At the time of the Big Bang that single point was everywhere. Our three dimensions of space and one of time were folded up in that singularity and outside that singularity from our perspective was nothing. The isothermal nature of the CBR is thought to be a consequence of the inflationary period smoothing out everything.
The early universe - the ENTIRE universe - was extremely dense, but not necessarily extremely small!
By "our region of space" I refer to any location in that dense embryonic universe.
Remember the raisin cake model - over time the whole universe, which started as very dense, became less dense.
How is time itself a product of an incubation period? How can time 'come' to be?
No tougher to figure out than how space came to be...importantly we live in spacetime and time by itself has no more context than space by itself. Without space time has no context and without time space has no context.
Where did the notion that the universe had a beginning come from? For all we know there's a perpetual BB/Roar which is constant from where all of the decay we measure comes from and it's just ongoing. We can't see the beginning from our perspective
Last edited:
So, if time and space are the same thing, time is sort of an illusion, so our consciousness may grant causality, at least to our observations?
I mean to a photon, nothing is happening.
We and everything in the photon's neverending now is stationary, and perhaps imperceptible.
What's more real or valid? Our point of view, or that of a photon?
What if there's only one photon, existing in but apart from time, everywhere, all the time, able to be perceived by outside observers like ourselves, in infinite places and infinite times, seeming to fill the universe?
Some Jedi once said many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view, maybe George wrote more truthfully than he knew, for Obi Wan's dialogue.
More Jedi speak from the Obi Wan character:
"The truth is often what we make of it."
So if the photon is everything there is, we in fact are a multi temporal, expression or incarnation of that photon, able to exert control over space/time, since we are the same stuff as it is, literally, a neverending now.
Can we make our own reality, simply by willing it?
Remember, the photon will be you, always.
⬆️
That's the smart alecky stuff that let me graduate highschool with a 94% average after moving out from home in grade 10, and not be allowed do much as a bursory towards university, I guess.
I blame my physics teacher for my smart alec attitude. He told me if super strings aren't in the textbooks, there's no reason to discuss them. 😁
I haven't thought about this sort of stuff much since 1982, and I'm glad for the reminders of past musings. Thanks all, for keeping this thread going
Read Hawking's books for accessible answers to these and many of your other questions...these three are most relevant:
-A Brief History of Time
-The Big Bang and Black Holes
-On the Shoulders of Giants
I think the primary roadblock is that evolution has wired our brains to think in Newtonian terms with space as an infinite rigid backdrop in 3 dimensions and time as an invariant metronome ticking away. Einstein and those who followed in physics have blown up that model of the cosmos, it still works well here on our little planet but it misleads when you try to grapple with the largest scales.
If time was the same everywhere at the instant of the big bang, then it would have happened everywhere at the same time
. Moffatt and some other researchers have posited that some of the things we take for granted like the speed of light, may have had different values during the early universe. Anyway, if something was very dense and gravity was extremely high, time would have passed by very slowly.We still don't have a fundamental theory for gravity - there's a guy in the Netherlands (Prof Leyden?) who has suggested gravity is an emergent property of differences in local time, which is in turn linked to entropy - i.e. gravity is not a fundamental force of nature.
I've wondered myself if time itself was a force. We think in terms of a 'time metric' because we are human and its how we relate events to each other, but in the big scheme of things does the universe really need time as we understand it in order to work - or is entropy the real thing that decides causality?
I'm drawing on Hawking to supply the history lesson!
The story started in 1922 when Alexander Friedmann discovered a solution to Einstein's equations in which the universe expanded - as Edwin Hubble would soon discover to be true. Friedmann's model universe starts with zero size, expands and eventually collapses back in on itself.
Friedmann's idea remained largely unknown until Hubble's discovery, but in 1927 George Lemaitre proposed a similar idea and realised if you traced the collapse of the universe backwards into the past it would get tinier and tinier until you came to a creation event - what is now called the Big Bang.
The term 'Big Bang' was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle as a derisive description as he believed in a universe that expanded for ever.
The first direct evidence for the Big Bang came in 1965 with the discovery of the CMBR.
Under current understanding of the cosmos the prime directive is the invariance of the speed of light (C) which is the underlying foundation of all of special and general relativity. C is a velocity and without time velocity is meaningless so the idea that time is an invention of man flies in the face of the last 115 years of physics.
In the SI system of units, c = 299,792,458 m/s.
But what if we use a new system where c = 1?
Then: 299,792,458 m/s = 1
Hence: 299,792,458 m = 1s
This makes distance and time interchangeable quantities (unlike in the SI system) meaning that we can now more easily understand that mass and energy are also interchangeable quantities, as expressed in the mass-energy equation.
Or so I read!
And we are here to challenge that :-D
Time can also be described as number of events. Time seem to be more av a convenience for human calculations. Nature itself has never shown sign of expressing time as in seconds or prekvellers. Now you wonder what unit is that - it's whatever you define it it to be
but a solid definition contains "no_of_something" most probably.//
- Status
- Not open for further replies.