Time, space-time and eternity

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Time, space-time and eternity

There have been some speculations as to what happened before the Planck Era. I will now go over two models and point out that they raise some interesting questions about time.

 

Model one: Our universe created ex nihlo

Basically the theory that 'nothing' is unstable and hence quantum tunneled into space-time/physics laws. If this caused the Big Bang, it happened about 13.7 billion years ago. Yet, what was before that? How do we define time? If space is required for time, why would it take a perhaps infinite amount of time to quantum tunnel? I say infinite, since there is no way to measure time before this state. (since there was no space-time)

 

Model two: Multiverse budding

This assumes the multiverse is eternal, basically quantum events led to the 'budding' off of our universe from some mother universe. This would explain time, since the space-time is from the mother universe, but what about our time? Did an infinite amount of time (since the mother universe is eternal) pass before our creation? How is that possible?

 

 

I have no idea why, but I thought of these questions while walking around campus and just couldn't figure them out.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt. pineapple wrote: I say

cpt. pineapple wrote:
I say infinite, since there is no way to measure time before this state. (since there was no space-time)

 

The proper term to use is indefinite.  And what is the difference between space-time and time? 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:   The

illeatyourdog wrote:
 

The proper term to use is indefinite.

 

Perhaps that is a better word. 

 

 

Quote:

And what is the difference between space-time and time?

 

Nothing really.

The reason I included time in there is for what happened before ex nihlo. (Since there was no space) 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt. pineapple wrote: The

cpt. pineapple wrote:
The reason I included time in there is for what happened before ex nihlo. (Since there was no space) 

 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply say before space? Also, something happened before nothing happened?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote: cpt.

illeatyourdog wrote:

cpt. pineapple wrote:
The reason I included time in there is for what happened before ex nihlo. (Since there was no space)

 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply say before space? Also, something happened before nothing happened?

 

I guess I'm asking 'How long was there nothing?'

I'm just trying to get my finite brain around eternaty. 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt. pineapple wrote: I

cpt. pineapple wrote:
I guess I'm asking 'How long was there nothing?'

 

Is this a theological question, a scientific question, or a philosophical question? 

 

Quote:
I'm just trying to get my finite brain around eternaty.

 

I would think you need to be able to grasp what infinite is before you can grasp eternality.  Of course, the reason why our brains are finite is beucase they aren't infinite.  So it would seem that you have an unattainable goal.

 

 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1210
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The reason I included time in there is for what happened before ex nihlo. (Since there was no space)

On what grounds do you posit an ex nihilo event?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote: cpt.

illeatyourdog wrote:

cpt. pineapple wrote:
I guess I'm asking 'How long was there nothing?'

 

Is this a theological question, a scientific question, or a philosophical question?

I little of all three. But let's leave out the theological for now and focus on the philosophical/scientific.  

 

Quote:

Quote:
I'm just trying to get my finite brain around eternaty.

 

I would think you need to be able to grasp what infinite is before you can grasp eternality. Of course, the reason why our brains are finite is beucase they aren't infinite. So it would seem that you have an unattainable goal.

 

Perhaps, but I can't stand not wondering.

 

zarathustra wrote:

On what grounds do you posit an ex nihilo event?

Quantum flucuations. 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:   I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

I guess I'm asking 'How long was there nothing?'

I'm just trying to get my finite brain around eternaty.

 

"How long" and "nothing" seem to be incompatible concepts. Time requires a referent. It requires change else you can't say that time has passed. "Nothing" has no structure in which to manifest change. I would go so far as to suggest that that this "nothing" has the same status as "supernatural". You can't tell me what it is, only what it isn't.  And if the "nothing" out of which quantum fluctuations occur has structure, then it is no longer "nothing". 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:   "How

wavefreak wrote:

 

"How long" and "nothing" seem to be incompatible concepts. Time requires a referent. It requires change else you can't say that time has passed. 

 

This is what I'm talking about. The seemingly paradoxal thinking of infinitiy and eternaty.

 

Quote:
 

"Nothing" has no structure in which to manifest change. I would go so far as to suggest that that this "nothing" has the same status as "supernatural". You can't tell me what it is, only what it isn't. And if the "nothing" out of which quantum fluctuations occur has structure, then it is no longer "nothing".

But how long was it no longer 'nothing' and how long did it take to no longer be 'nothing'? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

This is what I'm talking about. The seemingly paradoxal thinking of infinitiy and eternaty.

 

Quote:

 

It seems that the paraodx arises only if you require a beginning. Why is a beginning required? Isn't it possible that something has always existed?

 

But how long was it no longer 'nothing' and how long did it take to no longer be 'nothing'?

 

I am saying that it was never nothing. There was always something. Time may or may not be a part of that in any sense that we can conceive, but there was always something.

{edited quote tags} 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It seems

wavefreak wrote:
It seems that the paraodx arises only if you require a beginning. Why is a beginning required? Isn't it possible that something has always existed?

 

That runs into the problem #2 in my OP. How could an infinite amount of time pass before right now?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
It seems that the paraodx arises only if you require a beginning. Why is a beginning required? Isn't it possible that something has always existed?

 

That runs into the problem #2 in my OP. How could an infinite amount of time pass before right now?

 

I guess this doesn't trouble me. I don't have trouble with the idea of an infinite number of natural numbers. Adding the negative numbers so there is a positive and negative infinity isn't troubling either. I just except it as a property of the numbers.  An infinite past and future seems like a fundamental property of existence. 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt. pineapple wrote: How

cpt. pineapple wrote:
How could an infinite amount of time pass before right now?

 

Quite easily actually.  Before we can pass a second through time we must first past a half a second.  Before we can pass that we need to pass a quarter second etc. etc.  Essentially, you can break down a second into an infinite amount of segments, thus, whenever we pass a second in time we also pass through an infinite amount of second segments.  So, there is an infinite amount of time in every second that we pass every second of everyday.  Kinda freaky isn't it? 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote: cpt.

illeatyourdog wrote:

cpt. pineapple wrote:
How could an infinite amount of time pass before right now?

 

Quite easily actually. Before we can pass a second through time we must first past a half a second. Before we can pass that we need to pass a quarter second etc. etc. Essentially, you can break down a second into an infinite amount of segments, thus, whenever we pass a second in time we also pass through an infinite amount of second segments. So, there is an infinite amount of time in every second that we pass every second of everyday. Kinda freaky isn't it?

 

Then how could I walk across a room if there is an infinite amount of space between the two walls?

(look up the zeno paradox)

 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt. Pineapple wrote: ]Then

cpt. Pineapple wrote:
]Then how could I walk across a room if there is an infinite amount of space between the two walls?

 

How could you put walls around an infinite amount of space?  WOuldn't the walls make it an enclosed space, thuis not infinite?

 

Quote:
(look up the zeno paradox)

 

What do you think my example was based off of? Eye-wink  And Xeno never talked about space but  measurements.  Like if I only half my my previous distance when walking to my door I will never reach the door (yet I must cross all these distances to reach the door, therefore, the fact I reach the door is paradoxical).

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

 

How could you put walls around an infinite amount of space? WOuldn't the walls make it an enclosed space, thuis not infinite?

 

How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menger_sponge (A three dimensional object with a volume of zero)

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake (a finite area with an infinite perimeter


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: How about

wavefreak wrote:
How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menger_sponge (A three dimensional object with a volume of zero)

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake (a finite area with an infinite perimeter

 

Again, these are mathematical, not neccesarrily physical.  Cpt. Pineapple was talking about putting walls around an infinite amount of space.  The mere fact of putting walls around it makes it an enclosed space.  With these two examples of the square and snowflake, you start off with an enclosed space, but then add or take away from it at infinitum leading to a mathimatical paradox of an infinite perimeter around an enclosed space or an object with zero volume, due to the object having an infinite amount of empty space, yet still taking up space since you are removing a ninth from a ninth from a ninth from a ninth, thus, never removing the whole. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm no physicist, but

Well, I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that if space and time are so closely related such that it's justifiable to refer to them as a single concept, space-time, then it would likely be impossible for time to exist before space.  Furthermore, wavefreak touches on an excellent point here:

wavefreak wrote:

"How long" and "nothing" seem to be incompatible concepts. Time requires a referent. It requires change else you can't say that time has passed. "Nothing" has no structure in which to manifest change. I would go so far as to suggest that that this "nothing" has the same status as "supernatural". You can't tell me what it is, only what it isn't.  And if the "nothing" out of which quantum fluctuations occur has structure, then it is no longer "nothing".

If time really existed before space, then something other than both space and time would have to exist before space as well... something which involved state changes.  If there was no state change between any 2 points in time, there would be no progress towards the beginning of space.

Of course, this argument assumes that no outside force were to act on this hypothetical spaceless timeline to initiate the addition of space to time that you seem to be positing.  Of course, if there were such an outside force involved, why wouldn't it create time in conjunction of space, i.e. wouldn't it be a more straightforward model if space-time were created instead of adding space to some inexplicably preexistent and empty time?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

On what grounds do you posit an ex nihilo event?

Quantum flucuations.

Okay, you lost me here.  Every definition of "quantum" activity in physics that I've ever heard involves matter-energy inside the medium of space-time.  How could anything like that demonstrate a point at which the medium, and therefore the contents, didn't exist?


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:cpt.

illeatyourdog wrote:

cpt. pineapple wrote:
How could an infinite amount of time pass before right now?

 

Quite easily actually. Before we can pass a second through time we must first past a half a second. Before we can pass that we need to pass a quarter second etc. etc. Essentially, you can break down a second into an infinite amount of segments, thus, whenever we pass a second in time we also pass through an infinite amount of second segments. So, there is an infinite amount of time in every second that we pass every second of everyday. Kinda freaky isn't it?

Well, not quite. The minimum amount of time that can pass in a frame of reference is a Plank second. The minimum amount of space you can move through in a Plank second is a Plank length. That solves a lot of what follows after that post, since it mostly revolves around Zeno's paradoxes.

As for everything else, there is no infinity before time. Just like there is no time in this coordinate model (x,y,z) unless we arbitrarily choose a coordinate to use as time - except it wouldn't be time unless we followed certain rules.

A better question would be "What is not part of the universe?"


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:A

inspectormustard wrote:

A better question would be "What is not part of the universe?"

Inspector you're a gifted man, this is so right.

Now, what is the universe...? Sticking out tongue

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

A better question would be "What is not part of the universe?"

Inspector you're a gifted man, this is so right.

Now, what is the universe...? Sticking out tongue

Heh, that depends on how we define it, but certainly if we answer one of those questions then the answer to the other will follow.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Well,

inspectormustard wrote:

Well, not quite. The minimum amount of time that can pass in a frame of reference is a Plank second. The minimum amount of space you can move through in a Plank second is a Plank length. That solves a lot of what follows after that post, since it mostly revolves around Zeno's paradoxes.

Someone discovered or proved that there is a shortest distance or that there is  point where something can no longer be halfed?


 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

Well, not quite. The minimum amount of time that can pass in a frame of reference is a Plank second. The minimum amount of space you can move through in a Plank second is a Plank length. That solves a lot of what follows after that post, since it mostly revolves around Zeno's paradoxes.

Someone discovered or proved that there is a shortest distance or that there is  point where something can no longer be halfed?

 

yeah, you could say that. The planck length is the smallest meaningful distance in the material universe. A 'something' within the planck length equally spans it, you could say it's location is smeared over a whole planck space. To have a precise measurement of, say, 1/4 of a planck length could not happen in the universe we know, the energy is too high and it just devolves into basically nonsense and nothingness, infinitesimal calculus does not carry beyond the planck length, you can basically say that the classical description of the world and the quantum description are not one continuous function insofar as we know.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:yeah, you could

Eloise wrote:

yeah, you could say that. The planck length is the smallest meaningful distance in the material universe. A 'something' within the planck length equally spans it, you could say it's location is smeared over a whole planck space. To have a precise measurement of, say, 1/4 of a planck length could not happen in the universe we know, the energy is too high and it just devolves into basically nonsense and nothingness, infinitesimal calculus does not carry beyond the planck length, you can basically say that the classical description of the world and the quantum description are not one continuous function insofar as we know.

 

Coolness.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:Eloise

illeatyourdog wrote:

Eloise wrote:

yeah, you could say that. The planck length is the smallest meaningful distance in the material universe. A 'something' within the planck length equally spans it, you could say it's location is smeared over a whole planck space. To have a precise measurement of, say, 1/4 of a planck length could not happen in the universe we know, the energy is too high and it just devolves into basically nonsense and nothingness, infinitesimal calculus does not carry beyond the planck length, you can basically say that the classical description of the world and the quantum description are not one continuous function insofar as we know.

 

Coolness.

But this is still theoretical, of course. No one has "proven" that there are in fact no greater divisions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Math will always fail to

Math will always fail to know it all , but I like the effort and walking on the moon     


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Well, there are greater

Well, there are greater divisions - they just don't mean anything beyond that point because matter (in whatever form) doesn't fit in there. If it did then the world wouldn't work the way we know it does.