This is the reality I call Total Infinite Void.

This is the space I presume exist (again it seems like language twist itself in knots trying to convey something which is total in its nothingness as being something).

Science, as I understand, has a position that says from nothing comes a singularity which went Bang (a big one) or expanded very quickly.

This singularity either produced its own space or stole it from the Total Infinite Void. The expansion continues to steal space from the Total Infinite Void converting it into space subject to laws of physics.

Just thought of another possibility.

What if the Total Infinite Void was already subject to the laws of physics and it is/was those laws which produced the singularity?

Would that resolve your, DaveC and my ideas?

Need more thinking.

Dumpty out of time. :)
 
If you were traveling at the speed of light (hypothetically), and you looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant, regardless of the size, duration or age of the known universe. Space and time do not mean anything from the POV of the speed of light reference, regardless of the inertial reference variety of the universe, since everything will appear merged to a singular point-instant. For time and space to differentiate, we need to slow our reference from the speed of light C, to at least C-. At C-, inertial reference can differentiate. The universe will be very small, but finite, with space-time differentiating; primordial atom.

Although light moves at the speed of light, it is not entirely in the speed of light reference. Light also has finite attributes that are inertial reference dependent; subject to red and blue shifts. Light has two legs, one in the speed of light reference and one in finite reference.

At the speed of light reference; pure, light of all frequencies and wavelengths will appear merged as one thing. Although light moves at C, from the POV of the C reference, energy will appear to have no diversity of inertial character. It will appear to have one leg. We will need to slow from the C reference for the energy to appear to grow the second or inertial leg and differentiate within space and time.

The speed of light is the same in all references. The secondary corollary is all inertial references appear to be the same in the speed of light reference; merged, without character and without time or space distinctions.
 
Last edited:
Special relativity uses velocity to alter space-time reference perception. While gravity and General Relative use mass to alter space-time reference. The main difference is gravity and mass allows for a 3-D reference POV; change occurs in all directions, whereas velocity alters reference perception primarily in the direction of motion. When I say slow reference from C, this can be done either way; with velocity or mass. The BB tradition of the primordial atoms suggests 3-D reference implicit of a matter/mass core, followed by velocity in 3-D; big bang with mass/energy conserved.
 
Michael 345 said:
Science, as I understand, has a position that says from nothing comes a singularity which went Bang (a big one) or expanded very quickly.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a model which says the universe starts from nothing. More like, running the model backwards you hit a stage where the maths screw up, that's not the same as saying something comes from nothing. Sorry to be short in answers.
 
wellwisher said:
If you were traveling at the speed of light (hypothetically), and you looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant, regardless of the size, duration or age of the known universe.
Click to expand...
No. It won't. What you will see is fairies and unicorns.

It's not about being "impossible to reach c"; it's about "c is not a valid reference frame at all".

1] One of the primary postulates of relativity is that c is the same in all reference frames.
2] An observer is always stationary in their own frame of reference (by definition).
So
So, if an observer were to magically travel at c, then light would be both stationary wrt to the observer AND moving at c wrt the observer at the same time. A paradox.
 
sweetpea said:
I don't think there's a model which says the universe starts from nothing. More like, running the model backwards you hit a stage where the maths screw up, that's not the same as saying something comes from nothing. Sorry to be short in answers.
Click to expand...


:) I prefer short answers so thanks.

What I meant was going back past Planck time and before the Big Bang the scientist only have speculation, which I am totally fine with. And yes the maths (naughty maths) screws up.

The speculation, I think, is along the lines of quantum fluctuations flitting in and out of space and one becoming the Big Bang.

Not a model but speculation which, to repeat, I am fine with.

If I have misrepresented the speculation position I am sorry.

Put it down to reading to much and the two neurones I assigned to handle this thread being overworked with their desks overflowing with theories.

Humpty Dumpty who is now thinking of reassigning the neurones and bringing in a fresh team along with eyes. :)
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Humpty Dumpty Michael and Poe are you a law firm?
Alex
Click to expand...

No but thinking about it it would make a great name for one.

Michael is my name.

Humpty Dumpty is my attempt to side step those who want to argue definitions not discuss the topic as per

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Poe is from a Mr Poe who used :) to indicate don't take this to seriously.

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
:) I prefer short answers so thanks.

What I meant was going back past Planck time and before the Big Bang the scientist only have speculation, which I am totally fine with. And yes the maths (naughty maths) screws up.

The speculation, I think, is along the lines of quantum fluctuations flitting in and out of space and one becoming the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert. Speculation as to before the Planck era ?? All I can grasp, is that there are 'ideas' like space and time come in Planck size units/ chucks, so to speak. i.e. No 'action/event' can happpen smaller than Planck length and Planck time, therefore preventing a singularity. I Think loop quantum gravity uses that kind of approach.I may be wrong there.
The goal being to form from these units the smooth continuous spacetime manifold which we recognise on the macro level. ( I think).
My ''sorry for be short in answers'' meant... I can't answer all you questions, if at all.:)
 
Last edited:
sweetpea said:
I'm no expert. Speculation as to before the Planck era ?? All I can grasp, is that there are 'ideas' like space and time come in Planck size units/ chucks, so to speak. i.e. No 'action/event' can happpen smaller than Planck length and Planck time, therefore preventing a singularity. I Think loop quantum gravity uses that kind of approach.I may be wrong there.
The goal being to form from these units the smooth continuous spacetime manifold which we recognise on the macro level. ( I think).
My ''sorry for be short in answers'' meant... I can't answer all you questions, if at all.:)
Click to expand...

This from the web

Before 1 Planck Time
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

I don't think I have answered anybody's questions in any thread/post.

I have had one explanation given about red blood cells which cleared up something for me.

Most of the high end science stuff is, as one person put it 'I got my ladder out climbed to the top of my roof and it was still well above my head'.

Since I do not possess a cyclotron I am unable to conduct my own experiments.

I do envy so many members who post how they know this and that know that.

They must have terrific workshops worth in the millions.

One day I hope they can explain everything in words of two syllables or less.

Humpty Dumpty who is now studying words of three syllables and Poe who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'word'. :)
 
Michael 345 said:
Since I do not possess a cyclotron I am unable to conduct my own experiments.
I do envy so many members who post how they know this and that know that.
They must have terrific workshops worth in the millions.
Click to expand...
:D
I'm often amazed at the many posters who come here, saying with certainty that BH's do not exist, or that this or that experiment was a hoax, or that GR is wrong, or the BB did not bang etc.
These people must have incredible contacts with those at the coal face of the LHC, the HST, Spitzer, Planck, or any of the myriad of other probes that are constantly searching for knowledge, or they themselves have that magical pass that lets them observe, research these findings themselves!
We are really so lucky that they chose to inhabit science forums such as this! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top