Time in the Early Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Unbeliever, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. Unbeliever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    I did a search and couldn't find this question, so I hope I'm not reproducing an already extant discussion.

    I'm curious to know how time would've behaved early in the universe's history, when the density of matter/energy would seem to've caused time to flow much more slowly, as we would percieve it from our distant epoch. When times are given for the events that occurred shortly after the beginning of the expansion, are those times affected by the early density?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    For all intents and purposes the `flow` of time is the same.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I've always suggested graphing time on a log scale. That would give time an "absolute zero" like temperature, off at minus infinity. That would make it easier to analyze those colossal events that took place in the first femtosecond of the universe's existence. It also solves the problem of what happened "before the Big Bang." There's no such thing as "before the Big Bang," just like there's no such thing as "colder than absolute zero."

    You're suggesting something similar, coming at it from a different point of view.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    It should be said that there is active research by respected scientists into cyclic universe processes that go beyond the bigbang event. The problems encountered by General Relativity and QM etc to model the conditions can be sidestepped.
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Time is relative (subjective).
    With no one around to notice it you can't really say anything about it.
     
  9. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    That doesn't seem likely Before the big bang? :bugeye:
    I always tought it would be something of a suprised wisper saying something in the lines of whoops
     
  10. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    A year or more ago i would have agreed with you.
     
  11. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Time is a man-made measure of change and not a dimension as some mathsworlders and a certain BBC TV series claim. We use it to measure set processes.

    If anything exists, there is what we call time since it must undergo change. If there was no time before the universe began (however), then it would never have begun since it needs a cause which needs time. BB-ers have talked of our universe coming about through processes in a multiverse (or whatever), which would have meant what we call time existed there.

    If what became our universe suddenly appeared in total emptiness (not even space), then there was nothing there before that moment, so no time. If you disregard the BB silliness and consider other possiblities, like matter and energy coming into existence and disappearing for an unknown period of time before suddenly something stable appeared and a universe was started around that, then there could have been a seemingly infinite time before that.
     
  12. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    A better understanding is to regard time as just a spatial dimension (and 2D rather than 1D).
    Whether that is ultimately right, or wrong, is incidental just now.
    But, anyone who has read and understood Hawkings books will be able to tell you that the bigbang event was the unfolding of space time and that as we go backwards in time and approach the very tiny dimensions and high energies of the early universe then space and time become smeared and interchangeable. In this viewpoint, effectively, our universe has a beginning .
    But with theories like the newer string theories we can invent a mechanisms where our spacetime is only a small portion of what there is really here. And sidestep the `what came before` question. Yes, our space-time still has a beginning but we can extend our understanding into a multi dimensional `universe` before the bigbang event.
    The benefit of looking at it this in this way is that it could solve many cosmological problems. ie why the universe is `fine-tuned`, why do we need dark energy? etc
     
  13. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    blobrana. I found much of Hawkings book (BHOTU) on a level with Hubbards' Dianetics book. Simplistic twaddle. Like the bible creation story, the big bang idea ignores basic science.

    As to string theory, a few years back a lot of people walked out of the field (as shown in the British Press and elsewhere) because they saw strings as a scientific dead end. Of course, rather than maybe end up flipping burgers in Mcdonalds, many stayed in the field to produce ever more untestable ideas.

    I think the universe is so fine-tuned because that is the only way it can work.

    Why do we need DE? To make the BB idea work.
     
  14. Unbeliever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    I like the idea of a logorithmic scale for measuring time. It seems to me that, given the tremendous curvature of space/time early on, time would appear slowed from our perspective, just as it is very near the event horizon of a black hole.

    I favor a toroidal topology (4 dimensional hypersphere) for the universe, with what we call the big bang at the exact center of an infinitely small "hole". One reason I like this model is that the expansion of space must accelerate with longer duration from the initial expansion. This would explain the accelerated expansion without a need for dark energy. It also takes care of the "before" problem, since before the BB there was the same universe.
     
  15. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Yes, that sounds good.... Need to sit on that for a while...
     
  16. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Yes it is a neat idea.

    Though, it should be said that logarithmic scale for measuring time is just a cosmetic feature.
     

Share This Page